The Issue Whether the real estate license of respondent should be revoked or suspended for operating as a broker while registered with the petitioner as a salesman, in violation of subsections 475.01(3) - 475.25(1)(d), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Neither respondent nor any representative in her behalf appeared at the hearing. Notice of the hearing was provided the respondent by the petitioner through U.S. registered mail on April 12, 1977. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the notice on April 18, 1977. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) By correspondence to petitioner, dated April 23, 1977, which was received on April 27, 1977, respondent requested a postponement until two of her former employers were subpoenaed for the hearing. She also mentioned in her letter that she had been unable to locate the address of a third former employer. In fact, two of the individuals had already been subpoenaed by petitioner to testify at the hearing, and on May 2, 1977, petitioner's investigator attempted to deliver a subpoena for the third person to the respondent at her home after calls to her listed telephone number had not been answered. Further attempts to locate the respondent on that day were without avail. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Testimony of Greene) The request for continuance was not brought to the hearing officer's attention by either party until May 2, 1977, at which time petitioner's counsel advised him of the request and that respondent could not be located on that date. At the commencement of the hearing, after being advised in the premises, the hearing officer determined that respondent had received adequate notice of the hearing and that, not having been informed that her request for a postponement had been granted, it was incumbent upon her to be present at the hearing either to pursue her request or defend her interests, if she so desired. There being no apparent justifiable cause for her absence, the matter was conducted as an uncontested proceeding, pursuant to Rule 28-5.25(5), F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now and was at all times alleged in the administrative complaint a registered real estate salesman employed by Happy Home Hunters, Inc., a broker corporation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) In the spring of 1974, Doris Espinosa a registered real estate broker, was working with respondent at a firm named Home Locators, in Miami, Florida. Respondent requested that Espinosa join her in a new firm that was to be financed by one Chester Kaye. A corporation, Happy Home Hunters, Inc., was thereafter formed with Espinosa as president and active firm member. George Girard was an officer of the corporation, also. Espinosa was with the firm only approximately fifteen days. Neither Kaye nor respondent was an officer of the corporation. The firm engaged in the listing and rental of apartments as its primary business at 6730 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Both Espinosa and respondent endeavored to secure listings of rental apartments and then locate tenants from whom a fee was obtained. Both could countersign checks of the firm and together they handled the financial matters. Kaye was seldom present at the office. (Testimony of Espinosa) On April 24, 1974, the firm applied for registration with petitioner, and listed David G. Weiner as president and active firm member, and George Girard as secretary-treasurer. Girard is respondent's husband. Weiner was paid a fee of $100.00 per month to serve as broker for the firm. He served in this capacity for several months and visited the office three or four times for two or three hours each time to "make sure everything was run according to the rules and regulations " of petitioner. However, he did not sign checks, hire or fire sales personnel, handle any of the financial matters, place advertisements or receive any accounting as to the operations of the business. All such matters were handled either by respondent or Kaye. However, Kaye was seldom in the office. Respondent served as sales or office manager, and, in fact, supervised the business operations, although the final decisions were made by Kaye. (Testimony of Weiner, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) On April 25, 1974, respondent submitted a Business Information Form for membership in the Better Business Bureau of South Florida. On the form, she listed herself as treasurer of the corporation, and in the accompanying letter requesting a representative of the bureau to visit the offices, she stated "I try very hard to run a good business." On July 1 and July 8, 1974, in responding to complaints filed against the firm with the bureau, respondent listed her title as "Owner." (Testimony of Smathers, Petitioner's exhibits 5, 6)
