Findings Of Fact Robert & Gilman, Inc. at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate broker by the State of Florida. Delair A. Clark at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate salesman by the State of Florida. Residential property owned by William L. and Frances Crummett was listed with J.B. Steelman, Jr. real estate broker and put on Multiple Listing Service. On June 17, 1972, immediately after the For Sale sign was erected, Respondent, Delair A. Clark, presented an offer to the sellers on this property which was accepted by sellers on the same date presented (Exhibit 9). This contract provided the purchase price of $28,500 with a $300 earnest money deposit, the usual clauses in a form contract for sale and purchase, and two special clauses to wit: "A. Subject to: Buyer being reassigned to central Florida prior to June 22, 1972. In the event the assignment does not materialize by June 23, 1972 deposit will, be returned in full and contract will be null and void. B. Subject to: Buyer obtaining a 90 percent conventional loan for a period of 25 years or an FHA loan for 30 years." By telegram dated 6/20/72 (Exhibit 8) buyer confirmed re-assignment to Orlando, thus satisfying condition A in the contract. Buyers thereafter asked for earlier occupancy than originally called for. Since special arrangements would have to be made by sellers, Mr. Crummett asked for an amendment to the contract to increase the earnest money deposit to $1,000 of which $500 would be non-refundable if contract was not consummated. This amendment was duly executed by the buyers on July 15, 1972 and by the sellers. A copy thereof was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11 which provides: "SPECIAL CLAUSE" "C. An additional deposit of $700 will be made on July 17, 1972, of which $500 will be non-refundable in the event the referenced contract is not consumated (sic)." This amendment was forwarded to the sellers by Respondent's Roberts & Gilman letter of July 17, 1972 which amendment was executed by the sellers upon receipt and mailed back to Roberts & Gilman. The July 17, 1972 letter was signed by Judy L. Rostatter of the sales processing department. A copy of the check received from the buyers was not enclosed although the letter stated it was enclosed. Prior to receipt of this amendment Crummett was advised by Richter, the buyer, that he had mailed a $700 check to Roberts & Gilman made payable to Crummett. Crummett was also advised by Respondent Clark that the check had been received. Since closing was scheduled to be held within a couple of days Crummett requested Clark to hold the check and he would endorse same at closing. Crummett never saw the original check for $700. On the day originally scheduled for the closing (circa July 18, 1972) Crummett received a telephone call from Respondent Clark to the effect that the appraisal on the property had come in some $3,000 below the asking price and inquiring if Crummett would accept $26,000 for his property. The latter advised he would not and, after some heated words, Crummett hung up. At this time it was evident to Respondent Clark and the sellers that the sale would not be consummated. Clark put a memo in the file dated July 28, 1972 saying: "Return checks of $700 + $300 in estrow (sic) to Richter. Seller advised we had no contract." A few weeks later, on August 3, 1972, after making several phone calls to Roberts & Gilman without success, Crummett had the listing broker, J.B. Steelman, write a letter (Exhibit 7) to Gilman making demand for the $500 deposit refund. By letter dated August 11, 1972 (Exhibit 6) Roberts and Gilman replied that they considered the contract had been terminated by the seller and saw no "justification by the seller to claim any escrow that has been returned to the buyer". This letter was signed "Dan T. Gilman /b.c." Several months later, in the spring of 1973, Crummett went to the office of Roberts and Gilman and obtained a photostatic copy of the check dated 7/15/72 that had been made by J.A. Richter in the amount of $700. This was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 12. At the hearing Dan G. Gilman, President of Roberts & Gilman, Inc. denied any recollection of any part of this transaction or ever having heard of the incident prior to the investigator from the FREC coming to inquire about the incident. At the time of this transaction the realtor's office was very busy with several branch offices and some 120 salesmen handling transactions in eight or ten counties in central Florida. He has no recollection of dictating Exhibit 12 or anything about the incident but his secretary at that time was Beverly Cass. It was standard practice for a broker to review every contract before trust account money was disbursed or refunded. His initial testimony that numerous people in the office had authority to sign his name to letters going out of the office was recanted when he was recalled as a witness after the close of the Commission's case. He then stated he never authorized anyone to sign his name to a document having legal implication. Clark testified that the first time he ever saw Exhibit 11, the amendment to the contract, was when shown to him by the investigator for the FREC. Likewise he claims never to have seen or received the $700 check signed by Richter. With respect to the return of the deposit to Richter, (after being shown Exhibit 13) his recollection of the cancellation of the contract was that Richter was not re-assigned to the Orlando area. This was the only contract ever handled by Clark which involved the return of an escrow deposit. He has no recollection of talking to any member of the realty firm regarding clearing the return of the escrow deposit to Richter. Exhibit 5 is a photocopy of the check by which the $300 earnest money deposit was returned to Richter. It is obvious that the contract for the sale of the residential property herein involved was amended to provide for an additional deposit from the buyers and a clause which required the buyer to forfeit one half of his deposit in the event the transaction was not consummated. It is incomprehensible that such an amendment to the contract could be made without the knowledge of the salesman or the broker. It therefore appears that the Defendants either: (1) are not telling the truth; (2) have faulty memories; (3) allowed the duties normally performed by brokers to be carried out by secretaries; or (4) operated a realty company in a slipshod manner without due regard to the duties and responsibilities imposed upon brokers and salesman by the real estate license law.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent was at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0035275. The last license issued was as a broker, d/b/a Silver Springs Real Estate, Corp., 4121 East Silver Springs Boulevard, Ocala, Florida 32671. On or about August 3, 1984, the Respondent obtained Teri L. Lochman (Lochman) as a tenant of certain residential property belonging to Gail and Valerie Cox (Cox) that was involved in a sale to A. Pillot. In connection with this sale, a lease had been prepared between A. Pillot as Lessor and A. Alongi as Lessee. Lochman signed this lease as Lessee, and in connection with this lease, paid Respondent $1,600.00 representing $700.00 for the first month's rent, $700.00 for the last month's rent and $200.00 security deposit. These funds were paid by Lochman to Respondent in two separate checks in the amount of $500.00 and $1,100.00 dated August 5, 1984 and August 13, 1984, respectively. The Pillot/Cox escrow account, which had previously been established in Respondent's escrow ledger, was credited with these funds and the funds deposited in Respondent's real estate brokerage trust bank account, No. 805 0006583, in the Sun Bank of Ocala (Trust Account), on August 9, 1984 and August 17, 