Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Mark S. Henderson (hereinafter "Henderson") has been a real estate salesman licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0441662. At all times material hereto, Respondent Auction World of West Florida, Inc., (hereinafter "Auction World") has been a corporate real estate broker registered in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0238372. Respondent Henderson is a real estate salesman/auctioneer employed by Auction World. He moved to Florida in October, 1984, and became a licensed real estate salesman in Florida in February, 1985, some 8 months prior to the transaction forming the basis for the Administrative Complaint. John and Joanne Henneberry signed a listing for the auction/sale of their home with Auction World through Henderson. The Henneberrys are both educated people who had prior experience in buying and selling real estate. The October 1, 1985 listing signed by the Henneberrys provided that it was a 30-day listings provided for a seven percent commission, provided for the Henneberrys to pay advertising costs not to exceed $750, and provided specifically that the $750 would not be considered as an advance fee. The listing further provided for an accounting to be made within 30 days. The Henneberrys gave Auction World a check for $750. The Henneberrys' best friend is Ralph Marciano, a real estate broker. He sold his home through Auction World and referred the Henneberrys to Auction World. The Henneberrys purchased a home through Marciano and throughout the transactions involved here consulted Marciano about how to proceed. Auction World was engaged primarily to sell the Henneberrys' home in Lehigh Acres, and Marciano was involved in the purchase or offers to purchase their new home. Pursuant to the listings advertising for the auction was published by Auction World. The auction was held on October 19, 1985, but no sale resulted from the contract negotiated through the auction. Auction World continued to work on behalf of the Henneberrys pursuant to an oral extension. Johan Ruhe and his wife were advised by Henderson of the availability of the Henneberrys' home in Lehigh Acres. Johan Ruhe is a retired real estate broker who now works for Lee County as its Director of Land Management. In December, 1984, an offer of $66,000 was made by the Ruhes to the Henneberrys through Auction World, but this offer was not accepted. On January 2 or 3, 1985, the Ruhes made an offer on the Henneberrys' home in the amount of $68,000. The offer provided for no down payment; included the range, refrigerator, dishwasher, washer, dryer, curtains and draperies to be included in the sale price; and called for financing over 30 years at an 11 percent fixed rate of interest. It further required that financing be obtained for 80 to 95 percent of the purchase price. This offer was accepted by the Henneberrys, and all parties considered this to be a binding legal contract. The original listing had called for a 7 percent commission, but when the $68,000 contract was signed, the Henneberrys negotiated Auction World from a 7 percent commission down to a $3,000 commission. The Ruhes filed a loan application with B. F. Saul Mortgage Company (hereinafter "B. F. Saul") based upon the $68,000 contract. B. F. Saul has an office in Fort Myers, Florida, which was opened on May 2, 1983, by Robert W. Prange (hereinafter "Prange") who at all times relevant to this action was a vice-president of B. F. Saul and branch manager of the local office. On January 11, 1986, the Henneberrys made an offer to purchase a home from the Jamilles, which was contingent on the Henneberrys closing with the Ruhes. Prior to signing the contract with the Ruhes, the Henneberrys discussed the contract with their best friend, real estate broker Marciano who made changes to the contract and discussed with the Henneberrys the fact that there was no deposit provided in reference to that contract. After the Henneberrys signed the contract to purchase a home from the Jamilles, the Jamilles' broker indicated to the Henneberrys that the Jamilles would like the Henneberrys' contract with the Ruhes to have a provision for a deposit. During this period of time, the Henneberrys were in direct contact with Prange at B. F. Saul, and Prange indicated to them that there was no problem with the Ruhe contract and loan application. After the Jamilles' broker contacted the Henneberrys and asked for a contract showing an escrow deposit on the Henneberry home, the Henneberrys contacted Henderson at Auction World and asked him to draw a new contract to show that a down payment had been made. Henderson prepared a new contract, and the Ruhes signed it. The new contract showed a deposit of $3,600, a purchase price increase of $3,600, and a commission increase of $3,600. In order to show the deposit requested by the Henneberrys, Auction World "gifted" by letter the $3,600 to the Ruhes. The contract was then presented to the Henneberrys. In fact, the Ruhes were not paying $3,600 more to purchase the home for which they already had a contract. Since the new agreement increased the commission by $3,600, Auction World by letter was giving back that sum to the Ruhes so that everything actually stayed the same but an escrow was shown as requested by the Henneberrys. The Henneberrys signed the new contract. At the time that they signed, they knew that the Ruhes were not paying the $3,600 additional purchase price. About the same time that the Henneberrys were requesting that the contract be redrawn to reflect a down payment from the Ruhes, Prange at B. F. Saul became concerned as to whether the Ruhes had sufficient cash available to them to consummate the transaction. When the second contract was taken by Henderson to Prange, Prange suggested that a change be made in it from a fixed interest rate to a variable interest rate so that the Ruhes could qualify for the loan. Prange then "whited out" the listing of personal property that appeared in the contract, suggesting that the deletion of the personal property would reflect an increased value in the price of the real estate. Although Prange was an officer of B. F. Saul, he was on a commission basis. He was not only the loan officer on the Henneberrys/Ruhes transaction, he was also the loan officer on the Henneberrys/Jamilles transaction. Accordingly, he knew that a successful consummation of the Ruhe transaction would ensure him of receiving two commissions but that a lack of success on the Ruhe transaction would automatically defeat the Jamille transaction. Prange knew that there was no escrow of $3,600 as reflected by the second contract Henderson presented to him. Yet, he requested Henderson to execute a "Verification of Earnest Money" form, which stated that an earnest money deposit had been received in the amount of $3,600 to be held toward the down payment and/or closing costs on the Henneberrys home. The form did not represent that the money was held in escrow, nor did it differentiate between whether that money was the down payment toward the purchase or whether that money was to be used toward closing costs. Henderson signed the verification that the $3,600 deposit was being held by Auction World because he believed the gift to the Ruhes was the same as having the deposit since it was Auction World's $3,600. Additionally, the buyer, the seller, and the loan officer