The Issue The issues presented in This case are whether the Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and whether such acts constitute a violation of the statutes. Petitioner submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, is a broker salesman holding license number 0317199. The Respondent, Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, is a real estate salesperson holding license number 0137930. In June 1980, Jansen held an individual broker's license in the State of Florida. In late summer of that year, he entered into an agreement with Flora Harwood, a licensed broker in the State of Florida and owner of Select I Realty. Under this agreement, Jansen and Harwood would form a corporation and participate in a brokerage company under the name Select I Realty, in which Jansen would open and operate a branch office of Select I Realty. The exact details of the corporation and the division of shares were not worked out between the parties; however, Harwood undertook to have a corporation formed the name Jansen and Harwood, Inc., and two attempts were; made to register Jansen as a broker with Jansen and Harwood, Inc., doing business as Select I Realty. These applications were rejected by the Florida Real Estate Commission for various reasons, to include the requirement that a corporation operate only in the corporate name and the failure of the applicants to submit corporate papers. The incorporation and application to the Commission were handled by Flora Harwood's attorney. The last denial of the application was on October 22, 1980. During the period the applications were being filed with the Commission, Harwood became disenchanted with the idea of the corporation because of her perception that Jansen was not cooperating with her. Therefore, after the second application was denied, Harwood did not take action to timely file a third application. Although Jansen was aware of the denial of the application, the evidence does not show that he was aware that Harwood delayed the third application. By the end of 1980, Jansen and Harwood had both independently abrogated their agreement, and shortly thereafter Jansen left the business totally. Until he left, Jansen continued to actively manage the branch office of Select I Realty, which he had established and organized and from which he conducted his real estate business as a broker for Jansen and Harwood, Inc. The policy of the Florida Real Estate Commission with regard to applications is that the applicant may operate if a license application is not returned. If the application is returned for correction and corrected and resubmitted timely, the applicant may continue to operate. If the application is not returned in a timely fashion, the applicant may not work. The failure of Jansen and Harwood to eventually incorporate, followed by the severance of their business relationship, intensified the conflict between them, out of which several of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint arose. On September 5, 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe contracted to buy for herself Lot 3 of Ozona Shores from Preston and Grace King. On January 5, 1981, LaCrampe closed the transaction with the Kings. At that closing, a check for $825 in commissions to Select I Realty was disbursed by the closing agent to the Respondent Jansen. Jansen deposited said check to his personal account. Flora Harwood asserted a claim to a share of the commission on the purchase of the property by LaCrampe. When Harwood discovered that this sale had occurred, she checked with the closing agent and found that a commission check had been paid to Jansen. She further discovered that Jansen had deposited this check to his personal account, and because the check was made out to Select I Realty Harwood had the bank take action to collect the $825 and pay it to her, which the bank did. Harwood's claim to the $825 was based upon an office policy applicable to employees which required that commissions on real estate purchases for investment purposes by employees of Select I Realty be shared with the office. However, this contract closed on January 5, 1981, after the relationship between Jansen and LaCrampe had been severed with Harwood. The competing claims between Jansen and Harwood to the $825 in commission are part of the severance of the business relationship between two persons operating as co-brokers. Testimony was received that in the operation of the branch office Jansen had authority to receive checks, deposit checks, and write checks. On or about December 10, 1980, Jansen participated in the rental of a condominium by Eugene Donahue from Glen and Mary Mitchell. The rental contract incorporated an option to purchase. Said rental contract required that Donahue pay $400 per month, $50 of which was a maintenance fee. Jansen received the first check from Donahue in the amount of $400, negotiated the check, and received a bank check in the amount of $350 payable to Glenn Mitchell and $50 in cash. It is asserted in the Administrative Complaint that Jansen received the $50 in cash as a commission payment to which he was not entitled. However, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 reflects that Glenn and Mary Mitchell here in arrears on their maintenance payment in the amount of $49.75, and the policy of Coachman Creek Condominium Association was not to grant any approval of lease or sales contracts until all maintenance payments were up to date. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 shows that approval of the subject rental contract was granted when Jansen produced the late payment. Several allegations of the Administrative Complaint relate to real estate transactions in which the Respondents Jansen and LaCrampe were involved with Heinz Lehman and allege fraud and misrepresentation arising from failure of Jansen to identify LaCrampe as his mother to Lehman. The first occasion on which Lehman met the Respondents was when Lehman visited a store in a strip shopping center which Jansen was selling as a broker. Lehman testified that Jansen identified LaCrampe at that time as a real estate associate and his "girl Friday." Lehman's testimony revealed that he knew LaCrampe was a real estate salesperson and an associate of Jansen but did not know that LaCrampe was Jansen's mother until after their series of transactions had occurred. Lehman did not buy the strip store but later purchased a condominium through Jansen and then sold it through Jansen after fixing it up. In November 1980, Lehman contracted to purchase Lot 3 of Ozona Shores (see paragraph 8 above) from LaCrampe. On January 5, 1981, after LaCrampe had purchased the property, she in turn sold the property to Lehman on the same day. In November 1980, prior to entering into the contract for the purchase of Lot 3, Lehman had visited Ozona Shores and had looked at several pieces of property. Thereafter, Jansen presented him with the opportunity to purchase Lot The evidence is clear that Jansen never identified Lot 3 on the, ground or by plat to Lehman. Lehman purchased the property without a survey and without reference to any plat. After he had purchased the property, Lehman found that Lot 3 was not tie lot which he though it was. At a later date, after being unable to finance a house on this property for speculative purposes, Lehman let the lot, 90, back to LaCrampe. On or about January 22, 1981, Jansen visited Florence Smith, who was interested in selling a house which she owned at 1550 Laura Street, Clearwater, Florida. Without obtaining a listing contract, Jansen thereafter advised Smith that he had a potential purchaser. On January 29, 1981, Smith contracted to sell her house to LaCrampe for nothing down and a $37,000 mortgage payable to Smith. Thereafter, Smith determined that she would prefer a balloon note, and LaCrampe agreed to a balloon note if the price were reduced to $36,000, to which Smith agreed. This slightly reduced the monthly payments to Smith. On February 12, 1981, LaCrampe contracted to sell this property