The Issue The issues in this case are whether the respondents, Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate , Inc., should be disciplined on charges filed in a six-count Administrative Complaint, three counts for each respondent, and alleging that the respondents: (1) were culpably negligent in allowing their escrow account to have a negative balance, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989); (2) failed to maintain trust funds in a properly maintained escrow account, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1989); and (3) failed to maintain a proper office sign, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-10.024 and Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.22, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida. Dorothea L. Prisament was the active real estate broker for the corporate broker, Warricks Real Estate. On or about August 16, 1989, investigator Marjorie G. May conducted an office inspection and audit of the escrow accounts of the respondents. Ms. May also reviewed the outer office of the respondents. The entrance sign did not have the name of Dorothea L. Prisament on it; however, the sign did have Warricks Real Estate correctly identified and identified as a licensed real estate broker. Ms. May advised Ms. Prisament of the fact that Ms. Prisament's name needed to be on the sign and identified as a real estate broker. Ms. Prisament had a new sign made which fully complies with the statutes and rules. There was no evidence introduced at hearing to show that the escrow account of the respondents had a shortage in any amount; directly to the contrary, both the Department of Professional Regulation investigator and Ms. Prisament agreed that there was no shortage in the account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in light of the fact both that the respondents' violation was a very minor and technical one which was immediately corrected and that the respondents had to undergo the costs of defense of this case and suffer the mental duress of defending this case, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and reprimanding the respondents for a minor and technical violation under Counts V and VI. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine A. Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sexsmith is a licensed real estate broker, having held License Number 0079448 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Bellitto is a licensed real estate salesman, having held License No. 0204206 at all times relevant to Case No. 81-2630. Respondent Select Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having held License No. 0157174 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Sexsmith founded Select Realty, Inc., in 1975. He was a full time realtor until his employment by the Hollywood Fire Department in 1976. Select Realty thereafter became inactive. In 1979, Respondent Sexsmith was contacted by a Mr. Jim Holmes, who was seeking to register the corporate name, Select Realty. Sexsmith agreed to permit the name Select Realty to be used by Holmes and his associates to open a real estate office at 3045 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Sexsmith also applied to Petitioner for certification as a director and active broker with this company. His application was granted in June, 1979, and he remained affiliated with Respondent Select Realty, Inc., in this capacity until about April, 1980. Respondent Sexsmith did not participate in Select Realty operations and received no compensation for the use of his name and broker's license. He was slated to open and manage a branch office in Hollywood, but this project failed to materialize. Petitioner produced Mr. Tom Ott and Ms. Terri Casson as witnesses. They had utilized the services of Select Realty, Inc., in December, 1979 (Ott) and February, 1980 (Casson). Both had responded to advertisements in which Select Realty offered to provide rental assistance for a $45 refundable fee. These witnesses understood money would be refunded if Select Realty did not succeed in referring them to rental property which met their specifications. Mr. Ott was referred to several properties which did not meet his requirements. He sought to have his fee or a portion thereof returned, but was refused. His demand for such return was made within the 30-day contract period (PX-11). Ms. Casson was similarly dissatisfied with the referrals and sought the return of her fee within the 30-day contract period (PX-7). However, she was unable to contact this company or its agents since the office had closed and no forwarding instructions were posted or otherwise made available to her.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Select Realty, Inc., and Gary Lee Sexsmith be found guilty as charged in Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 81-2630. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against these Respondents and other Respondents named in DOAH Cases 81-2630 and 81-2490 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate broker's license of Select Realty, Inc., be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that the broker's license of Gary Lee Sexsmith be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William Grossbard, Esquire Suite 6175M 6191 Southwest 45 Street 6177 North Davie, Florida 33314 Anthony S. Paetro, Esquire Bedzow and Korn, P.A. Suite C 1125 Northeast 125 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire Spiegel and Abramowitz Suite 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith 321 Southwest 70t Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Guiseppe D. Bellitto 2635 McKinley Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Select Realty, Inc. c/o Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith last acting Director and Trustee of Select Realty, Inc. 321 