1984, respectively. Upon attempting to move into the home she had rented, Lochman discovered that Cox was still in possession because the sale had not gone through. At this point, August 17, 1984, Lochman and Cox signed an agreement which would allow Lochman to reside in the home rent free for two weeks while Cox was out of town in return for acting as a security guard. Sometime after the August 17, 1987 agreement was executed by Lochman and Cox, Lochman and Cox signed a handwritten month to month lease of the premises requiring Lochman to pay Cox $700.00 for the first month's rent, $700.00 for the last month's rent and a $200.00 damage deposit. This payment was conditioned upon Lochman receiving her refund from the Respondent. There was no credible evidence that Respondent agreed to release Cox from any previous agreement with Respondent wherein Respondent acted as agent for Cox in obtaining Lochman as a tenant or the handling of Cox's property, i.e. mowing grass or preparing house for rent. Additionally, there was no credible evidence that Respondent agreed to Lochman dealing directly with Cox. Respondent was at all times relevant to this proceeding acting as agent for Cox, and therefore, demanded from Cox her commission for obtaining Lochman as a tenant and reimbursement for other services rendered before returning Lochman's rental deposit. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent agreed to return Lochman's rental deposit without first obtaining her commission or reimbursement for other services rendered from Cox. There is no credible evidence to show that Cox paid Respondent her commission or reimbursed Respondent for other services rendered or that Cox made a demand on Respondent to pay the Lochman rental deposit to Lochman. There is credible evidence that Lochman made a demand on Respondent for the return of her rental deposit and that Respondent refused to return Lochman's rental deposit because there was a dispute between Respondent and Cox concerning Respondent's commission and reimbursement for other services rendered. Lochman did not pay Cox the rent for the month of September, 1984, therefore, she contends that Respondent only owes her $900.00 of the rental deposit. Upon Respondent's refusal to pay her the balance of the rental deposit, Lochman obtained a default judgment for $900.00 in civil court, however, and although the record is not clear, the default judgment may have been set aside. (See transcript, page 15, lines 9-13). The evidence is clear that check no. 257 drawn on the Trust Account in the amount of $1,465.00, paid on April 18, 1985, included $1,278.00 from the Pillot/Cox escrow account and depleted the funds in the Pillot/Cox escrow account. However, there was no evidence presented to show that the Lochman rental deposit was paid to Respondent. Likewise, there was no evidence presented to show that Cox did not receive the Lochman rental deposit. There was no evidence presented to show the payee on Check No. 257, or any other check, drawn on the Trust Account. There was no evidence presented to show that Respondent commingled trust funds and personal funds in the Trust Account in regard to deposits and withdrawals. There was insufficient credible evidence to show that Lochman was entitled to delivery of $900.00 or any funds from the Trust Account. There was no evidence that Respondent notified the Real Estate Commission (Commission) of the conflicting demands on the Lochman rental deposit or followed any of the procedures set forth in the statutes to resolve such a conflict.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of failing to notify the Commission of the conflicting demands on the trust funds and failing to follow the procedures set forth for resolving such conflict in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes and that Respondent's real estate broker's license be suspended for a period of six (6) months, stay the suspension, place the Respondent on probation for a period of six (6) months under the condition that the issue of conflicting demands on the trust funds be resolved within sixty (60) days and under any other conditions the Commission feels appropriate, and assess an administrative fine of $300.00 to be paid within sixty (60) days of the date of the Final Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order DISMISS Counts I, III, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 1st day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2387 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 4.5 Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Additionally, Petitioner has treated certain facts in this case as background in unnumbered paragraphs which I have numbered 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 except for the phrase that Respondent agreed to the return of the rental deposit which is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. I did not find Lochman's testimony credible in this regard. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. This paragraph is a statement of Lochman's testimony and not presented as a fact, therefore, is rejected. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent For the reasons set forth in the Background portions of this Recommended Order, there has been no rulings of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jeffrey J. Fitos, Esquire Valley Forge Military Academy Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the six-count Administrative Complaint dated October 15, 2003; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the "Department"), is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to persons holding real estate broker and sales associate's licenses in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes (2003). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Richard R. Page, was a licensed Florida real estate broker/officer, having been issued broker license no. KB-0148248. He was the qualifying broker for Aztec Realty. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Aztec Realty, was a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued corporate registration no. CQ-0156640. Aztec Realty's business location was 4456 Tamiami Trail, Charlotte Harbor, Florida 33980. Barbara Kiphart was a 13-year employee of the Department who had performed thousands of audits of broker records. After conducting agent interviews on an unrelated matter in the office of Aztec Realty, she informed Mr. Page that she planned to perform an audit of the corporation's escrow accounts. Ms. Kiphart testified that it was routine for the Department to perform such audits when visiting brokers' offices for other reasons. Ms. Kiphart informed Mr. Page that she would need all documents necessary to complete an audit of Aztec Realty's escrow accounts, including bank statements, account reconciliations, and liability lists. Mr. Page referred Ms. Kiphart to Cheryl Bauer, Aztec Realty's financial manager. With Ms. Bauer's assistance, Ms. Kiphart completed the audit on June 12, 2003. Three accounts were examined: the sales escrow account; the security deposit account; and the property management account. The sales escrow account was found to be in balance, with liabilities equal to the bank balance of $382,300.52. The security deposit account was found to have liabilities of $45,533.29 but only $16,429.84 in its bank balance, a shortage of $29,103.45. The property management account was found to have liabilities of $22,545.54 but only $16,594.71 in its bank balance, a shortage of $5,950.83. Ms. Kiphart testified that the security deposit account had not been reconciled in the year 2003, and she had no way of saying when it was last reconciled. She determined the account's balance from Aztec Realty's bank statements, but had to extrapolate the liabilities from a computer printout of security deposits. Ms. Bauer testified that