Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent Kenneth Kasha was licensed by the Petitioner as a registered real estate broker. During that time period he was licensed to trade as Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At present he is the holder of certificate number 0046189, in the position of registered real estate broker. The particulars of his license may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence. In the years 1975 and 1976, one of the enterprises that Kenneth Kasha was involved in was the solicitation of real estate listings from out-of-state land owners who owned land in the State of Florida. This solicitation led to an agreement with some of those owners to list their property through various publications which Kasha contracted for, with the expectation that his company would make a bona fide effort to sell the property. The general description of the arrangement between Kasha, operating as Florida Landowners Services Bureau, and his owner/clients, was to have the owner pay a fee of $250 to $300 to have their property listed by Kenneth Kasha, trading as Florida Landowners Services Bureau. Kenneth Kasha solicited the owners by phone personally and through real estate salesmen who were involved in the solicitation. Kenneth Kasha's statement of his participation may be found in the deposition which is part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 8, the deposition being admitted into evidence. This deposition is a part of the record of the proceedings of the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums v. Kenneth Kasha d/b/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The deposition was taken on March 26, 1976. In that deposition Kasha was asked if he solicited for the type of listing which is the subject of this case and if he made this solicitation via the telephone. At page 39 of that deposition he states that he did and indicates that the principal place of business of Florida Landowners Service Bureau at the time of the deposition was at 561 NE 79th Street and was the place solicitations were made from. A more complete description of the techniques involved in a solicitation is given by the witness, Alfred Landin. Alfred Landin testified in the proceedings by the Petitioner against Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Mr. Landin correctly stated that he worked for the General American Realty Corporation as a real estate salesman from January, 1975 through February, 1976. His testimony established that he began to make the form of solicitation in behalf of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in August, 1975. His participation was by agreement between the General American Realty Corporation and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau to have certain salesmen employed by General American Realty Corporation make phone solicitations for Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Those employees of General American Realty Corporation were then paid by their corporation, who had been paid by Florida Landowners Service Bureau under an agreement between that business and the General American Realty Corporation. Alfred Landin took approximately 75 to 100 listings for the Florida Landowners Service Bureau for which he charged the owner $250 to $300 for each listing. He in turn received 30 percent to 40 percent of the listing amount as his payment. He did not receive real estate commissions following any sale of the property which was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. In fact, no commissions have been received, because no property has been sold under the listing agreements, at least as of the date of the Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976. In that deposition he states that none of the property listed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau had been sold. Moreover, Alfred Landin's testimony established that the salesmen who were the contact people for the solicitation for the listings were paid on the basis of obtaining the listings, in opposition to being paid commissions for selling' the property. When Landin would call a prospective owner to solicit the listing, which will now be referred to as "advance fee" listings, he did it based upon a list of prospective clients made available in the office of General American Realty Corporation. He would tell the potential "advance fee" client that the property that they listed with the Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be advertised within and without the United States. He did not indicate which form of media advertising would be utilized. Landin was unaware of the steps which Florida Landowners Service Bureau would specifically take to bring about the sale of the listed properties, because the arrangement with General American Realty Corporation was not to consummate the sale of the property through General American Realty Corporation's salesman. Landin did tell the owners that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be responsible for advertising the properties for the purpose of sale. Furthermore, the indication was that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property. The contact which Landin had with the out-of-state owners, in terms of the dialogue, was not by any particular script. It would be designed according to the nature of the property of the person being solicited. In the course of the conversation the property owner would submit his price and that information and other information