were aware of the contents and reasons for the series of contracts, and the gift was evident from the series of contracts involved. Henderson prepared another contract. He also prepared an addendum to that contract containing an agreement on the purchase of the personal property since he believed the personal property had to be mentioned somewhere in order to protect both the buyer and the seller. The addendum was signed on or about February 13, 1985. The newest contract also provided for the seller to pay the closing costs. When the addendum was presented to the Henneberrys they insisted that an additional provision be added to the addendum that would guarantee that the buyer would pay the Henneberrys $4,000 toward the closing costs prior to the closing. Therefore, at the Henneberrys' request, language was added to the addendum to provide that $4,000 would be paid to the Henneberrys 72 hours prior to the closing by either Auction World or by the Ruhes. Despite the efforts of Henderson and Prange to successfully structure the Henneberry/Ruhe transaction, the Ruhes were not able to obtain approval on their loan application, and the Henneberry/Ruhe sale was not consummated. The listing agreement for the auction of the Henneberry home required that the Henneberrys pay $750 to Auction World to pay for the costs of advertising the auction. The listing contract specifically provided that the $750 did not represent an advance fee but simply represented costs of advertising. Since the statutes regulating the real estate profession do not define what constitutes an advance fee, Henderson consulted an attorney regarding the desire to obtain advertising costs in advance. The listing form used and the method of handling the Henneberrys' $750 was in compliance with the recommendation to Auction World and Henderson by that attorney. The legal advice given to them was that none of the $750 should be used on any overhead or internal expenses but rather the $750 must all be spent on independent outside advertising. Since the listing agreement specified that the $750 was not an advance fee, and since Henderson and Auction World followed the procedure recommended to them by an attorney, all parties believed that the funds were not an advance fee. The listing called for an accounting within 30 days, and an oral accounting was provided at that time. The Henneberrys did not request a further accounting until February 27 or 28, 1985. A written accounting was provided by March 11, 1985. No evidence was offered to show that any of the $750 was kept other than in a trust or escrow account at Auction World, and no evidence was offered to indicate that any of it was misused. In fact, the advertising expenses on the Henneberry home exceeded $750, and Auction World bore the extra expense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents Henderson and Auction World not guilty of the allegations contained within Counts I, III, and V, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against them. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0602 Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 30, 35, 36, and 38 have been rejected as not constituting findings or fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 6, and 7 have been rejected as being immaterial to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-5, 8-29, 31-34, 37, and 39-42 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 E. G. Couse Esquire Post Office Drawer 1647 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Holly Sanders is licensed by the Department as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0324563. In June, 1992, Ms. Sanders and Loren L. and Rose Thompson entered into an agreement whereby Ms. Sanders would have the exclusive right to rent an apartment owned by Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. This apartment, unit A-2012 in Brickell Place Condominium, Phase II, was located across the hall from the apartment in which Mr. and Mrs. Thompson resided. Ms. Sanders visited Mr. and Mrs. Thompson periodically to discuss matters relating to the rental, and she grew very fond of Mrs. Thompson. The tenant leasing apartment A-2012 did not intend to renew the lease when it expired in the summer of 1993. Ms. Sanders offered to purchase the apartment for $125,000, a figure which she based on the value of the property used to calculate the ad valorem tax.1 Ms. Sanders prepared a Contract for Sale and Purchase, dated August 16, 1993, reflecting a contract sales price of $125,000, to be paid in cash at closing. Mrs. Thompson retained Richard Olsen, an attorney, to represent her and her husband in the transaction.2 On August 19, 1993, Ms. Sanders, Mr. Olsen, and Mr. and Mrs. Thompson met in the Thompsons' apartment. At the time, both Mr. and Mrs. Thompson were incapacitated. Mrs. Thompson suffered from multiple sclerosis and was in a wheelchair.3 Mr. Thompson was bedridden; he had suffered a stroke and needed full-time care. Both Mr. and Mrs. Thompson are retired attorneys. At the August 19 meeting, Mr. Olsen examined the contract Ms. Sanders had prepared and went over the terms and conditions with Mr. and Mrs. Thompson,4 including the $125,000 contract price and the fact that it was to be a cash transaction. Neither Mr. Thompson nor Mrs. Thompson indicated any dissatisfaction with the terms of the contract. After Mr. Olsen went over the contract, Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and Ms. Sanders signed either four or five originals in his presence. Ms. Sanders gave one duplicate original executed contract to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson5 and one duplicate original to Mr. Olsen. She kept the remaining duplicate original executed contracts. Ms. Sanders did not make any photocopies of the contract. Ms. Sanders was aware that the condominium association had a right of first refusal on the apartment and that she had to be approved by the association in order to purchase the apartment.6 Ms. Sanders personally delivered an application and one of the duplicate original executed contracts showing a contract price of $125,000 to Consuelo Boet, the administrative assistant in the office of Arnold Rabin, the Brickell Place building manager. Ms. Boet did not examine the documents when they were delivered by Ms. Sanders but put them directly into a file containing other applications pending approval. When all of the required documents for apartment A-2012 had been received, Ms. Boet gave them to Mr. Rabin but, again, did not examine the contract. A Certificate of Approval dated October 18, 1993, indicates that the condominium association approved Ms. Sanders as purchaser of the apartment; the contract sales price was not included in this document. Mr. Olsen visited the Thompsons' apartment several times between the time the contract for sale was executed on August 19 and the time the transaction closed on October 20, 1993. The purpose of these visits was to locate the documents relating to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson's purchase of apartment A-2012 in 1988. They had extensive real estate holdings throughout the world, and Mr. Olsen went through many boxes of files trying to locate the title documents needed for the closing. Ms. Sanders was present during each visit Mr. Olsen made to the Thompsons' apartment prior to the closing. During one visit, Mr. Olsen