she handles the finances for all aspects of Aztec Realty's real estate sales business, including the sales escrow account, and that she was able to provide all the information Ms. Kiphart needed to audit that account. However, Ms. Bauer had no responsibility for the other two accounts, both of which related to the rental property management side of Aztec Realty's business. She had to obtain information about those accounts from Jill Strong, her newly- hired counterpart in property management. At the time she provided the computer printout on the property management accounts to Ms. Bauer and Ms. Kiphart, Ms. Strong told them that she knew the numbers were inaccurate. Aztec Realty had purchased Tenant Pro, a new rental management software package, in 2001. In the course of approximately 18 months, Aztec Realty had three different employees in Ms. Strong's position. One of these short-term property managers had misunderstood the software for the security deposit account. Opening balances were entered for accounts that had, in fact, already been closed out with the deposits returned. This had the effect of inflating the apparent liabilities in that account. The previous property manager was also unable to print checks on the printer attached to her computer terminal. Ms. Bauer would print the deposit refund checks on her own printer, with the understanding that the property manager was recording these entries against the security deposit account. Ms. Strong discovered that these entries had not been recorded. Thus, monies that had been paid out to owners, renters, and vendors were never recorded anywhere besides a sheet that Ms. Bauer kept for printing out checks, again inflating the account's apparent liabilities. Ms. Strong had been working for Aztec Realty for about one month at the time of the audit. She was still in the process of sorting out the problems in the security deposit account, hence her statement to Ms. Bauer and Ms. Kiphart that she knew the numbers were inaccurate. Subsequent to the Department's audit, Ms. Bauer and Ms. Strong commenced their own audit of the security deposit and property management accounts. Their efforts were complicated by a storm and tornado that struck the area on June 30, 2003. The offices of Aztec Realty suffered over $100,000 in damage, including water damage to the roof that caused the office to be flooded. Records were soaked and Ms. Strong's computer was destroyed. By mid-July 2003, Ms. Bauer and Ms. Strong had completed their corrected audit of the security deposit account. They concluded that the actual shortfall in the account was $13,764.43. That amount was immediately transferred from the real estate operating account to the security deposit account to bring the latter account into balance. The real estate operating account was essentially Mr. Page's personal funds. As to the property management account, also referred to as a "rental distribution" account, Ms. Bauer and Ms. Strong performed a subsequent audit indicating that the account was out of balance on the positive side. They discovered that there were items paid out of the property management account that should have been paid from escrow and vice versa. When the audit brought the accounts into balance, the property management account was approximately $200 over balance. In an audit response letter to Ms. Kiphart dated July 16, 2003, Mr. Page acknowledged that the property management account had been improperly used to pay occasional expenses, but also stated that the practice had been discontinued. At the hearing, Mr. Page conceded that no reconciliations had been performed on the security deposit account or the property management account from at least January 2003 through May 2003. Mr. Page and Ms. Bauer each testified that the corrective actions taken in response to the audit have been maintained and that there have been no accounting problems since June 2003. Aztec Realty has contracted to sell its property management department. The evidence established that no client of Aztec Realty or other member of the public lost money due to the accounting discrepancies described above. Neither Mr. Page nor Aztec Realty has been subject to prior discipline. Mr. Page has worked in the real estate business in the Port Charlotte area for nearly 30 years and is a past president of the local association of realtors. He credibly expressed remorse and testified that, given his position in the community, he was "mortified" at having allowed his company to be placed in this position. Aztec Realty has operated for nearly 30 years and currently has 20 employees and approximately 65 agents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order: Dismissing Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Page; Dismissing Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint against Aztec Realty; Imposing an administrative fine against Mr. Page in the amount of $1,000 for the violation established in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative fine against Aztec Realty in the amount of $1,000 for the violation established in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 27th day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a State government agency charged with licensing and regulating the practice of real estate sales and brokerage in the State of Florida. Its authority under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, includes the duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints against licensees who have allegedly violated the various provisions of Chapter 475 enumerated above. The Respondent, Key Realty Management, Inc., is and was at all times material hereto a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License Number 0222667 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Dan Lee Issacs is an officer of and qualifying broker for the Respondent, Key Realty Management, Inc., and holds License Number 0203152. On or about September 26, 1985, Richard A. Cook, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, conducted a routine audit of the Respondents' real property rental management trust account numbered 1201145156 maintained at Barnett Bank at 315 South Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The audit consumed about one and one-half days. The audit revealed that as of September 26, 1985, the Respondents had received in trust from their tenants, in their capacity as real estate brokers, damage and security deposits in the amount of approximately $76,566.46. The balance of record in that account at the time of the audit was only $44,232.30. Approximately $32,334.16 were thus unaccounted for. The Petitioner's investigator, Mr. Cook, admitted in his testimony that there was no basis for him to believe that the subject funds unaccounted for had been diverted to the Respondents' own use, embezzled or otherwise improperly employed. He also acknowledged that there was no evidence of intentional misconduct in these particulars. Mr. Cook further conceded in his testimony that this prosecution stems from an increased emphasis by his agency on enforcing the requirements, concerning accounting for escrow monies, expressed in the statutory provisions pled in the Administrative Complaint in the last two years. His testimony reveals that the motivation for this prosecution, at least in part, results from that policy change. No other witness was presented by the Petitioner. The Respondent presented the testimony of Gary Erdman, an accountant and computer consultant. The witness was in charge of the Respondents' accounting, records keeping and management and computer programming. He designed their computer system, which kept up with their rental property management records, receipts and disbursements. During November 1984 to January 1985, the Respondents' business was in the process of converting to a new computer