would be forwarded to Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At all times when a prospective customer was called Landin introduced himself by name and his connection with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The usual technique was to make an original contact call and then a follow-up call. Although a second individual working for Florida Landowners Service Bureau normally made the follow-up, call, Landin at times would make those calls. On those occasions, between the time of the initial call and the follow-up call, certain materials would be mailed to the prospective purchaser of a listing agreement. Landin identified three forms which are numbered 1, 2, and 3 and are part of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. They are the mailouts. (The Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence is constituted of certain information pertaining to the listing of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau's "advance fee" property through the media National Multiple Listing, Inc.) In a follow-up call there would be discussion about the meaning of the listing and brokerage agreement which is number 3 in the group of documents. Landin established that in these follow-up conversations the purpose of the listing fee was brought out and the owner was told that the listing fee would be used to compensate for the costs involved of the listing; for example advertising. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the crux of the contractual agreement between Florida Landowners Service Bureau, the company of Kenneth Kasha, and his "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the same in their form as those documents appended to the Kenneth Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976, which has been mentioned before. In that deposition Kasha admits that those three documents were mailed out to the "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents are available for review either in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 or the attachments to the admitted portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, which is the Kasha deposition. The significant portions of those exhibits, in terms of the factual allegations against the Respondent, begin with Paragraph 3 of the document number 1 which states, "your property legals are checked thoroughly." In his deposition of March 26, 1976 Kasha indicated that what actually occurred was that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would receive a copy of the client's deed or agreement for deed and verify this with the developer to see if it indicates on the developer's books or records that the individual actually owned a specific piece of property in question. Kasha stated that his company did not check with the title company, but did check the tax records of various counties to see whether or not the individuals owned the particular piece of property set forth in their deeds. Continuing the examination of document 1, the next sentence in Paragraph 3 states, "an ad is constructed for your property(s) and published in our brochures and catalog which is distributed to several thousand brokers and investors NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY." The advertising that was done by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau, which was established in the course of the hearing is constituted of several media approaches. One of those approaches was found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence which is a copy of a magazine February, 1976, the magazine being a publication of the International Federation of Real Estate Brokers which has membership in 39 countries. It can be seen, the advertisement is an ad which allows the purchase of a catalog for the price of $4.00 or free to the members of the International Real Estate Federation. A copy of this form of catalog is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence. This catalog lists multiple properties by the owner's name, the owner's asking price, and a rough description of the location in terms of the municipality if any, county, and state, subdivision or development if applicable and a rough description of the size of the parcel. The catalog would not allow the prospective purchaser to specifically locate the property. At best it would allow the location of the development or sub-division. A second form of advertising which the Respondent utilized in the time period in question was listing with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. Those listings were also multiple listings on a single page of the type previously discussed in describing the catalog. Access to those listings was based upon Kasha's purchase of circulation and it reached as many as 2,500 plus distributees in various areas of the United States. (The number assigned to the individual properties advertised by National Multiple Listing, Inc. corresponds to some of the invoices found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11, which invoices were paid by Kenneth Kasha to have the listings published. There is a further correlation between those numbers and the numbers affixed to the certificates issued by National Multiple Listing, Inc. to the Respondent verifying the circulation of the listings. Those certificates are found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence.) A compilation of those payments from Kenneth Kasha, as the owner of Florida Landowners Service Bureau, to the National Multiple Listing, Inc. for the period of June, 1975 through June, 1976 may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. The total cost for advertising in that time period was $3,583.82. Kasha also advertised his catalog in the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune and one German paper, entitled, Blick. This advertising was in the period of late 1975 and early 1976. The advertising is established through the Respondent's Exhibit No. 12A and a portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 which is the deposition and attachments of Kenneth Kasha taken March 26, 1976. 