The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, Kenneth A. Norberg, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all pertinent times, Respondent, Kenneth A. Norberg, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued License Nos. 0143669 and 0243001 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued to Respondent were as a broker t/a Arden Real Estate Associates, 525 West Lantana Road, Lantana, Florida 33462. Respondent operates both an insurance business and a real estate business out of his office. There is a large sign outside the office near the street that indicates both "INSURANCE" and "REAL ESTATE" in large letters. Beneath those words in smaller print, are the words "Arden Insurance" Association and "Ken Norberg Real Estate". This sign is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit 1 and has been in place for approximately fifteen years. Sometime prior to March of 1989, Joe Ann Shoop was awarded ownership of a corporation known as Jerraang Enterprises, Inc. as part of a divorce settlement. That corporation owned certain property located at 7967 Overlook Road, Hypoluxo, Palm Beach County, Florida. There are two small cottages located on the property. Ms. Shoop's attorney is an officer of the corporation, but it is not clear whether he is a stockholder. Ms. Shoop visited Respondent's office in order to inquire about insurance for the property. While she was in Respondent's office, Ms. Shoop asked Respondent if he would be interested in listing the property for sale. She explained that she did not need the property and was anxious to sell it in order to get some cash. Respondent agreed to list the property. Sometime in March of 1989, Respondent received an offer to purchase the property from Bernadette Butler. Included with that offer was a $500.00 earnest money deposit. Respondent placed the $500.00 deposit into his escrow account maintained at the Bank of South Palm Beaches, Hypoluxo, Florida. Ms. Shoop accepted Ms. Butler's offer and a contract was agreed upon in March of 1989 with an anticipated closing date in May of 1989. The contract price was $30,000. The specific terms of that initial contract have not been established. Neither party offered the contract into evidence at the hearing. The parties agreed to extend the closing date of that contract and a new written contract was entered on June 23, 1989. That new contract indicated that the closing was to take place on July 26, 1989. The second contract provided that the sale was contingent upon the purchaser obtaining financing in the amount of $21,000.00. The purchaser was unable to arrange financing and the transaction failed to close by July 26, 1989. The parties verbally agreed to extend the contract, however, the evidence is inconclusive as to how long an extension was agreed to. By October of 1989, it became clear that the transaction would not close. At that time, Ms. Shoop demanded the deposit and began efforts to sell the property to someone else. Ultimately, the property was sold at auction for $15,000. Ms. Shoop claims that she was not advised and would not have agreed to a contract that was contingent upon the buyer obtaining financing. As indicated above, the terms of the first contract have not been established. However, it is clear that the second contract did provide a contingency for financing. On October 31, 1989, Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Butler indicating that Ms. Shoop had requested the release of the deposit to her. Respondent enclosed a copy of a Release of Deposit Receipt form for Ms. Butler to execute. Ms. Butler did not execute the form and/or authorize the release of the deposit to Ms. Shoop. Respondent retained the deposit in his escrow account for several more months. During this time, Ms. Butler continued her attempts to obtain financing and also began searching for additional properties. Ms. Butler indicated to Respondent her intention to apply the money held in escrow to any new purchases that may arise if the contract with Ms. Shoop did not close. On several occasions in late 1989 and early 1990, Ms. Shoop attempted to contact the Respondent and determine the status of the escrow money. Respondent did not answer her inquiries. On September 10, 1990, an investigator from the Department visited Respondent's office to conduct a random audit of Respondent's business and his escrow account. During this audit, the investigator discovered the deposit being held in escrow without a current contract. She advised Respondent that he needed to be sure to comply with the requirements of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code. In October of 1990, the Respondent sent a letter to both Ms. Butler and Ms. Shoop enclosing a Release of Deposit Receipt form pursuant to which he suggested that the parties divide the deposit equally. Respondent sent a copy of this letter to the Department to notify it of his attempt to resolve the dispute over the deposit. By letter dated October 11, 1989, Gerri E. Barnoski, an analyst for the Florida Real Estate Commission, (the "Commission") advised Respondent of his options. In this letter, Ms. Barnoski told Respondent that he had to either (1) arrange for arbitration, (2) place the matter before a civil court or (3) request an Escrow Disbursement Order from the Florida Real Estate