to Lehman for $5,000 down, assumption of the second mortgage to Smith, and payment of a $1,400 commission by Lehman to Jansen. LaCrampe obtained modification of her contract with Smith to permit LaCrampe to assign her contract to purchase. In this transaction, Jansen did not identify LaCrampe as his mother or as a real estate salesperson and his associate. Jansen did not explain to Lehman that the money which Lehman paid down was to be paid to LaCrampe. On or about March 10, 1982, Leo Huddleston, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, visited Jansen's office at the address at which Jansen was registered. Huddleston did not find the required sign at the office identifying it as that of Frank Jansen, a real estate broker. At that time, Jansen had registered as broker for Suncoast Investments and Realty, Inc., and was renting office space with telephone-answering and secretarial services in an office suite complex. Although the building directory listed the suite as the office of Jansen as a real estate broker, the office suite did not have Jansen's real estate brokerage sign. When this matter was brought to Jansen's attention, an appropriate sign was provided. In November 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Jansen and Harwood, Inc.
Recommendation Having Found the Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, in technical violation of Rule 2IV-10.24, Florida Administrative Code, an thereby Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Jansen receive a cautionary letter. Having found the Respondents, Frank R. Jansen and Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, guilty of one violation each of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that their licenses be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Frank R. Jansen 108 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Ms. Lillian LaCrampe Soave 114 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0013099 0017680 FRANK R. JANSEN and 0021257 LILLIAN LaCRAMPE DOAH NO. 82-2891 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was at all material times registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker, holding registration certificates numbered 001709, and 0141291. The Respondent served as the real estate broker for an entity known as "Rent-A-Home, Inc." Rent-A-Home had an office in St. Petersburg and an office in Clearwater. A Mr. Richard Gindin was the Respondent's partner in Rent-A-Home. Gindin was not at any material time registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as either an active or non-active real estate broker or real estate salesman. During October, 1974, the Respondent took part in a real estate transaction between a Mr. and Mrs. Garrett, and a Mr. and Mrs. Churches. On October 7, 1974, the Churches signed an option to purchase certain property owned by the Garretts in Pasco County. The transaction was undertaken under the auspices of Rent-A-Home. Lena Biggan was the sales person who actually negotiated the contract. A copy of the option agreement was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The Churches delivered a cashier's check in the amount of $1,500 to the Respondent as set out in the agreement. A copy of the cashier's check was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Five Hundred dollars of the $1,500 was to be used as the real estate commission. The remainder was to be distributed to the Garretts. On the same day that the contract was executed, the Respondent deposited $1,400 of the $1,500 in his personal checking account at the Liberty National Bank of St. Petersburg (See: Petitioner's Exhibits 6,7). He retained $100. On the same day the Respondent issued checks from the same account in the amount of $1,000 to Cecil D. Garrett, in the amount of $166.63 to Lena Biggan, and in the amount of $166.63 to Richard Gindin. The check issued to Lena Biggan constituted her share of the $500 real estate commission. This check was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 9. The check issued to Gindin was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 8. There was no direct testimony that the check issued to Gindin constituted his share of the real estate commission. The circumstances of the check, however, clearly indicate that that was the intention. The check to Biggan bore No. 563. The check to Gindin was the very next check in the Respondent's checkbook, No. 564. The next check issued from the Respondent's checkbook, No. 565, was the $1,000 check to the Garretts. The check to Biggan, and the check to Gindin were in the same amount, approximately one third of $500. It is indicated on each check that it was for a "comm.". There was direct testimony from Ms. Biggan that her check was for her share of the commission on the Garrett/Churches transaction. It is evident that Gindin's check was for the same purpose. Prior to the Garrett/ Churches transaction, Gindin approached the Respondent with respect to forming "Rent-A-Home". Gindin told the Respondent that he would form a corporation, and he asked the Respondent to pay one third of the $500 legal fee which was required for forming a corporation. When the Respondent gave Gindin the check which has been received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 9, the Respondent thought that he was paying one third of the necessary attorney's fee rather than giving a commission to Gindin in connection with the Garrett/Churches transaction. In fact Gindin never used the money to form a corporation, and he kept it as if it was a real estate commission. When the Respondent delivered the check to Gindin he did in fact share a real estate commission with Gindin, a person who was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman. The Respondent thought that the check was being delivered for a legitimate purpose; however, the circumstances of the transaction were such that the Respondent should have known that Gindin was regarding the check as his share of a real estate commission. In approximately January, 1975, the Respondent disassociated himself from Rent-A-Home. Gindin has apparently left the State of Florida, and has not been seen by the Respondent since January, 1975.
Findings Of Fact Defendant Jo Tricoli Realty, Inc. was a registered real estate corporate broker, holding Certificate No. 0089973 until August 18, 1976, at which time its Articles of Incorporation were amended to change the name of the business to Tricoli Realty, Inc.; Josephine L. Tricoli is a registered real estate broker, Certificate No. 0089966; Defendant Anthony F. Tricoli is a registered real estate broker, Certificate No. 0089956; and Defendant Phyllis B. Ludwigsen is a registered real estate salesman with Certificate No. 0114963. The Defendant's address registered with the Commission is 1550 West 84th Street, Hialeah, Florida, 33014. At all times material hereto, Defendants Josephine L. Tricoli and Anthony F. Tricoli were brokers and active firm members of Tricoli Realty, and Defendant Phyllis B. Ludwigsen was an active salesman employed with the same firm. On September 25, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Hartley Kroul viewed an apartment at 15416 Sharpecroft Drive, Miami Lakes, with Defendant Phyllis Ludwigsen of Tricoli Realty, the broker in the transaction. Thereafter, a lease was prepared by Defendant Ludwigsen, based upon instructions from the owner of the property. The lease was prepared on a form furnished by Tricoli Realty, was prepared in a branch office of Tricoli Realty, was witnessed by Defendant Ludwigsen and the manager of the branch office of Tricoli Realty, and was signed by the parties on September 25, 1975. A clause typed into the lease provides that the first and last months rent, together with a security deposit of $450, for a total of $1,350, was to be held in escrow by Tricoli Realty, and Tricoli Realty did, in fact, receive a check for $1,350 for Kroul in accordance wit this clause of the lease agreement. The lease was for a one-year term, and expired on September 26, 1976. Notwithstanding