14 The fourth paragraph of document 1 states in its initial sentence. "In order for us to successfully merchandize and receive the highest offer for your property(s) considerable expense is involved because a great deal of time is put forth on your behalf and many of the property(s) are being offered for sale sight unseen. Therefore, we must constantly furnish prospective purchasers with factual updated information re: your listing(s). Your fee helps to defray expenses of estimating value, merchandizing, advertising, brochuring and cataloging this information here and abroad." The extent of advertising and brochuring has previously been discussed. The estimate of value is based upon the individual's price and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau does not concern itself with zoning and development in trying to get the price established. This conclusion is premised on Mr. Kasha's testimony of March 26, 1976 before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums. Therefore, by Mr. Kasha's opinion there was no expense to be defrayed in estimating value. The only other merchandizing that was done other than that discussed in the advertising techniques may be found in the description by Robert Wandler who worked for Kenneth Kasha and was involved with Florida Landowners Service Bureau as a real estate salesman. The period of his employment is not established through Mr. Wandler's testimony, but it appears to be within the time frame of the Administrative Complaint and the other testimony given. Mr. Wandler stated that he tried to sell the property listed through the "advance fee" process by contacting hotels and hotel clerks who had connection with Columbian businessmen. This area of contact was in South Florida. His reasons for contacting the Columbians was due to the fact that he speaks Spanish fluently. He occasionally showed the brochures to the persons contacted, but none of those persons were interested in purchasing the property. He specifically made reference to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 as being the type of brochure or catalog that he showed. He also testified that on several occasions Arabian and Lebanese people in the South Florida area were contacted and seminars were held to discuss the catalog. The Arabian and Lebanese business persons did not purchase any property and did not negotiate with any of the owners for the right to purchase the property. Document No. 2, which is a document entitled, Important Facts, is found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. In that document is a question which asks "(Q) Will you help me establish a correct selling price for my property? (A) Yes. While we do not appraise property, Florida Landowners Service Bureau will analyze your property comparing your property to adjacent property, to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property. The price must meet with your approval. From the testimony in Kenneth Kasha's appearance before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums it is clear that Florida Landowners Service Bureau did not analyze the property by comparing the property to adjacent property to arrive at a price. They merely relied on the owner's price. One of the other questions in Document No. 2 asks the following: "(Q) How will Florida Landowners Service Bureau sell my property? (A) Review status of development and zoning in the immediate area of your property to recommend the correct selling price for you. List your property in our directory, which is distributed by mail to real estate brokers throughout the world." Kenneth Kasha in the aforementioned deposition stated that 95 percent of the time they did not document the development and zoning to set a price as the ad indicated they would do. In Document No. 3, which is a copy of the listing and brokerage agreement, one of the statements of consideration between the parties is that Florida Landowners Service Bureau as the part of their consideration will: "(b) Contemporaneously with appearance of said listing in the directory, you agree to direct the efforts of your organization to bring about the sale of my property". This should be read in pari materia with the following provision in that Document No. 3 which states: "(c) To advertise said property as you deem advisable in newspapers, magazines, or other mediums of merit". A view of the facts that were established on the question of promoting the sale of the property through advertising or other methods, demonstrates that the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in the person of Kenneth Kasha was not living up to this agreement to bring about a sale in a bone fide fashion. This leads to a consideration of the question of whether the efforts which were taken by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau were so fraudulent or deficient that they constitute violations of the provisions of Chapter 