Findings Of Fact Jan Tomas is and was at all times pertinent hereto the holder of real estate broker registration certificate No. 0089450 from the Florida Real Estate Commission. The pleadings in this case show that on April 21, 1976, a Notice of Hearing was mailed to Jan Tomas by the Florida Real Estate Commission at two addresses; the first being Post Office Box 10887, Tampa, Florida 33609 and the second address being 364 Candler Park Drive, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30307. This Notice of Hearing was for hearing to be held on May 19, 1976, the date of the final hearing herein. This Notice was received by Jan Tomas as evidenced by the letter marked Exhibit 6 to Delphene C. Strickland, the then assigned Hearing Officer in this cause. On March 22, 1974, Jan Tomas applied for renewal of his certificate of registration as an active real estate broker. In his application he listed his business address and residence address as 417 A E Hanlon Street, Tampa, Florida 33604. Tomas was issued renewal certificate No. 099351 at the foregoing address which certificate expired September 30, 1975. By application dated February 7, 1975, Jan Tomas applied for a renewal of his active broker registration certificate setting forth his business and residence address as 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida 33609. Pursuant to that application he was issued renewal certificate No. 207246 at the foregoing address which certificate expired September 30, 1975. At no time during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas occupy the premises located at 417 A E Hanlon Street, Tampa, Florida either in a business capacity or in a residential capacity. Throughout 1974 and 1975, 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida was a vacant lot. At no time during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas maintain a business or residence at 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida. Nor, during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas maintain a business or residence at 103, 104 or 107 South Hale, Tampa, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds real estate broker license no. 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. However, he did not act in his licensed capacity in any of the transactions discussed herein. Respondent was involved in a corporate business venture with Donald M. and Darlene Pifalo. He believed the Pifalos had improperly diverted funds from the corporation and filed suit accordingly. In December, 1980, while this suit was pending, Respondent filed a notice of lis pendens against various properties owned by the Pifalos. This action encumbered property in which the Pifalos' equity greatly exceeded Respondent's alleged loss in the business venture. There was no evidence that the Pifalos were planning to leave the jurisdiction or would be unable to make any court ordered restitution. Further, the encumbered property was not at issue in this litigation. Finally, Respondent filed the notice of lis pendens on his own volition and not on the advice of counsel. The notice was subsequently dismissed.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining Respondent $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 April, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven Hall, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate salesman and broker. Upon February 15, 1984, he became licensed as a broker. The Respondent was registered with and employed by J. Arnold Ausley Realty from March 31, 1983 to February 15, 1984. J. Arnold Ausley was a licensed real estate broker and operated as Ausley Properties during times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and practice of realtors in the State of Florida and enforcing the practice standards for realtors embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On February 4, 1984, the Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed salesman for Ausley Properties, arranged a contract between Champak Bhoja and Kishor Patel, as purchasers of a certain piece of real estate owned by one John D. Gilbert. In connection with that contract the Respondent obtained a $2,000 check as a deposit from Mr. Patel. At Mr. Patel's request the Respondent held this check without negotiating it awaiting Patel's instruction that sufficient funds were on deposit to honor the check. The Respondent waited four weeks and received no such instructions from Mr. Patel. The Respondent therefore contacted Patel, who was in Nebraska at the time, to tell him that he felt legally obligated to deposit the check. The check was deposited and was returned for insufficient funds. On March 19, 1984, Mr. Patel gave the Respondent a replacement check in the amount of $2,000. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Patel to make the check out to him since he had in the meantime become a broker and wanted credit for this transaction in his own business. He also informed Mr. Patel that he would need to use the money for his own personal expenses, in the nature of a "loan." Mr. Patel, however, made the check out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." The Respondent and Mr. Patel had been involved in other business ventures together during the course of which Mr. Patel had already lent the Respondent, on different occasions, a total of approximately $4,000. This course of dealing was continued in the present instance, from the Respondent's viewpoint, when the Respondent informed Mr. Patel that he needed the $2,000 for personal expense purposes and would pay it back as a loan. He believed Mr. Patel assented to that arrangement at the time. The sales contract at issue ultimately failed to be consummated due to Mr. Pate1 and Mr. Bhoja not meeting the required contingency regarding debt financing. Approximately fifteen days after the contract's closing date passed, Mr. Patel made a demand upon the Respondent for the return of the $2,000 deposit. The Respondent failed to return it at that time but assured Mr. Patel that he would repay the money and needed more time to obtain the necessary funds. The Respondent