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 In early July, 1972, Donald R. and Pamela S. Leininger (buyer) entered into a contract to purchase a residence through Sun Up Realty with its salesman, Bernard Zapel. The real property involved and Sun Up Realty were owned by Defendant, Norman N. Zipkin either as sole proprietor or as sole shareholder of the corporation in whose name the property was held. Disclosure of the role of Defendant as owner-seller was not an issue in these proceedings. Buyer executed two contracts for the purchase of the property both dated July 9, 1972. The first contract acknowledged receipt of $100 as a deposit with a down payment to be made of $1750 with the buyer obtaining a mortgage of $33,250. Noted on this contract are two additional payments of $650 and $1,000. All of these deposits were payable to and deposited in Sun Up Realty's Escrow Account. The second deposit receipt contract was also dated July 9, 1972 and receipt of $1750 was thereon acknowledged by seller. The sale price of $35,000 applied to both contracts. The second contract provided as terms and conditions of sale that the buyer would make an additional deposit of $1700 before closing and that buyer was to apply for, qualify, and obtain a mortgage insured by FHA. Papers to so qualify were sent to the bank but buyer never qualified for the loan. The Administrative Complaint indicates that the first document executed by the buyer provided for an FHA insured mortgage; the evidence presented was as noted above. Apparently to allow buyer additional time to qualify for the loan Defendant leased the premises to buyer pursuant to lease agreement (Exhibit 5). Although Defendant testified buyer paid him nothing while he occupied the house pursuant to this lease agreement, in his deposition (Exhibit 1) buyer presented a receipt for one month's rent paid to the seller for the premises. Buyer never qualified for the mortgage because the lending agency was never satisfied from whence the additional $1700 down payment was to come. Although no evidence was presented on this point it appears that this additional deposit was required for buyer to reach a 10 percent down payment on the price of the residence. The July 9, 1972 deposit receipt contract that was in effect with respect to this transaction provides in pertinent part: "2. An additional sum of seventeen hundred dollars ($1700) shall be deposited with Escrow Agent before closing. In the event such sum is not so deposited, Seller at his option may cancel and terminate this agreement." "3. Buyer to apply for, qualify for, and obtain a Mortgage insured by the FHA Section in an amount not less than $31,550. In the event the Buyer fails to qualify for said mortgage, all said deposit shall be returned immediately, less the cost of the credit report. "14. It is mutually agreed that the trans action shall be closed and the Buyer shall pay the balance of the first payment and execute any and all papers necessary to be executed by him for the completion of this purchase within days from the aforementioned abstract of title, or such time as shall reasonably be required by seller to make such title good, otherwise the herein named Escrow Agent is hereby directed by both Seller and Buyer to divide the monies being held by said Escrow Agent, under the terms under this Contract between the Seller and Broker herein named as hereinafter provided." "It is further agreed that in case of default by the Buyers, the Seller may at his option take legal action at law and/or in equity to enforce this Contract, in which event, the Buyer shall pay reasonable attorney fees and court costs; or else the Seller may at his option retain one half of the deposit herein paid as considera tion for the release of the Buyer by the Seller from any and all further obligations under this Contract to the Seller, which release shall be implied from such act of retention by the Seller." Buyer quit the premises in October, 1972 and thereafter demanded return of his deposit from seller. By letter from buyer's attorney (Exhibit 6) dated March 19, 1973 demand was made for return of the deposit. By letter dated March 23, 1973 (Exhibit 7) Seller denied the refund of the deposit on grounds that the buyer had breached the contract as the Buyer had qualified for and been approved for a mortgage by the Collateral Mortgage Co. The money was withdrawn from the escrow account and paid to the seller. Defendant is an attorney, mortgage broker, general contractor, developer and real estate broker. For the past decade he has devoted most of his energies toward real estate development. This is the first time charges have been preferred against him by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent offered condominium units for sale to the public and offered contracts for sale of those units in violation of Section 718.502(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is charged with having offered units for sale and offered contracts prior to the time of filing the required condominium documents with the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums as required by Section 718.502 and the rules promulgated thereunder. At the formal hearing, Petitioner called as its witness Luis Stabinski, an officer and 50 percent owner of the Respondent corporation. The Petitioner also presented testimony by the deposition of Luis Stabinski, which was entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and the deposition of Paul Scherman, which was admitted into evidence as petitioner's Exhibit 2. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was a deposition of William Hirsch, an investigator for the Department of Business Regulation. There was an objection made to the admissibility of the deposition of Mr. Hirsch by the Respondent on the grounds that Mr. Hirsch had previously investigated a prior development in which the owners and officers of Finst Development, Inc. were involved. The undersigned Hearing Officer took that objection under advisement and after having reviewed the deposition, overrules the objection and admits Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the deposition of William Hirsch. Petitioner also offered and had admitted Petitioner's Exhibits 4 - 9. Mr. Luis Stabinski was also called as a witness by the Respondent in the Respondent's case-in-chief. Respondent did not offer any exhibits into evidence. Counsel for the Petitioner and for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted herein, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based upon a stipulation between Petitioner and Respondent, the following facts (a) through (b) are found: The condominium development which is the subject of this action is named Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North. Twenty-eight (28) contracts, other than Petitioner's Exhibit 8, for the purchase of units