475, F.S. that are alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The general contention of the Administrative Complaint in Count I is that the solicitation of the property owners was a scheme to fraudulently secure money through the "advance fee" for reason that no bone fide effort was made to sell the property listed with Kenneth Kasha, t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. As indicated before there was no bone fide effort made to sell the property. More particularly, in terms of stating grounds for action against the Respondent's license, the course of conduct by the Respondent personally and through his company, Florida Landowners Service Bureau, demonstrates that he is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in this state and has violated the duty imposed upon him by law or the terms of listing contract in a real estate transaction; and has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in said misconduct and has committed overt acts in furtherance of such intent, design or scheme, all in violation of 475.25(1)(a) F.S. The course of conduct by Kenneth Kasha personally and trading as Florida Landowners Service Bureau shows him to be guilty of conduct or practices which show that he is dishonest and untruthful to the extent that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not be safely entrusted to him, as set forth in 475.25(3) F.S.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts in this cause, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, revoke the real estate broker's license, certificate number 0046189, held by the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Kasha P.O. Box 611238 North Miami, Florida 33161 Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire and Louis Guttmann, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= Orlando, Florida June 15, 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Fred Langford, Staff Attorney RE: Revocation of Kenneth Kasha - PD No. 3014 004618904 DOAH Case No. 77-1299 Attached please find a copy of the Final Order, Mandate and Order from the Third DCA concerning Kenneth Kasha. The effective date of revocation is December 21, 1978. /FL:bam Attachments* Fred Langford Staff Attorney * NOTE: Attachments noted are unavailable at the division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
Findings Of Fact Robert Hartnett was at all times pertinent to this complaint a registered real estate broker. Bill Dew and Dave Allman sought to lease a specific piece of real property for business purposes. In this regard they contacted William Hartnett, who had previously leased a piece of real property which included the specific piece of property Messrs. Dew and Allman desired to lease. Messrs. Allman and Dew entered into an agreement to sublease a portion of the Hartnett leasehold. A contract was prepared by William Hartnett and delivered by Robert Hartnett to Dew and Allman, who executed the contract. Although there is conflicting testimony, the testimony of Robert Hartnett is accepted as the more accurate explanation of his role in the transaction. Robert Hartnett had no interest in William Hartnett's business venture or in the leasehold, and did not appear or function as a real estate broker in this transaction. The owner of the property, Mr. Grossinger, testified he agreed to lease the property to William Hartnett. Hartnett was permitted to occupy the premises and paid rent. William Hartnett prepared a written lease which was not signed by the owner, Mr. Grossinger. Grossinger terminated the agreement when Hartnett subleased the premises to Allman and Dew without notifying him and instituted legal action to evict William Hartnett. Under the circumstances, there was an oral lease between Hartnett and Grossinger. Messrs. Dew and Allman made arrangements with contractors to make modifications to the subleased premises, and the modifications were begun. These modifications were in part the cause for the owner terminating the lease with William Hartnett. Messrs. Dew and Allman or their agents did have occupancy of the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against Respondent Robert Hartnett. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis M. Jepeway, Esquire 619 Dade Federal Building 101 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Donald L. Stuart is a real estate broker registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. He holds license number 215732 with expiration date of 3/3/77. In the renewal application received April 3, 1975 by FREC, Stuart reported his business address to be 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida. In early August, 1976 an investigator for FREC visited the address on South Old Dixie Highway and found a vacant house with no real estate broker's sign displayed. Inquiry in the neighborhood revealed the house had been unoccupied for a considerable period of time. By Election of Rights form submitted November 26, 1976, Stuart acknowledged receipt of the Administrative Complaint by checking Block 1 in which he acknowledged having read the explanation of rights, did not dispute the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint, and requested a hearing. Notice of Hearing was forwarded by Certified Mail, to the same address, viz. 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida to which the Administrative Complaint had been forwarded.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Complaint against the Respondent be dismissed. ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Staff Attorney, Florida Real Estate Commission 17 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Lawrence Scherr 2222 Southwest 22nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33145 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was at all times material herein registered with the Commission as a real estate broker. (See Commission's Exhibit #1). On September 13, 1974, the Respondent, as President of Eldorado Realty, Inc., drew a check in the amount of $25,000 payable to James F. Spindler, Jr., Trust Account and when said check was presented to the Deerfield Beach State Bank for payment, the Respondent corporation's escrow account had a balance of $14,000 as evidenced by its September 30, 1974 statement (see Commission's Exhibit #3). The bank honored this check creating an overdraft in the amount of $11,000. However, evidence reveals that within a few days, Respondent made a deposit sufficient to cover the overdrawn balance. During December, 1973 and January, 1974, the Respondent acted as a real estate broker in negotiating a real property transaction between the Hennemans as sellers and Francis A. and Adeline M. Sines as buyers of a duplex located at 1942 N.E. 4th Street, Deerfield Beach, Florida. The Sines made an offer to purchase the duplex for a total purchase price of $55,000 in the form of a contract to purchase which was executed by the Sines on or about January 3, 1974. (See Commission's Exhibit #5 received in evidence). Based on the undisputed testimony of Adeline M. Sines, Respondent advised the Sines that he would reimburse them for one-half of all closing costs incurred by them in the duplex transaction approximately two days after the closing. The Sines agreed to this proposition based on the fact that they were nonresidents and wanted someone on the scene to manage the duplex. Initially the Sines wanted the Respondent to enter into a joint tenancy with them but Respondent refused stating that it would be "unethical" for him to do so in view of his relationship as selling broker. On May 13, 1974, the property transaction was closed between the buyers and sellers. Shortly thereafter the parties entered into an oral management contract for the duplex between the Respondent individually and as President and the buyer thereafter used the term "S & T Associates" which represented the initials of the last name of the buyers and the Respondent i.e., Sines and Tashea. Evidence introduced during the hearing revealed that the Respondent failed to register the fictitious name "S & T Associates" as required by Subsection 865.09(3), Florida Statutes. (See Commission's Exhibit #13, received in evidence). Approximately two months later on July 17, 1974, the Respondent secured a lease for one-half of the duplex from Francis P. Giblin for a total annual rental of $3,300. The first and last months rent was payable in advance and a $100 security deposit was paid by the lessee. During the following month, Respondent was able to lease the remaining portion of the duplex to Don and T. Starr Guimares, his wife, for the same terms as set out in the Giblin lease. (See Commission's Exhibit #15). Mrs. Guimares testified that she vacated the property approximately six months later i.e., in late February, 1975, due to her dissatisfaction with the way that the Respondent managed the building. On March 5, 1975, the Sines received a letter from the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Delray Beach advising them that their mortgage loan was delinquent in the amount of $705.59. That letter advised them that they should immediately bring their account current inasmuch as they were being charged at the maximum legal rate permitted while the loan remained delinquent. Two months prior, the Sines received a letter that their flood insurance premium was delinquent and that their escrow account was being charged $88 which represented the premium for the flood insurance which amounts were paid by the Sines by money orders dated March 3 and March 13, 1975. Mrs. Sines repeatedly demanded accountings from the Respondent for monies expended in the management of the property to no avail. Thereafter she retained the services of Attorney James H. Carroll, who by letter dated March 6, 1975, addressed to the Respondent corporation, demanded a full accounting of all matters relating to the duplex and full documentation of the agreement to repurchase. It suffices to say that the Respondent did not comply with Carroll's request or demands for an accounting. However, it is noted that the Respondent, on January 1, 1975, executed a promissory note payable to the Sines for $21,000 within 90 days of January 1, 1975. That note was never honored. Thereafter the Sines sold the property during November, 1975, for a total purchase price of $51,250. Based thereon, it appears that the Sines incurred a net loss of approximately $3,750.