had not deposited the check in the Ausley Properties Escrow Account because such an account did not exist, although the Respondent had urged Mr. Ausley on a number of occasions to set up such an account. The Respondent rather cashed the $2,000 check and used the proceeds for his own benefit, as he had informed Patel he would do. He used the money to meet certain operating expenses and personal expenses, being in severe financial straits at the time. Pate1 knew he was experiencing financial difficulties and had lent him the previously mentioned $4,000 to help him with operating expenses and personal expenses during the pendency of the closing of their various other real estate ventures. The Respondent informed Patel he would use the subject $2,000 for similar purposes, however, the record does not clearly reflect that Patel consented to this, as opposed to his intent that the money be placed in an account as his deposit of consideration for the contract. His testimony to this latter effect is borne out by the fact that in spite of the Respondent's request that the check be made out to him personally, instead Patel made it out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." That account did not exist but the method of drafting the check reveals his intent that the money was to be used as a deposit. In any event the Respondent made no misrepresentation to Mr. Patel as to what he intended to do with the money, but at the same time he did not deposit it in an appropriate account to be held as a deposit toward the purchase of the property involved in the sales contract. Patel made numerous demands for the money and each time Respondent acknowledged this and the other debt to Patel and promised to pay. He ultimately began paying back a small portion of the indebtedness to each of his creditors starting out at a rate of $10 per month. Ultimately, the Respondent paid the entire $2,000 predicated on receipt of his 1985 income tax return.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner finding that the Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(b),(d,)(e) and (k) only to the extent delineated in the above conclusions of law and that his real estate broker's license be subjected to a six months suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven R. Hall 8880 Old Kings Hwy., Apt. 30-W Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Michael Sheahan, Esquire Two South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Rea1 Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected, although the evidence establishes that Patel intended the funds to be escrowed. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected as not comporting with the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:* Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted, but irrelevant to the charges. Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the first sentence only. The second sentence concerning Patel's response is not clearly supported by record evidence. Accepted Accepted Accepted * Although Respondent is proposed findings are accepted, some are inculpatory, some are not material and some support the conclusion that no fraudulent conduct was committed.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, Kathi L. Kitts, should be revoked or otherwise penalized based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: Brickell Grove Realty Corporation ("Brickell Grove") is a licensed real estate brokerage corporation in Florida having been issued license number 0245921. From at least May 1988 through September 1, 1988, the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove was Frederick Morrison, Jr. (Morrison). At some point in mid to late 1988, (the exact date was not established by competent substantial evidence) Morrison was hospitalized with a terminal illness and his subsequent involvement in the real estate brokerage business was limited. Morrison died on September 1, 1988. Respondent, Kathi L. Kitts (formerly known as Kathi L. Abassi), was licensed by Petitioner as a salesman with Brickell Grove beginning on or about August 13, 1986. Respondent completed the required course for a real estate broker's license in April of 1988. On September 19, 1988, she passed the state exam required to obtain a broker's license. The evidence did not establish when Respondent first filed an application for a broker's license. After passing the exam in September of 1988, Respondent submitted an application which she thought would enable her to become the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove. The evidence did not establish the date that application was submitted. That application was not signed by the qualifying broker of Brickell Grove and/or the owner so it could not serve to qualify Respondent as the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove. On October 1, 1988, Petitioner issued Respondent a broker/salesman license as an employee of Brickell Grove. That broker/salesman license was revoked in November of 1988 when it was discovered that the corporate registration of Brickell Grove was cancelled effective September 30, 1988 as a result of the death of Morrison and the non-renewal of the corporate license. The exact date of the revocation was not established by competent substantial evidence but it was apparently on or after November 1, 1988. Prior to receiving the revocation notice, Respondent was advised by an investigator employed by Petitioner that her application to become the qualifying broker was deficient because it was not signed by the owner or broker. On October 20, 1988, Respondent filed another application to become licensed as the qualifying broker for Brickell Grove and to change the name on her license from Kathi Abassi to Kathi Kitts. This second application contained the signature of the owner of Brickell Grove. On November 4, 1988, Respondent sent a letter to the Division of Real Estate indicating that Mr. Morrison was seriously ill and that it was urgent that her application to be the active broker for Brickell Grove be approved as quickly as possible. Respondent did not, however, discover that Mr. Morrison