Southwest 70th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Respondent, Jason Dwight Walker, prepared a preconstruction appraisal report that was in violation of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and thus section 475.624(4), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1-9.001, as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the sanctions to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of the State of Florida having authority, among its other duties and responsibilities, to regulate the practice of real estate. The Division of Real Estate is a legislatively-created division of the Department. The Board is established within the Division of Real Estate and is vested with the authority to administer chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes, and to enforce the provisions thereof. Respondent holds a license as a state-certified residential real estate appraiser, No. RD 3588. On or about June 20, 2012, Respondent contracted to perform a preconstruction appraisal report for a residential home (the Proposed Home) to be constructed at 14682 Northwest Pea Ridge Road, Bristol, Florida. The prospective owners were Thomas Ryan Cherry and Jessica Rogers Cherry (the Owners). The Proposed Home’s internal area was to be 3,458 square feet in size. The issue that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint is the amount of that area that was to be built-out as the Gross Living Area (GLA) of the home. Petitioner has alleged that Respondent failed to consider the entire eight-page construction contract that governed the construction of the Proposed Home. As will be discussed in greater detail herein, the contract between the building contractor, Stephen Newman, and the Owners consisted of four numbered pages, the fourth page of which contained only a statutorily-required notice regarding construction defect claim procedures and the signature blocks. The contract also included a separately styled, numbered, and signed five-page Description of Materials. Page five of the Description of Materials included a provision that “[s]econd story will be framed and left unfinished. Owner to complete at future date. One 36” exterior door to be installed at head of stairs.” Respondent was retained to perform a preconstruction appraisal by the appraisal management company, StreetLinks Lender Solutions (StreetLinks), which was acting as the agent for First Federal Bank of Florida (Lender). The Lender was the client for the appraisal, but Respondent’s selection was performed at the sole discretion of StreetLinks. The appraisal agreement prohibited Respondent from contacting the Lender prior to delivery of the final appraisal report, or from attempting to obtain value or loan information from the Owners. Thus, of the parties to financing, StreetLinks was the sole allowable point of contact. The only plausible inference is that the information provided to Respondent in aid of the appraisal was provided by StreetLinks, or at StreetLinks’ direction. Respondent was provided with the first three pages of the contract. The Contract provided that the Proposed Home was to be constructed “from Owner provided plans,” that “[t]he owner provided plans and Builder’s Description of Materials are part of this contract,” and that “[o]wner agrees to not inhabit the dwelling until all construction is complete, certificate of occupancy is obtained, and all funds to builder have been paid.” Respondent included the construction contract provided to him in his work file. Respondent was provided with two floor plan sheets that depicted the two-story home at issue in its fully built-out and completed form. The floor plans included the layout of the Proposed Home, and general depictions of fixtures, counters and cabinets, lighting, fans and wiring. Respondent included the floor plan sheets in his work file. In order to confirm the nature of the building to be constructed, Respondent called the contractor, Mr. Newman, and had a conversation with him that lasted approximately 30 minutes. Mr. Newman testified that he provided Respondent with the dimensions of the second floor and the location of the various rooms, information that Respondent sought in order to confirm information contained in the floor plans. Respondent made an accurate sketch of the configuration of the second floor based on his conversation with Mr. Newman. Furthermore, access to the attic was described on Respondent’s specification sheet notes as “scuttle,” and not “stairs,” information that could only have been gathered from either Mr. Newman or the floor plans. Mr. Newman did not have a firm recollection of whether he provided Respondent with information regarding the materials, appliances, and finishes to be used in the Proposed Home. Nonetheless, a preponderance of the evidence, including Respondent’s testimony and contemporaneous notes of the conversation, indicates that Mr. Newman provided Respondent with that information, though the evidence also suggests that Mr. Newman understated the high quality of some of the finishes. At no time during the conversation did Mr. Newman indicate that the second floor was not going to be finished as depicted in the plans, and would instead be considered “attic space.” Mr. Newman denied that he had any responsibility to advise Respondent that it was not his intent to build-out the second floor in accordance with his described configuration, despite the fact that floor plans depicting a completed second floor were sent to the Owners under his signature, and were thereafter provided to Respondent. It is simply not credible that such would not have been disclosed over the course of a lengthy and in-depth conversation under the excuse that “it’s not my job to,” unless there was an intent to convince Respondent that the Proposed Home would be built in accordance with the