the provision of the lease concerning the escrow deposit, within two or three days after September 25, 1975, Defendant Tricoli Realty , by a check signed by Defendant Anthony Tricoli, disbursed $900 of the escrow monies to the lessor-property owner. The additional $450 was retained by Tricoli Realty as a commission. Defendant Anthony Tricoli did not review the terms of the lease before disbursing the $900, although the lease was located in a branch office of Tricoli Realty, and could easily have been examined prior to disbursement. The Krouls vacated the premises after the expiration of the lease and thereafter sought refund of the security deposit from Tricoli Realty. A demand for a refund of the security deposit was made upon Defendant Anthony Tricoli, but he refused to refund the security deposit and advised the Krouls to seek the refund from the property owner. Thereafter, the property owner returned $290 of the security deposit to Tricoli Realty, claiming certain expenses incurred after vacating the premises. Tricoli Realty then attempted to refund the $290 to the Krouls, who refused to accept that offer in settlement of their claim for the entire security deposit. The Krouls eventually resorted to a court of competent jurisdiction for refund of their security deposit, where the issue of civil liability was ultimately resolved. The Krouls never authorized Tricoli Realty, Josephine L. Tricoli, Anthony F. Tricoli, Phyllis B. Ludwigsen, or any other representative or employee of Tricoli Realty to disburse $900 of the escrow money to the property owner prior to the expiration of the lease. No testimony was offered that Defendant Josephine L. Tricoli was in any way involved in, or had any knowledge of, the Kroul transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing the Complaint against Defendant Josephine L. Tricoli. That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing Count 3 of the Complaint against Defendant Anthony F. Tricoli. That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission suspending the registration of Defendant Phyllis B. Ludwigsen for a period of three months. That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission suspending the registration of Defendant Tricoli Realty, Inc. for a period of six months. That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission suspending the registration of Defendant Anthony F. Tricoli for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15rd day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAIL: Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Pearl R. Ferer, Esquire 304 Concord Building 66 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
Findings Of Fact I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation was at all times material to this proceeding a corporation registered as a real estate broker with the Commission, with its principal business address at 240 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, 33577. Irving Z. Mann was at all times material to this proceeding a real estate broker registered with the Commission, and the holder of two registration certificates: one as an individual broker with an office at 2197 Princeton Street, Sarasota, Florida 33577; and the other license as president and active broker of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. Stanley M. Robbins was at all times material to this proceeding a registered real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. At all times material to this proceeding Fritz K. Grolock was a registered real estate salesman, and from April 12, 1972, to February 2, 1976, he was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. From February 2, 1976, to November 29, 1976, Mr. Grolock was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. At all times material to this proceeding Irving Z. Mann was president, and Stanley M. Robbins was vice president, assistant secretary, treasurer and general sales manager of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation which was the owner and developer of the Palma Sola Harbor condominium development in Sarasota County, Florida. On or before February 4, 1976, Mr. Grolock and Mr. Robbins had agreed that Mr. Grolock would receive for his services as a real estate salesman for I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. a three percent commission based upon the sales price of individual condominium units sold at Palma Sola Harbor. Commissions were to be paid to Mr.Grolock at the end of the month in which the sale of each such unit was consummated. Mr. Robbins explained to Mr. Grolock at the time of this agreement that I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. was short of cash, and that should Grolock make any sales, he might have to wait for some indefinite period of time to receive his commission. Mr. Grolock indicated his willingness at the time to proceed on that basis. No testimony was adduced, and no documentary evidence was offered to establish that Mr. Grolock was employed by I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., at any time material to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Elmer C. Sutter and Ruth W. Sutter, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $26,450, and the evidence established that Mr.Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $793.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Martin G. Tepatti and Dorothy L. Tepatti, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained real property sales contract (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) dated April 29, 1976, between Donald F. Brown and Barbara S. Brown, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a real estate commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. Mr. Grolock did not attend the closing of any of the three transactions referenced above and described in the Administrative Complaint. However, the only evidence of record establishes that these transactions resulted in "negative closings" that is, after deductions of amounts due on the pre-existing construction mortgage, charges for documentary stamp taxes, tax pro-rations and the like, no funds remained for disbursement to I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. for payment to Mr. Grolock as a commission. Neither Mr. Mann, Mr. Robbins, I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, nor I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. received any funds at the closing of these transactions. Some time after the closings of the three transactions described in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Grolock spoke with Mr. Robbins concerning non- payment of his commissions. Mr. Robbins explained t6hat the three transactions had resulted in "negative closings," but that if Mr. Grolock would be patient he would be paid his commissions in due course. Mr. Robbins discussed the commissions once or twice thereafter with Mr. Grolock, each time explaining that the company was short of money but that Mr. Grolock would be paid eventually. Because of poor market conditions in the condominium industry, I.Z. Mann Realty & Associates experienced financial problems which ultimately resulted in the company's insolvency. The company eventually voluntarily relinquished its assets to creditors, or had its interest in those assets foreclosed, and at the present time is no longer actively engaged in business. By letters to Mr. Robbins dated December 7, 1976, and January 19, 1977, (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Mr. Grolock demanded that some arrangements be made for payment of his past due commissions. When he received no reply to these letters, Mr. Grolock sent a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) to Mr. Mann dated April 25, 1977, listing the transactions which resulted in $3,040.50 being owed to him for real estate commissions. Shortly after receiving this letter, Mr. Mann telephoned Mr. Grolock, on May 5, 1977, and told him ". . . the company had been inactive for a long time, but that I would see to it that he would get paid eventually. Just give us a chance to get some money to do it." (Transcript, p. 63). Mr. Grolock agreed at that time to wait for payment of his commissions. Some time after his May 5, 1977, telephone conversation with Mr. Mann, Mr. Grolock filed a complaint with the Commission ". . . [b]ecause I found no other recourse. . . [t]o obtain my commission . . . ." (Transcript, p. 26).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondent, Judith Ann Lukacs, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 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 May, 1982