was present when Ms. Sanders asked Mrs. Thompson if she would be willing to accept a $75,000, one-year mortgage on the property. Mr. Olsen discussed this proposal with Mrs. Thompson and explained to Mrs. Thompson that the mortgage Ms. Sanders was proposing would result in her receiving only $50,000 when the transaction closed and then two payments of $50,000 and $25,000, respectively. Mrs. Thompson told him she would accept the mortgage but did not want Ms. Sanders to pay interest. She refused to change her mind even though Mr. Olsen told her that it would not be in her best interest to take a non-interest-bearing note. Chicago Title Company was the closing agent for the transaction, and the closing took place at their offices on October 20, 1993. Mr. Olsen was present at the closing on behalf of the Thompsons, who were not able to attend. At closing, both Mr. Olsen, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, and Ms. Sanders signed the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, which was computed using a purchase price of $125,000. The cash payable to the Thompsons at closing is shown on the settlement statement as $46,289.48, and the statement reflected a purchase money mortgage for $75,000, as well. Ms. Sanders executed a mortgage and note in the amount of $75,000 dated October 20, 1993. These documents were prepared by Mr. Olsen, and he notarized them on October 20. The terms of the mortgage note called for a payment of $50,000 on April 19, 1994, and a payment of $25,000 on October 19, 1994; the note did not bear interest. Mr. Olsen had one original set of the closing documents bound in a legal-sized folder; the documents included an original signed closing statement, a copy of the deed, and a copy of the mortgage and note. He delivered this folder to Mrs. Thompson and explained the documents, specifically going over the closing statement with her. Mrs. Thompson expressed no dissatisfaction with the transaction or the amount of money she received at closing. Mr. Olsen believes that, during the time he represented her, Mrs. Thompson was fully aware that the contract sales price was $125,000 and that she had taken a mortgage instead of all cash. At some point, the association's Certificate of Approval of Ms. Sanders' purchase and a copy of the HUD-l Settlement Statement were placed in the file maintained by the association for apartment A-2012. Ms. Boet does not recall when the documents came into the office or who provided the copy of the settlement statement. She did not examine the documents at the time she placed them in the association file for apartment A-2012. However, when Mr. Rabin reviewed the file some months after the closing, it contained a copy of an HUD-1 Settlement Statement which had obviously been altered in several places to show a contract sales price of $185,0007 and a copy of a Contract for Purchase and Sale showing a contract price of $185,000.8 The file did not contain a duplicate original executed Contract for Sale and Purchase. The greater weight of the evidence in this case supports Ms. Sanders' contentions that the Contract for Sale and Purchase of apartment A-2012 in the Brickell Place Condominium, executed on August 19, 1993, by Loren L. and Rose Thompson, specified a contract sales price of $125,000, to be paid in cash, and that Mrs. Thompson accepted a one-year note and mortgage on the property in the amount of $75,000 and $50,000 in cash in lieu of $125,000 in cash. Furthermore, the uncontradicted evidence establishes that Ms. Sanders delivered a duplicate original executed contract to Ms. Boet as part of her application to the condominium association for approval of her purchase of the apartment. The uncontradicted evidence also establishes that, some months after the October 20, 1993, closing on the apartment, Mr. Rabin reviewed the association's file and found that it contained a copy of a Contract for Sale and Purchase which specified a contract sales price of $185,000 in cash and an HUD-1 Settlement Statement obviously altered to show a contract sales price of $185,000. There is, however, no compelling evidence establishing when the documents were altered or establishing that Ms. Sanders is the person who made the alterations. Therefore, the Department has failed to carry its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Sanders violated section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, either with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson or to the Brickell Place Condominium Association.9
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Holly Sanders. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Diane Aquino, is a 33 year old female who currently resides at 1271 North West 23rd Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. By application filed on February 10, 1981, Petitioner sought licensure as a real estate salesman by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. (Respondent's Exhibit l) Question 7(a) on the application asked whether any judgment or decree of a court has been entered against the applicant in which the applicant was charged with any fraudulent or dishonest dealing. Question 15(a) asked whether the applicant has ever had any registration to practice a profession revoked, annulled or suspended upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law. Question 15(b) asked whether applicant has ever surrendered her registration to practice any regulated profession or occupation. Aquino answered each of those questions affirmatively and included a written statement describing actions taken against her by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SFC) based upon fraudulent activities which occurred in 1976. The application was denied by Respondent by letter dated April 28, 1981, on the ground she had failed to demonstrate that she was "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and ... (has) a good reputation for fair dealing." The denial precipitated the instant hearing. Between September, 1975, and April, 1976, Petitioner was employed by Colonial Securities, Inc. located in Jersey City, New Jersey, in the capacity of a registered sales assistant. Colonial was a broker-dealer registered with the SEC pursuant to Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In 1977 Colonial, Petitioner and two other Colonial employees were the subject of an administrative proceeding instituted by the SEC charging that they had "willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act in that they, directly and indirectly, made use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce and of the mails to offer, sell and deliver after sale shares of the common stock of Tucker (Drilling Company, Inc.) when no registration statement was filed or in effect as to such securities pursuant to the Securities Act." (Respondent's Exhibit l). Because of the time and expense involved in contesting these charges, and upon advice of her counsel, Aquino consented to the entry of an order by the SEC that made findings that she had willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. The consent order also imposed the following sanctions: that Aquino be barred from association with any broker, dealer or investment company, except in a secretarial capacity; and that, after a period of two years she be permitted to apply to become reassociated in non-supervisory and