Recommendation It is recommended that petitioner issue a written reprimand to respondent Mollie Lee Warrington for violation of subsection 475.42(b), Florida Statutes, as authorized by subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mollie Lee Warrington 990 Northeast 189th Terrace Miami, Florida 33138 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3141 DADE COUNTY MOLLIE LEE WARRINGTON, DOAH CASE NO. 77-275 Respondent. / At a regular meeting of the Florida Real Estate Commission held at the Executive Headquarters in Winter Park, Florida, on July 20, 1977, Present: Maggie S. Lassetter, Vice-Chairman Levie D. Smith, Jr., Member Appearances: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Attorney for Plaintiff No Appearance for Defendant. This matter came on for Final Order upon the Plaintiff's Administrative Complaint, the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and the Plaintiff `s Exceptions thereto, together with the record and oral argument of counsel for the Plaintiff, and the Commission having fully reviewed the entire record, the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order, and the Commission being fully advised in the premises, finds: 1. That according to the records of the Commission, Defendant Mollie Lee Warrington is registered with the Commission as a non-active real estate salesman, 990 Northeast 89th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33138. 2. That the Findings of Fact as set forth in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record and should be adopted as the Findings of Fact of the Commission. 3. That the Plaintiff's Exceptions to Paragraph 6 of the Conclusions of Law as set forth in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer are well taken and should be sustained. 4. That the Conclusions of Law, with the exception of Paragraph 6, as set forth in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record and should be adopted as the Conclusions of Law by the Commission. 5. That the Plaintiff's Exceptions to the Recommendation of the Hearing Officer are well taken and should be sustained. IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, with the exception of Paragraph 6, as set forth in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Off icer be, and they are hereby, adopted as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Mollie Lee Warrington be, and she is hereby, adjudged guilty of violating Subsection 475.42(1)(b) and Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for such violations, the registration of Defendant Mollie Lee Warrington be, and the same is hereby, suspended for a period of one (1) year, said suspension to become effective upon the effective date of this Order as provided by law. DONE and ORDERED at Winter Park, Florida, this 25th day of July, 1977. Maggie S. Lassetter Vice-Chairman Levie D. Smith, Jr. Member I HEREBY CERTIFY that I mailed a copy of the foregoing Final Order to Mollie Lee Warrington, Defendant, 990 Northeast 89th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33138, by United States registered mail this 25th day of July, 1977. C. B. Stafford Executive Director NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: This Order shall become effective on the 24th day of August 1977. However, you have a right of review by an Appellate Court, if you desire. Please comply with this Order. We are including an envelope for your convenience in surrendering your registration certificate. RJRP/sl
Findings Of Fact Robert & Gilman, Inc. at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate broker by the State of Florida. Delair A. Clark at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate salesman by the State of Florida. Residential property owned by William L. and Frances Crummett was listed with J.B. Steelman, Jr. real estate broker and put on Multiple Listing Service. On June 17, 1972, immediately after the For Sale sign was erected, Respondent, Delair A. Clark, presented an offer to the sellers on this property which was accepted by sellers on the same date presented (Exhibit 9). This contract provided the purchase price of $28,500 with a $300 earnest money deposit, the usual clauses in a form contract for sale and purchase, and two special clauses to wit: "A. Subject to: Buyer being reassigned to central Florida prior to June 22, 1972. In the event the assignment does not materialize by June 23, 1972 deposit will, be returned in full and contract will be null and void. B. Subject to: Buyer obtaining a 90 percent conventional loan for a period of 25 years or an FHA loan for 30 years." By telegram dated 6/20/72 (Exhibit 8) buyer confirmed re-assignment to Orlando, thus satisfying condition A in the contract. Buyers thereafter asked for earlier occupancy than originally called for. Since special arrangements would have to be made by sellers, Mr. Crummett asked for an amendment to the contract to increase the earnest money deposit to $1,000 of which $500 would be non-refundable if contract was not consummated. This amendment was duly executed by the buyers on July 15, 1972 and by the sellers. A copy thereof was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11 which provides: "SPECIAL CLAUSE" "C. An additional deposit of $700 will be made on July 17, 1972, of which $500 will be non-refundable in the event the referenced contract is not consumated (sic)." This amendment was forwarded to the sellers by Respondent's Roberts & Gilman letter of