plans. Respondent included specification sheet notes and his second floor sketch from his conversation with Mr. Newman in his work file. Using the plans, contract, and other information as to the property independently obtained by Respondent, and taking into account the information received from Mr. Newman, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report, No. 7393A, with an effective date of June 29, 2012. The appraised value of the Proposed Home was $250,000. That amount was consistent with and supported by properties of a size comparable to a 3,458 square foot home in the area. The house was constructed in accordance with the contract and Description of Materials. The second floor was framed and floored, and plumbing was stubbed out, but it was not finished so as to be considered GLA. The house as constructed contained a GLA of 2,014 square feet.1/ However, due to the very high quality (and expense) of cabinets, flooring, and fixtures, the cost of construction of the 2,014 square foot GLA home was $232,645, an amount very close to the $250,000 appraised (and financed) value. It is surprisingly (or not so surprisingly) serendipitous that the cost of the smaller home was so close to the appraised value of the larger home. It seems more than a happy coincidence that the Owners and the contractor had sufficient financing to account for the luxurious finishes. Respondent was not retained to do the draw inspections or the final inspection. Thus, he could not have known that the home as constructed was not consistent with the plans provided to him by StreetLinks, or with the description of the Proposed Home as discussed with Mr. Newman. On or about June 14, 2013, the Lender filed a complaint with the Division of Real Estate alleging misfeasance in the preparation of the appraisal.2/ The documents submitted to the Division with the complaint did not include the two floor plan sheets that had been provided to Respondent, but did include the contract signature page and the Description of Materials that had not been provided to Respondent. By letter dated August 14, 2013, the Lender, through its counsel, advised Respondent that it believed Respondent to have negligently prepared the appraisal, with the negligent act being Respondent’s failure to recognize that the second floor of the home was to remain unfinished. The letter provided, in part, that: Via the appraisal, you represented that you reviewed the construction contract between the builder and the Property owner. I have attached a copy of that contract for your ease of reference as Exhibit “B” hereto. However, the construction contract clearly indicates that the second story of the home would be left unfinished. Your appraisal failed to recognize this fact and now the home, as built, is nowhere near your appraised value. The letter did not include Exhibit “B.” Respondent kept the letter and other communication with the Lender in his work file. On September 4, 2013, Respondent sent an email to the Lender’s counsel, asking that “Exhibit B” of the Lender’s letter be provided to him. In response, the letter with all of the exhibits was sent to Respondent by email that same day. Exhibit “A” of the Lender’s letter consisted of a Certificate of Compliance from the Lender’s agent, StreetLinks, and a complete copy of Respondent’s appraisal report. Exhibit “B” of the Lender’s letter included the same three-page construction contract that was contained in Respondent’s work file. It contained the same letter from Mr. Newman to the property owners. Finally, it contained floor plans for the home but, surprisingly (or not so surprisingly), it included only the floor plan sheet for the first floor of the Proposed Home. The Lender’s Exhibit “B” did not include the floor plan for the second floor of the Proposed Home that had been originally provided to Respondent by or on behalf of its agent, StreetLinks. Exhibit “B” of the Lender’s letter to Respondent did not include the Description of Materials with the provision that the second story of the home would be left unfinished. At the hearing, Petitioner offered what was represented to be the complete contract as an exhibit. The contract offered was four pages and, but for the statutorily required notice regarding construction defect claim procedures and the signature blocks, was identical to the contract in Respondent’s workfile. The exhibit also included the separately styled and signed Description of Materials. As set forth herein, the Description of Materials was not provided to Respondent by or at the direction of StreetLinks, or otherwise. In analyzing the issues in this case, the undersigned paid close attention to the opinion of Petitioner’s expert witness, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers opined that Respondent should have engaged in greater inquiry that would have revealed that the second floor was to remain unfinished, and as a result the GLA was stated, melodramatically, to be “tragically overstated.” In his testimony, and his report which was received in evidence, Mr. Rogers noted that Mr. Newman’s cover letter to the Owners referenced a description of materials, estimate, and legal description. He noted that “it is actually atypical for the owner or lender to supply all of the information about the subject property the appraiser will need to produce credible assignment results.” In instances of insufficient documentation, Mr. Rogers testified that among the options for dealing with that occurrence is for the appraiser “to go find that documentation and complete the assignment.” Mr. Rogers believed that Respondent should have made “a request to the lender” for the referenced materials, apparently being unaware that the terms of Respondent’s engagement with StreetLinks prohibited such contact. He further opined that Respondent’s communication with Mr. Newman “was insufficient . . . to an accurate description of the proposed home,” and that “[e]xpansion of the conversation with the builder . . . was necessary.” How he was able to determine the sufficiency of a conversation to which he was not privy was not explained, and his opinion in that regard is given no weight. Based on the totality of the evidence in this case, Respondent obtained information that was reasonably calculated to identify the relevant characteristics of the subject property. The contract, the complete floor plans for the first and second floors of the home, and the lengthy conversation with the builder were sources that were objectively reasonable and reliable, and consistent with USPAP and the Department’s statutory and regulatory authority. Mr. Rogers acknowledged that complete floor plans are an appropriate source for information regarding the characteristics of an appraised property. However, he discounted Respondent’s reliance on such floor plans in this case. His explanation for doing so was not compelling or persuasive, and is not accepted. Rather, the information used by Respondent, as described herein, was sufficient to identify the extent and character of the proposed improvements.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Real Estate Appraisal Board, enter a final order dismissing the First Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert T. Sharkey (Sharkey), was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0079702. Sharkey was the qualifying broker of Respondent, Appraisal Associates & Consultants, Inc. (Appraisal Associates), a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0238854. The Real Estate Seminar In 1985 Respondents placed numerous advertisements in the help wanted section of local newspapers seeking to employ real estate appraisers, experienced or inexperienced, and offering to train the inexperienced. Elizabeth Townsend (Townsend) and Robert Newman (Newman) responded to such advertisements. The experiences of Ms. Townsend and Mr. Newman, both licensed real estate salespersons, were similar. Upon responding to the advertisement they were advised that a meeting would be held at Appraisal Associates, and the program would be explained. At the meeting, Ms. Townsend and Mr. Newman were advised that Appraisal Associates was conducting a seminar in residential property appraising and that a fee, $150.00 in the case of Ms. Townsend and $200.00 in the case of Mr. Newman, would be charged. Each paid their fee and executed a "Seminar Reservation and Employment Conditions" agreement which provided: SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE PRESCRIBED COURSE OF STUDY THE TRAINEE WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO PLACE THEIR CURRENT REAL ESTATE LICENSE, UPON ACCEPTANCE BY THE MANAGEMENT, WITH APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES .... FOR THE APPRAISER TRAINEE TO OBTAIN EMPLOY- MENT WITH APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES OR ANOTHER ASSIGNED BROKER IN THE FIRM THEY MUST: SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE THE PRESCRIBED SEMINAR AND/OR COMPLETE A WRITTEN EXAM ADMINISTERED BY APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES AND CONSULTANTS, INC. 2 COMPLETE SATISFACTORILY AT LEAST FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEMONSTRATION REPORTS. HAVE A CURRENT FLORIDA REAL ESTATE LICENSE. COMPLETE AN APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OR DESIGNATION TO ANY APPRAISAL ORGANIZATION FOR CANDIDACY OR ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP .... The seminars attended by Ms. Townsend and Mr. Newman were similar. Each consisted of 16 hours of class work dedicated to filling out a standardized Fanny Mae form for single family residences, a drive by appraisal of a residential home, and an on site inspection and appraisal of a residential home. While Mr. Newman felt that not enough time was devoted to actual appraising, and Ms. Townsend felt the seminar was terminated prematurely, there was no proof offered that the seminars were not adequate to instruct the participants in the basics of real estate appraisal, or that they were otherwise a sham. Mr. Newman did not take the final examination, did not complete the five single family residential demonstration reports, and never requested employment with Respondents. Ms. Townsend conceded she was familiar with the requirements for employment and that, while she received a "Certificate of Seminar Completion", she never applied for membership in any appraisal organization and never requested employment with Respondents. Sharkey's Qualifications At hearing the Department introduced into evidence a document, titled "Qualifications of R. T. Sharkey, MRA, CRA", which its investigator had secured from Respondent Sharkey. (Exhibit 6) Pertinent to this case' the document provided: AFFILIATES * * * AMERICAN RIGHT OF WAY ASSOCIATION * * * LICENSED REAL ESTATE APPRAISER EXPERIENCE * * * APPRAISER RIGHT OF WAY CONDEMNATION FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1972-1975 The foregoing qualifications attributed to Sharkey are inaccurate, misleading or false. The organization known as the American Right of Way Association has not been known by that name for 3-4 years; the State of Florida does not license real estate appraisers; and Sharkey was never employed by the Florida Department of Transportation as an appraiser for right-of-way condemnation. While the document included qualifications attributed to Sharkey that were inaccurate, misleading, or false, there was no proof that the document was ever presented to any person in the conduct of Respondents' business, or that any person placed any reliance on such document.