non-proprietary capacity. Aquino is now reapplying for registration with the SEC. In addition to the sanctions imposed by the SEC, Petitioner has been enjoined by a federal court in New York from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. Since the entry of the consent order, Petitioner has owned and operated a laundry and dry cleaner business in Pompano Beach, Florida, and been employed as a sales assistant at a stock brokerage firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Since 1980 she has been the president and 50 percent stockholder of Financial Communications, Inc., a small private investment company located in Pompano Beach, Florida. In her present business, Petitioner deals with private investors who entrust her with sums of money for different securities and stock investments. One such investor described her as being honest and trustworthy, and stated he is completely satisfied with the business relationship that they enjoy. Another investor attested to Aquino's excellent reputation for honesty and truthfulness. A former employer indicated he is willing to sponsor her reapplication for licensing with the SEC as a registered securities representative. He is also willing to hire her if that application is approved. Other than the difficulties incurred in 1977, Petitioner has had no other problems that would reflect adversely upon her reputation and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner, Diane Aquino, for licensure as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1981, 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 29th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Rishken, Esquire Suite 203, Dadeland Towers North 9700 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Linda A. Lawson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Diane Aquino 1271 NorthEast 23rd Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33062
Findings Of Fact Respondent Theodore Dorwin is a registered real estate broker, registration certificate number 0022474, 561 N.E. 79th Street, Miami, Florida. He also is now and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complain the president and active firm member of Respondent Intermart, Inc., a registered corporate broker located at the same address. As broker with Intermart, Respondent holds registration certificate number . 0157090. Intermart is registered under certificate number 0157081. The registrations of both Dorwin and Intermart were suspended by Petitioner on July 21, 1976, for a period of ninety (90) days. By order, dated December 16, 1976, Petitioner denied Respondents' petition for reactivation and return of registration certificates. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) Intermart, Inc. was formed in the middle of 1975, but did not commence active operations until February, 1976. Prior to 1975, Dorwin had been a general real estate broker for various land companies in Florida. In 1975, he became associated for a brief period of time with a firm called Property Resales Service, Inc., of Miami, an organization that solicited listings for the resale of property. During the period February, 1975, until 1976, Dorwin was connected successively with International Land Brokers, Inc. (hereinafter "International") and Florida Landowners Service Bureau (hereinafter "Service Bureau"), both of which firms engaged in the solicitation of advance fees from out of state property owners for listing agreements whereby they undertook to advertise and sell the property for a ten percent commission. The listing agreements of these firms provided that the advance fee would be credited against the commission. In February, 1976, Intermart, Inc. was activated and began operations at the same office and with the same salesmen who had been used by Dorwin in his activities for the Service Bureau. It used virtually the identical "Listing and Brokerage Agreement" and promotional material as had the other firms. The change was brought about by the fact that commission checks received from the Service Bureau had "bounced." (Testimony of Dorwin, Petitioner's Exhibits 2,5,6,7,23,26,27,28) Respondents operated the advance fee business in the following manner: Lists of primarily out of state owners of land in large developments in Florida and other states were purchased by Respondents from individuals who sold such lists "on the street." In like manner, lists of prospective purchasers of such land were purchased. Information was placed on cards containing the name, address and phone number of the landowner, together with information as to the development where the land was located. A staff of some fifteen to twenty real estate salesmen were utilized to solicit listings from the prospective sellers over the telephone. Each salesman had a cubicle in a small office with a .telephone. These individuals worked in two shifts, six days a week, during the evening hours. Each salesman averaged about twenty to twenty-five telephone calls a night. When Intermart succeeded Dorwin's operation for the Service Bureau, there was little or no change in any of the above procedures. The average, listing fee was $350 , of which the soliciting salesmen received approximately one-third. The salesmen were provided a "script" or "opening statement" by Dorwin to use as a selling "pitch." The persons called were asked if they were interested in reselling their property. They were told that foreign investors around the world were interested in buying blocks of land in Florida and were quoted a sale price that usually was somewhat in excess of the current market value of the property. If the property owner expressed interest in listing his land for sale, literature was mailed to him which consisted of information about Intermart and the experience and qualifications of its officers, together with a form "Listing and Brokerage Agreement," and reprints of newspaper and other articles concerning the interest of foreign investors in land in the United States, and similar subjects. About two weeks later, the salesman would call the individual again to urge that he send in his advance fee, along with the signed listing agreement. The proposed selling price was fixed by the salesman from a large chart in the office that showed sample original purchase prices and amounts to be quoted as selling prices based on the number of years since purchase of the property. These amounts were used in all cases, regardless of where the property was located. The only deviation from the standard selling price was in cases where water or canal front property, golf course or business property was involved, in which case, $500 to $1,000 was added to the quoted figure. During the initial call, the salesman asked for the legal description of the lots in question and, if a listing was obtained, a copy of the agreement for deed or warranty deed was also requested. However, no efforts were made to check the legal descriptions of the property nor were any visits made to the property by Dorwin or other personnel of the firm. The sales man had nothing to do with actual sales of the property and did not contact prospective purchasers. Neither Dorwin nor one of his former salesmen who testified at the hearing was aware of any actual sales of listed property made by Intermart or the Service Bureau. No credible evidence was submitted that the property was ever checked for zoning restrictions