in the Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North bear dates or are dated by their terms prior to September 25, 1981. The Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North contains 52 units and was developed by the Respondent, Finst Development, Inc. Finst Development, Inc., is a Florida corporation for profit and is owned in equal shares by Mr. Luis Stabinski and Mr. Richard Finvarb. Mr. Finvarb was president of the corporation and Mr. Stabinski served as vice- president and secretary. On September 25, 1981, the Respondent, Finst Development, Inc., filed the following items with the Department of Business Regulation, the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums: Condominium documents for Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North. Condominium filing statement. Condominium filing checklist. Check in the sum of $520.00, representing filing fee for the above-referenced condominium project. The Declaration of Condominium was executed by Richard Finvarb and Luis Stabinski on September 30, 1980. The Articles of Incorporation of Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium Association North, Inc., were executed by Richard Finvarb, Bell Stabinski, and Luis Stabinski on August 12, 1981. The bylaws for Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North were executed on August 12, 1981. Each of these three documents is part of the required filing which was filed on September 25, 1981. On December 9, 1981, the Respondent was notified by Petitioner that the review of the documents filed by the Respondent in connection with Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North was complete. That notice also informed Respondent that the documents were considered proper for filing purposes and the developer "may close on contracts for sale or lease for a lease period of more than five years." (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6.) Upon the insistence of Mr. Stabinski, his law firm, Stabinski, Funt, Levine, and Vega, P.A., did all the legal work in connection with the condominium. Specifically, Mr. Paul Scherman, an associate and employee of the firm, did the legal work for the condominium. Mr. Scherman worked under the direct supervision of Mr. Stabinski. Prior to the filing of the condominium documents on September 25, 1981, the fifty-two (52) units of the condominium were offered for ale to the public. Contracts for the purchase and sale of units in the condominium were also offered to the public. Prior to filing the condominium documents on September 25, 1981, the Respondent entered into 29 contracts for the purchase and sale of units in Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North. There were no closings held on any units prior to approval of the condominium documents by the Department. During the construction and sale of units in Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North, Richard Finvarb was in charge of construction, sales, and supervision of the Finst Development, Inc. office and personnel. Luis Stabinski's involvement was as an investor. The documents filed by Respondent with the Department were prepared by Paul Scherman, an associate in Mr. Stabinski's law firm. Mr. Scherman also attended all closings on units and received copies of contracts entered into by Respondent for the sale of units in the condominium. Mr. Scherman was aware that contracts were being entered into prior to the filing of the condominium documents described in Paragraph 2 above. Luis Stabinski has been a practicing attorney for 13 years. He represents individual condominium purchasers and has been involved as an investor in three other condominium projects prior to the Indian Creek Club and Marina North Condominium. Following the initial filing of the condominium documents, the Respondent promptly responded to and made the changes and corrections required by the Department in two Notices of Deficiencies. After being provided with the required documents, all but five or six of the purchasers who had entered into contracts prior to the filing of the documents closed on their units. The five or six that did not close are presently in litigation with the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order imposing a civil penalty of $7,500 and ordering the Respondent to cease and desist from any further violations of Chapter 718 or the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 9th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman Funt, Esquire Stabinski & Funt, P.A. 757 N.W. 27th Avenue Third Floor Miami, Florida 33125 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. E. James Kearney Director Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Alexander Alexander, Jr., held real estate salesman license number 0000747 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). He has been licensed by the Division since 1971. He has worked for Earl Hollis, Inc., a Palm Beach realty firm, since 1980. Respondent has never been the subject of disciplinary action prior to the filing of this complaint. The administrative complaint alleges that respondent failed to deposit in his employer's trust account certain funds received from a prospective purchaser in conjunction with a real estate transaction handled by respondent in early 1986, and that respondent made false representations to the listing broker during the course of his dealings. The transaction in question had its origins in late 1985 when Linda O'Connell, a well-to-do housewife from Dallas, Texas, contacted respondent and requested his services in locating a Palm Beach County residential property adjacent to the ocean or intracoastal waterway. After a one month search, respondent located a waterfront property at 2020 South Ocean Boulevard in Manalapan, Florida. The property was a large home fronting the ocean on one side and the intracoastal waterway on the other. The house was then owned by Kudu Shipping Corporation, S.A. (Kudu), an entity with offices in London, England. When the property was first listed, the asking price was $2,300,000. By now, this price had dropped to $1,750,000. Merrill Lynch Realty (MLR), a real estate firm in Palm Beach, had obtained an exclusive one-year listing on the property for calendar year 1985. This meant the property could be shown only in the presence of a sales representative of that firm. MLR's associate manager, Deborah M. Clark, was the firm's contact person for parties interested in inspecting and making offers on the house. Although the exclusive listing expired on January 1, 1986, it was renewed by Clark about thirty days later for another year. On January 14, 1986, Linda O'Connell and her husband, Tom, in the presence of respondent and Clark, inspected the house in question. During the course of the inspection Clark mentioned to the O'Connells that, in light of other offers she had received, she did