July 17, 1972 which amendment was executed by the sellers upon receipt and mailed back to Roberts & Gilman. The July 17, 1972 letter was signed by Judy L. Rostatter of the sales processing department. A copy of the check received from the buyers was not enclosed although the letter stated it was enclosed. Prior to receipt of this amendment Crummett was advised by Richter, the buyer, that he had mailed a $700 check to Roberts & Gilman made payable to Crummett. Crummett was also advised by Respondent Clark that the check had been received. Since closing was scheduled to be held within a couple of days Crummett requested Clark to hold the check and he would endorse same at closing. Crummett never saw the original check for $700. On the day originally scheduled for the closing (circa July 18, 1972) Crummett received a telephone call from Respondent Clark to the effect that the appraisal on the property had come in some $3,000 below the asking price and inquiring if Crummett would accept $26,000 for his property. The latter advised he would not and, after some heated words, Crummett hung up. At this time it was evident to Respondent Clark and the sellers that the sale would not be consummated. Clark put a memo in the file dated July 28, 1972 saying: "Return checks of $700 + $300 in estrow (sic) to Richter. Seller advised we had no contract." A few weeks later, on August 3, 1972, after making several phone calls to Roberts & Gilman without success, Crummett had the listing broker, J.B. Steelman, write a letter (Exhibit 7) to Gilman making demand for the $500 deposit refund. By letter dated August 11, 1972 (Exhibit 6) Roberts and Gilman replied that they considered the contract had been terminated by the seller and saw no "justification by the seller to claim any escrow that has been returned to the buyer". This letter was signed "Dan T. Gilman /b.c." Several months later, in the spring of 1973, Crummett went to the office of Roberts and Gilman and obtained a photostatic copy of the check dated 7/15/72 that had been made by J.A. Richter in the amount of $700. This was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 12. At the hearing Dan G. Gilman, President of Roberts & Gilman, Inc. denied any recollection of any part of this transaction or ever having heard of the incident prior to the investigator from the FREC coming to inquire about the incident. At the time of this transaction the realtor's office was very busy with several branch offices and some 120 salesmen handling transactions in eight or ten counties in central Florida. He has no recollection of dictating Exhibit 12 or anything about the incident but his secretary at that time was Beverly Cass. It was standard practice for a broker to review every contract before trust account money was disbursed or refunded. His initial testimony that numerous people in the office had authority to sign his name to letters going out of the office was recanted when he was recalled as a witness after the close of the Commission's case. He then stated he never authorized anyone to sign his name to a document having legal implication. Clark testified that the first time he ever saw Exhibit 11, the amendment to the contract, was when shown to him by the investigator for the FREC. Likewise he claims never to have seen or received the $700 check signed by Richter. With respect to the return of the deposit to Richter, (after being shown Exhibit 13) his recollection of the cancellation of the contract was that Richter was not re-assigned to the Orlando area. This was the only contract ever handled by Clark which involved the return of an escrow deposit. He has no recollection of talking to any member of the realty firm regarding clearing the return of the escrow deposit to Richter. Exhibit 5 is a photocopy of the check by which the $300 earnest money deposit was returned to Richter. It is obvious that the contract for the sale of the residential property herein involved was amended to provide for an additional deposit from the buyers and a clause which required the buyer to forfeit one half of his deposit in the event the transaction was not consummated. It is incomprehensible that such an amendment to the contract could be made without the knowledge of the salesman or the broker. It therefore appears that the Defendants either: (1) are not telling the truth; (2) have faulty memories; (3) allowed the duties normally performed by brokers to be carried out by secretaries; or (4) operated a realty company in a slipshod manner without due regard to the duties and responsibilities imposed upon brokers and salesman by the real estate license law.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. David B.C. Yeomans, Jr., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0163386. During times material, Respondent was the qualifying broker for G & A Realty and Investments, Inc., a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. 