The Issue Whether Hellender violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Hellender is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0038269 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Hellender had a listing for the sale of real property owned by Horace E. and Margaret C. Young. An offer to lease with option to purchase was made by Richard W. and Diane B. Milligan through their realtor, Susan Seligman, who was in contact with Seligman several times November 26 concerning the availability of the property and terms of the lease-purchase agreement. Both the Youngs and the Milligans did not live in the Orlando area where the two realtors and property were located. Susan Seligman, a broker-salesperson, presented Ralph E. Hellender with a Contract for Sale and Purchase when she met with Hellender between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on the evening of November 26, 1976. This offer, which was received into evidence as Exhibit 1, expired at 12:00 noon on November 27. Hellender took the contract and indicated that he would communicate the offer to the Youngs. Susan Seligman did not accompany Hellender to communicate the offer as is the general custom, because she needed to pick up her children from a football game that evening. Mrs. Ingrid Hellender, a broker salesperson, received a call later on the evening of November 26, 1976, from Susan Seligman. The general topic of the call was the fact that the contract which Seligman had given Mr. Hellender earlier that evening provided for conventional financing of the purchase, and Seligman had second thoughts about the Milligans' desires on financing. She requested that she be given the opportunity to check with the Milligans to determine whether they intended to use conventional or FHA financing. At this point a conflict developed in the testimony of Mrs. Seligman and Mrs. Hellender regarding whether Mrs. Seligman requested that Mr. Hellender hold the contract or whether Mrs. Seligman requested that he present the offer with reservations concerning the nature of the financing. In any event, Mrs. Hellender advised her husband to hold the contract. Similarly, a conflict exists in Mr. Hellender's and Mrs. Seligman's testimony concerning whether Hellender said that the offer has been accepted by the Youngs. Mrs. Seligman stated that Mr. Hellender advised her on November 27, 1976, that the Youngs had accepted the offer. Hellender stated that he did not present the offer and therefore there was no basis for him to communicate an acceptance to Mrs. Seligman and did not communicate an acceptance to her. It should be particularly noted that Mrs. Seligman stated that on November 27 she had Mr. Hellender agreed that the Milligans should execute a new contract on Hellender's forms when the Milligans were to be in Orlando on December 1, 1976. It is also noted that Mrs. Seligman did not request telegraphic confirmation of the acceptance by the Youngs of the offer which she initially submitted to Mr. Hellender, although telegraphic confirmation is the generally accepted practice when dealing with an out-of-city seller and was not standard practice in the real estate firm with which Mrs. Seligman worked. The Hearing Officer discounts the testimony of Mrs. Seligman that Hellender told her the Youngs had accepted the offer because she did not request written confirmation of the acceptance, and because Mrs. Seligman stated that a second written offer was to be prepared on December 1, 1976. All the realtors who testified stated that it was the custom to obtain telegraphic confirmation of an offer from an out-of-town seller. Mr. Seligman, the broker for Mrs. Seligman's company, stated this was the general procedure for his company. Although the record is unclear whether Mrs. Seligman talked with Mr. Hellender before noon or after noon, she was aware the offer expired at noon November 27 and she did not press for written confirmation of acceptance before noon. Instead, she agreed to the preparation of a second offer is totally contrary and repugnant to any theory of acceptance of the first offer. Therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that there was no acceptance of the first offer communicated by Hellender to Mrs. Seligman. Mrs. Seligman may have formed the opinion that there was an acceptance because Mr. Hellender agreed to the terms presented in the first offer, but her agreement to a second offer to be prepared is in fact and law inconsistent with any assertion that the first offer was accepted. Mrs. Seligman stated, that it is clear from the actions of Mr. Hellender, that they expected a second contract to be presented in behalf of the Milligans. This explains his call to Mrs. Seligman advising her on December 5 that there was activity of the property. It also explains why December 6 he did accept a second offer on the property which was presented by Joe Deligna which he and Delinga communicated to the Youngs together as is the general custom after no offer was presented by the Milligans on December 1. Lastly, it explains why Hellender contacted Mrs. Seligman immediately after the Youngs had accepted the offer by the Maccagnanos and confirmed it telegraphically.