or that prospective purchasers were contacted by anyone. Respondents did occasionally send a form letter to those listing property stating that Intermart "had the opportunity to present your property" to a named individual and that they would "endeavor to interest the prospect further." However nothing ever came of these supposed contacts. During the telephone conversations with sellers, the alesmen made statements to the effect that Intermart was making sales, and that the land would usually be sold within eight to nine months. In one case, a seller was told by one of Respondents' salesmen that Intermart had sold all of the property that had been listed with it. Further representations were that Argentine buyers loaded with money" wanted to invest in American real estate. One salesman represented that Respondents advertised all over the world in all foreign countries and in every state in the Union. A letter enclosed with promotional materials stated that Respondents advertised or had proposed advertising pending in a number of countries via major magazine and newspaper publications, and in Miami, Los Angeles, New York City, Boston and Chicago. Another landowner was told that the company had been in business for a period of ten years. It was also represented that Intermart had a computer printout on the latest market values of land and that this was used in determining their estimate of a selling price. In one instance, the salesman told the seller that they had identified a buyer for his land which would be part of a large block package to be sold to the individual and that a rapid decision had to be made whether or not to list. the property so that he could participate in the deal. He was further told that it would take about three months to close the sale with a Venezuelan investor. Attempts by the property owners to obtain copies of the listing agreement signed by Respondent proved to be futile, in spite of promises from its representatives to provide the same. In one instance, to induce a listing, the sales man told the landowner to cross out the amount shown on the listing contract that previously had stated a sale price and to pencil in an increased sales price. He also told him to make pencil corrections on the proposed agreement to indicate that the purchaser rather than the seller would pay the ten percent commission of the sales price. (Testimony of Judkins, Ladabauche, Nicholas, Burke, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Petitioner's Exhibits 5,6,7 [depositions]) Respondents' promotional literature and information that was sent to prospective sellers of property contained various promises and representations that were not kept, as follows: Respondents stated that it would "analyze" the property to arrive at a correct selling price by reviewing the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property. In fact, the selling price was based solely on an arbitrary figure selected from a chart on the wall that did not take into consideration the precise location of the property or zoning considerations. Respondents stated that "Your property legals are checked thoroughly." In fact, any legal description of the property was obtained solely from copies of agreements for deed or warranty deeds supplied by the owner , and were not further checked in any manner. Respondents stated "In order for us to successfully merchandise and receive the highest offer for your property (ies) considerable expense is involved because a great deal of time is put forth on your behalf and many of the property(ies) are being offered for sale sight unseen." In fact, only a small amount of money and little or no time was expended to sell the property. After the property owner had submitted his advance fee and listing agreement to Respondents, no further efforts were made on his be half nor was he ever contacted thereafter by the firm. (Testimony of Lewis, Judkins, Ladabauche, Nicholas, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 2, Petitioners' Exhibits 57, 23) In the "Listing and Brokerage Agreement," Respondents a greed to use its "efforts to secure a purchaser for the property" and to include the property in its directory of "available properties, to be distributed to other real estate brokers." It also contained A the following pertinent undertakings: "4. In consideration of this listing, you agree: To cause said property to be included in your listing directory and in two successive issues of said directory within a period of one year. Contemporaneously with the appearance of said listing in the directory, you agree to direct the efforts of your organization to bringing about a sale of my property; To advertise said property as you deem advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit: I understand that this agreement does not guarantee the sale of my property, but that it does guarantee that you will make an earnest effort pursuant to the aforementioned provisions." (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 23) Respondent Dorwin testified that he planned to issue a catalog of listed properties in June, 1976 to be distributed to various investors and brokers in the United States and foreign Mailings this depend 7 countries. of catalog were to on responses to .advertisements placed in newspapers around the world and in the United States in April. No action toward any of these goals was taken until March, 1976 when Intermart entered into an agreement with Currency Control Advertising, Miami, Florida, to act as an advertising agency for brochures, printing, copy, layout, typesetting, art, newspaper and magazine advertising, public relations, radio and television. Under this contract, small, one insertion newspaper ads were placed in approximately seven newspapers of various foreign countries and Canada, and in newspapers in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, costing approximately $500. These ads read as follows: "U.S. Investments Catalogue . . . $9.95 U.S. Complimentary to Investors and to the Trade." Property listings for the catalog were not provided to the advertising agency until the last half of July, 1976. It was not published until August 20th but has not been mailed due to Respondents' current suspension by Petitioner. A few responses were received as a result of the newspaper advertisements but Dorwin testified that nothing was done to follow-up such inquiries because he was waiting for the catalog to be published. Five thousand copies of the catalog were printed at a cost of some $4,500. At the present time, Intermart owes the advertising firm about $2,500 for its work. Dorwin testified that he planned to distribute the catalog to several thousand investors and brokers listed in the International Real Estate Federation, of which he was a member, but that he was unable to do so because of his suspension by Petitioner in July. During the period January-June, 1976, Intermart's records reflected a gross income from the advance fee business of approximately $190,000. About forty-eight per cent of this amount was paid to salesmen for commissions on listing fees, twenty-eight per cent for officers salaries, and about one and one-half per cent was paid for advertising. (Testimony of Dorwin, Weinstein, Stowe, Leader, Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 825) During the last half of June, 1975, Intermart, upon advice of Counsel, in