Commission. The Respondent subsequently requested an Escrow Disbursement Order from the Florida Real Estate Commission and the matter is currently pending resolution by the Commission in Case No. E902949. The deposit remains in Respondent's escrow account. In sum, the evidence demonstrated that Respondent failed to promptly notify the Commission of the conflicting demands to the escrow deposit. Respondent claims that he never received a formal written demand from either party. However, the evidence is clear that by at least October of 1989, Respondent was aware of the conflicting demands for the deposit. After delay of approximately one year, Respondent finally attempted to resolve the matter in an appropriate manner. Respondent says he was concerned that attorney's fees would consume the entire deposit. However, this concern does not excuse the delay. There is no indication that Respondent was manipulating the transaction for his own personal gain and/or that he was trying to defraud either party. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. At the time Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's office in September of 1990, there was no sign immediately outside the entrance door to Respondent's office. The large sign alongside the roadway (which is described in Finding of Fact 2 above) was in place and there was a trademark indication of a Realtor on the entrance door. However, a sign which had previously been on the wall immediately next to the entrance door was missing. The evidence established that the sign at the entrance door was temporarily missing due to unusual circumstances. Respondent was in the middle of a hotly contested divorce. Respondent and his former wife had previously worked out of the office together. The sign next to the entrance door had both of their names on it. Respondent taped over the name of his former wife and the sign was subsequently vandalized. Respondent had delayed obtaining a new sign until the divorce proceedings were concluded. The evidence indicates the road side sign was in place approximately fifteen feet from the entrance. Visitors to the office were sufficiently alerted to the identity of the real estate broker within. In view of all the circumstances, Respondent was not in violation of the requirement that he have a sign on or about the entrance to the real estate office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts II and III, reprimanding him, placing him on probation a period of one year and imposing a fine of $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 24th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9-15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2 and 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7-15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 10-17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth A. Norberg Arden Real Estate Associates 525 West Lantana Road Lantana, Florida 33462 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Naomi N. Radcliff, is licensed in Florida as a real estate broker (license No. 0369173) and has been at all times material to the Administrative Complaint. On December 2, 1987, Respondent submitted a Request for License or Change of Status form which sought to cancel the license. Thereafter, the Department reclassified Respondent as an inactive broker. In July, 1986, Randy Mangold and his wife entered into a contract to purchase real property located in Indian River Estates. Naomi Radcliff was the real estate agent who handled the transaction on behalf of the Mangolds. The Mangolds' contract provided for occupancy prior to closing with a security deposit for the rental in the amount of $1500. This amount was paid to Respondent. At closing the $1500 security deposit was to be applied to the buyers' closing costs. The Mangolds rented the home for a year and attempted to obtain financing for the purchase. When their mortgage application was denied, they elected to vacate the property. After they vacated the property, the Mangolds requested the return of the $1500 security deposit. Demands were made on Respondent who refused to return the deposit despite the fact that the Mangolds had fully paid all rents owed and had left the house in good condition. Finally, the Mangolds sued Respondent in the St. Lucie County Court and obtained a judgment for the $1500 security deposit. Respondent has not satisfied the judgment. At one point Respondent did give the Mangolds a check for $500 which was returned due to insufficient funds in the account. In December, 1986, Respondent acted as a rental agent for Walter Zielinski, an out-of-state owner. Mr. Zielinski owned two houses in Port St. Lucie, one of which was located at 941 Fenway. In early December, 1986, Respondent advised Mr. Zielinski that the tenants had left the home at 941 Fenway and that the unit was in fairly good condition. Sometime later in the month, Mr. Zielinski discovered the house was empty but that it had been damaged. There were holes in the wall in the utility room approximately two feet in diameter. The flooring in the utility room and kitchen was ripped up. There was a hole in the wall in the master bedroom. More important to Mr. Zielinski, the house was unsecured because the garage door latch was broken and the house was accessible through the garage. After