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 the registration of Ralph E. Hellender. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1978. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mark A. Koteen, Esq. Post Office Box 3431 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Herbert Goldman is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0032343 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Herbert Goldman maintains an office at the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, consisting of at least one closed room, wherein negotiations and closings of real estate transactions of others may be conducted and carried on with privacy and where the books, records, and files pertaining to the real estate transactions of Herbert Goldman are maintained. On the entry way to the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, there is a Building Directory and on this directory, there appears "Goldman, Herbert, Realtor, Room 214." See Exhibit 4. On the second floor of the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, in Room 214, Herbert Goldman maintains the office described above outside of which is a sign stating the following: "Herbert Goldman, Registered Real Estate Broker." It was admitted that the second floor of the Robertson Building is generally closed to public and that the Robertson Building is owned by the Estate of Mr. Herbert Goldman's deceased father. By direct contact with Herbert Goldman or his brother, an attorney who maintains an office on the first floor of the Robertson Building with access directly to the street, authorized persons may gain access to Herbert Goldman's office. Herbert Goldman engages in an active real estate brokerage primarily consisting of site location for shopping centers and similar developments for clients throughout the United States. Herbert Goldman does not solicit nor desire to participate in a general real estate practice. Goldman makes no pretense that he maintains an office in Room 214 of the Robertson Building, which is at all times staffed and which is an office in the conventional sense. However, Goldman does maintain an active brokerage practice visiting clients in various portions of Florida and in other states in the course of his brokerage business. Due to the nature of transactions which Goldman is involved in, all of the closings are conducted in the business offices of the firms with which he does business or of their attorneys. The foregoing Findings of Fact are substantially identical to the general proposed findings submitted by Goldman.
Recommendation At hearing, the forthrightness of Mr. Goldman was evident, and it was clear that he did not desire to be uncooperative with the Commission or to flaunt its rules. His concern was that to maintain an accessible office would create more problems than it would solve. He felt that such an office would appear to be closed and "inactive", and to avoid this problem he would have to hire office staff to advise people he did not handle general real estate. This would be an unnecessary expense for him and would possibly create misunderstandings. It was, therefore, simpler to maintain his office where it has been for many years, from where, although inaccessible to the public, he centers his brokerage activity. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no disciplinary actions be taken. In view of Goldman's general cooperativeness and the fact that he is not totally pleased with the security of his office, it might be useful and beneficial for the Commission to examine with Goldman alternatives which would be acceptable to all concerned and would result in office accommodations which re more conventional and secure but which would not prevent a confusing picture to the public. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1977, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mary B. Steddom, Esquire O'Neill & Steddom Post Office Box 253 Ocala, Florida 32670 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3123 MARION COUNTY HERBERT GOLDMAN, DOAH CASE NO. 77-443 Defendant. /
Findings Of Fact Carl D. Hill, Petitioner, applied for licensure to the Florida Real Estate Commission, Respondent, on or about October 19, 1983, and subsequently received a letter of denial dated December 6, 1983. The denial was based upon Sections 475.17(1) and 475.25, F.S., and specifically cited Petitioner's prior arrest in 1980 and criminal record. By Order of the Circuit Court dated June 12, 1984, the record of Petitioner's prior arrest and plea of guilty was expunged and sealed. Petitioner had originally been placed on probation for five years, but that probation was terminated early for good behavior after three years, on or about April 16, 1984. Petitioner has not been arrested for any offense since 1980, and has at all times been employed. His reputation in the community is very good. Petitioner is currently co-owner of Interstate Mobile Homes and handles sales, service and set-up of mobile homes. His partner is a licensed real estate broker who also operates Sun American Realty in the same building. There is no evidence in the record which would indicate that Petitioner has at any time engaged in activities which would require a real estate salesman's license. All such activities are handled by his partner and co-owner who is licensed as a real estate broker. Petitioner held a real estate salesman's license from November 1981 until January 18, 1983. Petitioner's previous license was revoked pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(m), F.S., but he was not precluded from reapplying for reinstatement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson be APPROVED. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 26th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Crooks, Esquire Crooks, Vetter, Cuellar and Blau, P.A. 4202 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Ralph Armstead, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold R. Huff, Director Dept. of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the petitioners should be granted costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, Chapter 57.111, Florida Statutes, et seq. for monies spent to defend an unsuccessful prosecution filed against them by the Division of Real Estate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The petitioners are Dennis Havener, a real estate salesman; Marcus Hines, a real estate broker; and Bender-Tanis, Inc., a corporate broker. The prosecution brought by the Florida Real Estate Commission against them was dismissed by a final order of the Real Estate Commission which adopted a recommended order which found that the petitioners had engaged in no misconduct in the course of representing Lt. Commander Thomas Ciarula and his wife in the purchase of a residence on Sugar Loaf Key, in Monroe County, during 1985. The Real Estate Commission does not dispute that petitioners qualify as prevailing small business parties under Section 57.111(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1987) The Underlying Prosecution The Department of Professional Regulation had investigated a complaint it received on July 28, 1986, from Lt. Commander Thomas A. Ciarula concerning his purchase of a home on Sugar Loaf Key. In his letter Lt. Commander Ciarula stated that the house which he and his wife had purchased on April 15, 1985, was 439 square feet smaller than stated on the information sheet Provided to him by the relator, and this error represented over 20 percent of the supposed square footage. He enclosed information which he had sent to the Key West Board of Realtors in January 1986 in an attempt to process his complaint through the local Professional Ethics Committee. The proceeding before the Key West Board of Realtors continued while the Department of Professional Regulation was conducting its investigation and determining whether to find probable cause that the petitioners had violated Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Board of Realtors Professional Ethics Committee issued a decision exonerating all petitioners shortly after the Administrative complaint was filed by the Department of Profession Regulation on December 23, 1986. The final order entered in the disciplinary case sets out the facts of the dispute between Lt. Commander Ciarula and the petitioners. Without reciting all of the facts pertinent to that decision, the final order may be summarized as follows: After Lt. Commander Ciarula had been transferred to the Key West area he visited Key West in an attempt to find a house to purchase. He dealt with Bender-Tanis, Inc., and one of its salesman, Dennis Havener. His only contact with the broker for Bender-Tanis, Inc., Marcus Hines, was that he shook hands with him during his visit to Key West. Ciarula had informed Havener that he was looking for a house having 2,000 or more square feet with a two-car garage in the $96-125,000 price range, and preferred a house on the water with central air conditioning. Lt. Commander Ciarula did not emphasize that any of these preferences were requirements, and he looked at a number of houses which failed to meet one or more of his preferences. He made an offer to purchase one house after his visit to Key West but that offer was not accepted. After Ciarula returned to Texas, he was contacted by Mr. Havener and told about a house which had recently been listed with Bender-Tanis Realty, Inc. Based on a description of the house and a rough sketch of its layout, prepared by Havener, the Ciarulas made an offer on that+ house without having seen it. The sketch prepared by Havener showed that the house had approximately 2,000 square feet. Havener had measured the house according to the instructions for multiple listing service listings by the Key West Board of Realtors. The dimensions required to be used were outside dimensions, and included all area under roof, which is known as gross square footage. The Ciarulas had wanted a house with 2,000 square feet of total living area, the area which may be heated and cooled. The gross square footage figure for the house included an aviary and a carport in the home which are not useful as living area or for furniture storage. The Ciarulas never informed Havener that they meant total living area when they used the term square footage. When the Ciarulas arrived in Florida they inspected the house the day before the closing of the sale. After the closing, he Ciarulas were surprised to find that all of their furniture would not fit in the house. Lt. Commander Ciarula then noticed that the appraisal done for the mortgagee indicated the house had 1,756 square feet of total living area. Lt. Commander Ciarula felt that an error had been made and consulted a lawyer, who advised him not to make his complaint to the salesman or the broker, but to file a complaint with the local board of relators as a prelude to filing a suit in circuit court. Lt. Commander Ciarula did not believe that he had been intentionally misled. Although Havener and Lt. Commander Ciarula had a misunderstanding about what each other meant when discussing square feet, Havener was guilty of neither intentional misconduct or culpable negligence in the transaction. The Departmental Investigation Lt. Commander Ciarula followed the advice of his lawyer, and instituted an action before the Professional Ethics Committee of the local Key West Board of Realtors. That complaint was filed on January 10, 1986. It took quite a while for the complaint to be processed. Frustration with the slow progress of that proceeding prompted Lt. Commander Ciarula to file his complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation. Floyd M. Stevens is an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation. He interviewed the salesman, Dennis Havener, the broker, Marcus Hines, the complainant, Lt. Commander Ciarula, and Mary Hamilton, the executive officer of the Key West Board of Realtors. The information he obtained was set out in the first portion of his investigative report dated September 17, 1986. Also included in that report were copies of exhibits Mr. Stevens believed were pertinent. These included the complaint letter from Lt. Commander Ciarula, a copy of the multiple listing service sheet for the house that he purchased, a copy of a listing contract which had granted Bender-Tanis, Inc., an exclusive right to sell the property Lt. Commander Ciarula ultimately purchased, a copy of the Ciarulas' closing statement, and copy of the seller's closing statement. 