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Counts 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 November, 1986. APPENDIX Respondents proposed findings of Fact Consisted of 8 unnumbered paragraphs. These paragraphs have been designated paragraphs 1-8, and addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraphs 2-3. Addressed in paragraphs 4. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Addressed in paragraphs 3-5. Addressed in paragraphs 6-8. Addressed in paragraphs 6-8. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James G. Kincaid, Esquire 4331 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate/DPR 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The testimony revealed that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. The application revealed that Defendant Frank Viruet (FREC Progress Docket 2856) was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice President of the company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; that Lee Klein was to become President and Director of the company. Testimony shows that Carol Bauman is the wife of Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket 2857); that Lee Klein is the sister of Carol Bauman and that Jeffrey Bauman (FREC Progress Docket 2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing said corporate application For registration with the Commission, evidence reveals that the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that along with each change, a new application For corporate registration was later filed with the commission. It was noted that the stated officers and active firm members broker remain as stated in the initial corporate application For registration. Thus, it can be concluded For all legal purposes that the above corporate entities are one and the same. Count I of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, reveals that according to the certificate filed with the Commission's chairman dated December 3, which was offered into evidence by Plaintiff and admitted, during the period November 1, 1975 to the date of said certificate, i.e., December 3, 1976, which covers all dates material to the complaint herein, no registration was issued to or held by either of said corporations, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., Noble Realty Corporation or Deed Realty, Inc. This was further confirmed by the testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet, who was to have become the active firm member broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. entered into a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976 (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation.) The unrebutted testimony of Plaintiff Reagan reveals that he observed during his investigation of this cause a building directory on the ground entrance floor to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 and a similar display on the building directory which was located on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in Room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. and that from January 2 to January 16, approximately 575 calls were made from the stated phones all during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but failed to recall specifically the number of calls nor did he have records to substantiate this fact. Bernard Bauman testified that from such solicitations, approximately 4 listings were obtained accompanied by an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing. When he was advised by the Commission's Investigator that the operation they were conducting was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the company and that all who are engaged in real estate activities therein were in violation of the license law (Chapter 475, F.S.) the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was further confirmed and unrebutted by plaintiff Reagan. As to Count II, the evidence established that, as stated above, the Defendants Bernard and Jeffrey Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to out-of-state property owners that listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. Both Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman admitted that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers. Bernard Bauman's testimony reveals that no monies received were returned to senders. There is no evidence introduced to show that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman knew, at the time of soliciting, that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation. As to Count III, plaintiff alleges that the above acts as set Forth above established a course of conduct by defendant upon which his revocation or registration should issue.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, or obstructed or hindered any person in the performance of his or her duties under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(i), Florida Statutes; or failed to preserve and make available to Petitioner all books, records and supporting documents, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, and thus Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is guilty of any of these violations, an additional issue is what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was known as Phyllis Mae Wilson, but is now known as Phyllis Mae Perry due to a change in marital status. Since 1987 or 1988, Respondent has been licensed as a Florida real estate broker, holding license number 0462610. From October 1, 1998, through June 4, 2001, Respondent registered with Petitioner her "location address" as 2200 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale. From October 1, 1994, through January 9, 2001, Respondent registered with Petitioner her "mailing address" as 1940 Northeast 55th Court, Fort Lauderdale. As part of Petitioner's rotating schedule of office inspections, Monroe Berger, Petitioner's Investigation Specialist II, sent a letter to Respondent dated May 24, 1999, at 1940 Northeast 55th