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Philip Marzo was a real estate broker licensed under the laws of the State of Florida, holding license No. 0217167; and Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., was a real estate brokerage corporation licensed under the laws of the State of Florida, holding license No. 0217166. At all times material hereto, Respondent Marzo was the qualifying broker for Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc. On May 9, 1981, Gladstone Keith Russell entered into a Service Agreement with All Cities Realty, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of that Agreement, Russell paid $75 in cash to Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., as an advance rental information fee in exchange for which All Cities Realty, Inc., agreed to provide Russell with listings of available rentals. On or about May 13, 1981, Respondents provided to Russell one listing, which listing was not suitable to Russell. No other listing information was ever provided by Respondents to Russell. Russell obtained his own rental within thirty days from the date of the Service Agreement. This rental was not obtained pursuant to any information supplied to him by Respondents. Within thirty days of the date that All Cities Realty, Inc., contracted to perform real estate services for Russell, Russell telephoned Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., to demand a return of his $75 deposit. The salesman who took Russell's advance fee was no longer employed at All Cities Realty, Inc., and Russell spoke with Respondent Marzo. Although Russell demanded a refund of his money, Respondent Marzo did not make a refund to Russell. When Russell spoke with Marzo on the telephone, Marzo, instead of returning Russell's money, used delaying tactics and attempts to keep from making the refund. Since his telephone calls proved unsuccessful, Russell returned to the All Cities Realty, Inc., office to obtain a refund from Marzo. Upon arriving at the office, Russell found that All Cities Realty, Inc., had gone out of business, and he was unable to locate Respondent Marzo. Russell has never received a refund of his $75 advance fee paid to the Respondents.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: Default be entered against Respondents, Philip Marzo and All Cities Realty, Inc., and that a final order be entered finding Respondents, Philip Marzo and All Cities Realty, Inc., guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaints and revoking their real estate licenses. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Philip Marzo 2920 Missionwood Avenue, West Miramar, Florida 33025 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent, John E. Mitchell (Mitchell), was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0184919. Mitchell was the owner and qualifying broker for Respondent, Florida East Coast Management, Inc. (Florida East Coast), which was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida under license number 0211550. Respondents are, inter alia, engaged in the business of managing rental apartments for landlords. On April 17, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Chestnut executed an application to rent an apartment through Florida East Coast, and delivered to Florida East Coast a deposit of $460.00. Pertinent to this case, the agreement provided: Applicant has deposited the sum of $460.00 in partial payment of the first month's rent with the understanding that this application is subject to approval and acceptance by the Landlord. Upon approval and acceptance, the applicant agrees to execute the Landlord's standard agreement before possession of residence is given and to pay any balance due on the first month's rent and security deposit within five (5) days after the approval of application or the deposit will be forfeited to the Landlord. If this application is not approved, or if applicant cancels within five (5) days, the deposit will be refunded, the applicant hereby waiving any claim for damages by reason of non- acceptance. This application is for information only and does not obligate Landlord to execute a lease or deliver possession of the proposed residence. (Emphasis added) Within five days of the date of application, Mr. Chestnut spoke telephonically with Ms. Debra M. Best, the rental agent for Florida East Coast with whom he had dealt, and advised her that his anticipated job transfer to the area had not materialized and requested a refund of his deposit. 1/ Ms. Best promised to return his deposit. On April 29 or May 1, 1985, Mr. Chestnut telephoned Ms. Best to inquire of his deposit. At that time, Ms. Best advised Mr. Chestnut that it was company policy not to refund deposits. By letter of May 13, 1985, Florida East Coast responded to Mr. Chestnut's written inquiry of Hay 1, 1985, by stating: "... it is our policy NOT TO RETURN ANY DEPOSIT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER." Following receipt of Florida East Coast's letter of May 13, 1985, Mr. Chestnut filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department). Approximately seven months later, December 10, 1985, Florida East Coast refunded Mr. Chestnut's deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That an administrative fine be imposed against Respondents, John E. Mitchell and Florida East Coast Management, Inc., jointly and severally, in the sun of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 17th day of March, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Respondent David A. Siegel (Siegel) formed a wholly owned corporation known as Central Florida Investments, Inc., (CFI) in approximately 1970. Thereafter, CFI acquired Investment Industries of Florida, Inc., (IIF) in approximately 1980. Siegel is President of both CFI and IIF and owns one-hundred percent of the stock in both corporations. On or about September 8, 1980, IIF purchased property in Lake County which was divided into Tract A and Tract B. Tract A consisted of approximately 120 acres, was subdivided into 49 lots, and was sold to individual purchasers by Paul W. Cotton and Paul