discovering the unit was at risk for additional damage, Mr. Zielinski attempted to contact Respondent but numerous calls to Respondent, her place of work, and to a former employer proved to be unsuccessful. Finally, Mr. Zielinski obtained another real estate agent to represent the 941 Fenway home. The new agent, Cathy Prince, attempted to obtain from Respondent the keys, the security deposit, and the rent money belonging to Mr. Zielinski. In January, 1987, Mr. Zielinski came to Florida from Illinois to take care of the rental problems. Mr. Zielinski incurred expenses totalling $876.74 to repair the damages to 941 Fenway. Also, Mr. Zielinski wanted to collect the rents owed by Respondent for his other property and have the security deposit for the second property transferred to the new agent. Respondent issued a personal check for the security deposit which was returned for insufficient funds. A second personal check paid to Mr. Zielinski for the rent owed was accepted and cleared. According to Mr. Zielinski, Respondent did not maintain an office where he could find her during the latter part of December, 1986 through January, 1987. In March, 1987, the security deposit for Mr. Zielinski's second rental was paid to the new agent. The check was issued by Respondent's mother. Respondent never personally returned any calls to the new agent. In June, 1986, Alyssa and Jeffrey Maloy entered into a contract to purchase a house. Respondent handled the real estate transaction for the Maloys. The closing was to be December 9 or 10, 1986. Respondent held monies that were required to complete the Maloy closing. Respondent attended the closing but the check tendered to the closing agent, Chelsea Title, was drawn on an trust account which had been closed. The closing agent discovered the problem and requested sufficient funds. Respondent left the closing and returned some hours later with new checks drawn on another account. After checking with the bank, it was again discovered that the funds in the account were insufficient to cover the amount needed for closing. Finally, some days later the Respondent's brother delivered a certified check to cover the amount needed to close the Maloy transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent's real estate broker's license for a period of five years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 12th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4631 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, with the exception of the date referenced (November, 1986) the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected a hearsay evidence unsupported by direct evidence of any source. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted. The second sentence calls for speculation based on facts not in the record and is, therefore, rejected. Paragraphs 7-11 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 12, the first four sentences are accepted; with regard to the balance, the Respondent's brother did deliver funds to allow the Maloy transaction to close however the source of the funds is speculation based upon hearsay unsupported by the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Naomi N. Radcliff 1420 Seaway Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33482
The Issue The issues in this case include whether Respondent is guilty of having committed culpable negligence in a business transaction or failed to maintain trust funds in a proper account until disbursement was authorized and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida since 1983 and holds license number 0405933. His most current license was as a broker trading as Realty Trend. Respondent started Realty Trend in 1985 for the primary purpose of managing rental properties. Although he had little or no training or experience in accounting, Respondent retained considerable responsibility for the day-to- day bookkeeping associated with his business, though at times he employed a bookkeeper. Respondent maintained one account for sales transactions, in which he participated as the broker, and one account for property management activity. Respondent participated in few sales transactions and is phasing out of that part of the business. All escrow monies held by Respondent were kept in interest-bearing accounts. Although Respondent retained the interest, he disclosed this fact to the parties through the sales contract. Within about 18 months, Respondent had acquired about 100 properties to manage. Respondent decided to automate the bookkeeping and purchased a computer program that would write checks, track income and expenses, generate reports, and generally handle all aspects of bookkeeping. The program was designed to assist in property management operations. Emphasizing service to property owners, Respondent had always tried to send his checks for rent collected the past month between the tenth and fifteenth of each month. By August, 1989, Respondent had been warned by Petitioner that he had to allow two or three weeks for tenant's checks to clear and determine what emergency maintenance expenses might be incurred. Through a combination of ignorance about bookkeeping, his responsibilities as a broker holding escrow monies, and the property management computer program, Respondent mishandled his trust account. His repeated