Court, Fort Lauderdale. The letter, which was sent by regular mail, states that Petitioner wishes to conduct an office inspection and escrow review, pursuant to cited statutes and rules. The letter warns: "Please be advised, you must respond to my request within 15 days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to do so may result in you being charged with hindrance in the enforcement of chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and administrative action may be taken against your real estate license." When Mr. Berger did not receive a response to the May 24 letter, he requested, by letter dated June 10, 1999, from the United States Postal Service a confirmation of the Northeast 55th Court address or, if applicable, a new address for Respondent. After the United States Postal Service verified that the Northeast 55th Court address was a good address for Respondent, Mr. Berger sent a second letter to Respondent at the incorrect address of Northeast 55th "Street," not "Court." Dated September 24, 1999, this letter advises that "a complaint has been filed against you"--evidently, by Mr. Berger. This letter gives Respondent 20 days to respond to the complaint. At some point, Respondent received this letter or a copy of it, but the record does not permit a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, as to when Respondent received this letter. Respondent did not respond to the September 24 letter. The only information that Petitioner received from Respondent following the letters of May 24 and September 24, 1999, was a form that Respondent submitted, on January 18, 2000, to advise Petitioner of a change in licensing status of a salesperson working for Respondent. Although not intended to advise Petitioner of any changes in Respondent's location or mailing address, the form contains a new address for Respondent: 3466 Northeast 12th Terrace, Oakland Park. However, in no way does the form respond to the letters of May 24 and September 24, 1999. Although Mr. Berger did not testify at the hearing, as he is now retired, his supervisor at the time testified that Mr. Berger did not pursue the investigation more vigorously on the advice of the supervisor, who counseled patience. Respondent claims that a series of personal and business matters effectively prevented her from attending to such regulatory matters as updated her licensing information and seizing the initiative in response to her early contact with Mr. Berger. During this period of time, Respondent was not active in real estate, but was busy with another business that she and her husband were operating. Respondent was also deterred from producing her real estate records because she knew that a leaky roof had caused them considerable water damage. At the time of her first contact with Mr. Berger, during the period relevant to this case, Respondent had no listings or pending sales, and she so informed Mr. Berger. Respondent had known Mr. Berger and his previous supervisor, whom she had sometimes called when she had had a regulatory question. During the period relevant to this case, Respondent spoke with Mr. Berger four times. For the most part, they agreed that Respondent would try to reassemble whatever undamaged real estate records that she could find. By the summer of 2000, they had agreed that Mr. Berger would send her a questionnaire, which, when completed by Respondent, would confirm the absence of any active escrow account and would obviate the necessity of an office inspection and audit, except possibly to confirm that Respondent had properly posted a sign and license. However, Mr. Berger never sent Respondent the questionnaire, and, after health issues arose, Respondent was again prevented from pressing the matter to a conclusion. Undoubtedly, Respondent did not respond as completely as she should have to the May 24, 1999, letter and to the September 24, 1999, letter, whenever she received it. Obviously, though, the Administrative Law Judge has credited her version of conversations with Mr. Berger in the absence of Mr. Berger's testimony. Although Respondent's testimony concerning Mr. Berger's casual approach to this matter is possibly inconsistent with the September 24 letter, the misaddressing of the letter precludes a determination as to when Respondent received the letter and, thus, a finding of inconsistency between Respondent's version of events and the apparently toughened approach adopted by Mr. Berger in the September 24 letter. At times, Respondent's credibility seemed strained, but these occasions were limited to the seemingly endless accumulation of excuses as to why she may not have received a letter or notice or could not have dealt more directly with this matter at the time. More importantly, Respondent's description of the extent to which Mr. Berger casually pursued the investigation is consistent with the considerable period of time that passed during the investigation without formal action, the prior relationship that Respondent had developed with Mr. Berger and his previous supervisor, and the low risk that Respondent posed to the public, given that her real estate practice was nearly inactive in 1999. For all of these reasons, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to meet any unconditional demands from Petitioner. Thus, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes; obstructed or hindered a person in discharging his duties under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes; or failed to keep and make available to Petitioner the books, records, and documents required by law to be kept and produced upon demand.