Findings Of Fact The Defendant was at all times material herein registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On May 3, 1974, the Acting State Attorney filed before the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida an Amended Information charging the Defendant with the offenses of the sale of unregistered securities and the sale of unregistered securities without being registered as a dealer or salesman in violation of Florida Statutes 517.02(1), 517.07, and 517.12(1). On October 11, 1973, the Defendant entered a plea of N0L0 CONTENDERE to both offenses and Judge Humes T. Lasher, Circuit Judge in and for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placed the Defendant on probation for a period of two years. See Commission's Exhibits 1 and 2. Counsel for the Commission takes the position that the Defendant's entry of a NOLO CONTENDERE plea amounts to an admission and therefore a violation of Chapter475.25(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes. The Defendant contrary to the position taken by the Commission, avers that no such inference should be deduced from his entry of a NOLO CONTENDERE plea. He further contends that the plea was entered only because of his wife's mental condition and the extreme hardships brought about by above cited charges, and further that he had never been found guilty or the convicted of any crime in this or any other state. In mitigation, the Defendant testified to his honorary and exemplary military service. Chapter 475,25 sets forth grounds for revocation or suspension of a registrant's license with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Subsection 1(a) thereof provides in pertinent part that a registrant's license may be suspended based upon a finding of fact showing that the registrant has: (a) Been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises etc. in this state or any other state, nation or territory. . . or (e) Been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent or dishonest dealing; and the record of a conviction certified or authenticated in such form as to be admissible in evidence under the laws of this state, shall be admissible as prime facie evidence of such guilt. On April 30, 1975, Defendant, through his attorney, filed a Motion to Terminate Probation, Adjudicating Petitioner Not Guilty and Set Him Free, which was denied by Judge Lasher on May 12, 1975. In denying said motion to terminate probation, the Judge stated that the Defendant had failed to abide by the rules set forth by the Parole and Probate Commission. No further evidence was presented respecting this motion and/or its disposition. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. The burden of proving that a licensed real estate salesman has violated the Real Estate Licensing Law lies with the Florida Real Estate Commission or its representative. State ex rel Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Florida 1973). Insufficient evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that the Defendant based on the allegations contained in Counts 1 and II of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, has engaged in conduct violative of Florida Statutes 475.25(1)(a) and (e). The conduct here alleged and claimed to be violative of the above cited statutes if proven, must rest on a showing that the Defendant has "been guilty of a crime. . ." From the evidence here presented, there was no such showing but rather there was only a showing that an order was entered withholding adjudication of guilt. In view thereof, and since there was no showing that the Defendant has "been guilty of a crime" as set forth in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, insufficient evidence was offered to establish the allegations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William B. Seidel, Esquire Justice Building 524 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Findings Of Fact The Defendant, Theodore Michael Lakos, was at all material times, registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On or about April 20, 1976, a Second Amended Information was filed by the State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida against Theodore Michael Lakos, and others in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida. A copy of the Second Amended Information was received in evidence at the hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. On or about August 25, 1976, Theodore Michael Lakos withdrew his previous plea of not guilty of the charges, and entered a plea of nolo contendere to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 of the Second Amended Information. On or about November 9, 1976, Theodore Michael Lakos was adjudicated guilty of the charges alleged in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 of the Second Admended Information. Sentencing was stayed for a period of ten years, during which time the Defendant will be on probation under the supervision of the Florida Parole Commission. A copy of the Judgment and Sentence was received in evidence at the hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. In accordance with the Defendant's plea of nolo contendere, and the court's judgment, it is found that the Defendant, Theodore Michael Lakos, did knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agree, conspire and confederate with others to commit the felony of breaking and entering, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 810.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 1 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, between March 1, 1975, and up to and including, on or about March 28, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired, and confederated with others to commit the felony of grand larceny, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 2 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant between, on or about March 1, 1975, ad up to and including, on or about March 28, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired and confederated with others to commit the felony of first degree larceny, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 806.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 3 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, between on or about March 29, 1975, and up to and including on or about April 18, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired, and confederated with others to commit the felony of grand larceny in violation of Section 833.04, and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 4 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree the commission of a felony, to wit: breaking and entering, in that he aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured others to unlawfully break and enter a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny in violation of Sections 776.011 and 810.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 6 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree, the commission of a felony, to wit: grand larceny, in that he aided abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured others to unlawfully take, steal, and carry away certain property of the aggregate value of more than one hundred dollars, in violation of Sections 776.011 and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 8 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree the commission of a felony, to wit: first degree arson, in that he aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured another to willfully and maliciously set fire to a dwelling house in violation of Sections 776.011 and 806.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 10 of the Second Amended Information.