had died on September 1, 1988, until sometime in the middle of November when she was advised by Petitioner's investigator. Petitioner approved Respondent's second application to become the qualifying broker for Brickell Grove on November 22, 1988. The approved broker's license was backdated to establish an effective date of October 20, 1988. Effective October 20, 1988, the corporate registration of Brickell Grove Realty Corporation was reinstated upon the Respondent becoming its sole qualifying broker. Respondent admitted that at least during the time period from September 1, 1988 through October 20, 1988, she operated as a salesman in the office of Brickell Grove Realty without any supervision from another broker in the office. However, no competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the nature or extent of business conducted by that office or by Respondent during this time period. Respondent did not open bank accounts or advertise as a broker until after October 20, 1988. While Respondent contends that she thought Mr. Morrison was continuing to carry on as the active broker for Brickell Grove during the time period he was hospitalized and continuing through November (after his death), she admitted that she only saw him on occasion and could not recall when he was last in the office. The limited contact between Respondent and the licensed broker for Brickell Grove is reflected by her lack of knowledge of his death until almost two months after it occurred. While there is hearsay testimony that Mr. Morrison was in the hospital for several months prior to his death and that his involvement with Brickell Grove Realty during the several months preceding his death was limited, or nonexistent, no competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the nature or extent of the business conducted by Respondent without the benefit of supervision by a licensed broker during the time period prior to September 1, 1988. Petitioner had previously initiated an investigation into unlicensed practice by one of the owners of Brickell Grove, Mahmoud Abassi (Respondent's former husband) in July of 1986. That investigation resulted in an August 29, 1986 affidavit executed by Mahmoud Abassi to cease and desist unlicensed real estate brokerage activity. However, no competent substantial evidence was offered to prove any involvement by Respondent in the activities which led to the execution of that affidavit nor was any evidence offered to show that Mahmoud Abassi was actually running Brickell Grove at any point subsequent to the execution of the affidavit. Moreover, no competent substantial evidence was offered as to Respondent's activities and/or supervision during the period from the execution of the affidavit until September 1, 1988.
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 finding Respondent, Kathi Kitts, guilty of operating as a broker without a license during the period from September 14, 1988, to October 1, 1988, reprimanding her and placing her on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of December 1989. 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 15th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times material herein, Respondent was licensed as an active real estate salesman in the employ of corporate real estate broker Island International Realty, Inc. In April, 1979, Respondent sold his advertising business to a Walter White, since Respondent was about to move out of the State of Florida. In conjunction with that sale, Respondent took White to the various clients of that advertising business in order to introduce White as the new owner. One of those clients was The Glades, Inc., the owner of The Glades Country Club Apartments. Respondent introduced White to Garrett F. X. Beyrent, the Executive Vice President and selling broker for The Glades, Inc. Respondent also indicated to Beyrent that White might be interested in purchasing a condominium. Beyrent showed White one of the models. Respondent asked Beyrent if Beyrent co- brokered with outside brokers, and Beyrent advised Respondent that he did. Respondent showed Beyrent his Massachusetts real estate broker's license and advised Beyrent that he had a Florida real estate salesman's license also. White returned to The Glades a few days later, found a unit he liked, and Beyrent wrote up a "contract." Beyrent wrote on the top, right-hand corner of the "contract" the words: Max Levy broker. It is Beyrent's standard policy when dealing with an outside salesman or broker to write that person's name and the word "broker" on the upper, right- hand portion of the purchase agreements used by The Glades, Inc. He writes the word "broker" whether it is a salesman he is dealing with or a broker. Beyrent assumed Levy was a broker, but Respondent never indicated to Beyrent, expressly or impliedly, that he was a broker in the State of Florida. At about this time, the Respondent moved out of the State of Florida. He had no knowledge that Walter White was in the process of purchasing a unit from Beyrent. Walter White and Sandra White signed two different purchase agreements for a unit at The Glades Country Club Apartments. There is no evidence in this record regarding the dates of either "contract" or the date of the closing. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2 bears no date; contains blanks, including those concerning the terms of the purchase; is not signed by anyone on behalf of the seller; and bears no corporate seal, although the seller is a corporation. Assumably, this is the first draft of the contract entered into between the Whites and The Glades, Inc., for the sale of real estate. A few days before the unknown date of closing, Beyrent received a telephone call from Island International Realty, Inc. The caller advised Beyrent that Island International claimed the commission on the upcoming White sale, since Respondent was a salesman with that company. Beyrent contacted the Respondent in Michigan, where the Respondent was already living. Beyrent advised Respondent that Bob Leber, one of the owners of Island International, had asked Beyrent to issue the commission check to Island International, and that Beyrent had refused to comply with that request, since he had never heard of Island International but had known Respondent for seven years. Respondent contacted Leber and asked Leber when he could expect his share of the commission. When Leber advised that Island International would not pay Respondent his share of the commission, Respondent refused to allow the commission check to be released to Island International until after an agreement regarding the commission had been reached. In April, 1980, the Respondent returned to Florida for Easter vacation with his children. While in Florida, he went to visit Island International. Don Ross, the new owner of Island International, agreed to pay to the Respondent part of the commission on the sale to Walter White, and the Respondent agreed to release the commission check. The Glades, Inc., issued a check for commission payable to both Respondent and Island International Realty, and that commission was then split between Respondent and Island International according to their arrangement. During the time that Respondent was present at The Glades Country Club Apartments introducing White to Beyrent, Respondent never suggested to Beyrent that Respondent anticipated receiving a commission on the sale for himself or that he anticipated receiving the entire amount of any commission payable. Respondent has been in the real estate business for the last fourteen years. He has been licensed as a real estate salesman in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New York. No complaint has ever been made against Respondent for his activities as a real estate professional other than the charges brought against him by Island International as a result of the Walter White transaction. Frances Egan, the only employee of Island International who testified at the hearing in this cause, had no firsthand knowledge regarding the Walter White transaction or regarding the arrangement between Respondent and the owners of that corporate broker. She did terminate Respondent from the employment of Island International in September, 1979, the same time frame when the owner of the agency was in direct communication with the Respondent attempting to obtain the entire commission for Island International. Although Egan's first knowledge of the Walter White transaction occurred on the unknown date of closing, the owners of the agency for which she worked were in contact with both the Respondent and with Beyrent, the selling broker for The Glades, Inc., several days prior to the closing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondent, Max Levy, not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint against him. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Xavier J. Fernandez, Esquire Nuckolls, Johnson & Fernandez, P.A. 701 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 10 Post Office Box 729 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Max Levy 9070 Tindall Road Davisburg, Michigan 48019 Mr. Carlos Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, German H. Rodriguez, committed the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent has been licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0434907. On March 20, 1995, Respondent submitted a license renewal form to the Petitioner which resulted in the automatic issuance of a renewed license for two years, ending March 31, 1997. The license renewal form provided, in pertinent part: I hereby affirm that I have met all of the requirements for license renewal set forth by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or the professional regulatory board indicated on the reverse side of this notice. I understand that, within the upcoming licensure period, if my license number is selected for audit by the Department and/or professional regulatory board, I may be required to submit proof that I have met all applicable license renewal requirements. I understand that proof may be required by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or professional regulatory board at any time and that it is my responsibility to maintain all documentation supporting my affirmation of eligibility for license renewal. I further understand that failure to comply with such requirements is in violation of the rules and statutes governing my profession and subjects me to possible disciplinary action and, further, that any false statements herein is in violation of section 455.227 Florida Statutes, subjecting me to disciplinary action as well as those penalties provided below. I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action on my license and/or criminal prosecution as provided in section 455.2275, Florida Statutes. When Respondent executed the renewal form he did not have documentation supporting his eligibility for license renewal. Specifically, Respondent did not have a course report documenting completion of the required 14 hour continuing education course. The course report that Respondent later received from an approved real estate school noted that Respondent had started the course June 1, 1995, and had finished it June 26, 1995. Respondent knew that the 14 hour continuing education course was required by the Department for license renewal. Further, Respondent knew that the course was to be completed before the renewal came due. Respondent maintains that he intended to complete the course before the renewal because he had, in fact, requested a correspondence course from an approved real estate school, had completed the course work, and had filled out the answer sheet. Unfortunately, according to Respondent, the envelope was misplaced and he failed to timely mail the answer form to the company for scoring. Therefore, Respondent did not get credit for the work until June, 1995, when he completed the work again. As chance would have it, Respondent was selected for audit in August, 1995. By this time he had completed the continuing education course work as required by the Department for license renewal but, as indicated above, did so after the renewal form had been submitted. In response to the audit, Respondent represented that he had completed the work prior to renewal but, through inadvertence, had not gotten the course credit until after the renewal period. Respondent did not successfully complete 14 hours of continuing education prior to submitting the renewal form. Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker for ten years during which time he has never been disciplined. At the time of the renewal, Respondent was not using his real estate license and was in an inactive status.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand with an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 German H. Rodriguez 703 Southwest 89th Avenue Plantation, Florida 33324