not think the seller would make any needed repairs or agree to owner financing. However, because the property was in disrepair, Tom O'Connell did not think $1,750,000 was a fair asking price. Linda O'Connell liked the home and requested that respondent prepare an offer in the amount of $1,300,000 with financing and inspection contingencies. She also gave respondent a check in the amount of $10,000 but specifically asked that respondent not deposit the check until she was sure Kudu was serious about accepting her offer. It was her intention that respondent merely hold the check as evidence of "good faith," and if Kudu expressed interest in the offer, she would then use the $10,000 as a part of the ten percent earnest money deposit required by the contract. According to respondent, O'Connell's instructions were not "unusual" and were occasionally made by customers on large transactions. In contrast, checks were never held by MLR, and a contract would not be presented until the check was given to the firm for immediate deposit in its trust account. In any event, when he accepted the check, respondent considered it to be "an earnest money deposit." The offer was prepared on the standard real estate contract form, was dated January 14, 1986, and listed only Linda O'Connell (but not her husband) as buyer. It contained a notation that Earl Hollis, Inc. would hold a ten percent deposit, or $130,000, in escrow, with the following explanation: "$10,000 rec'd 1/14/86; balance of $120,000 payable upon acceptance of contract." It also contained contingency clauses for O'Connell to obtain a $1,040,000 mortgage for a term of fifteen years and for the seller to repair any deficiencies found in the seawall, roof, or electrical and plumbing systems. After preparing the offer, and pursuant to Clark's request, respondent carried the original contract and a copy of O'Connell's check to Clark on January 15. Consistent with O'Connell's instructions, respondent retained the original check in his office file and did not give it to his employer for deposit in the firm's escrow account. Other than advising Clark that he had a $10,000 check from O'Connell, there were no further conversations by the two concerning the deposit. Respondent did not tell Clark that the $10,000 check had not been deposited. Even so, there was no intent on the part of respondent to deceive or trick the seller or to conceal any material matters. Clark mailed Kudu the offer on January 15. On January 24, she received by return mail the contract from Kudu. The contract carried an illegible signature of a Kudu principal, and had been amended by increasing the selling price from $1,300,000 to $1,650,000 and providing that the owner would not authorize any financing on the house or make needed repairs. Because the sellers had increased the selling price and rejected the contingencies, Clark "guessed" the O'Connells' original offer had been rejected. After respondent was advised by Clark of this counteroffer, he relayed the information to the O'Connells. Because Tom knew his wife wanted the house, he agreed to up the price to $1,500,000. Respondent telephoned this figure to Clark. During the course of their conversation, Clark told respondent she had just received a full price offer with no contingencies from another interested buyer, Omnitek Intertrade Corporation (Omnitek), a Fort Worth, Texas firm. Believing that the house might be sold to another buyer, Linda O'Connell advised respondent around noon on Saturday, January 25, that she would accept Kudu's counteroffer of $1,650,000 with no contingencies. Linda and respondent met at the West Palm Beach airport the same day where she executed the contract and gave respondent a check in the amount of $165,000. However, she asked that he hold it for two or three days so that she could return to Dallas and transfer funds into the bank account on which the check was drawn. At the same time, she asked for and received her original $10,000 check which had been held by respondent but never deposited. Since it was a Saturday when the two met, respondent could not give the second check to his employer until the following Monday, January 27. This was because Gloria More was the only person in Earl Hollis, Inc. who could make deposits and she did not work on weekends. Further, the banks were closed. Respondent held the check until either Monday or early Tuesday morning and then gave it to More who deposited it in the firm's trust account on Tuesday, January 28. This is confirmed by the firm's deposit slip, which reflects the check was deposited in the bank on January 28. That same weekend respondent carried the contract and a copy of the $165,000 check to MLR. Since Clark was not there, respondent simply left the documents at her office. However, on Monday he telephoned Clark and told her he was "holding" a $165,000 check for the transaction. There was no representation by respondent, either express or implied, that Earl Hollis, Inc. had $175,000 in its trust account for this transaction. By now Mr. O'Connell was having second thoughts about paying $1,650,000 for the house and suspected he may have been snookered into raising his offer by Clark's vague reference to another pending full-price contract. These suspicions may have been well-founded since it turned out the Omnitek contract was not for the full price of $1,750,000, but was for $50,000 less, and had some standard contingencies. It also turned out that when the O'Connells inspected the property on January 14, contrary to Clark's representations, she had not yet received any written offers on the house. Mr. O'Connell accordingly requested a copy of the other so-called "full offer" contract from MLR. After having no luck, he wrote the president of Merrill Lynch stating he would not be bound by his wife's offer unless he was given information regarding the so- called "full offer" contract. On Wednesday, January 29, Linda O'Connell directed her bank to stop payment on the $165,000 check. The check was later returned to Earl Hollis, Inc. with a notation of "Insufficient Funds." 1/ For the first time, respondent and his employer learned of O'Connell's stop-payment order. There is no question that, had the O'Connells followed through with the sale, they had sufficient assets to cover the check and buy the house. On February 6, an MLR secretary telephoned the Texas bank on which the $165,000 check had been drawn. The firm learned that a stop-payment order had been placed on the check. Clark then telephoned respondent to give him this information. Clark later filed a complaint against respondent with the Division charging that respondent had failed to deposit the initial $10,000 deposit. This prompted the initiation of this proceeding. The Kudu house was eventually sold to another buyer for $1,315,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1985), as alleged in Count I, and that he pay a $500 fine. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of December, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Graystone Fairways Corporation (GFC), is wholly owned by Louis Wingold, a Canadian developer. He is also its president. In January, 1979, GFC entered into a five-year joint venture with Tamway Corporation (Tamway), whose president was Harvey Kaliff. The agreement provided that GFC and Tamway would construct, develop and market a two phase condominium project in Tamarac, Florida known as Fairways of Tamarac III (Fairways or project). Each phase of the project was intended to have thirty units. To date only the first phase of the project has been constructed. Building permits for the second phase have been obtained, but no construction work has commenced. The project was apparently subject to registration requirements with petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (Division). It is that agency which has initiated the complaint herein, of which two of three counts therein remain pending. Under the foregoing joint venture agreement, GFC generally provided the financing for the project while Tamway provided the site construction and sales of units. The agreement further designated Tamway as the managing partner to conduct the day-to-day business of the joint venture. Among other things, Tamway was authorized to enter into purchase and sale contracts for the sale of individual units in the project. Accordingly, Wingold had no active participation in the management of the project's day-to-day business, for the agreement provided that Kaliff would have that responsibility. After Fairways of Tamarac III was constructed, Kaliff hired Ron Settler and Victoria Falzone as salespersons to market and sell the individual units. The first unit was sold by Settler to Irving A. Goodman in November, 1982. Goodman was represented by counsel at the closing and, through counsel, received a packet of documents. In the summer of 1984 Goodman learned that he should have received a prospectus prior to closing, but did not. He was given a prospectus by the present project manager, Joan Nathanson, after asking for a copy. Two other units were purchased in July and September, 1983, respectively, by Sidney G. Resnick and Morton Tolmack. Both were sold by either Settler or Falzone. Tolmack was represented by counsel at closing while Resnick had no attorney. Although both executed receipts for condominium documents which reflected a prospectus was included in their packet of documents, their oral testimony to the contrary is accepted as being more credible and persuasive, and it is found that neither received a prospectus at or before closing. When they discovered at a later date they were supposed to have received one, they were given one by Nathanson. Wingold had no knowledge of Tamway's failure to give a prospectus to Goodman, Resnick and Tolmack. He first learned of this when the complaint herein was filed. Sometime in 1983 or early 1984, Wingold discovered that Kaliff was not fulfilling the terms of his obligation under the joint venture. Beginning in February, 1984, three circuit court actions were filed, and a settlement, the joint venture was dissolved, and GFC was given exclusive title and rights to the project by Tamway/Graystone. According to Wingold, Settler was convicted on 22 counts of theft from the project. He was dismissed from employment around May, 1984. During the course of the above litigation, no units could be sold because Kaliff would not agree to sign any documents conveying clear title to the purchaser. Consequently, no sales efforts could be made during this period of time. Except for the time when the litigation was pending, the unsold project units were being offered for sale by the developer in the ordinary course of business. When the settlement was executed on September 5, 1984, thirteen out of thirty units had been sold by Kaliff and Tamway. The last closing under Kaliff's management occurred in May, 1984. Wingold hired a new project manager that same month, and after the litigation was settled, began advertising in local newspapers in an effort to sell the remaining units. This included periodic advertising in two Fort Lauderdale newspapers in September and October, 1984 and January, 1985. This effort met with little or no success due to the then-existing "glut" of condominiums in South Florida. Wingold then searched for a broker to sell the units. Although he had a difficulty in finding a broker who was interested in marketing the units, in February, 1985 he executed a six-month agreement with Condovest, Inc., a firm in Miami that specializes in such sales. Since September, 1984 the developer has closed on six units and has four more under constract at the present time. This leaves seven unsold units, all of which are now rented except one which is used as a model apartment and office. The office is open only on week-days except by special appointment. The unsold units were rented by Wingold due to a large monthly payment ($15,000) on the construction loan. Such units were offered for rent in local newspaper advertisements and at one time on a sign appearing at the front entrance to the property. The rents are used to cover the debt service until the units are sold. The oldest lease agreement expires in May, 1986. Therefore, only the model unit is immediately available for occupancy by a buyer. All others must be sold subject to the lease. Even so, four units are now under contract subject to the leases, and Wingold continues to seek buyers for the remaining rented units. Subsection 718.503(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), requires that a prospectus be given to purchasers of condominium units prior to closing. Goodman, Resnick and Tolmack were not given such documents as required by law. This finding is based upon the testimony of the three unit owners which is accepted as being the more persuasive evidence on this issue. However, there is no evidence that any of the three was harmed or disadvantaged by their failure to receive copies of the prospectus until 1984 or 1985, particularly since two were represented by counsel at closing. Subsection 718.301(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), also requires that a meeting be called to allow unit owners to elect a majority of the members of the board of administration when none of the unsold units in the project are being "offered for sale by the developer in the ordinary course of business." There is no evidence of record as to how the agency construes that term, or what is the generally accepted meaning within the condominium industry. It is undisputed that no meeting has yet been called by Wingold. However, Wingold has not done so nor is he required to do so since units have been and are still being offered for sale in the ordinary course of