1/ From approximately April 1985 to December 1985, Respondent Yeomans was the president and qualifying broker for G & A. Wilfredo Gonzalez, a licensed real estate salesman and Alberto Aranda were each 50 percent shareholders of G & A. Wilfredo Gonzalez, while licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of G & A, solicited and obtained a client, Alfredo Susi, who made an offer to purchase a commercial property in Dade County, Florida. In connection with the offer, Alfredo Susi entrusted a $10,000 earnest money deposit with Wilfredo Gonzalez to be held in trust in G & A's escrow account. The seller rejected Susi's offer to purchase whereupon Alfredo Susi made demands upon Gonzalez for return of the earnest money deposit. Wilfredo Gonzalez attempted to return the earnest money deposit entrusted by Susi via check dated November 18, 1985 drawn on G & A's escrow account. Upon presentation of the subject check by Susi, it was returned unpaid due to non-sufficient funds. Alfredo Susi has been unable to obtain a refund of the deposit submitted to Gonzalez. Wilfredo Gonzalez used the deposit presented by Susi and did not apprise Respondent Yeomans of what or how he intended to dispose of Susi's deposit. Alfredo Susi had no dealing with Respondent Yeomans and in fact testified and it is found herein, that Susi's dealings in this transaction, were exclusively with Wilfredo Gonzalez. Tony Figueredo, a former salesman with G & A, is familiar with the brokerage acts and services performed by Respondent Yeomans and Wilfredo Gonzalez. During his employment with G & A, Figueredo had no dealing with Respondent Yeonans and in fact gave all escrow monies to Wilfredo Gonzalez. Carolyn Miller, the president and broker for Rite Way, Realtors, an area brokerage entity, is familiar with the customs and practices in the Dade County area brokerage operations. Ms. Miller considered it a broker's responsibility to supervise all salesman and to review escrow deposits and corresponding accounts approximately bimonthly. Theodore J. Pappas, Board Chairman for Keyes Realtors, a major real estate brokerage entity in Dade County, also considered it the broker's responsibility to place escrow accounts into the care and custody of a secretary and not the salesman. Mr. Pappas considered that in order to insure that funds were not misappropriated, checks and balances and intensive training programs would have to be installed to minimize the risk of misappropriation of escrow deposits. Mr. Pappas conceded however that it was difficult to protect against dishonest salesman. Respondent Yeomans has been a salesman for approximately eleven years and during that time, he has been a broker for ten of those eleven years. During approximately mid 1984, Respondent Yeomans entered into a six (6) month agreement with G & A to be the qualifying broker and to attempt to sell a large tract of land listed by Context Realty in Marion County (Ocala). When Respondent agreed to become the qualifying broker for G & A Respondent was a signator to the escrow account for G & A Realty. Sometime subsequent to Respondent qualifying as broker for G & A, Wilfredo Gonzalez changed the escrow account and Respondent Yeomans was unfamiliar with that fact. Respondent Yeomans first became aware of Susi's complaint during late 1985 or early 1986. Respondent Yeomans was not a signator on the escrow account where Wilfredo Gonzalez placed the escrow deposit entrusted by Alfredo Susi. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) During approximately November, 1986, Respondent Yeomans made it known to the officers at G & A that he was withdrawing his license from G & A and attempted to get G & A's officers to effect the change. When this did not occur by December, 1986, Respondent Yeomans effectuated the change himself and terminated his affiliation with G & A. During the time when Respondent was the qualifying agent for G & A, there were approximately four employees and little activity to review in the way of overseeing real estate salespersons. During this period, Respondent Yeomans reviewed the escrow account for G & A that he was aware of. During the time that Respondent Yeomans was qualifying broker for G & A, he was primarily involved in the undeveloped acreage owned by Context Realty and other REO listed property of G & A. During the period when Respondent Yeomans was qualifying agent for G & A, Wilfredo Gonzalez spent approximately 95 percent of his time managing rental property that he (Gonzalez) owned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1987.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, committed acts of dishonest dealing or culpable negligence in a business transaction; failed to account for and deliver trust funds; failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; intermingled personal funds with trust funds; obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigator in an official investigation; or committed any of these offenses, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then an additional question will arise, namely whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Ramirez Transaction On or about September 9, 2003, Toirac, in her individual capacity, entered into a Sale and Purchase Contract (the "Contract") with Andres Ramirez ("Ramirez"), whereby Toirac agreed to sell, and Ramirez to buy, certain real estate then owned