bookkeeping errors and failure to take corrective action allowed a sizable shortage to accumulate by the time Petitioner conducted a routine office audit on November 17, 1989. Respondent cooperated fully with the audit and promptly provided Petitioner's investigator with a box full of bank statements. His account was reaudited on January 8, 1990. Poor bookkeeping prevents a precise determination of the shortage, but it exceeds $10,000. It is difficult to understand how Respondent's books became so confused as to become nearly worthless. There was no evidence of fraudulent intent. It appears as likely that Respondent overpaid property owners as that he overpaid himself. Respondent's ongoing ignorance of his serious trust account shortages or, in the alternative, repeated failure to solve recognized trust account shortages represents culpable negligence. Even by the time of hearing, Respondent candidly admitted that he could not provide an accurate figure for the shortage and had not yet been able to repay the deficiency, although he intended to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondent; imposing an administrative fine of $500; requiring Respondent to complete an approved 60-hour course; suspending his license for a period of six months, commencing retroactive to the date on which Respondent cease operations due to the emergency suspension; and placing his license on probation for a period of three years following the conclusion of the suspension, during which time Respondent shall file escrow account reports with the Commission or other person designated by the Commission at such intervals as the Commission requires. DONE and ORDERED this 8 day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8 day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Attorney Steven W. Johnson Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Thomas I. McIntosh 13542 N. Florida Ave. Tampa, FL 33613 Attorney Neil F. Garfield Envirwood Executive Plaza, Suite 200 5950 West Oakland Park Blvd. Lauderhill, FL 33313 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, or obstructed or hindered any person in the performance of his or her duties under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(i), Florida Statutes; or failed to preserve and make available to Petitioner all books, records and supporting documents, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, and thus Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is guilty of any of these violations, an additional issue is what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was known as Phyllis Mae Wilson, but is now known as Phyllis Mae Perry due to a change in marital status. Since 1987 or 1988, Respondent has been licensed as a Florida real estate broker, holding license number 0462610. From October 1, 1998, through June 4, 2001, Respondent registered with Petitioner her "location address" as 2200 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale. From October 1, 1994, through January 9, 2001, Respondent registered with Petitioner her "mailing address" as 1940 Northeast 55th Court, Fort Lauderdale. As part of Petitioner's rotating schedule of office inspections, Monroe Berger, Petitioner's Investigation Specialist II, sent a letter to Respondent dated May 24, 1999, at 1940 Northeast 55th Court, Fort Lauderdale. The letter, which was sent by regular mail, states that Petitioner wishes to conduct an office inspection and escrow review, pursuant to cited statutes and rules. The letter warns: "Please be advised, you must respond to my request within 15 days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to do so may result in you being charged with hindrance in the enforcement of chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and administrative action may be taken against your real estate license." When Mr. Berger did not receive a response to the May 24 letter, he requested, by letter dated June 10, 1999, from the United States Postal Service a confirmation of the Northeast 55th Court address or, if applicable, a new address for Respondent. After the United States Postal Service verified that the Northeast 55th Court address was a good address for Respondent, Mr. Berger sent a second letter to Respondent at the incorrect address of Northeast 55th "Street," not "Court." Dated September 24, 1999, this letter advises that "a complaint has been filed against you"--evidently, by Mr. Berger. This letter gives Respondent 20 days to respond to the complaint. At some point, Respondent received this letter or a copy of it, but the record does not permit a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, as to when Respondent received this letter. Respondent did not respond to the September 24 letter. The only information that Petitioner received from Respondent following the letters of May 24 and September 24, 1999, was a form that Respondent submitted, on January 18, 2000, to advise Petitioner of a change in licensing status of a salesperson working for Respondent. Although not intended to advise Petitioner of any changes in Respondent's location or mailing address, the form contains a new address for Respondent: 3466 Northeast 12th Terrace, Oakland Park. However, in no way does the form respond to the letters of May 24 and September 24, 1999. Although Mr. Berger did not testify at