business. Besides this, he fears that he cannot fulfill the terms of the four pending purchase and sell contracts if control of the project is turned over to the present unit owners.3 But this concern is irrelevant to a determination of the issue presented herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Count II of the amended notice to show cause, and that it be fined $500.00 to be paid within thirty days from date of the Final Order in this Cause. Count I should be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this l6th day of December, 1985, 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 16th day of December, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent A.R.M. Limited, Inc., is the developer of the residential condominium known as Trails at Royal Palm Beach, a phase condominium containing a total number of 230 units when completed, located in Royal Palm Beach, Florida. During 1981 Respondent submitted to Petitioner all documents required to properly register the condominium, including the Declaration of Condominium and the Contract for Sale. By letter dated June 16, 1981, Petitioner notified Respondent that the documents it had received were in acceptable form and that Respondent would soon be advised as to the results of the Petitioner's "content examination". By letter dated July 14, 1981, Petitioner notified Respondent that it had completed its examination, and the condominium documents were proper. On April 27, 1982, Respondent recorded the Declaration of Condominium for Phases I and II in the public records in Palm Beach County. The Offering Circular, the Declaration of Condominium, and the Contract for Sale contained a developer's guarantee of common expenses for a two-year period commencing with the recording of the Declaration of Condominium and guaranteeing that the unit owners' monthly assessment would not exceed $75 a month for the period of the guarantee. Accordingly, the initial guarantee period terminated April 27, 1984. Thereafter, the guarantee period was extended by the developer until April 27, 1985, and again until December 31, 1985. No evidence was offered to show that any unit owner objected to the extension of the guarantee period. However, no vote of the unit owners was taken regarding either of the two extensions, and no written agreement was obtained. During the period of time between the initial guarantee period and January 1, 1986, Respondent did not pay assessments on a regular basis but instead paid the difference between the association's expenses and income. In other words, the developer did fund all shortfalls through December 31, 1985. The Offering Circular approved by Petitioner in 1981 contained a copy of the Contract for Sale which was to be used, and in fact has been used, for the condominiums units. That Contract specifically provides for purchasers to pay an initial contribution to working capital in the amount of "$300 . . . which may be used by the Association for start-up expenses as well as ordinary expenses . . . " Pursuant to that contract, Respondent utilized start-up funds to off set common expenses of the condominium arising from the sale of 28 units between April 27, 1984 and April 27, 1985. Fourteen of those units were sold between April 27, 1984 and October 1, 1984, and 14 of those units were sold between October 1, 1984 and April 27, 1985. In a phase condominium, since the total number of units within the condominium increases as phases are added, the number of unit owners paying assessments for common expenses increases and, consequently the percentage of ownership of the common elements and percentage of common expenses liability changes per unit. When Respondent registered the condominium with Petitioner in 1981 Respondent filed all documents necessary for the entire project (including all phases) but only paid the filing fee related to Phases I and II at that time. As Respondent continued developing the condominium and selling additional units in subsequently-constructed phases, appropriate amendments to the original Declaration were recorded in the public records. Respondent, however, failed to file copies of those recorded amendments with Petitioner. By cover letter dated March 3, 1986, Respondent filed with Petitioner a developer's filing statement for subsequent phases and enclosed a check in the amount of $940 to cover filing fee requirements. According to an attachment to that filing, Respondent was filing Phases 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2400, and 2500, which in totality comprised 94 units. According to the same attachment, these Phases were added to the condominium through recordation of amendments to the original Declaration with such recordation occurring between 1983 and 1986. According to information submitted by Respondent to Petitioner, as of March 3, 1986, closings had taken place on 77 units in Phases 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 2100, 2400, and 2500 prior to Respondent's filing the subsequent phase documents with Petitioner. There is no allegation that the documents when filed were improper or that Respondent failed to provide them to the unit owners at the time they were executed. In January of 1988 unit owners other than the developer elected a majority of the board of administration of the condominium association, and turnover of control of the association from developer control to control by unit owners other than the developer occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it Is'; RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondent guilty of the allegation contained within count one; Finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained within counts two and three of the Notice to Show Cause; Requiring Respondent to effectuate the financial review discussed in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order and pay to the condominium association any amount of unpaid assessments for the time period in question; and Assessing a fine against Respondent in the amount of $1000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 20th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 87-2917 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3, 5, 7, the first sentence of 9, the third sentence of 15, and 16-20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being immaterial to the issues under consideration herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 4, 6, 9 except for the first sentence, 10-14, and 15 except for the third sentence have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel or recitations of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 A.R.M. Limited, Inc. Trails at Royal Palm Beach Suite 315 1300 North Florida Mango Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Dennis Powers, Esquire Suite 315 1300 North Florida Mango Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Findings