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anglickis is a Florida real estate broker holding license number 0001869. Respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0169476. The address of both respondents is 102 East Leland Heights Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida. (P-26.) Respondent Anglickis is president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., and Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. All three companies are located at the same address. (Testimony of Campbell; P-5, P-26.) On March 12, 1979, Louis G. Hofstetter and his wife, Dale I. Hofstetter, both residents of North Carolina, entered into a real estate contract with American Heritage Builders, Inc. Respondent Anglickis signed on behalf of American Hertiage Inc. Under the terms of the contract, the Hofstetters were to Purchase a lot and home to be constructed thereon by American Heritage Builders, Inc. The purchase price included the transfer of a lot owned by the Hofstetters and a cash down payment. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-1, P-3, P-26.) The contract estimated closing costs to be approximately $2,000". It also contained conflicting conditions relative to the time within which any mortgage financing must be obtained. . . . In the event PURCHASER'S application for mortgage financing is not approved within sixty (60) days from date hereof, all monies receipted for, less cost of credit report, will be returned to the PURCHASER and this contract will be null and void. * * * FOR MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS: This contract of Purchase and Sale shall be void unless Purchaser's application for Mortgage has been approved by a bank or financial institution and Purchaser has executed the Mortgage Acceptance Form, within four (3) [sic] months from date of this Contract of Purchase. 2/ (P-1, R-1.) On March 12, 1979, the Hofstetters signed a mortgage loan application and submitted it to Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. (P-26.) On May 5, 1979, 45 days after accepting the application, Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., submitted the Hofstetters' mortgage loan application to First Federal of DeSoto. (Testimony of Archer.) On June 15, 1979 (95 days after receiving the loan application), Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters indicating that the local lender needed additional information on their stock holdings, and enclosing a document titled "Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Charges". This document estimated that closing costs would be $2,754--$754 more than the estimate contained in the real estate contract. (P-5.) On June 22, 1979, the Hofstetters protested the increased closing cost, requested clarification, and provided the requested information on their stock holdings. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-26.) On July 7, 1979, the Hofstetters notified Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., that the increased closing cost deviated from the contract, that they therefore considered the contract cancelled and wanted the deposit refunded. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-8.) On June 29, 1979, Robert Campbell, vice-president of Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters and explained the meaning of each component of the closing cost. (P-7.) On July 17, 1979, respondent, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote a letter to the Hofstetters expressing his position: * * * Let me try and put the contract in the proper perspective for you. It's our contention that you have reluctantly provided to us the information that would enable us to make a proper and expedient application to the lending institution and that much of this information has been confused, causing further delays. In accordance with the contract, you were to make this application as quickly and as expediently as Possible so that the contract would not expire. However, this is not the case. Thus, my immediate Position is that the contract should be expired and all of the deposits, including the cash and the lot which we gave you $6,995.00 trade for, would be forfeited as agreed upon liquidated damages. He ended by outlining other alternatives and repeating his asserted right to cancel the transaction and retain the Hofstetters' deposit as liquidated damages * * * First, the lending institution must make a quick determination based on the facts that they have that you are either eligible or not eligible for a mortgage loan as outlined in our contract. If they still do not have enough information, we have no other choice then but to ask you to pay the increase which we have experienced at this time (price list enclosed), and in paying that increase we would be willing to take another 90 days to try and secure a loan for you. If your mortgage loan is denied, your deposit less the costs of processing your mortgage application will be returned to you. Of course, the third choice is the choice I hope we do not have to take, and that is cancelling this transaction and retaining your monies as agreed upon liquidated damages. (P-9.) Mr. Hofstetter responded on July 22, 1979. He denied that he was responsible for any delay or confusion in the Processing of their loan application; asserted that 93 days had elapsed from the submission of their loan application and Mr. Campbell's letter of June 15, 1979, asking for additional financial