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___ ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Saunders, Chairperson Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack Hisey, Deputy Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn M. Severs, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room N308 Orlando, Florida 32802 Phyllis Mae Perry 1940 Northeast 55th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, David J. Zachem, is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license number 0194936. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Sunstate Tax Consultants, Inc., 220 East Madison Street #512, Tampa, Florida, Respondent, during times material, was licensed as a broker/salesperson with Gary Levone Hall, t/a Gary L. Hall & Associates, 243 Timberland Avenue, Longwood, Florida. On or about July 24, 1991, the Resolution Management Associates, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, engaged Henry Mazas, the principal of H.R. Mazas & Associates, an accounting firm to perform an appraisal of real property located in Seminole, Florida (called Seminole Landing) which was owned or controlled by the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, the federally affiliated agency which is selling off failed savings and loan associations financed or mortgaged properties. While Respondent was licensed as a broker/salesperson with Hall, Mazas engaged Respondent to assist in the appraisal of the Seminole Landing property. Respondent assisted Mazas by doing what is commonly referred to in the trade as the "leg work" such as visually inspecting the property, reviewing public records, compiling comparables and other raw data which was utilized by Mazas in completing his appraisal. Respondent signed on the appraisal letter evidencing his assistance as a consultant who assisted Mazas in completing his appraisal. C.W. Marlow, contracts manager of Resolution Management Associates, received a bill from Mazas for the appraisal service in the amount of $4,830.00, which amount was paid to Mazas on or about October 29, 1991. Mazas deposited the check into his account and thereafter paid Respondent $2,321.11 via a check dated November 5, 1991. On November 8, 1991, Respondent and his wife, Patricia Zachem, endorsed the check for payment. At the time that Respondent assisted Mazas in compiling the raw data to complete his appraisal, Mazas was unaware of Respondent's affiliation with Gary Hall. Respondent signed off on the appraisal to fully disclose to everyone concerned that he consulted with Mazas in compiling the raw data for the appraisal. Gary L. Hall, is a licensed real estate broker since approximately 1982. Hall has known Respondent since 1988. They are friends who assist and consult with each other primarily about political activities. Respondent placed his license with Hall as a matter of convenience and was never active in either buying, leasing or selling real property to the public. Respondent and Hall had no agreement respecting the splitting of fees that Respondent would earn for commissions that he received. According to Hall, Respondent "would have been able to keep the entire commissions that he receive for any work that he performed." Hall knew that Respondent was active in preparing appraisals when he became affiliated with his agency. Respondent is the holder of a real estate salesman's license since 1978 and a broker since 1979. Respondent while licensed as a broker, joined the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office. Respondent has been employed in two county property appraiser's offices (Broward and Pinellas counties). Respondent was a senior deputy in Broward County with his employment commencing sometime in 1981. He was so employed until January 1989 when he was employed by Pinellas County. In Pinellas County, Respondent was the chief deputy and the chief appraiser. Since 1980, Respondent has principally been a "mass appraiser" while working in Broward and Pinellas counties. Respondent is the qualifier for Sunstate Tax Consultants, which he is the president. Respondent is a Certified Florida Evaluator (CFE). To be qualified as a CFE, one must have worked in a property appraiser's office in the mass appraisal element for a period in excess of two years and have successfully passed four appraisal courses which are designated courses. Specifically, these courses are income to evaluation, the mechanical application of appraisals, appraisal assessment jurisdiction and vacant land. After successfully completing these courses, the property appraiser for whom the applicant is employed writes a letter of recommendation to the certification committee of the Department of Revenue. That committee reviews the applicant's qualifications and either grant or deny the CFE certificate. Respondent primarily placed his real estate license with Hall such that he could qualify as an expert in the numerous petitions filed with the Value Adjustment Board where the evaluation of properties are subject to litigation. Those appraisers who have an active broker license is an indication that they are fully qualified in the appraisal and real estate business. Respondent, as stated, never engaged in the typical brokerage business of buying, selling, leasing or renting property to the public. Specifically, Respondent's understanding with Hall was that if he engaged in any business that was governed by Petitioner, Hall would be notified. Respondent was never engaged to conduct an appraisal or to act as an appraiser for Mazas or the Resolution Management Associates. Respondent would have so advised Hall had he been involved in such a relationship or any activity that was governed by Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Eugene Davidson, an ad valorem tax consultant. was tendered and received as an expert appraiser. Davidson was one of three founders that founded the National Society of Fee Appraisers more than 35 years ago. Davidson holds a senior designation as an ASA member. Davidson is a member of the Institute of Real Estate Management and hold the designation as a certified