Of Fact Margaret Cline is an applicant for licensure as an employment agency/agent. Cline meets all qualifications for licensure except the experience requirements, which are the subject of this proceeding. Cline was employed until December, 1975, with the Ramada Inn. The Department recognizes that her experience in this employment was equivalent that of an employment clerk. Cline was unemployed for a period of four to five months immediately following the termination of her employment with the Ramada Inn. From May until September, 1976, she was sales director for a condominium. She admits that her employment was not as an employment clerk or its equivalent. From September, 1976, until September, 1977, she was employed in establishing a bookkeeping system in another condominium company. She admits that the duties of her employment were not those of an employment clerk or its equivalent. Cline was employed from September, 1977, until February, 1978, by Gulf Terrace Condominium. She asserts, and the agency does not deny, that her employment was as an employment clerk or its equivalent. Cline was employed from February, 1978, until September, 1978, with Seascape Inn. She asserts, and the agency does not deny, that her employment during this period was as an employment clerk or its equivalent. Since September, 1978, Cline has been involved in preparing to open or in operating an employment agency. She currently operates an employment agency in Dothan, Alabama, and has done so since November, 1978. Cline has been continuously employed as an employment clerk or its equivalent since September of 1977, or approximately 18 months.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Margaret Cline be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Curington, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Margaret Cline 940 Santa Rosa Boulevard Fort Walton Beach, Florida
The Issue The ultimate issues for determination in this proceeding are whether: Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, 1/ by misrepresentation, concealment, culpable negligence, or breach of trust; Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(k) by failing to immediately deposit funds entrusted to her in her escrow or trust account; and, if Respondent violated either statute, or both, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's real estate broker's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker in the state, holding license number 0406469. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was doing business in the name of Carr Real Estate, Inc., at 2351 N. Federal Highway, under license number 0257527. Respondent was the selling agent in the proposed sale of a condominium unit known as Trafalgar of Highland Beach, Unit 1005. The listing agent was Barbara Perry of Merrill Lynch Realty. Unit 1005 was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Roy P. Heinz. Mr. and Mrs. Heinz had known Respondent for approximately two years, but had no previous real estate experience with Respondent. The prospective purchasers were Mr. and Mrs. Peter Romano who were visiting from the Boston area of Massachusetts. Condominiums in Trafalgar of Highland Beach generally required an unusually long time to be sold. The proposed sale of Unit 1005 occurred sometime within the first four or five weeks after it was listed with Merrill Lynch, but the sale was never consummated. Respondent showed Unit 1005 to Mr. and Mrs. Romano on or before Saturday, November 19, 1988, and Mrs. Romano fell in love with it. Respondent telephoned Mr. Heinz sometime during Saturday evening to inform him that she had a potential buyer for Unit 1005. During several telephone conversations, Mr. Heinz and Respondent discussed the terms that would be acceptable to the sellers. Respondent made an appointment to present a written contract to Mr. and Mrs. Heinz in Unit 1005 Sunday morning at 9:30. Respondent and Mr. Heinz originally planned for Respondent to present the contract to Mr. and Mrs. Heinz on Sunday and then be joined by the Romanos. Potential purchasers of condominiums at Trafalgar of Highland Beach were required by the bylaws of the condominium association to be interviewed and approved by a screening committee comprised of the board of directors of the condominium association. The Romanos planned to return to the Boston area on Monday, November 21, 1988. Mr. Heinz was a member of the board of directors and determined that he could convene a special meeting of the screening committee on Sunday to interview the Romanos. In addition, the Romanos wanted to see Unit 1005 again. Respondent typed the contract at her office Sunday morning and took it to Mr. and Mrs. Romano's apartment for their signature before 9:30 a.m. The contract was for the sale and purchase of Unit 1005 at a purchase price of $480,000. Respondent and Merrill Lynch Realty were listed as co-brokers entitled to payment of a commission in accordance with the ". . . terms of an existing, separate listing agreement." The amount of deposit shown as held in escrow by Respondent was $20,000. An additional amount of $28,000 was required to be deposited in escrow no later than December 31, 1988. The Romanos told Respondent they preferred to wait until they got to Unit 1005 before signing the contract or the check. The Romanos explained that there could be changes and that they had only one check with them. Respondent and the Romanos then joined Mr. and Mrs. Heinz at Unit 1005. Before the contract was signed, Mrs. Heinz went downstairs and had the security guard call the condominium manager to obtain the form used by the screening committee for interviewing prospective purchasers. The manager told Mrs. Heinz that the form could not be obtained before there was a signed contract. Mrs. Heinz returned to Unit 1005 and informed Mr. Heinz of the requirement for a signed contract. The parties signed the contract and Mr. Romano made and signed the deposit check for $20,000 on Sunday morning, November 20, 1988. 