the hearing, as he is now retired, his supervisor at the time testified that Mr. Berger did not pursue the investigation more vigorously on the advice of the supervisor, who counseled patience. Respondent claims that a series of personal and business matters effectively prevented her from attending to such regulatory matters as updated her licensing information and seizing the initiative in response to her early contact with Mr. Berger. During this period of time, Respondent was not active in real estate, but was busy with another business that she and her husband were operating. Respondent was also deterred from producing her real estate records because she knew that a leaky roof had caused them considerable water damage. At the time of her first contact with Mr. Berger, during the period relevant to this case, Respondent had no listings or pending sales, and she so informed Mr. Berger. Respondent had known Mr. Berger and his previous supervisor, whom she had sometimes called when she had had a regulatory question. During the period relevant to this case, Respondent spoke with Mr. Berger four times. For the most part, they agreed that Respondent would try to reassemble whatever undamaged real estate records that she could find. By the summer of 2000, they had agreed that Mr. Berger would send her a questionnaire, which, when completed by Respondent, would confirm the absence of any active escrow account and would obviate the necessity of an office inspection and audit, except possibly to confirm that Respondent had properly posted a sign and license. However, Mr. Berger never sent Respondent the questionnaire, and, after health issues arose, Respondent was again prevented from pressing the matter to a conclusion. Undoubtedly, Respondent did not respond as completely as she should have to the May 24, 1999, letter and to the September 24, 1999, letter, whenever she received it. Obviously, though, the Administrative Law Judge has credited her version of conversations with Mr. Berger in the absence of Mr. Berger's testimony. Although Respondent's testimony concerning Mr. Berger's casual approach to this matter is possibly inconsistent with the September 24 letter, the misaddressing of the letter precludes a determination as to when Respondent received the letter and, thus, a finding of inconsistency between Respondent's version of events and the apparently toughened approach adopted by Mr. Berger in the September 24 letter. At times, Respondent's credibility seemed strained, but these occasions were limited to the seemingly endless accumulation of excuses as to why she may not have received a letter or notice or could not have dealt more directly with this matter at the time. More importantly, Respondent's description of the extent to which Mr. Berger casually pursued the investigation is consistent with the considerable period of time that passed during the investigation without formal action, the prior relationship that Respondent had developed with Mr. Berger and his previous supervisor, and the low risk that Respondent posed to the public, given that her real estate practice was nearly inactive in 1999. For all of these reasons, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to meet any unconditional demands from Petitioner. Thus, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes; obstructed or hindered a person in discharging his duties under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes; or failed to keep and make available to Petitioner the books, records, and documents required by law to be kept and produced upon demand.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___ ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Saunders, Chairperson Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack Hisey, Deputy Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn M. Severs, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room N308 Orlando, Florida 32802 Phyllis Mae Perry 1940 Northeast 55th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Chapter 475, Florida Statute, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Dean O. Vanderwoude is now a real estate broker and was at all times material hereto a real estate salesman in Florida having been issued license number 0432878 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On August 15, 1988, Respondent passed an examination to be licensed as a broker and was licensed as a broker on September 1, 1988. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a salesman and operated under the direction, control, or management of a licensed real estate broker, Anne M. Graffunder, and P.M.M. Properties under a 100 percent commission agreement whereby Respondent rented office space from his broker Graffunder. Respondent was affiliated with Graffunder and P.M.M. Capital, Inc., from approximately November 4, 1986, to October 16, 1987. When Respondent became affiliated with P.M.M., he had been licensed less than one year having first been affiliated with Security Realty Florida from December 20, 1985, to November 4, 1986. Under Graffunder's supervision, Respondent received little assistance in the form of guidance or instructions as to the methods and manner of presenting purchase contracts to sellers, little or no office support in the form of clerical assistance or technical training in the methods of handling escrow funds, no malpractice insurance coverage in the form of errors or omission's policy and no sales/training seminars. On approximately April 6, 1987, Respondent obtained a sales listing from Gary Alan Dahl (Dahl), a real estate investor, concerning real property, the record owner of which was Joe Belcik who had granted to Dahl equitable title to the property by Quit Claim Deed yet unrecorded. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The real property located at 2785 Adrian Avenue, Largo, Florida, had been purchased by Belcik from Dahl who had previously purchased the property from the Veteran's Administration. Respondent was aware of the condition of the title to the property listed by him for sale as he reviewed an abstract of the property. On April 6, 1987, prospective purchasers David and Donna A. Kiser (herein purchasers) viewed the real property at 2785 Adrian Avenue, Largo, Florida, and contacted Respondent at a telephone number observed on a "for sale" sign posted on the property. On that date, the purchasers executed a written offer to purchase the property, which offer was prepared by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In conjunction with the offer to purchase, the purchasers tendered an earnest money deposit to Respondent, by cashier's check number 703917, dated April 10, 1987, in the amount of $100.00 made payable to P.M.M. Properties. The cashier's check was deposited into the escrow account of P.M.M. Capital, Inc., Sun Bank of Tampa Bay account number 265-014-3405 on April 15, 1987. The transaction closed on April 22, 1987. Following the closing, Graffunder issued a check number 140 written on the escrow account of P.M.M. Capital, Inc., Sun Bank/Southeast, account number 265-014-3405, dated April 22, 1987, made payable to Respondent in the amount of $100.00. The check was received by Respondent with Dahl's full permission and consent. Respondent represented to the purchasers that the seller, Dahl, had accepted their offer and desired to close the transaction immediately. Toward that end, Dahl came to Pinellas County from Sarasota County and executed all documentation necessary to effectuate the transfer on or before April 15, 1987. On April 15, 1987, Respondent met with the purchasers and had them sign all closing documents. This included execution of a closing statement and the Kisers requested an extension in order to obtain the $4,900.00 closing proceeds from Mrs. Kiser's father. On April 22, 1987, Mrs. Kiser presented the closing proceeds check and the transaction was finalized. That proceeds check and the $100.00 deposit check were both placed in Graffunder's operating account and pursuant to instructions from Dahl, Respondent received the closing proceeds as agent for Dahl. Dahl and the purchasers completed the closing by executing an Agreement for Deed on April 15, 1987. That agreement provides, in pertinent part, that the purchaser's would pay Dahl the total purchase price of $65,000.00 which included a down payment of $5,000.00 and monthly payments of $557.07 commencing May 1, 1987, and continuing for twenty-nine (29) months at which time the remaining principal balance of $60,073.18 would be payable in the form of a balloon payment. Dahl agreed to carry fire insurance for the full insurable value of the property and the purchasers were to have their names added to the policy as additional insureds. Additionally, both parties agreed that a Memorandum of Interest would be filed in the records of Pinellas County at the time of entering into the Agreement for Deed. Finally, the Agreement for Deed represented that there was a first mortgage in favor of Chrysler First and stated the condition that should the purchasers fail to make payments required of them within thirty (30) days after the same becomes due, the seller may, at his option, declare the contract null and void and all monies paid may be retained as full satisfaction and/or liquidated damages. Respondent did not provide the purchasers a warranty deed until approximately June 27, 1988, when he first became aware that Dahl had not given one to the Kisers. Respondent acknowledges that given the opportunity to reconstruct that transaction, he would have ensured that the seller provided a Warranty Deed to the purchasers as agreed in the Agreement for Deed. Respondent did not follow-up to ensure that a Memorandum of Interest was filed in the public records of Pinellas County as the parties agreed. Within months following the Riser's purchase of the subject property from Dahl, they became disenchanted with the property and ceased making payments under the agreement for Deed causing a large arrearage to accumulate and a subsequent mortgage foreclosure action was initiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: The Petitioner enter a final order finding that an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed upon Respondent and his license number 0432878 be placed on probation for a period of sixty (60) days with the condition that the fine be payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of entry of the final order. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian E. Johnson, Esquire Brian E. Johnson, P.A. 7190 Seminole Boulevard Seminole, Florida 34642 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