management, data storage and processing system. They were a very busy firm, with a large number of clients and properties which they managed. They thus ran out of space on their old computer system. Mr. Erdman was unable to transfer all the old data and program of the firm to the new system and had to re-program the new system. Some information was lost and never was entered in the new system. Additionally, on July 16, 1985, a problem of an accidental nature, possibly due to lightning, damaged the hard computer data storage disk of the firm and some data, which contained the record of receipts and disbursements regarding the missing $32,334.16, was lost. There was no soft disk or other backup system for this data, so it was irretrievably lost. Mr. Erdman had to start trying to reconstruct the lost data at the same time he was having to keep up, on a day-to-day basis, with his records keeping and accounting responsibilities. The reconstruction process, therefore, took a substantial period of time. Through this witness, the Respondents introduced their Exhibit 1, which was the claim or notice of loss to their insurance carrier as probative of and corroborative of Mr. Erdman's testimony regarding the July 16, 1985 accidental data loss. From that point it took two months after July 16, 1985, to learn from the manufacturer of the hard disk how much of the data had been lost. The Respondents had sent the hard disk to that manufacturer for repair and damage assessment. July and August of every year is the busiest time in the Respondents' rental management business. Possibly because of this they were unaware of the accounting problem regarding the $32,334.16 until it was discovered by Mr. Cook. The Respondents were very cooperative with Mr. Cook and apparently were unaware of the problem until he discovered it. They immediately transferred funds to cover the deficit in the subject escrow account so that no client or entity entitled to the funds therein suffered any loss. No misrepresentation was made to any client, person or entity entitled to any funds in their escrow account concerning the use, location, depository or entitlement to any escrow funds. The Respondents have now corrected the problem with their computer system and have also voluntarily changed their accounting procedures and deposit procedures so that not only loss and damage security deposits, but also rental income itself goes directly to their trust account first, before any disbursement to the landlords entitled to net rentals above the Respondents' fees and costs. Formerly, everything was deposited initially in the Respondents' operating account and then withdrawn and deposited in the escrow account, as to the security and loss and damage deposit receipts. Under the new system, however, they are able to more readily track every monetary receipt and more readily and properly account for it. This change was voluntarily made only a week or two after Mr. Cook's first visit wherein he alerted them to the problem. Additionally, Respondents' Exhibit 2 reflects that apparently there was an excess of $50,000 in the subject bank account as evidenced by a bank reconciliation record contained in that exhibit, which Mr. Cook had not seen at the time of his investigation and prior to the hearing. Thus, the subject $32,334.16 may be somewhat overstated. Further, it was established with this exhibit that, as of October 23, 1985, one month after Mr. Cook's inspection, the subject trust account had a balance of $73,973.56. It was shown by the Respondent that at the time of Mr. Cook's inspection the office staff was overloaded and that transfers to the trust account were running behind schedule. Some of the deficit was merely due to non-timely deposits to the trust account, rather than funds being mistakenly placed in a different account or used for other purposes by mistake, it not having been established that any intentional wrong-doing occurred concerning the trust account and escrow account violations charged. In any event, it has been established that the Respondents' new computer system of accounting and record management has alleviated the problem discovered by Mr. Cook. The Respondents have never encountered such a problem with their deposits either before or after this instance as of the time of hearing. It was established by the Respondent, Dan Issacs, who testified, that neither he nor his firm was co-mingling rental income with funds required to be retained in their trust account but rather were simply unaware of the apparent requirement that rental receipts must first be deposited in the trust account. In any event, it was established conclusively that no funds were diverted for the Respondents' own use or benefit and that all monies are now properly on deposit and are otherwise accounted for and were within a matter of several weeks after the audit and inspection. Additionally, all computer-retained records are now subjected to back-up record keeping at the present time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Dan Lee Issacs and Key Realty Management, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2911 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant. 3-5. Accepted. Accepted, except as to specific amounts which are found in the Recommended Order. Accepted, but not dispositive. Rejected as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Elwin R. Thrasher, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 4351 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Annette J. Ruffin, held real estate broker license number 0076385 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. When the events herein occurred, respondent was owner and broker for Century 21 A Little Bit Country at 915 Lithia Pinecrest Road, Brandon, Florida. She is presently employed by U. S. Homes Corporation in Tampa, Florida. James and Shirley Yaksic wished to sell their residence at 3512 Plainview Drive in Brandon, Florida. They listed their property with Century 21 Solid Gold Properties II, Inc. in Brandon in December, 1983. Deborah Cassidy was a salesman at respondent's office, and knew her parents, J. R. and Helen Anderson, were in the market for a new home. With Cassidy's assistance, the Andersons executed a contract on February 16, 1984, to purchase the Yaksics' residence. The contract called for a purchase price of $65,000 with a down payment of $10,000, including a $500.00 cash deposit which was given to respondent's firm several days after the contract was executed. The deposit was placed in Ruffin's escrow account on February 28, 1984. The Andersons were also required to seek VA financing on the balance owed. After the contract was accepted by the Yaksics on February 17, Helen Anderson made application on February 23 for a $55,000 VA loan with Norwest Mortgage, Inc., a lending institution in Tampa. Florida. Since her husband was in New York State, only Helen signed the loan application agreeing to allow verification of all representations made in the application. While filling out the loan application at Norwest, Helen Anderson learned that the Veterans Administration allowed applicants to apply for loans equal to 100% of the value of the property. Since the Andersons preferred to make no down payment, Helen Anderson wrote Norwest in early March requesting that their loan application be increased from $55,000 to $65,000. She also noted that she did not sign the "disclosure statement" on behalf of her husband since "it would be incorrect." In response to this Letter, Norwest wrote the Andersons in early April requesting a number of items needed to process the application as well as an amendment to the contract reflecting that the sellers agreed to 100% financing by the buyers. The Andersons did not respond to this inquiry. In addition, they never, advised the sellers that they had changed their loan application to 