anticipation of a new state law regulating advance fee contracts, stamped on their listing agreements a statement that the parties agreed the advance fee did not constitute trust funds and that the monies therefrom could be expended for expenses. Listing fees received after July 1, 1976, were placed in an Intermart, Inc. trust account of the Capital Bank of North Bay Village, Florida, Account 10452, and as of December 31, 1976, this account showed a balance of $5,083.35 that is being retained by Respondents pending the outcome of present proceedings. (Testimony of Dorwin, Petitioner's Dorwin testified that, although he was aware the other advance fee firms with which he had been associated did not follow through on listings to attempt to make sales, he planned to do so by his newspaper advertisements and issuance of the catalog. However, he admitted that no information was ever sent to any prospective purchaser, that no advertisements were ever placed that described individual parcels of property, and that the only contact ever made with prospective purchasers was by telephone calls. He further admitted that no one from the firm ever checked public records involving the property listed for sale to assure the accuracy of information provided by the owners, and only token visits were ever made to view the listed properties by any member of the firm. He maintained that salesmen were not given a "script" to use but merely an "opening statement" and that they were free to deal with property owners as individuals. He was unaware of where the chart showing sample property values had been obtained and stated that such a chart was not used during Intermart's operations but had been used only during the previous operation at the same address. He denied ever telling salesmen to inform expected sellers that the firm was selling blocks of land but acknowledged that in monitoring telephone conversations of the salesmen, they did exaggerate at times. (Testimony of Dorwin) In view of the totality of the evidence, it is found that the operations of Intermart, Inc. were designed and carried out with the sole intention of extracting monies from landowners with no intent to carry out the stated promises of "earnest efforts" to sell the property.
Recommendation That the certificates of registration of Theodore Dorwin and Intermart, Inc. be revoked pursuant to subsection 475.25(3), F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Louis B. Guttmann, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Harold Mendelow, Esquire Manners and Amoon, P.A. 4349 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 106 Miami, Florida 33166
The Issue At issue herein is whether respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined for-the alleged violations set forth in the administrative complaint. Based upon all of the evidence, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Juan Rios, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0155126 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Victoria R. Rios, is a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0331183 by petitioner. The Rios are husband and wife and presently reside at 855 80th Street, #1, Miami Beach, Florida. On December 13, 1982, Juan Rios obtained a six-month multiple listing agreement to sell a house located in Hacienda Estates at 11451 S.W. 33rd Lane, Miami, Florida. The agreement was executed by Rios "As Realtor" and by the property owner, Mercedes Garcia. At Mercedes' request, the Rios placed an initial sales price of $145,000 on the home. On December 15, a similar agreement was executed by Rios and Garcia on condominium unit 9B, Laguna Club Condominium, 10710 N. W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. That property was also owned by Garcia. Although the agreement introduced into evidence does not contain Rios' signature, at final hearing Juan Rios acknowledged that he had executed such an agreement. The listing agreements provided that if the properties were leased during the term of the agreements, the listing realtor would receive a brokerage fee of 10% for such leasing. The agreement also provided that the realtors were not responsible for vandalism, theft or damage of any nature to the property. Garcia is a native and resident of Venezuela, where she owns a radio station. The two properties in question were previously owned by her father. When the father died, apparently sometime in 1982, Mercedes inherited the house and condominium. The Rios were friends of the father, and agreed to list and manage the properties as a favor to the deceased. Mercedes left the country after the agreements were signed, and has apparently not returned. Although she is the complainant who initiated this matter, she did not appear at final hearing. The house at 11451 S. W. 33rd Lane had been vandalized prior to the listing agreement being signed. According to documents introduced into evidence, the property has also been the subject of subsequent vandalisms, the nature and extent of which are unknown. A tenant was eventually procured by Mercedes' aunt in February, 1983 at a monthly rate of $800. The tenant, a Mrs. Ramirez, paid some $4,800 in rents and deposits before she was killed at the home in June, 1983. The Rios spent some $2,644.36 of the $4,800 on repairs to the vandalism and for general maintenance. They also retained a 10% commission for their services, or $480. That left $1,675.64 owed to Mercedes. No lease was apparently ever signed by Ramirez, or at least none was given to the Rios by the relative who procured the tenant. The home was eventually sold to Mercedes' aunt for $85,000.1 None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. The condominium unit was rented in June, 1983. The tenant, Oscar Ruiz, had answered an advertisement run by the Rios in a local newspaper. Although Ruiz executed a lease to rent the unit at a monthly rate of $500, the Rios did not have a copy of same, and claimed none was kept in their records. According to the Rios, Ruiz continued to rent the unit through April, 1984, or for eleven months. Total monies collected by the Rios from Ruiz, including a $500 security deposit, were $6,000, of which $3,364.86 was spent for maintenance, utilities, two mortgage payments, and a $500 payment to the owner (Mercedes). An additional $40.33 was spent on a plumbing bill, and $600 was retained as a commission by the Rios. This left $2,724.53 owed to Mercedes. None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. In the spring of 1984, Mercedes retained the services of an attorney in Miami to seek her monies due from the Rios. Up to then, she had received no income or accounting on the two properties. The attorney wrote the Rios on several occasions beginning in April 1984, asking for a copy of the lease on the condominium unit, the security deposit, an accounting of the funds, and all other documents relating to the two, properties. He received his first reply from the Rios on May 3, 1984 who advised him that they had attempted to reach Mercedes by telephone on numerous occasions but that she would never return their calls. They explained that rental proceeds had been used to repair vandalism damage and structural defects. When the attorney did not receive the satisfaction that he desired, he filed a civil action against the Rios on October 10, 1984. On October 26, 1984 the Rios sent Mercedes a letter