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent Kenneth Kasha was licensed by the Petitioner as a registered real estate broker. During that time period he was licensed to trade as Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At present he is the holder of certificate number 0046189, in the position of registered real estate broker. The particulars of his license may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence. In the years 1975 and 1976, one of the enterprises that Kenneth Kasha was involved in was the solicitation of real estate listings from out-of-state land owners who owned land in the State of Florida. This solicitation led to an agreement with some of those owners to list their property through various publications which Kasha contracted for, with the expectation that his company would make a bona fide effort to sell the property. The general description of the arrangement between Kasha, operating as Florida Landowners Services Bureau, and his owner/clients, was to have the owner pay a fee of $250 to $300 to have their property listed by Kenneth Kasha, trading as Florida Landowners Services Bureau. Kenneth Kasha solicited the owners by phone personally and through real estate salesmen who were involved in the solicitation. Kenneth Kasha's statement of his participation may be found in the deposition which is part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 8, the deposition being admitted into evidence. This deposition is a part of the record of the proceedings of the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums v. Kenneth Kasha d/b/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The deposition was taken on March 26, 1976. In that deposition Kasha was asked if he solicited for the type of listing which is the subject of this case and if he made this solicitation via the telephone. At page 39 of that deposition he states that he did and indicates that the principal place of business of Florida Landowners Service Bureau at the time of the deposition was at 561 NE 79th Street and was the place solicitations were made from. A more complete description of the techniques involved in a solicitation is given by the witness, Alfred Landin. Alfred Landin testified in the proceedings by the Petitioner against Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Mr. Landin correctly stated that he worked for the General American Realty Corporation as a real estate salesman from January, 1975 through February, 1976. His testimony established that he began to make the form of solicitation in behalf of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in August, 1975. His participation was by agreement between the General American Realty Corporation and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau to have certain salesmen employed by General American Realty Corporation make phone solicitations for Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Those employees of General American Realty Corporation were then paid by their corporation, who had been paid by Florida Landowners Service Bureau under an agreement between that business and the General American Realty Corporation. Alfred Landin took approximately 75 to 100 listings for the Florida Landowners Service Bureau for which he charged the owner $250 to $300 for each listing. He in turn received 30 percent to 40 percent of the listing amount as his payment. He did not receive real estate commissions following any sale of the property which was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. In fact, no commissions have been received, because no property has been sold under the listing agreements, at least as of the date of the Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976. In that deposition he states that none of the property listed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau had been sold. Moreover, Alfred Landin's testimony established that the salesmen who were the contact people for the solicitation for the listings were paid on the basis of obtaining the listings, in opposition to being paid commissions for selling' the property. When Landin would call a prospective owner to solicit the listing, which will now be referred to as "advance fee" listings, he did it based upon a list of prospective clients made available in the office of General American Realty Corporation. He would tell the potential "advance fee" client that the property that they listed with the Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be advertised within and without the United States. He did not indicate which form of media advertising would be utilized. Landin was unaware of the steps which Florida Landowners Service Bureau would specifically take to bring about the sale of the listed properties, because the arrangement with General American Realty Corporation was not to consummate the sale of the property through General American Realty Corporation's salesman. Landin did tell the owners that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be responsible for advertising the properties for the purpose of sale. Furthermore, the indication was that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property. The contact which Landin had with the out-of-state owners, in terms of the dialogue, was not by any particular script. It would be designed according to the nature of the property of the person being solicited. In the course of the conversation the property owner would submit his price and that information and other information would be forwarded to Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At all times when a prospective customer was called Landin introduced himself by name and his connection with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The usual technique was to make an original contact call and then a follow-up call. Although a second individual working for Florida Landowners Service Bureau normally made the follow-up, call, Landin at times would make those calls. On those occasions, between the time of the initial call and the follow-up call, certain materials would be mailed to the prospective purchaser of a listing agreement. Landin identified three forms which are numbered 1, 2, and 3 and are part of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. They are the mailouts. (The Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence is constituted of certain information pertaining to the listing of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau's "advance fee" property through the media National Multiple Listing, Inc.) In a follow-up call there would be discussion about the meaning of the listing and brokerage agreement which is number 3 in the group of documents. Landin established that in these follow-up conversations the purpose of the listing fee was brought out and the owner was told that the listing fee would be used to compensate for the costs involved of the listing; for example advertising. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the crux of the contractual agreement between Florida Landowners Service Bureau, the company of Kenneth Kasha, and his "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the same in their form as those documents appended to the Kenneth Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976, which has been mentioned before. In that deposition Kasha admits that those three documents were mailed out to the "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents are available for review either in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 or the attachments to the admitted portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, which is the Kasha deposition. The significant portions of those exhibits, in terms of the factual allegations against the Respondent, begin with Paragraph 3 of the document number 1 which states, "your property legals are checked thoroughly." In his deposition of March 26, 1976 Kasha indicated that what actually occurred was that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would receive a copy of the client's deed or agreement for deed and verify this with the developer to see if it indicates on the developer's books or records that the individual actually owned a specific piece of property in question. Kasha stated that his company did not check with the title company, but did check the tax records of various counties to see whether or not the individuals owned the particular piece of property set forth in their deeds. Continuing the examination of document 1, the next sentence in Paragraph 3 states, "an ad is constructed for your property(s) and published in our brochures and catalog which is distributed to several thousand brokers and investors NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY." The advertising that was done by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau, which was established in the course of the hearing is constituted of several media approaches. One of those approaches was found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence which is a copy of a magazine February, 1976, the magazine being a publication of the International Federation of Real Estate Brokers which has membership in 39 countries. It can be seen, the advertisement is an ad which allows the purchase of a catalog for the price of $4.00 or free to the members of the International Real Estate Federation. A copy of this form of catalog is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence. This catalog lists multiple properties by the owner's name, the owner's asking price, and a rough description of the location in terms of the municipality if any, county, and state, subdivision or development if applicable and a rough description of the size of the parcel. The catalog would not allow the prospective purchaser to specifically locate the property. At best it would allow the location of the development or sub-division. A second form of advertising which the Respondent utilized in the time period in question was listing with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. Those listings were also multiple listings on a single page of the type previously discussed in describing the catalog. Access to those listings was based upon Kasha's purchase of circulation and it reached as many as 2,500 plus distributees in various areas of the United States. (The number assigned to the individual properties advertised by National Multiple Listing, Inc. corresponds to some of the invoices found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11, which invoices were paid by Kenneth Kasha to have the listings published. There is a further correlation between those numbers and the numbers affixed to the certificates issued by National Multiple Listing, Inc. to the Respondent verifying the circulation of the listings. Those certificates are found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence.) A compilation of those payments from Kenneth Kasha, as the owner of Florida Landowners Service Bureau, to the National Multiple Listing, Inc. for the period of June, 1975 through June, 1976 may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. The total cost for advertising in that time period was $3,583.82. Kasha also advertised his catalog in the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune and one German paper, entitled, Blick. This advertising was in the period of late 1975 and early 1976. The advertising is established through the Respondent's Exhibit No. 12A and a portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 which is the deposition and attachments of Kenneth Kasha taken March 26, 1976. 14 The fourth paragraph of document 1 states in its initial sentence. "In order for us to successfully merchandize and receive the highest offer for your property(s) considerable expense is involved because a great deal of time is put forth on your behalf and many of the property(s) are being offered for sale sight unseen. Therefore, we must constantly furnish prospective purchasers with factual updated information re: your listing(s). Your fee helps to defray expenses of estimating value, merchandizing, advertising, brochuring and cataloging this information here and abroad." The extent of advertising and brochuring has previously been discussed. The estimate of value is based upon the individual's price and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau does not concern itself with zoning and development in trying to get the price established. This conclusion is premised on Mr. Kasha's testimony of March 26, 1976 before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums. Therefore, by Mr. Kasha's opinion there was no expense to be defrayed in estimating value. The only other merchandizing that was done other than that discussed in the advertising techniques may be found in the description by Robert Wandler who worked for Kenneth Kasha and was involved with Florida Landowners Service Bureau as a real estate salesman. The period of his employment is not established through Mr. Wandler's testimony, but it appears to be within the time frame of the Administrative Complaint and the other testimony given. Mr. Wandler stated that he tried to sell the property listed through the "advance fee" process by contacting hotels and hotel clerks who had connection with Columbian businessmen. This area of contact was in South Florida. His reasons for contacting the Columbians was due to the fact that he speaks Spanish fluently. He occasionally showed the brochures to the persons contacted, but none of those persons were interested in purchasing the property. He specifically made reference to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 as being the type of brochure or catalog that he showed. He also testified that on several occasions Arabian and Lebanese people in the South Florida area were contacted and seminars were held to discuss the catalog. The Arabian and Lebanese business persons did not purchase any property and did not negotiate with any of the owners for the right to purchase the property. Document No. 2, which is a document entitled, Important Facts, is found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. In that document is a question which asks "(Q) Will you help me establish a correct selling price for my property? (A) Yes. While we do not appraise property, Florida Landowners Service Bureau will analyze your property comparing your property to adjacent property, to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property. The price must meet with your approval. From the testimony in Kenneth Kasha's appearance before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums it is clear that Florida Landowners Service Bureau did not analyze the property by comparing the property to adjacent property to arrive at a price. They merely relied on the owner's price. One of the other questions in Document No. 2 asks the following: "(Q) How will Florida Landowners Service Bureau sell my property? (A) Review status of development and zoning in the immediate area of your property to recommend the correct selling price for you. List your property in our directory, which is distributed by mail to real estate brokers throughout the world." Kenneth Kasha in the aforementioned deposition stated that 95 percent of the time they did not document the development and zoning to set a price as the ad indicated they would do. In Document No. 3, which is a copy of the listing and brokerage agreement, one of the