100% financing, and that the sellers would be required to pay more discount points at closing. Because no amendment to the contract was ever filed, Norwest processed the application for a $55,000 loan. Due to insufficient income and excessive obligations, the application was denied. The Andersons were so notified by letter dated May 3, 1984. After Helen Anderson received the denial letter she telephoned respondent's office manager on several occasions to seek a refund of her deposit. This information was apparently conveyed to Ruffin by the office manager. About the same time the sellers were advised by the listing salesman that the Andersons did not intend to close. On May 5, the sellers wrote a letter to Solid Gold requesting that it notify the selling broker to not "release the binder to the buyers as we are entitled to this money." For some reason, a copy of this letter was not mailed to respondent until May 31, and she received it in early June. Even though Ruffin may have been orally advised in early May of the Yaksics' intended claim by the listing office, she had no concrete evidence of this intention until she received their letter in early June. On June 29, 1984, Helen Anderson wrote respondent's office manager a letter requesting a return of her deposit no later than July 9. She also indicated the letter was being sent pursuant to instructions received from petitioner. On July 2, Ruffin replied by letter stating that "we cannot release your deposit as the house was off the market for such a long time," and that Norwest had advised her that the Andersons "did not bring in a lot of the information until it was too late." After Helen Anderson filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), DPR wrote respondent a letter dated July 19, 1984, stating in part that Anderson had been refused her deposit and that its records did not show that respondent had notified DPR of conflicting demands for that money. On July 30, 1984, respondent replied to DPR's inquiry and gave her version of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. After receiving no reply to this letter, she wrote a second letter in late December, 1984 to the Division of Real Estate (Division) requesting advice on the deposit matter. The Division sent a her form for requesting an escrow disbursement order on January 4, 1985 which was returned by respondent within a few weeks. An escrow disbursement order was eventually issued by the Division on April 19, 1985 directing her to refund the deposit to the Andersons. She did so on May 5, 1985. In conjunction with its investigation, DPR obtained copies of respondent's escrow account bank statements during the period when the Andersons' deposit was retained by Ruffin. Although the $500.00 deposit should have been maintained in that account from February, 1984 until disbursement in May, 1985, her account dropped below $500.00 on sixteen separate days during this period of time, and continuously from February 28 through April 30, 1985. Respondent, who has been a broker since 1977, maintained a record of all escrow deposits and expenditures in a ledger book which reflected when the Anderson money was deposited and when it was paid out. Although she inferred the problem may have been attributable to her bookkeeper, no adequate explanation was given as to why her bank balances dropped below $500.00 on a number of occasions. She acknowledged that she learned of the conflicting demands in May, 1984, but felt that she could still "solve" the credit problem of the Andersons. She stated that she intended to give notice to the Division of the conflicting claims on the deposit and needed no encouragement from the Division to do so. There is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined on any other occasion since first receiving her salesman license around twelve years ago.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is recommended that respondent's broker license be suspended for ninety days and that she be fined $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Bearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer 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 29th day of January, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was, at the time of the hearing and at all times material to this proceeding, registered with the Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. During the period of the transactions involved in this proceeding the Respondent was operating and registered as an active broker and President of Fortiner Realty Company, which was a corporate real estate broker registered with the Commission. In Count One of the Complaint, the Respondent is charged with failing to maintain a security deposit in his trust account in connection with a real estate transaction involving Phillip E. Andrews and Betsy K. Andrews, as sellers, and Joseph T. Lyons and Marion C. Lyons, as purchasers. In Count Two of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with converting the deposit in the Andrews-Lyons transaction to his own use. During March, 1976, Claude I. Allen was employed at the Respondent's real estate office as a salesman. Allen negotiated a transaction between the Andrewses and the Lyonses. On March 17, 1976, the Lyonses made an offer to purchase the Andrews property and submitted a $1,000.00 deposit to Allen. On March 18, 1976 the $1,000.00 was deposited in the Respondent's trust account at the Palmer Bank of Ft. Myers. On March 22, 1976 the Andrewses accepted the offer and the Lyonses provided an additional $2,000.00 deposit to Allen. On that same date the $2,000.00 was deposited in the Respondent's trust account. The transaction closed on May 11, 1976. It was a smooth transaction. On May 110, 1976 $3,000.00 was withdrawn from the Respondent's trust account as a part of the transaction. During the entire time from March 17 through May 11, 1976, the monies deposited by the Lyonses remained on deposit in the Respondent's trust account. There is no evidence to support a finding either that the Respondent failed to maintain the $4,000.00 in the trust account, or that he converted any part of the deposit for his own use. In Count Three of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with failing to maintain a deposit in his trust account in connection with real estate transactions between Mac-Nel Ltd. and M & N Ltd. as sellers, and Stanley G. Courtney, as purchaser. In Count Four the Respondent is charged with converting all or part of the security deposit to his own use. The Respondent was one of several partners in Mac-Nel Ltd. and M & N Ltd. On august 28, 1976, Stanley G. Courtney entered into separate contracts to purchase all of the property owned by the two partnerships. Through six separate checks Courtney made a deposit of $13,500.00 to the Respondent to be placed in the Respondent's trust account. The evidence is unclear as to when or in what manner the deposit was placed in the trust account, or whether all of it was in fact placed in the trust account. The bank records reflect that $17,600.00 was placed in the Respondent's trust account on August 30, 1976, and it is possible that the Courtney checks formed a part of that deposit. During August and September, 1976, the Respondent's financial condition became grave. He had apparently defaulter on several notes to the Palmer Bank in which he had his trust account. The bank sued on the notes, and put a hold on the Respondent's accounts. In order to allow the Courtney transactions to close, the Respondent was able to withdraw allow a portion of the deposits made by Courtney form his trust account. He transferred his interest in the property to a Mr. Blankenship, so that Mr. Blankenship could close the transaction unfettered by the Respondent's financial plight. After he withdrew the money from his trust account, and forwarded it to Blankenship, the