6 A review of Mr. Steven's reports of his interviews of the broker Mr. Hines and the salesman Mr. Havener make plain that the Real Estate Commission knew that exterior dimensions had been used to calculate the square footage. For example, the following quote is attributed to the broker, "Our rule here is to measure the exterior under roof dimensions." The salesman Havener told the investigator that, "The total square feet on the information sheet provided complainant by [Havener] includes carport and closets" The multiple listing service operated by the Key West Board of Realtors instructs salesmen or brokers listing properties to include as part of the information to be published the total square footage. The instructions state, "Total square footage is accomplished with external measurements." This use of external measurements to determine square footage in listings is not unique to the Florida Keys. The Key West Board of Realtors permits sales persons to submit data sheets for MLS publication. They need not be countersigned or otherwise approved by their broker as a condition of publication. There is no evidence that Marcus Hines ever saw or approved the MLS listing Dennis Havener prepared for the property Lt. Commander Ciarula bought. Although it is not clear from the investigative report, Stevens knew that the Ciarulas never dealt with the broker, Marcus Hines. The Real Estate Commission did not place in evidence the transcript of the probable cause panel's proceedings. Although the investigative report of Floyd Stevens was introduced into evidence, there is no evidence of what was considered in determining to find probable cause and file an administrative complaint against the petitioners. The Department's prosecution proceeded on the theory that the broker is subject to discipline for misconduct by a salesman under the broker's supervision. The defense which the broker, Marcus Hines, and the corporate broker Bender-Tanis Realty, Inc., would have had to mount would have been identical whether or not the lawyer for the petitioners also represented the salesman, Mr. Havener. The Attorney's Fee The attorney for the petitioners, Michael L. Browning, devoted 33.75 hours to the preparation of the underlying prosecution. These hours are set out in the Affidavit attached to the Amended Petition for Attorney's Fees filed January 22, 1988, and amended by testimony during the final hearing. Mr. Browning also devoted 15 hours to the preparation of the attorney's fees petition and the final hearing on it. Mr. Browning's normal hourly rate is $125 per hour, which is the fee he agreed to charge the petitioners in the underlying prosecution and in this matter. Based on the testimony of the petitioners' expert witness, this is a reasonable fee. In fact, the $125 per hour rate is somewhat low for attorneys of Mr. Browning's experience in the Key West area. The total attorney's fee attributable to these proceedings is therefore $6,093.75. Mr. Browning also incurred long distance telephone expenses of $23. While $480 was spent to transcribe the proceedings before the Ethics Committee of the Key West Board of Realtors, that proceeding was not relevant to the underlying prosecution, and the cost is not properly a taxable cost here.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate broker, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's responsibilities include the prosecution of administrative complaints. Prior to February 1993, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. In February 1993, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for licensure as a real estate broker. The application provided the applicant with two boxes, one marked "yes" and the other marked "no" to the following question, instructions, and caveat: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "YES," attach the details and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could result in denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney of the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered Question 9 in the negative. Respondent thereafter signed the application, including the following affidavit: The above named and undersigned applicant for licensure as a real estate broker under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn deposes and says that s(he) is the person so applying, that s(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information, an records permit, without any evasion or mental reservations whatsoever; that s(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and s(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications, whether and additional oath thereto shall be administered or not. On the evening of September 28, 1986, Respondent and her husband became involved in a loud argument at their home after having consumed too much alcohol. As a result, someone called the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with disorderly intoxication. On November 20, 1986, Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of disorderly intoxication in Broward