containing an accounting on the two properties reflecting that she was owed $4,400.17 by the Rios. To pay this, they sent a $140 "official check," and a promissory note for the balance to be paid off in 40 monthly installments at 10% interest. They explained that their real estate business had closed, and due to financial problems, they were unable to pay off the monies due any sooner. They also asked that she instruct her attorney to drop the suit. Mercedes rejected this offer and has continued to pursue the civil action. It is still pending in Dade County Circuit Court. At final hearing, the Rios characterized their involvement with Mercedes as a "professional mistake," and one undertaken out of friendship for Mercedes' father. They acknowledged they did not use a trust account on the transactions and that they had used the $4,400 in rental money due Mercedes for their own use. They considered the excess rent proceeds to be compensation for other "services" performed by them on behalf of Mercedes. However, there is no evidence of any such agreement between the parties reflecting that understanding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Juan and Victoria Rios be found guilty as charged in Counts II and III, and be found guilty of culpable negligence and breach of trust in Count I. It is further recommended that Juan Rios' license be suspended for one year and that Victoria Rios' license be suspended for three months. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1986
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondent violated section 475.125(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate professionals pursuant to section 20.125 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a real estate associate licensed with All Pro Realty Co., Volusia County, Inc., d/b/a RE/MAX All Pro Realty, a real estate corporation (All Pro). Respondent's license number is 3051505. Respondent's broker at All Pro was Robert Millward. Respondent was the listing agent for a property located at 3301 Tropical Terrace, Deland, Florida (the Tropical Terrace property). Respondent specialized in handling the sale of foreclosure properties. The Tropical Terrace property was a foreclosure property, and was owned by Premier Asset Services (Premier). Sales for bank-owned properties such as the Tropical Terrace property that Respondent handled were different from most real estate transactions. For example, offers were communicated to Respondent, whether verbally with written follow-up, by fax or e-mail, or by a conventional real estate sales contract. If no offer was currently pending for a piece of property, the data related to the offer would be entered into a dedicated electronic communication system, referred to as the portal, for consideration by the seller. If the property was already under contract, the listing agent could not communicate any further offers on the property. It was not unusual for the potential buyer to receive no response if this was the case. If there were no pending offers on a property, the Seller, through use of the portal, would accept the offer, provide a counter-offer, or send the offer back for a "highest and best" offer. However, all transactions generated a generic counter-offer form with the final terms, even if the original offer was accepted. Any counter-offer would be sent to the buyer's agent for approval. If acceptable, the counter-offer would be initialed, and returned for submission to Premier. The documents required for submission were the FLA/BAR form, the counter-offer, an escrow check and a pre-qualification letter for financing purposes. Premier would not sign off on the purchase until the complete package was submitted. Once the complete package was reviewed, the asset manager for Premier would sign the contract and the entire packet would be returned to the seller's agent, either by fax or through the portal. Anthony Conklin wanted to purchase the Tropical Terrace property for investment purposes. He submitted an offer, through his realtor, Debbie Artzner, for $100,000, which was below the listed price for the property. Neither he nor his agent received any response to this offer. On March 11, 2009, Conklin signed another offer on the property for $105,000. Ms. Artzner faxed him the forms to sign and he faxed them back to her to submit to Respondent. Anthony Conklin did not sign the forms in her presence. There is some dispute as to whether the offer was actually forwarded to Respondent on March 11: Ms. Artzner says that she sent it by email but did not confirm that Respondent had received it. Ms. Artzner also stated that she would not have submitted an offer if there was an existing offer on the property. Respondent insists that there was in fact an existing offer on March 11 and denies receiving the Conklin offer. There is also no certainty that the exhibit identified as the March 11, 2009, offer and admitted as Petitioner's 2 is, in its entirety, the document that was actually signed by Mr. Conklin on that date. For example, the first page of the contract lists a price of $105,000, and has a deadline for acceptance of March 26, 2009. Pages one, four and five of the exhibit have no fax header on the bottom or top of the document, while pages two and three have two or three fax headers dated March 11, 2009, at the bottom of the document. The signature page, dated March 11, 2009, is page three. What remains unclear is whether the offer forwarded to Respondent for input in the portal resulting in a counter-offer that was accepted was the offer dated March 11, 2009, for $105,000, or was yet another offer for $108,000. In any event, on March 25, 2009, Premier issued a counter-offer for $108,000, and on March 26, 2009, the counter- offer was accepted. On March 31, 2009, Mr. Conklin wrote an escrow check for the purchase, and the documents necessary for Premier's asset manager's signature were uploaded to the portal. On April 6, 2009, the asset manager signed the contract and the entire package, including the FLA/BAR form, was returned for transmission to the Buyer, via the portal. The agreed-upon purchase price for the property was $108,000. At this point, the road to closing on the property became problematic. While Respondent claims there would have been no reason for her to not provide the entire package to the buyer's broker, Ms. Artzner claims that she did not receive it, and her testimony is credited. Multiple requests were made for a copy of the FLA/BAR form, which were not honored. When Ms. Artzner was unsuccessful in getting a copy of the form, which was needed for financing purposes, Mr. Conklin began calling Respondent directly. Respondent did not provide the form, but instead called Ms. Artzner's licensure into question. (Ms. Artzner, who testified on behalf of the Department, indicated that she has been licensed for 20 years.) No real basis for doubting her licensure was presented to justify such an accusation. This refusal to send the FLA/BAR form became a hurdle for completing the financing. After several attempts by both Mr. Conklin and Ms. Artzner, after approximately two weeks, a telephone conference call was arranged involving Mr. Conklin, Ms. Artzner, Respondent, and Andy Walker, who was assisting with the processing of Mr. Conklin's loan. According to Mr. Walker, Respondent remained unhelpful in providing documents when requested. Mr. Conklin