Respondent took no further part in the Courtney transaction either as a party to the transaction or as a broker. The closing of the transaction was delayed due in part to the Respondent's bankruptcy, however, it did close on October 29, 1976. Courtney was credited with the full amount that he had deposited with the Respondent. It is clear that the Respondent did not maintain all of the monies deposited by Courtney in the trust account. His reason for failing to do that was to permit the transaction to close even though the Respondent had gone bankrupt. The evidence would not support a finding that the Respondent converted any portion of the Courtney deposit to his own use. In Count Five of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with failing to maintain a deposit in his trust account in connection with a transaction involving Charles and Margaret Lathrop as sellers, and William and Jeannette Whitacre as purchasers. In Count Six the Respondent is charged with converting all or part of the deposit in that transaction to his own use. On or about June 29, 1976, the Whitacres entered into a contract to purchase property from the Lathrops. The transaction was negotiated by Mary E. Bishop, a saleswoman who was employed by the Respondent in his real estate company. The Whitacres delivered a $6,500.00 check to Mrs. Bishop as a deposit on the transaction. The bank records received into evidence do not clearly reveal when or in what manner the Whitacre's deposit was placed in the Respondent's trust account. The bank statements do show a $7,000.00 deposit made into the Respondent's trust account at the Palmer Bank of Ft. Myers on July 1, 1976, and it is possible that the Whitacre's check was a part of that deposit. Bank records from other trust accounts maintained by the Respondent such as that at the Cape Coral Bank do not reveal any deposit that could have been the Whitacre's check. The Lathrop/Whitacre transaction closed successfully on August 18, 1976, and the Whitacres were credited with the $6,500.00 that they had submitted to the Respondent's firm. It is apparent from the bank records that $6,500.00 was not on deposit at all times in the Respondent's trust account between July 1 and August 18, 1976. During most of that period the Respondent's balance in his trust account was less than $6,500.00. No evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the Respondent made any specific use of the money deposited by the Whitacres. It is apparent, however, that the money was not used as intended, i.e., it was not maintained in the Respondent's trust account. In Count Seven of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with fraud, misrepresentation, and dishonest dealing in connection with his handling of the business of a partnership known as 27 Oaks Ltd. The Respondent was the general partner in 27 Oaks Ltd. He was responsible for carrying on the business of the partnership for the benefit of eight limited partners. The partnership owned property which it was seeking to develop and sell in small parcels. On November 19, 1975, a mortgage payment in the amount of $21,300.00 was due from the partnership. In accordance with the partnership agreement, the Respondent solicited funds from the limited partners so that the mortgage payment could be made by letter dated October 15, 1975. The evidence does not reveal whether the Respondent received sufficient contributions from the limited partners to pay the mortgage payment. The evidence reveals only that he received $9,997.00 from the limited partners in response to his solicitation. The Respondent did not make the mortgage payment when it was due, but instead received a ninety-day extension. The new date was February 19. The principal payment on the mortgage was not made on that date, but instead, the Respondent made payments on the interest due. Ultimately the payment was made in a manner satisfactory to the mortgagee by early June, 1976. The Real Estate Commission has charged that the Respondent received funds sufficient to make the mortgage payment in November, 1975, but that he applied the money to some other purpose. This contention is not supported by the evidence. The evidence does not reveal that the Respondent received sufficient money to make the mortgage payment. The bank records reveal that there was sufficient money in the 27 Oaks Ltd account to make the mortgage payment in November, and that the Respondent withdrew most of that money. The evidence does not establish that the Respondent improperly withdrew the money, or that the Respondent improperly withdrew the money, or that he put it to any but a valid partnership purpose. The Commission has also contended that the Respondent failed to maintain the monies he received from the limited partners in a trust account. Nothing in the partnership agreement requires that such monies be kept in a trust account, and the Respondent's failure to do so could not, therefore, constitute fraud or misrepresentation. Even if the contract were construed arguably to require that funds be placed in a trust account, certainly there are equally valid arguments that is does not. In Count Eight of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with fraud, misrepresentation, and dishonest dealing in connection with his handling of the affairs of a Florida limited partnership know as Randag Properties Ltd. During 1976 the Respondent was the sole general partner of Randag Properties Ltd. The partnership owned property which it was seeking to develop into apartments. The Respondent was responsible for carrying on the partnership business. The property consisted of more than 40 acres on a river and a navigable canal. Part of the property was a small appendage which contributed little to the development potential of the property. In order to raise money to prepare the property for development, the Respondent sold the appendage to an ajoining property owner. That transaction closed on or about May 28, 1976. The Respondent had contributed more than $30,000 of his own money to the partnership in order to prepare the property for development. These expenditures included attorneys fees that he had incurred; a boundary survey, a high tide location survey, and a topographical survey; fees to the Florida Secretary of State's office; real estate taxes; land clearing expenses; and various miscellaneous expenditures. The Respondent had also made an advance to one of the limited partners. The Respondent applied most of the proceeds from the sale of the appendage to compensate himself for the expenditures that he had incurred. The Respondent had a disagreement with one of the limited partners, Mr. Swartz, as to whether the proceeds of the sale should be applied to compensate the limited partners for their initial investment or the Respondent for his expenditures. The Respondent's applying the proceeds to compensate himself does not appear to be contrary to the partnership agreement and it does appear that he had validly incurred expenses on behalf of the partnership to which he was entitled to be compensated. The Respondent ultimately resigned as the general partner on October 12, 1976, in order to save the partnership from the consequences of his bankruptcy, and was replaced by Swartz. Early in October, 1976, the Respondent issued a promissory note to the partnership, but there was no showing that this promissory note was the consequence of any fraud, but rather that it was for the purpose of placing the partnership in a favorable position in relation to the Respondent's bankruptcy. The Respondent ended up losing money through his participation in the partnership while the limited partners ended by making a substantial profit. All of the limited partners were advised of the sale of the appendage either prior to the sale or shortly after. There is no requirement in the partnership agreement