by Toirac. The Contract called for Ramirez to make several deposits toward the purchase price. Accordingly, Ramirez tendered to Toirac a total of $14,000 in pre-closing payments. Toirac accepted these payments, which were deposited in HCIC's operating account. At some point, Toirac withdrew Ramirez's deposits from HCIC's operating account, taking the money in cash. She brought the $14,000 in cash to her attorney, Alix Montes, who agreed to hold the money in escrow pending the closing of the sale to Ramirez. Mr. Montes placed the cash in a safe located in his home. The sale to Ramirez fell through after Ramirez failed to obtain acceptable financing and exercised his right to cancel the Contract in consequence thereof. Ramirez requested that his deposits be returned. Within a short time (not more than about two weeks), Toirac gave Ramirez his money back——in cash. The parties dispute whether Toirac properly handled Ramirez's deposits. Petitioner asserts that the $14,000 should have been held in an escrow account maintained at a financial institution such as a bank or title company. Toirac responds that she complied with a "Financing and Deposit Addendum" (the "Addendum") to the Contract. The Addendum, which is part of the Contract that Petitioner offered into evidence (as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), provides in pertinent part as follows: Seller acknowledges that in the event that the Buyer is not approved for a mortgage loan or the terms and conditions of said mortgage loan are not acceptable to Seller, Seller within thirty (30) days from the date Seller receives Buyer's written request for the return of its deposit, shall refund Buyer's deposit in full. Upon Seller's refund of the deposit, this contract will terminate and all parties will be relieved from the obligations and liabilities. Buyer acknowledges that the Seller herein is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the state of Florida and That Home Center International Corp. will not be the "Escrow Agent" in this transaction nor will Home Center International Corp. or any of its affiliates, officers, directors, agents and/or employees will receive a Real Estate Brokerage fee in connection with this transaction. Buyer authorizes Home Center International Corp. to place any and all deposits herein in its operating account. Buyer further authorizes Home Center International Corp, at any time to withdraw and/or transfer Buyer's funds from the operating account. In the event a transfer of any and all funds is effected, such funds shall be held by Alix J. Montes, Esq., Attorney for the Seller. This Addendum supercedes the provisions of paragraph 2 (A)2(B)(1), 16(A)(B)(C), 17, 18, and 19 of the "As Is" Sale and Purchase Contract signed by all parties herein. (In the original, the text is written in all capital letters.) The Addendum is dated September 9, 2003, and bears the purported signatures of Ramirez and Toirac. Petitioner alleged in its Administrative Complaint that Ramirez had denied executing the Addendum. At hearing, however, Petitioner failed to offer any proof——such as Ramirez's testimony or the testimony of an expert disputing the authenticity of Ramirez's purported signature on the Addendum—— to establish this allegation. In contrast, Toirac testified that both she and Ramirez had, in fact, signed the Addendum. As a result, on this record, the undersigned is not clearly convinced that the Addendum is fraudulent. Moreover, the Addendum and Toirac's testimony, taken together, are sufficiently persuasive (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) to prevent the undersigned from being clearly convinced that Toirac mishandled Ramirez's deposits or otherwise dealt dishonestly or improperly with him. The January 2004 Audit On January 20, 2004, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt of a complaint from Ramirez.) During the audit, Toirac reported to Ms. Morales that she no longer maintained an escrow account but instead relied upon her attorney to act as escrow agent for funds entrusted to her. Toirac also told Mr. Morales that Ramirez's deposits initially had been held in HCIC's operating account, before being handed over to Mr. Montes for safekeeping. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to produce bank statements for HCIC's operating account, and apparently a listing agreement that should have been in the broker's file was not there. Toirac agreed to provide the missing documentation. By letter dated January 20, 2004, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that she would forward requested documentation within 10 days. For reasons unknown, Toirac failed to follow through with this, prompting the instant disciplinary action. The Charges In Counts I and VII, Petitioner alleges that Respondents are guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction, either of which is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents mishandled Ramirez's deposits and misled him into believing that the money would be held in trust by HCIC as an escrow agent.1 In Counts II and VIII, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Respondents