statements of consideration between the parties is that Florida Landowners Service Bureau as the part of their consideration will: "(b) Contemporaneously with appearance of said listing in the directory, you agree to direct the efforts of your organization to bring about the sale of my property". This should be read in pari materia with the following provision in that Document No. 3 which states: "(c) To advertise said property as you deem advisable in newspapers, magazines, or other mediums of merit". A view of the facts that were established on the question of promoting the sale of the property through advertising or other methods, demonstrates that the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in the person of Kenneth Kasha was not living up to this agreement to bring about a sale in a bone fide fashion. This leads to a consideration of the question of whether the efforts which were taken by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau were so fraudulent or deficient that they constitute violations of the provisions of Chapter 475, F.S. that are alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The general contention of the Administrative Complaint in Count I is that the solicitation of the property owners was a scheme to fraudulently secure money through the "advance fee" for reason that no bone fide effort was made to sell the property listed with Kenneth Kasha, t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. As indicated before there was no bone fide effort made to sell the property. More particularly, in terms of stating grounds for action against the Respondent's license, the course of conduct by the Respondent personally and through his company, Florida Landowners Service Bureau, demonstrates that he is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in this state and has violated the duty imposed upon him by law or the terms of listing contract in a real estate transaction; and has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in said misconduct and has committed overt acts in furtherance of such intent, design or scheme, all in violation of 475.25(1)(a) F.S. The course of conduct by Kenneth Kasha personally and trading as Florida Landowners Service Bureau shows him to be guilty of conduct or practices which show that he is dishonest and untruthful to the extent that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not be safely entrusted to him, as set forth in 475.25(3) F.S.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts in this cause, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, revoke the real estate broker's license, certificate number 0046189, held by the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Kasha P.O. Box 611238 North Miami, Florida 33161 Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire and Louis Guttmann, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= Orlando, Florida June 15, 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Fred Langford, Staff Attorney RE: Revocation of Kenneth Kasha - PD No. 3014 004618904 DOAH Case No. 77-1299 Attached please find a copy of the Final Order, Mandate and Order from the Third DCA concerning Kenneth Kasha. The effective date of revocation is December 21, 1978. /FL:bam Attachments* Fred Langford Staff Attorney * NOTE: Attachments noted are unavailable at the division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charges, respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, on inactive status, holding license no. 0330793., and residing in Lake Worth, Florida. In early October, 1983, Jack Barlage entered the offices of Colony Real Estate in Lake Worth, Florida. He was a builder and looking for acreage to purchase. Joyce Adams, a real estate salesman with Colony Real Estate, met with him and, two or three days later, showed him a 5.207 acre tract of land in sunny Urban Meadows, an unrecorded subdivision located west of Loxahatchee, Florida. He expressed an interest in the property; she told him that the owner, Richard Moore, might be willing to sell it. A day or two later, Mr. Barlage called Ms. Adams and asked if she would call owner Moore and obtain a purchase price. She responded that she would not get a commission from selling the property and that he should deal with "Leon," who would be able to contact Mr. Moore, the owner. A day or two later, Ms. Adams introduced Mr. Barlage to "Leon," who was Leon Dennis, respondent's husband--the original developer of Sunny Urban Meadows. This meeting took place at a nearby coffee shop in Royal Palm Beach, called Sandy's. John Adams, Ms. Adams' husband and a real estate salesman, was also present. Respondent did not attend this meeting and there is no evidence that she was, at this point in time, involved in the transaction. This coffee shop meeting was Ms. Adams' last contact with Mr. Barlage, and she had no further involvement in this real estate transaction. A contract for "purchase and sale" of the Sunny Urban Meadows tract was prepared at this meeting and signed by Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. Leon Dennis, respondent's husband, retrieved the form "purchase and sale" contract from his car, returned to the coffee shop, and completed it in the presence of the others. He filled in the terms, including a $28,000 purchase price. He arrived at this figure based on her knowledge of current land values in the area. The form "Brokerage Fee" provision on the bottom of the contract, however, was not filled in; no sales commission was indicated and no broker identified. Mr. Dennis told purchaser Barlage that he would have the contract presented to owner Moore. At that time, Mr. Barlage had not yet had any contacts with respondent, Mr. Dennis's wife. Mr. Dennis, with the help of a relative who was a close friend of Mr. Moore's, then had the contract delivered to Mr. Moore, in Punta Gorda, Florida. Approximately a week earlier, respondent had telephoned Mr. Moore, asking if he wanted to sell the subject property. At that time, a sales commission was not discussed; neither did she represent that she was a licensed real estate salesman or broker. But when the original contract was subsequently delivered to him by Mr. Moore's relative, the "Brokerage Fee" provision had been completed, providing for payment of ten percent of the gross price or $2,800 to Pat Dennis, the respondent. Her name was hand printed above the line labeled, "Name of Broker." Upon receiving the contract and discovering the sales commission, Mr. Moore telephoned respondent and told her that he would not pay a ten percent commission--he said he would agree only to a six percent commission, to be split between her and his own real estate brokerage firm. He also told her that if those terms were not acceptable to her, he "would go ahead and do it without her and give-her her money after the deal was done." (TR-21) Mr. Moore then arranged to meet directly with Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. On October 9, 1983, Mr. Barlage drove to Punta Gorda and met Mr. Moore in a hospital parking lot to finalize the contract. Mr. Moore, noting the "Brokerage Fee" provision, said "Who are these people?" and "Well, I'll take care of them," or words to that effect, (TR-10). He then drew a line crossing out the "Brokerage Fee" provision and initialed it. He then told Mr. Barlage he wanted to do a credit check; one or two days later, he called Mr. Barlage and told him he was going to accept the contract. It was at that time, on or about October 9, 1983, that Mr. Moore executed the contract as seller. For reasons not material, the contract of sale was never carried out by the parties. Mr. Barlage unilaterally cancelled the contract. When Mr. Moore called him to inquire about the $500 earnest money deposit, which the contract had indicated was held by "Stewart Title," Mr. Moore learned that a deposit had not been received by Stewart Title; in fact, Mr. Barlage had made no deposit at all. There is conflicting testimony as to whether respondent ever communicated with Mr. Moore concerning this real estate transaction. Respondent denies any direct involvement. Her denial is rejected and the testimony of Mr. Moore, who had no discernible bias or motive to falsify, is accepted as persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license as a Florida real estate salesman be revoked for violating Section 475.25(1)(a) and (b) and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in the manner described above. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard McClain, Esquire 6167 Haddon Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Findings Of Fact Respondent Ray T. Kline is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a registered real estate broker holding License No. 0048253. Respondent Vincent Tomasino is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0353215. Respondent Krishnalall D. Persaud is and all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0336161. At the time of the hearing the Respondent Persaud had obtained his broker's license. In December, 1980, the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud were employed as salesmen, selling time-share units at Vistana Development. During December they discussed and agreed upon a business plan for marketing time-share units. As a part of that plan-they agreed to form Intercontinental Marketing Services, Ltd. (hereafter referred to as IMS) a corporation which would be used to market time-share condominiums and other real estate. Subsequent to that time they did in fact incorporate on May 4, 1981, as a Delaware corporation and formed another Delaware corporation to handle travel and tour business. The incorporators of these corporations were the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud who were also officers and directors of both corporations. Sometime between December, 1980 and March, 1981 Persuad introduced Respondent Ray Kline to Respondent Tomasino. They discussed Ray Kline becoming the registered broker for IMS. After some discussion, Ray Kline did in fact agree to become the broker for IMS. On January 19, 1981, Respondent Tomasino and Respondent Persaud opened a general corporate account for IMS at the Atlantic Bank of Orlando. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The account required two signatures for all checks and the two persons allowed to sign were Respondents Tomasino and Persaud. This account was not set up as an escrow or trust account and was not used a's an escrow or trust account during the operating life of IMS. At no time was the Respondent Ray T. Kline a signator on this account. In early 1931 the Respondents Persaud and Tomasino began negotiating with the Highlands County Title and Guaranty Land Company (hereafter referred to as Highlands County Title) to become its representative in the Orlando area. Highlands County Title is a subsidiary of Sun-N-Lake Estates which is the owner and developer of Lakeside Villas located near Sebring, Florida. A verbal agreement was reached between Highlands County Title and IMS whereby IMS would market time-share units in Lakeside Villas in the Orlando area. This verbal agreement was later reduced to writing. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 11) On or about March 3, 1981, IMS and Respondent Ray T. Kline entered into a written agreement whereby Ray T. Kline agreed to act as the real estate broker for IMS. (See Respondent Kline's Exhibit 3) Highlands County Title and Sun-N- Lake Estates required a broker be designated for all its sales representatives. Under the written agreement Mr. Kline agreed generally to act as broker and to not interfere with any of the marketing projects of IMS. IMS was to provide Respondent Kline with an office, secretarial assistance, a phone, and real estate leads acquired through IMS advertising. The contract required Kline to maintain an escrow account for his real estate transactions and to pay twenty- five percent of all commissions earned by him on real estate transactions other than his on personal business. There was no requirement in the contract that Ray T. Kline open or maintain an escrow account for real estate transactions handled by IMS. On March 3, 1981, Ray T. Kline changed his broker address to 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, the offices of IMS. At the time Mr. Kline moved his license to the IMS office he did not register or reflect a trade name under which he was doing business as a broker. On March 5, 1981, Vincent Tomasino and Krishnalall Persaud placed their salesman licenses with Ray T. Kline as an individual broker employer at 1121 Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida. IMS was not registered or qualified with the Board of Real Estate or the Department of Professional Regulation by the Respondents. On March 16, 1981, a written agreement was entered into between IMS and Highlands County Title. The agreement showed Ray T. Kline as broker for IMS and was signed by Vincent Tomasino as director of IMS and Ray T. Kline, Jr. as broker. On March 18, 1981, a supplement to that written agreement was entered into between Ray T. Kline, IMS, and Highlands County Title whereby Highlands County Title agreed to pay advance draws against commissions to IMS. This supplement to the original agreement was signed by Ray T. Kline on behalf of IMS. Mr. Dennis Grage had met and become acquainted with Vincent Tomasino when Mr. Tomasino was selling time-share units at Vistana. In early March, 1981, Vincent Tomasino contacted Mr. Grage to see if he was interested in purchasing time-share units in Lakeside Villas. Shortly after the initial contact Mr. Tomasino took Mr. Grage's wife, Barbara, together with Richard and Benita Drapeau (Mrs. Grage's sister and her husband) on a tour of Lakeside Villas. After the tour Mr. Tomasino and Mr. Grage met regarding the purchase of a unit in Lakeside Villas. Mr. Grage explained to Mr. Tomasino that he could not afford the $600 down payment. Mr. Tomasino then told Mr. Grage that if he would get the Drapeaus and the Brownings to buy a time-share unit in Lakeside Villas, he would pay $500 of the down-payment on a time-share unit for Mr. Grage. After the tour Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau decided to buy four time-share units in Lakeside Villas. However, after returning to their home in New Hampshire they decided to buy only two time- share units and so informed Vincent Tomasino. The Drapeaus then sent two deposit checks of $400 each dated March 30, 1981 and April 11, 1981 to Vincent Tomasino. These checks were made payable to Vincent Tomasino pursuant to his instructions. These two checks were deposits on two time-share units at Lakeside Villas. The March 30, 1981 check was deposited in the IMS corporate account on April 7, 1981. The April 11, 1981 check was endorsed by Vincent Tomasino and forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates where it was deposited in the Sun-N-Lake Estates attorney's escrow account. The $400 from the March 30, 1981 deposit check was never forwarded by IMS or Vincent Tomasino to Sun-N-Lake Estates. Pursuant to the agreement with Vincent Tomasino regarding the down payment on a time-share unit, Dennis Grage forwarded a $100 deposit to Mr. Tomasino. The balance of the $600 deposit called for in the contract was to be paid by Vincent Tomasino. Mr. Grage also contacted John and Helen Browning. In March, 1981, Dennis Grage contacted John and Helen Browning at their home in Michigan. He discussed with them the possibility of purchasing a time-share unit at Lakeside Villas. During this conversation the Brownings authorized Mr. Grage to place a $100 deposit on two units for them. By letter dated March 9, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged on behalf of IMS the receipt of the deposit placed by Dennis Grage for the Brownings. The Brownings then asked for more information regarding the time- share units and inquired of Mr. Tomasino as to whom the deposit check should be made payable. They were advised by Mr. Tomasino to make the check payable to IMS. On March 20, 