A. Buzzella; real estate salesmen working for Siegel and IIF. Sales in Tract A occurred in 1980 and 1981 to approximately forty purchasers, and only one lot in Tract A was sold after December 1, 1981. The last sale in Tract A took place in February, 1983, was a referral, and did not involve Cotton or Buzzella. Paul W. Cotton formed First Orlando Properties (FOP) on or about September 17, 1981. On or about December 1, 1981 Cotton purchased six lots from IIF and Siegel in Tract B for the purpose of resale to individual purchasers. Tract B consisted of approximately 200 acres, subdivided into 48 lots. Based on the testimony of Cotton and Siegel, it is evident that Siegel had agreed to sell all of Tract B to Cotton in eight, six lot installments. This arrangement was for the financial convenience of Cotton, but an inference is drawn that Respondents benefited from Cotton's sales activity in Tract B through the periodic execution of each additional installment. After his purchase of the first installment consisting of six lots on or about December 1, 1981, Cotton sold no more lots in Tract A. Cotton admits that he "pre-sold" several lots in Tract B prior to FOP acquiring its interest in these lots on December 1, 1981 and while he was still selling lots in Tract A for Siegel and IIF. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale for six lots in Tract B which Cotton received on or about December 1, 1981 incorrectly indicates that CFI was the property owner and seller. Siegel executed the Agreement on behalf of CFI. This was an error which Siegel admits since Tract B was actually owned by his other company, IIF. The same error as to the seller was made in the Agreements for each additional six lot installment executed on or about February 1, 1982, April 1, 1982, August 15, 1982, September 1, 1982, October 6, 1982, December 1, 1982, and April 1, 1983. Siegel has agreed to take whatever action is necessary to correct any title problems which purchasers in Tract B may have as a result of this error. Respondents did not register the land in question located in Lake County with Petitioner at any time material hereto, nor is there evidence that purchasers were afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine a public offering statement concerning such land prior to its sale. There were less than fifty (50) lots each in Tracts A and B at all times material hereto, and these tracts are contiguous. Cotton sold lots in both tracts, and pre-sold approximately thirty-six lots in Tract B while he was selling lots in Tract A and before he acquired any interest in Tract B. There were also several purchasers in common in both tracts. There were less than forty-five (45) purchasers each in Tracts A and B, but combining the purchasers in each tract there were more than forty-five (45) purchasers of the land in question in this case located in Lake County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order which: Dismisses all charges in Case No. 85-0008 against Respondent Central Florida Investments, Inc. Imposes an administrative fine of $5000 each against Respondents Investment Industries of Florida, Inc. and David A. Siegel in Case Nos. 85-0009 and 85-0010 for a total fine of S10, 000. Requires Respondents to correct, within ninety (90) days, any title problems which purchasers in Tract B may have as a result of the matters set forth in Finding of Fact 5. Requires Respondents to cease and desist from offering or disposing of any interest in subdivided land which is subject to this proceeding until a valid order of registration is obtained. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leonard Lubart, Esquire Michael Marder, Esquire 12000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 204 North Miami, Florida 33181 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Although the evidence is consistent with this proposed finding, it is not adopted since it is unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2, 3. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 2, and adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3, 4, but rejected in part in Finding of Fact 7 and as otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant, not based on competent substantial evidence, and as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3, 7, 8. Rulings on Respondents' Proposed Finding of Fact: (Respondent has not numbered its proposed findings of fact, and therefore in order to make a ruling on proposed findings of fact paragraphs on pages 3 through 20 under the heading Findings of Fact have been consecutively numbered.) Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as a conclusion of law Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 7, but otherwise rejected as simply a statement of position. 8, 9. Rejected as simply a summary of testimony. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but rejected in part in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as simply a statement of position Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 14, 15. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 3. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2, 3. 17-30. Rejected as simply the party's summation of testimony and evidence, as conclusions of law and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 Adopted and rejected in Finding of Fact 8. 33, 34. Rejected as simply an excerpt of testimony. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 8 Rejected as not a proposed finding of fact.