that they be advised in advance of the sale, or that they assent to it. The Respondent is charged in Count Nine of the Complaint with fraud, misrepresentation, and dishonest dealing in connection with a business transaction that he had with William K. Gamble and Dorothy V. Gamble. The allegations in essence are that the Respondent received loans from the Gambles, and that he pledged certain property as security for the loans. He was required under the terms of the promissory notes and the collateral assignment that accompanied them to provide other adequate security in the event that he sold any of the property that served as collateral for the loans. It is alleged that the Respondent sold the property, did not advise the Gambles, and did not substitute any other property as security for the promissory notes. The only testimony offered to establish that the property that served as collateral was sold was the testimony of Mrs. Dorothy V. Gamble. Mrs. Gamble had no direct knowledge that the property was in fact sold. It is apparent from the evidence that the Respondent has defaulted on the promissory notes. In Count Ten of the Complaint it is alleged that the Respondent failed to maintain a deposit in his trust account in connection with a real estate transaction involving Herbert J. Haase and Katherine M. Haase, as trustees, the sellers, and Loyal H. Tingley as purchaser. In Count Eleven it is alleged that the Respondent converted all or part of the deposit to his own use. On or about August 6, 1976, Tingley entered into a contract to purchase property from the Haases. Herbert Haase was a real estate salesman employed in the Respondent's real estate firm, and he held title to the subject property in trust. The Respondent was the actual owner. Tom Carpenter, another salesman employed in the Respondent's firm, was the sales man in the transaction. Tingley delivered a $5,000 check to Carpenter as a deposit on the transaction. Another real estate broker, a Mr. Himmelrick, had negotiated mortgage modifications in connection with the sale. He and the mortgage bank insisted that the deposit be placed in Himmelrick's trust account. Accordingly, the Respondent deposited the $5,000 check from Tingley into his trust account, and delivered a $5,000 check from his trust account to Himmelrick. Carpenter advised Tingley that Himmelrick and the bank insisted upon having the $5,000 deposited in Himmelrick's trust account prior to the time that the check was forwarded from the Respondent's trust account to Himmelrick. Tingley consented to that arrangement. While it is true that the Respondent did not keep the $5,000 deposit in his trust account, his failure to do so was with the consent of the purchaser, and resulted only in the deposit being placed in the trust account of a participating realtor. The evidence would not sustain a finding that the Respondent converted any part of the deposit to his own use. In Count Twelve of the Complaint it is alleged that the Respondent issued over 22 checks drawn on his trust account wherein said checks were not honored for payment for the reason of insufficient funds; that the Respondent placed funds in his trust account that did not come from valid trust account sources; and that the Respondent caused his account to have a negative closing balance on May 13, 1876. The evidence would not sustain any finding that the Respondent issued checks which were not honored for payment. It is apparent from the bank records that several checks issued by the Respondent drawn on his trust account were not covered by the balance in the trust account. Bank records indicated a "OC" next to such withdrawals on the ledger sheets. The bank witnesses testified, however, that frequently such entries are honored by the bank and are not returned due to the insufficient funds. The evidence would not sustain a finding that the Respondent placed money in his trust account that came from sources there were not proper for placing in a trust account. Nothing in the bank records offered into evidence demonstrates which deposits may not have been valid trust account deposits. The deposit slips merely show the payor of the checks. The bank records do reveal that the Respondent's trust account balance in the Palmer Bank of Ft. Myers on May 13, 1976 was a negative balance of $732.60. On September 29, 1978, the Florida Real Estate Commission entered its final order finding the Respondent guilty of a of a violation of the Real Estate License Law. The Respondent's registration as a real estate broker was suspended for a period of ninety days. The Real Estate Commission Case Number was Progress Docket Number 3130. All of the events involved in the instant proceeding occurred prior to the time that the final order was entered in Case Number 3130 and indeed prior to the time that the Complaint was issued in Case Number 3130. The Respondent has enjoyed a very good reputation in his community for fair dealing, truthfulness and competence. None of the acts which the Respondent committed that led to the instant proceedings show that the Respondent has engaged in a course of conduct or in practices which demonstrate that he is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest and untruthful that the money, property, transactions and rights of others may not safely be entrusted to him. The Administrative Complaint in Case Number 3130 before the Florida Real Estate Commission was issued on January 14, 1977. In included twenty-seven counts. All of the allegations related to the Respondent's dealings with various real estate salesman, and his alleged failure to share real estate commissions with the salesmen. In connection with the transactions involved, it was asserted in several counts that the Respondent failed to place deposits properly in his trust account. None of the charges in the first administrative complaint are grounded upon the facts alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint. The facts involved in the instant proceeding did, however, all occur at about the same time as the facts alleged in the first complaint, and all occurred prior to the date that the Administrative Complaint was filed in Case Number 3130. New facts came to the attention of the Commission due in part to comments made to one of the present real estate commissioners by a Ft. Myers resident. With diligent inquiry it is possible that the Commission could have discovered the facts which have resulted in the instant proceeding and included them as additional counts in the complaint in Case Number 3130. It has not, however, been shown that the Commission had reason to believe that it should make such diligent search and inquiry. B
Findings Of Fact Edward D'Alesio, Jr., is a registered general contractor with the Board and holds license no. RG00A3370. Pursuant to an agreement signed on January 26, 1976, between Respondent and Mr. Wernley, Respondent agreed to construct a home for Mr. Wernley for a price of $39,500.00. On April 21, 1975, Mr. Wernley gave Respondent a check for $2,000 made payable to "D.R.G. Builders Trust Fund Account" which was deposited in the account of D.R.G. Builders. According to the terms of the agreement entered into by Mr. Wernley and Respondent, construction of the home was to be completed within 120 days. Evidence reveals that substantial progress was made toward construction of the Wernley home during August and September, 1975, however, little if any progress was made during late 1975. Mr. Wernley registered complaints to Respondent about the progress of construction Inasmuch as he (Wernley) had secured permanent financing at a favorable Interest rate which was due to expire during January or February, 1976. On March 11, 1976, Mr. Wernley demanded the return of his $2,000 security deposit which Respondent advised, by letter dated March 23, that he was unable to return due to financial