County, Florida. Respondent was fined, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Katherine [sic] Lawand, which is her married name, and Kay Starr, which is the name Respondent uses for business purposes. On the evening of April 25, 1992, a virtual repeat of the incident of September 28, 1986, occurred. Again, as the result of a loud, drunken argument between Respondent and her husband, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was called. As a result of her behavior, Respondent was arrested on the charge of disorderly conduct. On May 21, 1992, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of disorderly conduct in Broward County, Florida. The court records reflect Respondent's name entered on this plea as Kathline [sic] Starr. Respondent testified that she thought Question 9 on the application for a broker's license only pertained to felony crimes. Respondent testified that she does not consider herself to be a criminal and that she did not intend to mislead or deceive the licensing agency. On May 3, 1993, Respondent passed the broker licensure examination. On May 23, 1993, Respondent was issued her initial license as an inactive broker. The license number was BK0459569. Since September 24, 1993, Respondent has been actively licensed as either a broker or a broker/salesperson. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was licensed as an individual broker with an office at 120 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Following an automobile accident in Broward County, Florida, on December 12, 1994, Respondent was charged with "DUI/ Blood Alch Above 0.20" (Count I); "Driving Under the Influence" (Count II); and "Disobey Stop/Yield Sign" (Count III). On October 3, 1995, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (Count II). Count I was nolle prossed and Count III was dismissed. As a result of the plea entered on October 3, 1995, Respondent was adjudged guilty of D.U.I. She was fined, placed on probation for six months, and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. Her driver's license was suspended for six months. As a condition of her probation, she attended a Court Alcohol Substance Abuse Program D.U.I. School. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Kay Starr Lawand. There was only minor property damage as a result of the accident involving Respondent on December 12, 1994. No person was injured.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be adopted that finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and orders that all licenses issued to her by Petitioner be revoked without prejudice to her right to reapply for licensure. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count II of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1998
Findings Of Fact Respondent Alvin Clifford Dropkin was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesman, from July 24, 1975, to September 9, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc., manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Edward R. Johnson, Esquire Suite 208 2641 East Atlantic Pompano Beach, Florida 32062 Carl J. Zarcone, Esquire 806 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Marcus J. Brown f11ed an application for the issuance of a Class "C" license on Apr11 8, 1982 with Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing. That license authorizes a licensee to Perform private investigative work. After reviewing the application, Respondent denied the same on June 26, 1982 on the ground Petitioner did not possess the requisite experience required by Subsection 493.306(4), Florida Statutes, The denial Precipitated the instant proceeding. Petitioner is a licensed real estate salesman, He supports himself through his activities as a real estate salesman and "Personal business activities." Between 1979 and Apr11, 1982, Petitioner performed investigative work on three cases involving real estate transactions. The work wad performed on a Part-time basis on behalf of two attorneys and a real estate broker in the Miami area. One of the cases is st11l pending. The work involved, inter alia, interviewing witnesses, researching corporate records, and securing documents for use at trial. Petitioner had a personal interest in the outcome of all three cases, and at least one involved an effort by him to secure an unpaid real estate commission due him. He has received no compensation for his services as an investigator to date. Petitioner has no college course work related to private investigation nor has he worked as a licensed intern.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it RECOMMENDED that the application of Marcus J., Brown for licensure as a private investigator be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December,1982.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against respondent, Robert K. Hunter, be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 13th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Lee, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Lacy Mahon, Jr., Esquire 350 East Adams St. Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a state certified general real estate appraiser should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Administrative Complaint filed on March 5, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In 1994, Respondent, James M. Milliken, Jr., was licensed as a state registered appraiser, having been issued license no. RI-0001148 by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Real Estate Appraisal Board (Board). As such, Respondent could perform appraisal services under the supervision of a licensed or certified appraiser. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a registered appraiser by Gulf/Atlantic Valuation Services, Inc., in Sarasota, Florida. His supervisor was Alan C. Plush, a state certified general appraiser. After the events herein occurred, Respondent obtained his licensure as a certified general appraiser. His most recent license number is 0002351, also issued by the Board. Respondent also held a real estate license during this period of time, but it was inactive when the alleged misconduct occurred. Pursuant to a change in state law, all registered appraiser licenses automatically expired on November 30, 1994. Renewal notices were sent by the Board to each licensee approximately sixty to ninety days before that date. Unless a licensee renewed his license by the expiration date, he was unable to lawfully "operate" as an appraiser. The evidence shows that Respondent's registration expired on November 30, 1994, and it was not renewed until March 9, 1995, after Respondent had sent a check and application to the Board, and his registration was then renewed. Therefore, between December 1994 and when the license was renewed, he was not authorized to have his name appear on an appraisal report or operate as an appraiser. Respondent later applied for licensure as a certified general appraiser. As a part of that process, he was required to provide evidence of appropriate experience obtained as a registered appraiser. To establish his experience, Respondent provided, among other things, copies of two appraisals he performed in December 1994. Those appraisals have been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Respondent's name is found on both documents as being one of the appraisers preparing the reports. As a part of a routine, random audit to verify Respondent's experience to qualify as a certified general appraiser, a Board analyst reviewed his file and discovered that the above two appraisals had apparently been performed when Respondent's registration had expired. This prompted an investigation. During the course of the Board investigation, a Board investigator interviewed Respondent, who acknowledged that he had performed the two appraisals in question, one dated December 9, 1994, and the other dated December 15, 1994. Thereafter, an administrative complaint was issued. At hearing, Respondent indicated that when his registration expired on November 30, 1994, he was attempting to secure a date from the Board on when he could be examined for licensure as a certified general appraiser. Because he did not want to pay a fee for both his current registration and the new licensure, he delayed sending in his registration renewal application and check. When Respondent could not get a satisfactory date for the examination, he forwarded a check to the Board in February 1995 to renew his registration. Respondent contended that he was under the impression that there was a grace period in which he could renew his registration without having his license expire. Testimony at hearing established, however, that no such grace period existed. Respondent also contended that the Board failed to prove that he prepared the reports since his signature does not appear on either document copy. However, his name, title, and license number are typed on the front page of each report, and witness Plush established that Respondent's signature would only appear on the original copy sent to the client, while copies retained by the appraiser's office are customarily unsigned. Further, his supervisor confirmed that Respondent actively participated in the two projects, and as noted above, Respondent acknowledged to an investigator that he worked on both reports. Finally, in seeking a new license, Respondent represented to the Board that he had prepared the two reports. It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that at least a portion of the appraisal work for the two reports in question was performed by Respondent prior to November 30, 1994, when his registration was still active. Even so, the remainder of the work was completed after his registration had expired. By doing so, Respondent operated as an appraiser without being registered. Both reports make reference to the fact that they were prepared in conformity with "all regulations issued by the appropriate regulatory entities, regarding the enactment of Title XI of the Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)." It is fair to assume, then, that the two matters are federally related transactions within the meaning of the law. Each of the two evaluations exceeded one million dollars. Without offering a specific citation, the Board analyst "believed" that the threshold under the federal law in 1994 was $150,000.00, and that any federally related transaction exceeding that value required the use of a state licensed appraiser. If this is correct, Respondent had to be licensed in order to perform appraisal services on the two subject properties. In mitigation, it is noted that this is the first time Respondent has ever been subject to disciplinary action by the Board. In addition, no member of the public or user of the reports suffered harm by virtue of the violation. The violation also appears to be somewhat minor, and there is only one count in the complaint. Finally, Respondent is presently a law student attending school on student loans, and he will suffer financial hardship as a result of the imposition of a fine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 475. 626(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that he be given a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 J. Murray Milliken, Esquire Post Office Box 174 Floral City, Florida 34436-0174 James Kimbler, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