Findings Of Fact During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc. Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing. Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart. Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart. Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here. The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on January 11, 1978, in Cocoa, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Charles E. Felix, Orlando, Florida, for the Plaintiff, Florida Real Estate Commission; and Kenneth A. Studstill, Titusville, Florida, for the Defendants, Thomas L. Pittman and Pittman Real Estate, Inc. The Florida Real Estate Commission issued an Administrative Complaint against the Defendants on August 23, 1977. On September 12, 1977, the Defendants filed an election of rights form which constituted a petition for hearing. In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)(3), the Commission requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct the hearing. The final hearing was scheduled by notices dated October 19, 1977 and November 2, 1977. At the final hearing the Commission called Gary W. Brandt, a registered real estate salesman, as its only witness. The Defendants called Virginia Laver, a former employee of Defendant Pittman Real Estate, Inc., and the Defendant Thomas L. Pittman. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-3, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were offered into evidence and were received. There were conflicts in the testimony of certain of the witnesses. In resolving these conflicts due regard has been given to the credibility of the witnesses as evidenced in part by the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, and in part by the extent to which the witnesses' testimony has been corroborated by other evidence.
The Issue The issue is whether Kramer is guilty of violation of Section 474.25(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth Stephen Kramer is a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0193029 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Kramer filed an application for registration as a real estate salesman, dated November 21, 1977. In answer to paragraph 6, Kramer stated "Yes," and attached a letter of explanation from Michael Brodsky, attorney at law. Brodsky's letter dealt with Kramer's arrest for robbery in Opa Locka, Florida, and the subsequent dismissal of the charges against him on the basis of misidentification by the complaining witness. See Exhibit 2. An arrest report from Orangeburg, New York, was introduced as Exhibit This arrest report shows that Kenneth Stephen Kramer was arrested in Orangeburg for possession of marijuana. Kramer testified concerning his arrest in Orangeburg. His testimony was substantiated by that of his sister and his wife. Their testimony was uncontroverted that Kramer had been arrested together with his sister and wife and tow other males in Orangeburg for the possession of marijuana. On the basis of the representations of their court appointed counsel, they plead guilty to the charges against them with the understanding that they would receive three- years probation at the end of which their records would be expunged. They successfully served their probations and were advised by the probation officer in the State of Florida that their records would be expunged. Kramer stated that this was the reason he had not reported his arrest because he felt that his record had been expunged upon the satisfactory completion of his probation as was represented by his court appointed counsel and Florida probation officer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Kenneth Steven Kramer. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Steven Kramer 901 Northeast 23rd Court Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Tina Hipple, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3372 BROWARD COUNTY KENNETH STEVEN KRAMER, DOAH NO. 78-1431 Defendant. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., is a registered corporate real estate broker holding license number C00213882. Respondents Richard S. Testut, A. C. Kibler and Beatrix Meyer-Burghagen are registered real estate brokers holding licenses numbered 0180949, 0047414 and 0145168, respectively, and these individuals are officers of Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc. In addition, Beatrix Meyer-Burghagen holds a license to operate real estate school named Florida Real Estate Clinics, Inc., which is also a Respondent herein. In support of the allegations in its Administrative Complaint the Petitioner presented testimony and evidence from five witnesses. The first, Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., is an officer of Respondent, Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., and he is also an officer of Florida Real Estate Council, Inc. Neither Mr. Thomas nor Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., hold any real estate licenses, and they are not parties to this proceeding. Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., was formed to offer licensed salespeople an opportunity to belong to their own association. During the month of April, 1980, this organization sponsored a series of public meetings to which inactive licensees were invited by means of a flier which was mailed to approximately 21,000 of them in South Florida. The purpose of these meetings was to inform inactive real estate salespeople concerning the status of their licenses after June of 1980. Generally, these fliers conveyed the impression that inactive licenses had been placed in jeopardy by a change in the real estate law, and the information conveyed at the public meetings reiterated the existence of an apparent threat to these licenses. Two other witness presented by the petitioner established the content of one of the public meetings held by Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., in April of 1980. The remaining two witnesses were presented to clarify the actual changes that were made in the real estate law on July 1, 1980. There was no truth or substance to the information conveyed to over 21,000 inactive licensees concerning the status of these licenses as a result of statutory changes made in 1980. However, this information was not established