difficulties. (See Petitioner's Exhibit #5) However, Respondent advised Mr. Wernley that he "would like to offer [him] the model home which was similar ... at the purchase price we had agreed upon." Respondent also agreed to assist in securing a competitive mortgage. Mr. Wernley was allowed five days to signify his acceptance of the model home which he (Mr. Wernley) rejected. Mr. Crass, Secretary-Treasurer for D.R.G. Builders, Inc., testified that the deposit monies used as mortgage commitments were issued and that at no time were monies diverted from one project to complete construction for other projects. Evidence reveals that during November, 1976, the Board through its investigator, Mr. Wallace Norman, issued a warning to Respondent for his failure to qualify D.R.G. Builders, however, Respondent took no action to correct this because at this juncture, the corporation had been dissolved by the State of Florida. Respondent also testified that the project was abandoned inasmuch as he was unable to secure additional financing from Southeast Mortgage Company. He testified that he had approximately 13 houses under construction and Southeast Mortgage Company shut off funds and demanded full payment of a $420,000 construction loan obligation. He testified that he needed approximately $60,000 to complete the houses under construction but was unable to secure additional financing. He testified further that the Wernley home was completed except the trim work during January of 1976. He advised Mr. Wernley during January, 1976, of the firm's cash flow problems and in an effort to amicably settle their differences, offered the model home which, according to his testimony, was equal or better, in all respects, than the home he contracted to build for the Wernleys. Respondent testified that he recently filed bankruptcy which should be final on June 20, 1977. Respondent takes the position that since he converted none of the money deposited by the Wernleys, it is D.R.G. Builders, Inc. that owes the Wernleys $2,000. However, it was noted under the bankruptcy proceeding liability list, that Wernley was a possible business obligation. Respondent testified further that he was advised by the Board's predecessor investigator that it was permissible to pull permits as an owner- builder and that Cooper City, the locality which issued the permits, through its building department, advised that the procedure which D.R.G. had utilized for at least 18 months was proper and acceptable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the administrative complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 F. F. Mallard, Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Mr. Edward D'Alesio, Jr. 3760 North 55th Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33010 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner,
The Issue Whether the Respondents' Florida real estate licenses should be disciplined based upon the following charges, as alleged in the administrative complaint: COUNTS I and II: Whether Respondent Richard Michael Regazzi ("Regazzi") is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. COUNT III: Whether Respondent Regazzi is guilty of failure to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. COUNT IV: Whether Respondent Atlantic Rentals Realty, Inc. is guilty of failure to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. COUNT V: Whether Respondent Regazzi is guilty of failure to prepare the required written monthly escrow statement- reconciliations in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. COUNT VI: Whether Respondent Atlantic Rentals, Inc. is guilty of failure to prepare the required written monthly escrow statement-reconciliations in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. COUNT VII: Whether Respondent Regazzi is guilty of having been found guilty for a third time of misconduct that warrants his suspension or has been found guilty of a course of conduct or practices which shows that he is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest, or untruthful that the money, property, transactions, and rights of investors, or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not safely be entrusted to him in violation of Section 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaint pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Regazzi is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate broker. License number 0273453 was issued in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker in care of Atlantic Rentals, Inc., 6811 North Atlantic Avenue, No. B, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Respondent Atlantic Rentals, Inc. is, and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker having been issued license number 0273444 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 6811 North Atlantic Avenue, No. B, Cape Canaveral, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent Regazzi was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Atlantic Rentals, Inc. On January 28, 1997, Petitioner's Investigator Maria Ventura ("Investigator Ventura") conducted an audit of Respondents' escrow account #3601612291, maintained at NationsBank and titled Atlantic Rentals, Inc., Multi Unit escrow Account (escrow account). On January 28, 1997, Respondents had a reconciled bank balance of $46,166.93. As of January 28, 1997, Investigator Ventura determined that Respondents had a total trust liability of $84,586.77. By comparing Respondents' reconciled bank balance with Respondents' trust liability, it was determined that Respondents had a shortage of $38,419.84 in their escrow account. In addition, Respondents were not performing monthly reconciliations of their escrow account. On January 28, 1997, Respondent Regazzi prepared a monthly reconciliation statement (reconciliation statement) for December 1996, and provided it to Petitioner on the same day. Respondent Regazzi's reconciliation statement indicated that there was shortage of $28,885.36 in the escrow account. Respondent Regazzi's reconciliation statement is not signed, and does not indicate what month was being reconciled. The statement indicates that the reconciled bank balance and trust liability agree when, in fact, the reconciliation statement indicates a shortage of $28,885.36. Respondent Regazzi's explanation of how the funds were removed from the escrow account by a third party is not credible. Even if this account were credible, it does not lessen Respondent Regazzi's culpability. On April 21, 1992, the Florida Real Estate Commission ("FREC") issued a final order whereby Respondent Regazzi was found guilty of misconduct and was fined $200, and placed on probation for one year with a requirement to complete and provide satisfactory evidence to the Department of having completed an approved 30-hour broker management course. Respondent successfully completed the terms of probation. On November 12, 1996, the FREC issued a final order whereby Respondent Regazzi was fined $250 for misconduct and Respondent Atlantic Rentals, Inc. was reprimanded.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Regazzi be found guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), (k), and (o), Florida Statutes (1995), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent Atlantic Rentals, Inc. be found guilty of having violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (k), and (e), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. That Respondents Regazzi's real estate license be revoked and that he be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $38,419.84, plus interest. That Respondent Atlantic Rentals, Inc.'s corporate brokerage registration be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Michael Regazzi, pro se Atlantic Rentals, Inc. 6811-B North Atlantic Avenue Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