information; and informed respondent Anglickis that the contract had already expired by virtue of the clause allowing 60 days to obtain mortgage financing. He then, again, asked that his deposit be returned. (P-10.) On July 30, 1979, respondent Anglickis, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote to the Hofstetters indicating that the loan had been approved 3/ and he was prepared to build their home at the contract price. He then addressed Mr. Hofstetter's July 22, 1979, denial of any responsibility for delay in obtaining the mortgage loan: I have reviewed your letter of July 22, 1979 and I understand we certainly have a difference of opinion as to whose fault the delay has been caused by. However, I don't think it's time to look at whose fault the delay might be, since it all has worked out to your satisfaction. The mortgage has been approved and we are ready to build. I expect you will now sign the mortgage papers when receipted for so that we may begin construction immediately. (P-11.) On August 6, 1979, the Hofstetters restated to respondent Anglickis that they were not prepared to go ahead with construction, that the contract became null and void by operation of the 60-day mortgage financing clause, and that the deposit should be immediately returned. (P-12.) On August 31, 1979, respondent Anglickis notified the Hofstetters that, pursuant to the contract conditions, he was retaining their full deposit, including cash and the real estate lot for which they received a $6,995 credit toward the purchase price. The full down payment totaled $10,350. (P-1, P-13.) On September 8, 1979, the Hofstetters replied: We cannot understand why you continue to ignore the provisions of the second sentence of Paragraph Two on the reverse side of Contract No. 1997, dated 12 March 1979. You say you intend to invoke the Provisions of the third sentence of this para- graph, but this sentence is Predicated on the assumption that the mortgage would be approved within sixty (60) days. The mortgage was not approved until late July (your letter of 17 July 1979 indicated it was not yet approved, and your letter of 30 July 1979 stated that it had now been approved), more than 120 days past the date of the original contract. Our Position is as Previously stated on several occasions: on 12 May 1979 the contract became null and void, and on that date our deposit should have been refunded. Any action other than this is illegal, according to the terms of the contract. We are due return of our down payment, plus interest, from 12 May 1979. (P-24.) On October 3, 1979, First Federal of DeSoto, which had continued to process the Hofstetter loan application, issued a commitment approving the requested loan. On October 10, 1979, the Hofstetters rejected the mortgage loan. (P-26.) Subsequently, the Hofstetters wrote letters to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and the Lehigh Chamber of Commerce complaining of respondent Anglickis' retention of their deposit; they, then, retained an attorney and filed a civil action against respondents in the circuit court of Lee County. That action was settled out-of-court. There is no evidence whatsoever to support respondent Anglickis' assertion to the Hofstetters that they were dilatory or responsible for confusion or delay in obtaining the necessary mortgage financing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., be dismissed; That respondent Richard A. Anglickis be administratively fined $1,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oaklnd Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0500228. Respondent’s licensing cycle ends on March 31 every two years. He duly renewed his broker’s license prior to its expiration on March 31, 1994. During the ensuing two-year licensing term, Respondent executed on January 1, 1996, a Request for License or Change of Status and submitted the form to Petitioner. The purpose of submitting the form was to notify Petitioner that Respondent had adopted a corporate form of doing business as a real estate broker. Section A of the form contains a series of options. Respondent selected “other” and wrote in “change to corp.” Section B contains identifying information, and Respondent completed this section. Section C is irrelevant to the change that Respondent was making, and he did not fill in this section. The instructions for Section A direct the person filing the form as follows: “If this is a renewal of your license, it must be accompanied by the required fee and sign this: I hereby affirm that I have met all statutory and rule requirements regarding education for license renewal.” Respondent signed this statement even though he was not seeking a renewal of his license. The instructions for Section B told the person filing the form how to complete Section B. But these instructions required no representations. The next form generated in this case was another renewal notice, as Respondent’s license neared the end of its term, which expired March 31, 1996. This form states: “By submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department . . ., a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal.” By check dated December 30, 1995, Respondent timely submitted his license renewal fee of $95 in response to the renewal notice. He was unaware at the time that he had not met the continuing education requirement for relicensing, which called for 14 hours of education. In reliance on the implied representation that Respondent had completed the required continuing education, Petitioner renewed Respondent’s license. Later, during a random audit, Petitioner discovered that Respondent had not completed the necessary courses and commenced this proceeding. Respondent was cooperative during the audit. Upon discovering that he had not complied with the continuing education requirement, he promptly undertook the necessary coursework, which he completed by August 6, 1996.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Andrea D. Perkins Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen Frederick H. Wilsen & Associates, P.A. Law Office of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