and Respondent are like oil and water. Some evidence was presented to indicate the lack of the FLA/BAR form was not the only barrier to closing, but it certainly contributed to the delay. While Mr. Conklin should have worked through his realtor instead of calling Respondent directly, Respondent could have solved the document problem by simply forwarding a copy of the FLA/BAR form. Instead, she took the position that she had already provided it and did not need to do so again. At hearing, Respondent stated, "I don't want to sound arrogant or anything, but I really don't want to do anybody else's paperwork." Her testimony is consistent with the claims by others that she was uncooperative in getting the transaction ready to close, and it is so found. On April 30, 2009, Andy Walker received a fax that included a cover page and a copy of what purports to be the FLA/BAR contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). The document contains an offer price of $108,000, which while the ultimate price, is not the price Mr. Conklin claims was on the offer that was forwarded to Respondent. In addition, Mr. Conklin claims that the document contains a signature that purports to be his but is not. Mr. Conklin and the Department contend that Respondent forwarded this copy of the contract and that she knew or should have known that the signature on the document is not Mr. Conklin's. The fax sheet accompanying the document is from an establishment in Jacksonville called "The Retreat at St. Johns." The cover sheet indicates that it is addressed to "Conklin" at fax number 407-389-5111. However, there is no indication as to who sent the fax, and Respondent denies doing so. No persuasive evidence was submitted to demonstrate that Respondent was responsible for sending the fax or that she reviewed the signatures contained in the fax. While it is somewhat different from other examples of Mr. Conklin's signature in the documents, the differences are not so great that that they could not be attributed to the natural variances in a person's handwriting. Further, while the first five pages of Exhibit 4 have a fax header at the top indicating they were sent on April 30, 2009, the page with the disputed signature and the signature of the asset manager, Donna West, has no fax header. In short, no clear and convincing evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent was responsible for sending the fax. Further, no clear and convincing was presented to indicate that Mr. Conklin's signature contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 4 was forged or that Respondent had any involvement in crafting, reviewing, or transmitting Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Eventually, Mr. Conklin directed Ms. Artzner to prepare a new FLA/BAR contract with the agreed-upon purchase price in order to get the financing processed and approved. The transaction eventually closed and Mr. Conklin successfully purchased the property for the agreed-upon $108,000.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Law Offices of Robert J. Riggio, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-4922 Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been a licensed real estate sales associate since 2000. His license number is 693538. Most of Petitioner’s work in the real estate industry has involved business transactions, but he has also handled transactions involving residential properties. On August 23, 2004, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate broker. Petitioner disclosed in the application that, in July 2003, his sales associate license was suspended by the Commission for 30 days and that he was placed on probation for a period of six months. That disciplinary action was based upon a single incident that occurred on or about November 7, 2001. Petitioner agreed to the disciplinary action as part of a “Stipulation” to resolve an Administrative Complaint charging him with fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), and with having operated as a broker without a license in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2001). The Administrative Complaint contained the following “essential allegations of material fact,” which were admitted by Petitioner as part of the Stipulation: On or about November 7, 2001, Respondent, a seller’s agent, facilitated a purchase and sale transaction between Buyer and Seller. On or about November 7, 2001, [Petitioner] was not registered with a broker.[1] The transaction referenced above failed to close. Buyer released a $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] submitted the $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] instructed [Seller] to execute a check in the amount of $500.00 payable to “Cash.”[2] [Petitioner] accepted the $500.00 payment as his own payment for services. The Final Order adopting the Stipulation was filed with the agency clerk on June 25, 2003. Petitioner’s suspension commenced on July 25, 2003, which is “thirty days from the date of filing of the Final Order.” The suspension ended 30 days later, on August 24, 2003. Petitioner’s probation ran “for a period of six (6) months from the Effective Date [of the Stipulation],” which was defined as the date that the Final Order was filed with the agency clerk. As a result, the probation period ran from June 25, 2003, to December 25, 2003. Petitioner was required to complete a three-hour ethics course and a four-hour escrow management course during the probation period, which he did. Petitioner has not been subject to any other disciplinary action. Petitioner has taken several continuing education courses in addition to those required as part of his probation. He is working towards certification by the Graduate Realtor Institute. Petitioner has taken the classes necessary to become a real estate broker, and he passed the broker examination. Petitioner has worked for broker Phillip Wetter since March 2005. Petitioner manages the day-to-day operation of Mr. Wetter’s brokerage firm. His responsibilities include preparing listings, negotiating contracts, and handling escrow funds. He has been involved in over 50 successful real estate transactions under Mr. Wetter’s supervision. According to Mr. Wetter, Petitioner is meticulous in his work, including his handling of escrow funds, and he always makes sure that he “dots all his ‘I’s’ and crosses all his ‘T’s’.” Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing that what he did in November 2001 was wrong. He credibly testified that he has learned from his mistake. In his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing, Mr. Wetter attested to Petitioner’s honesty, ethics, good moral character, as well as his qualifications to be a broker. That testimony was unrebutted and is corroborated by the letters of support from Petitioner’s former clients that are contained in his application file, Exhibit R1. Mr. Wetter’s opinions regarding Petitioner’s fitness for licensure as a real estate broker are given great weight. Those opinions are based not only on his personal observations as Petitioner’s current qualifying broker, but also on his personal experience with Petitioner representing him in several business transactions while Petitioner was working for other brokers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order approving Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2005.