3/ The deposit check was made payable to "Carr Real Estate" but remained in Mr. Romano's check book and was not delivered to Respondent at that time. Mr. Heinz left Unit 1005 with a signed copy of the contract and asked the president of the board of directors, Mr. Gray, to provide the form used in interviewing prospective purchasers and to arrange for a special meeting of the screening committee. In his own words, Mr. Heinz was " . . . not the best liked guy . . ." on the board of directors. He ". . . was young . . . and everybody else was old . . . ." In addition, Mr. Heinz and the president of the board of directors had ". . . locked horns a couple of times." The president of the board of directors informed Mr. Heinz that there was a problem with the percentage of tile in Unit 1005. Unit 1005 was carpeted except for tile in the foyer, hallways, and kitchen. A resident on the floor below Unit 1005 had complained about the noise. The president further informed Mr. Heinz that the board of directors would inform the Romanos of the problem and that ". . . this could be a problem for you. " Mr. Heinz returned to Unit 1005 and telephoned both his attorney and the developer of Trafalgar of Highland Beach. There were four ways to compute the ratio of tile to carpet in the condominiums. The percentage of tile in Unit 1005 was within permissible limits when the ratio of tile to carpet was computed using three of the four customary methods of computation. A fourth method of computation resulted in an impermissible percentage of tile in Unit 1005. Mr. Heinz explained the situation to Mr. and Mrs. Romano. Mr. Heinz believed that carpeting the foyer would resolve the issue of the percentage of tile in Unit 1005 and offered to carpet the foyer with carpeting approved by the Romanos. The parties agreed that Mr. and Mrs. Heinz would provide the Romanos with a written statement that the issue of the tile in Unit 1005 would be resolved to the satisfaction of the Romanos prior to closing. The Romanos left Unit 1005 without delivering the deposit check to Respondent. With the attention of the parties focused on discussions concerning the tile in Unit 1005 and the impending screening interview, the delivery of the deposit check was overlooked by Respondent and Mr. and Mrs. Heinz. A special meeting of the screening committee was convened, and the Romanos completed the screening interview on Sunday afternoon, November 20, 1988. Mr. Heinz telephoned Respondent on Monday morning, November 21, 1988, to ask Respondent if she had collected the deposit check the previous day. Respondent informed Mr. Heinz that she had not and went immediately to see the Romanos at their apartment. Mr. Romano delivered the deposit check to Respondent with the understanding that everything was contingent upon the proper resolution of the issue concerning the tile in Unit 1005. Mr. Romano instructed Respondent not to deposit the check until he received the written statement promised to him by Mr. and Mrs. Heinz. Mr. Romano told Respondent that the check was not good anyway until he returned to the Boston area and transferred funds necessary to cover the deposit check. Mr. Romano then told Respondent that if she deposited the check before the issue of the tile was resolved he would stop payment on the check and sue her. Respondent left the Romanos' apartment with the deposit check in hand. Respondent telephoned Mr. Heinz and informed him of the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the deposit check including the fact that the check was not good until Mr. Romano returned to the Boston area and transferred the funds necessary to cover the deposit check. Respondent also informed Mr. Heinz that Mr. Romano gave her the check with the understanding that the transaction was contingent upon receipt of the written statement promised to them by Mr. Heinz. Respondent then said, "Roy, I represent you. What do you want me to do? I'll do whatever you want me to do." Mr. Heinz instructed Respondent to hold on to the deposit check until Wednesday, November 23, 1988, when he would provide Respondent with the written statement he had promised to the Romanos. On November 23, 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Heinz executed a written statement stating that the issue of the tile in Unit 1005 would be resolved by Mr. and Mrs. Heinz to the satisfaction of the Romanos. Mr. Heinz then delivered the written statement to Respondent by leaving it with the security guard on Wednesday night at about 10 o'clock for Respondent to pick up. Respondent picked up the written statement executed by Mr. and Mrs. Heinz from the security guard on Wednesday night November 23, 1988. The next day was Thanksgiving. Respondent telephoned Mr. Romano on Friday morning, November 24, 1988, informed him that she had the written statement, and asked Mr. Romano what he wanted her to do with it. Mr. Romano instructed Respondent to send the written statement to him by Federal Express. Respondent sent the written statement to Mr. Romano by Federal Express and specified Saturday delivery. Respondent telephoned Mr. Romano on Monday morning, November 28, 1988, and asked Mr. Romano if he had received the written statement from Mr. and Mrs. Heinz. Mr. Romano said that he had not received the written statement. Respondent asked Mr. Romano for permission to deposit the check and Mr. Romano refused. Mr. Romano said that he was still concerned about the tile in Unit 1005 and that the best way to resolve the situation was to re-carpet the entire condominium. Respondent telephoned Mr. Heinz and informed him of Mr. Romano's proposal to re-carpet Unit 1005. Mr. Romano refused to re-carpet prior to closing but agreed to put the money necessary to re-carpet Unit 1005 in escrow. Respondent telephoned Mr. Romano and informed him of the proposal from Mr. Heinz. Mr. Romano then informed Respondent that his wife had changed her mind and that they did not want to purchase Unit 1005. Respondent telephoned Mr. Heinz and told him that the Romanos had decided not to purchase Unit 1005 and advised Mr. Heinz to call his attorney. Respondent deposited the check from the Romanos on Monday, November 28, 1988, the same day Respondent was instructed to deposit the check by a man Respondent mistakenly believed to be the attorney for Mr. Heinz. Mr. Romano stopped payment on the check, and Respondent received an Advice of Returned Check from her bank dated December 6, 1988. Respondent was fully aware that she represented Mr. and Mrs. Heinz and followed the instructions of Mr. Heinz rather than Mr. Romano when she did not deposit the Romanos' check until Monday, November 28, 1988. It made no difference to Respondent what the Romanos wanted Respondent to do with the check. Respondent did not deposit the check from the Romanos on November 21, 1988, because Mr. Heinz instructed her to hold on to the check until the written statement was delivered to the Romanos. Respondent fully informed Mr. Heinz in a timely manner of the facts and circumstances known to her concerning the sale of Unit 1005 at all times material to this proceeding. Respondent informed Mr. Heinz immediately after she took delivery of the deposit check on Monday, November 21, 1988, that there was a signed contract but ". . . no deal." From Monday morning through the rest of the week Respondent was on the telephone daily with Mr. Heinz, sometimes two or three times a day. Respondent always asked Mr. Heinz what he wanted her to do. As a result of the full and timely disclosure by Respondent, Mr. Heinz knew at all times material to this proceeding that the proposed sale of Unit 1005 was contingent upon the resolution of the issue involving the tile in Unit 1005 to the satisfaction of the Romanos. Mr. Heinz