property manager (CPM). Davidson is certified with Florida as a general real estate appraiser. Davidson was a professor at the University of Miami, the University of Florida and in the Bahamas (Nassau and Freeport). Davidson knows Respondent as a person on high morals and integrity and who is knowledgeable in real e stte and appraisinng. Davidson has known Respondent more than twelve years. An appraisal is the act or process of estimating value, or an opinion of value. Consulting is the act or process of providing information, analysis of real estate data and recommendations or conclusions on diversified problems in real estate other than estimating value. Respondent's engagement, to compile raw data, was as a consultant. He was not engaged, nor did he offer an opinion of value or an estimate of value. It is normal industry practice for consultants to sign appraisals when they provide or otherwise furnish significant information to the appraiser and, in doing so, complies with standard 2-3 of Chapter 475, Part II. See Sections 475.611 and 475.624, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I-IV of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 March, 1993.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are: (1) whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, failed within a reasonable time to satisfy a civil judgment relating to a real estate commission; (2) whether Respondents failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; and (3) whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them, if Petitioner proves one or more of the violations charged in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Veloso Judgment Toirac and Elena Veloso ("Veloso") did business together and wound up as opponents in court. Veloso got the better of Toirac, obtaining, on June 5, 2001, a judgment in the amount of $4,437.60 against her and HCIC from the Dade County Court. The judgment liquidated a real estate commission that Veloso claimed the defendants owed her. On June 12, 2001, Toirac filed a Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment, wherein she asked the county court to (a) vacate its judgment in favor of Veloso, on the ground that the defendants had not been served with process and (b) consolidate Veloso's county-court proceeding with an action then pending in circuit court, which Toirac had brought against Veloso.1 As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac's motion, after four years, had not been heard or decided. As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac had not satisfied the judgment in favor of Veloso. The Escrow Account Shortfall On January 24, 2002, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt, on or about June 20, 2001, of a complaint from Veloso.) Pursuant to the audit, Ms. Morales determined that the balance in Toirac's escrow account was $4,961.05. Ms. Morales determined further that Toirac's trust liability, i.e. the total amount of money that she should have been holding in escrow on her clients' behalf, was $12,242.00. Thus, there existed a shortfall of $7,280.95 in Toirac's escrow account. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to explain the shortfall. A few weeks later, however, by letter dated February 13, 2002, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that the shortfall had been caused by the issuance, "in error," of a check in the amount of $7,345.00, which was drawn on HCIC's escrow account and payable (evidently) to HCIC; HCIC had deposited the funds into its operating account, thereby creating, according to Toirac, an "overage" of $7,345.00 in the latter. To correct the problem, Toirac had arranged for the transfer of $7,345.00 from HCIC's operating account to its escrow account, which was accomplished on or about February 1, 2002. The Charges In counts I and IV, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.2 Petitioner's position is that Respondents failed within a reasonable time to satisfy the county-court judgment in favor of Veloso. In counts III and V, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that the escrow account shortfall identified on January 24, 2002, is proof that funds held in escrow had been disbursed without proper authorization. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no dispute (for Toirac admitted at final hearing) that the judgment debt owed by Respondents to Veloso relates to a real estate commission. It is also undisputed that, as of the final hearing, the county-court judgment had not been satisfied. The undersigned determines that Respondents have failed to satisfy the civil judgment in Veloso's favor within a reasonable time.3 Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.4 It is determined that the erroneous transfer, via check, of funds from HCIC's escrow account to its operating account constituted an unauthorized disbursement of funds entrusted to Toirac by others who had dealt with her as a broker. While this might have resulted from the simple mistake of an incompetent bookkeeper, as Toirac maintains, nevertheless the disbursement was unauthorized and substantial——amounting to approximately 60 percent of Toirac's total trust liability. Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has established the charges set forth in counts I, III, IV, and V of its Administrative Complaint, by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: (a) finds Respondents guilty as charged in counts I, III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint; (b) suspends Respondents' respective real estate licenses for 90 days; and (c) imposes an administrative fine of $2,500 against Respondents, jointly and severally; and (d) places Respondents on probation for a period of at least 3 years, subject to such lawful conditions as the Commission may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2005.