to be more than an inaccurate lay interpretation of the Florida Statutes by Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., or by Florida Real Estate Council, Inc. In summary, the Petitioner's evidence fails to prove a conspiracy among the Respondents as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Except for the fact that Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., is an officer of both Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., and Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., insufficient evidence was presented to establish a connection between these corporations. Any false and misleading statements or information disseminated at the public meetings and by flier was the action of Mr. Thomas, individually, and/or Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., neither of whom are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Real Estate, and neither of whom are parties to this proceeding. The evidence does not support a finding that any of the Respondents conspired together for the purpose of distributing false information to real estate license holders, as alleged. Nor was there substantial, competent evidence that the Respondents, or any of them received financial benefit either from the flier or the public meetings. Finally, based upon the testimony of Petitioner's witness, Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., and evidence from the only Respondent who testified, Richard S. Testut, Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., attempted to operate a real estate brokerage business beginning on July 1, 1980. The initiation on July 2, 1980, of the investigation which resulted in the filing of the administrative Complaint under consideration here adversely affected its employees, as well as potential employees, to such an extent that no sales or commissions could be earned. However, this company did have a staff, listings, sales meetings, literature, and advertised to recruit salespeople. Thus, the Petitioner's contention that this corporation neither actively employed any licensees, or performed any brokerage services, was not proven.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this case be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 18 day of February, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 18 day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan H. Konigsburg, Esquire 1700 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Richard S. Testut 4180 Coral Springs Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33035
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker salesman in the State of Florida at all times material hereto having been issued license number 0158288 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On June 10, 1985 a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118 concerning Respondent, which recommended that "a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." On July 16, 1985 the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order imposing the penalty against Respondent which had been recommended by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118. The Final Order provided further that, "This Order shall be effective thirty (30) days from the date of filing, with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation." The Final Order was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation on July 24, 1985. To date, Respondent has not paid the $1,000 fine imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85- 0118. Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to pay the $1,000 fine within thirty (30) days of entry of the Final Order, referenced above. Rule 21V-10.31, Florida Administrative Code, imposes a thirty-day time limit for the payment of fines imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission from the date of imposition by order of the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's license-number 0158288. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0989 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Roy Ahringer 232 Harmony Avenue Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not, based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, the Respondent is guilty of a course of conduct constituting fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, etc., in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979); whether or not Respondent has obtained a real estate license by means of fraud, misrepresentations or concealment, in violation of Subsection 475.25 (1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979); whether or not Respondent has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises and false pretenses, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979); and whether or not Respondent has been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state involving fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979). 2/
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, the following relevant facts are found. Patricia C. Alters, Respondent herein, is a registered real estate salesperson and has been so registered since approximately February 18, 1980. Respondent has been issued License No. 0330568 by the Petitioner. On November 10, 1979, Respondent made an application for registration as a real estate salesperson to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Question No. 6 of that application required that Respondent report if she had ever been arrested for or charged with the commission of any offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation. Respondent filed a negative response to question No. 6. (Petitioners Exhibit No. 1.) On June 18, 1979, an arrest warrant was issued in Duval County, Florida, charging Respondent with issuing worthless checks and drafts, in violation of Chapter 832, Florida Statutes (1979). Pursuant to that warrant, Respondent was arrested on June 20, 1979, by the Clay County Sheriff's Department. Respondent was booked and released on her own recognizance. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 and Respondent's Exhibit No. 1.) On May 19, 1980, Respondent was charged with the issuance of a worthless check drawn on or about December 19, 1979, in the amount of $12.71. The check was issued to the J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) Respondent pled guilty to said charge and was adjudged guilty by the court on May 19, 1980, in criminal proceeding No. 80-9979MM in the County Court of Duval County, Florida. She was fined $50.00 plus court costs. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5.) On or about October 7, 1978, Respondent leased a residence located in Clay County, Florida, from one Lon E. Brugh. Respondent defaulted on said lease on several occasions failure to timely pay the rent and late charges, namely the rent for the months of June and July, 1979, and for late charges on the months of October, November and December, 1978, and January through July, 1979. Lon E. Brugh filed a civil suit in the County Court in and for Clay County, Florida, and charged that the Respondent had defaulted on the terms of the lease. On November 30, 1979, Respondent was adjudged to be in default of said lease and ordered to pay to Lon E. Brugh the sum of $929.05 plus his (Brugh's) costs of $34.00. Evidence reveals that Respondent issued three (3) checks to Lon E. Brugh during late April and early May of 1979, for payment of rent and late charges for the residence which she leased from Brugh. Evidence also revealed that Respondent immediately instructed her bank to place stop payments on the checks which she had issued to Brugh for rent payments. Respondent contends that she placed stop payments on these checks due to a dispute that she had with Brugh concerning her responsibilities under the lease. Evidence reveals that the checks here involved were either for past due rents or for late charges. (Tr. pp. 62-66.) RESPONDENT'S POSITION AND DEFENSE Initially, Respondent's position is that she was not licensed when the civil suit was filed by Lon E. Brugh or when she entered the lease agreement and therefore the facts surrounding the civil suit and related matters which occurred prior to her licensure should not be considered as a basis for Petitioner to take disciplinary action. Secondly, Respondent countered that she issued all checks, which were the basis for the civil action filed by Brugh while she was hospitalized during April and May of 1979. Respondent contends that Mr. Brugh deposited the three (3) checks before she could make a deposit in her bank to cover the checks inasmuch as she was in the hospital. Respecting the events surrounding Petitioner's allegation that Respondent was arrested, Respondent counters that she thought that she had never been arrested, inasmuch as she was driven to the sheriff's office in Clay County during the early morning hours on June 20, 1979, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Duval County Sheriff's Department. That arrest centered around a worthless check which Respondent issued to Sears. Respondent does not deny that the check was worthless when issued; however, she points out that restitution has been made to Sears. In support of her belief that she had not been arrested, Respondent points to the facts that she did not post bond; was not placed behind bars and was allowed to leave under her own recognizance. In response to that charge, Respondent entered a written plea of not guilty. She therefore considered that she was not arrested. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3.) As to the circumstances surrounding the worthless check which Respondent issued to Penney's during December of 1979, Respondent noted that she made restitution for said check; that Penney's returned the monies which she paid them, inasmuch as she did not obtain the merchandise which was in the form of a lay-a-way purchase. Respondent admits to her plea of guilty; however, she testified that she had been issued a $3,500.00 check which was deposited into her account and was returned for non-sufficient funds, which, in turn, caused several of her checks to be returned. Finally, Respondent generally denied all of the allegations involved herein and affirmatively stated that she made restitution for all of the checks which had been returned returned for non-sufficient funds; that she has established a good record of honesty and trustworthiness in the community and is well respected by realtors and other officials involved in the real estate business in the area. (Testimony of Respondent, Ken O'Leary, Sheldon Wardwell, John Drago and Peter Dalton.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson be revoked and that the revocation be suspended for a period of forty-five (45) days during which time Respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to re-submit her application to be licensed as a real estate salesperson. It is further RECOMMENDED: That, in the event Respondent re-submits a, new application to be licensed as a real estate salesperson, which truthfully and completely responds to Question 6 of that application, Petitioner consider the character and mitigating evidence offered by Respondent herein. In such case, if Respondent re-submits her application for licensure within the above-referred forty-five (45) day period, it is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, after completing the filing of a new application as set forth herein, which otherwise fully satisfies and comports with Petitioner's procedures, be issued a new license, which license shall be placed on a probated status for a term of two (2) years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 22 day of June, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Joseph Pine is a registered real estate salesman holding license certificate number 0131432 and was so registered on December 6, 1976. Joseph Pine entered a plea of guilty to the possession of a controlled substance, cannabis, over five (5) grams. The court withheld adjudication and placed Pine on supervised probation for three (3) years because Pine was living in Quba, Netherlands Antilles. The possession of a controlled substance, cannabis, is a violation of Section 893.13(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes. This is a felony of the third degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends the case be dismissed and no action be taken. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Harry L. Garber, Esquire Garber & Buoniconti, P.A. 1040 City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