also knew on Monday morning, November 21, 1988, that the deposit check did not have sufficient funds on deposit to cover the amount of the check. Mr. Heinz believed that he could successfully bring legal action against the board of directors of the condominium association for their interference with the proposed sale of Unit 1005. Mr. Heinz requested a letter from Mr. Romano stating that the Romanos were rescinding the contract on Unit 1005 due to their treatment by the board of directors during the screening interview. The Romanos sent Mr. and Mrs. Heinz a letter dated November 29, 1988, stating that they were rescinding the contract as a result of the disclosure by Mr. Heinz and the board of directors of a possible existing violation of the condominium bylaws. Mr. and Mrs. Heinz knew there was no agreement among the parties unless the issue of the tile in Unit 1005 was resolved to the satisfaction of the Romanos. Mr. Heinz believed, however, that if the check from the Romanos had been in the bank, he would have been entitled to half of the deposit and the real estate agencies would have split the other half. In the words of Mr. Heinz: Nobody knew where it was going, because Romano kept changing his story . . . .I understood that he [Mr. Romano] had nothing to lose by coming back and trying to re- negotiate the Contract three times in that week period, 4/ for me to do this, that and the other thing, before he'd make the money good. Every time I said, 'Okay, fine. I'll do this.' So, then they'd [the Romanos] come up with another deal. Okay, so, no, I didn't anticipate that the thing was going anywhere but down hill; but if the check had been deposited as it was supposed to have been, I would have at least had something for the way the man tied up my property for six months. Unit 1005 was not tied up for six months as a result of the rescission of the contract by the Romanos. Unit 1005 was listed by Mr. and Mrs. Heinz with Merrill Lynch for six months. Respondent telephoned Barbara Perry in New York on November 21, 1988, while Ms. Perry was on vacation. Respondent informed Ms. Perry that " . . . we don't have a deal. . . ." Respondent instructed Ms. Perry not to take Unit 1005 off the market. After the listing expired, Mr. Heinz was approached by Mr. Ted Gray who was a resident of Trafalgar Highland Beach, and Unit 1005 was eventually sold to Mr. Gray. 5/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that: Respondent should be found guilty of failing to immediately deposit funds entrusted to her in her escrow or trust account in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes; Respondent should receive a written reprimand; Respondent should be fined $1,000; and Respondent should be placed on probation for a period not to exceed one year. During her probationary period, Respondent should be required to comply with reasonable conditions of probation in accordance with Rule 21V-24.001(2), including an appropriate probation appearance before the Florida Real Estate Commission. Since Respondent's violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, was caused by apparent ignorance, rather than dishonest or unscrupulous behavior, the conditions of probation should include additional real estate broker education not greater than 20 hours, of which 10 hours should include broker management. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the developer of Hidden Banyan Condominium, violated provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and implementing rules by failing to timely call a meeting to allow unit owners, other than the developer, to elect one-third of the members of the board of directors; by failing to include reserve accounts in the condominium association's 1982 and 1983 budgets; by failing to call an annual meeting in 1981, 1982 and 1983; and by failing to pay its share of common expenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the developer of Hidden Banyan Condominium, a 24-unit condominium located in Lantana, Florida. This condominium was created, in law, on March 6, 1980, with the filing of a Declaration of Condominium, and construction was completed soon thereafter. Under the Declaration of Condominium, Hidden Banyan Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida not-for- profit corporation, was responsible for the operation of the condominium. Respondent sold the first condominium units on April 18, 1980, May 15, 1980, July 1, 1980, and two units on August 1, 1980. Consequently on August 1, 1980, unit owners other than Respondent owned more than 15 percent of the condominium units. Respondent controlled the condominium association until September 26, 1983, when a duly noticed condominium association meeting was held. Four non- developer unit owners were elected to the five seats on the governing board. Sam Seppala, a contractor and president of the Respondent corporation, was formerly director of the condominium association's governing board. Although several informal meetings of unit owners were held, no duly noticed annual meeting was held in 1982 or in February, 1983. 1/ As Mr. Seppala explained, he was "too busy" and unaware of the February annual meeting date designated by the Declaration. Respondent admits that, during the time it controlled the association, it failed to call a meeting of the unit owners within sixty days of August 1, 1980, to allow unit owners (other than the developer) to elect one-third of the membership of the governing board. The budgets for the condominium association during 1982 and 1983, when the association was controlled by the developer, contained reserve accounts but did not separately designate or "line itemize" reserve accounts for roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing. Both before and after July 1, 1980, 2/ - until August 5, 1983, when the Notice to Show Cause was issued - Respondent paid no monthly common expense assessments for the units which it owned. It did, however, pay all of the condominium association's budgetary deficits during that period, and no net amount is now owed by it to the association. There is no evidence that the condominium association suffered any monetary loss from Respondent's failure to itemize reserve accounts for roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing, or from its failure to pay common expenses otherwise due for the units which it owns. Beginning in March, 1982, the Division notified Respondent - on four separate occasions - of the alleged violations which later became the subject of its Notice to Show Cause, resulting in this proceeding. Respondent was given ample opportunity to voluntarily comply with the statute, yet did not do so until September 1, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be fined $3000 for multiple violations of Ch. 718, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 5th day of June, 1984.