1981, the Brownings sent a $1,000 deposit check to Vincent Tomasino payable to IMS. By letter dated March 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged receipt of the $1,000 deposit and also forwarded two time-share purchase agreements to the Brownings for their signatures. Each of the contracts called for a $500 deposit. On April 7, 1981, the Brownings executed the two purchase agreements and returned them to Vincent Tomasino. The Brownings' $1,000 deposit check was deposited into the IMS corporate account at the Atlantic Bank on or about March 24, 1981. On May 18, 1981, Vincent Tomasino wrote a check to Sun-N-Lake Estates in the amount of $1,000 for the Brownings' deposit. The check was received and deposited for collection by Sun-N-Lake Estates but before it could be paid Vincent Tomasino placed a stop-payment order on the check. The stop-payment order was placed because there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the $1,000 check. The $1,000 deposit was never forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates by IMS for Vincent Tomasino. In May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino removed Krishnalall Persuad as a signator on the IMS account at the Atlantic Bank. This occurred primarily as a result of a disagreement over a $1,200 deposit made by Mr. Persaud to an account other than the IMS account. Also during May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino changed the locks on the doors at the IMS offices at 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, and did not give Mr. Persaud a key. Prior to May, 1981, the checking account at Atlantic Bank had been controlled by both Mr. Persaud and Mr. Tomasino. From January to May, 1981, checks written on the IMS account were signed and approved by both Tomasino and Persaud. Respondent Persaud knew or reasonably should have known that money being received from purchasers was being deposited in the corporate account. After May, 1981, only Vincent Tomasino signed checks on the IMS account. In June, 1981, the relationship between Mr. Persuad and Mr. Tomasino terminated. Also in June, 1981, the IMS account became overdrawn and in August, 1981, the Atlantic Bank closed the account. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino received approximately $7,000 in draws from IMS and Mr. Persaud received approximately $4,900 in draws from IMS. Ray T. Kline received no funds from IMS. When interviewed by a DPR investigator Mr. Persaud denied having received any funds from IMS during its operation. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino was the person in charge of the IMS finances. Ray Kline had no control over and did not participate in the finances of IMS. The bookkeeping was done by the office manager and the checkbook was kept by Mr. Tomasino. During this period salesmen were hired and supervised by Tomasino and Persaud, but were not supervised by Respondent Kline. IMS also purchased a tour bus during this period which was used by Mr. Persaud to take potential buyers on tours of Lakeside Villas. Once these tours began, Mr. Persaud was in the office less than he had been the first couple of months of operation. Once there were no more funds in the corporate account the Respondent Tomasino essentially walked away from the corporation and paid only a few small debts. By letter dated June 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino notified Sun-N-Lake Estates that IMS would no longer sell time- share units at Lakeside Villas. In November, 1981, the relationship between IMS and Sun-N-Lake Estates was formally terminated. Prior to termination, IMS had received advances of $9,000 in excess of commissions due and earned and no reimbursement of those excess funds has been made to Sun-N-Lake Estates. In approximately September, 1981, the Drapeaus as a result of financial problems sent a letter to Sun-N-Lake Estates requesting a refund of their $800 deposit. Sun-N-Lake Estates refunded the $400 which was in escrow and informed the Drapeaus that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received the other $400 deposit. Robert Wright of Sun-N-Lake Estates was contacted by the Drapeaus. He then contacted Vincent Tomasino who told him that he would speak with Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud about the Drapeau problem. Mr. Wright was never contacted again by Mr. Tomasino. Dennis Grage, after learning that the Drapeau's $400 deposit had not been placed in escrow also contacted Vincent Tomasino. He demanded the return of the $400 deposit and Mr. Tomasino stated that someone had run off with the money and that he was trying to get it back. After several unsuccessful contacts with Mr. Tomasino, Mr. Grage contacted Ray Kline. Mr. Kline said he was checking on the problem, but at the time of the formal hearing the Drapeau deposit had not been refunded. Dennis Grage also informed the Brownings of the problems the Drapeaus were encountering. The Brownings then contacted Sun-N-Lake Estates and spoke with Robert Wright who informed them that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received their $1,000 deposit. Mr. Tomasino informed him that IMS was bankrupt and had no money and that it wasn't his problem. Mr. Browning then contacted Ray Kline who denied any personal responsibility and stated that Tomasino had taken the money and was responsible for its return. Mr. Browning then made demand upon Krishnalall Persaud for the $1,000 deposit and Mr. Persaud denied being an officer or director of IMS and also stated that he had no responsibility to the Brownings. During August and September, 1981, Robert Wright repeatedly discussed the Drapeau and Browning deposits with Respondents Persaud and Kline. On each occasion they denied any responsibility for those deposits. Until contacted by the Brownings and Drapeaus, Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud had no knowledge of the deposits of these people and how they were being received. Ray Kline, after being contacted was aware that these deposits were funds that should have been placed in escrow upon receipt by IMS and Tomasino. Neither Tomasino, Kline, nor Persaud attempted to provide an accounting to the Drapeaus or Brownings and the Respondents made no attempt to return their deposits. For at least a two week period in the Spring of 1981, Ray Kline also opened and operated a branch office for IMS at a condominium development. At no time was this branch office registered as required by statute. From the beginning of the relationship between Ray Kline and IMS, by agreement, Kline's involvement was to be very limited. Kline never opened an escrow account for IMS and did not supervise the sales personnel. Ray Kline had little or no involvement in the day-to-day operation of IMS. At no time was IMS registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission or the Department of Professional Regulation. At some point in time in the Spring of 1981, the Respondents discussed opening an escrow account but decided to not open such an account until they had earned commissions. From January through May, 1981, Respondents Tomasino and Persuad hired and supervised salesmen and controlled the operations of IMS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license of Vincent Tomasino be revoked and that an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him; That the license of Ray T. Kline be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) be imposed upon him; and That the license of Krishnalall Persaud be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him. It is further RECOMMENDED that upon a showing by the Respondents to the Commission prior to entry of the final order that restitution has been made to Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau and Mr. and Mrs. Browning, the fines of Respondents Tomasino, Kline and Persaud be reduced to two hundred fifty dollars ($250), five hundred dollars ($500), and two hundred fifty dollars ($250), respectively. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