returned Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after his demand therefor. In Counts III and IX, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In Counts IV and X of its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having intermingled personal funds with funds being held in escrow. Petitioner's position is that by initially depositing Ramirez's deposits in HCIC's operating account, Respondents failed to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.008(2), and hence violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts V and XI, Petitioner asserts that Respondents obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents willfully interfered with Morales's investigation by failing to provide documentation as promised.2 Ultimate Factual Determinations Toirac handled Ramirez's deposit money in accordance with the unambiguous terms of the Addendum. Petitioner failed to prove that the Addendum is fraudulent. Thus, the Addendum, when considered in conjunction with Toirac's unrebutted testimony that she and Ramirez signed the instrument, is fatal to Counts I, III, IV, VII, IX, and X of the Administrative Complaint. Respondents are not guilty of the offenses charged therein. Toirac did, in fact, return Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after he demanded a refund. Respondents therefore are not guilty of the offenses charged in Counts II and VII of the Administrative Complaint. When Ms. Morales interviewed Toirac in January 2004 in response to Ramirez's complaint, Toirac admitted most, if not all, of the material facts pertaining to the circumstances under which Ramirez's deposits had been held. Further, the documents that Toirac neglected to provide Ms. Morales, i.e. HCIC's bank records and a listing agreement that had gone missing, were claimed by Toirac to be corroborative of her statements to the investigator. Toirac's failure to produce such documents cost Toirac an opportunity to bolster her credibility——and enabled Petitioner to draw adverse inferences against Toirac, e.g. that the questioned listing agreement did not exist after all.3 Given these facts, the undersigned is not convinced that Respondents obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigation. Consequently, Respondents are not guilty of the charges set forth in Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondents not guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Duane T. Mumford was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission and remained so licensed until 15 September 1980 when his license was suspended by Board of Real Estate Order of that date. The Amended Final Order (Exhibit 6) provided the suspension of Mumford's license for two years or until Mumford's criminal probation was lifted, whichever first occurred, would commence 20 days after the 15 September 1980 date of this order. Respondent was advised by his attorney, and this advice was confirmed by Closing Order of the Probable Cause Panel (Exhibit 12), that he had an additional 30-day period in which to appeal the order of suspension; and that his suspension would not be effective until that time expired. Accordingly, he was told he could continue to operate under the authority of his license until 4 November 1980. Respondent placed advertisements as a real estate broker in the Sentinel Star on 18-19 October 1980 and in the Deland Pennysaver on 30 October 1980. No evidence was presented that he held himself out as a real estate broker after 30 October 1980. In the undated, unsigned but certified Closing Order (Exhibit 12) which was admitted into evidence without objection and for the purpose of showing that Petitioner had taken final agency action on the complaint involving advertising as a real estate broker on 9 October 1980 while his license was suspended, Petitioner held that Respondent's advertising did not constitute a violation of Section 475.42(1)(a). This action was confirmed in Department of Professional Regulation's letter of December 16, 1980 (part of Exhibit 12), to be final agency action by the Board. On January 16, 1981, Mumford placed an ad in the Wall Street Journal (Florida edition) in which he advertised an apartment complex for sale in Amarillo, Texas, and identified himself as a commercial business broker. Due to an error on the part of the Journal, the ad was placed in the Florida real estate section rather than the Texas section as specified by Mumford. On October 19, 1981, the recommendation of the Massachusetts Probation Department was accepted and Mumford was discharged from his probation by the Massachusetts court (Exhibit 13). This event would trigger the lifting of his suspension of license under the terms of the Amended Final Order entered September 15, 1980 (Exhibit 6), absent any other alleged infraction by Mumford. Prior to the suspension of his license Mumford, while in the firm of Mauney and Mumford, Inc., obtained an open listing on KOA Kamp-Ground, Orange City, Florida. He prepared and had printed a brochure on this property (Exhibit 8) in which various financial statements were presented to show the investment potential of the property. When Respondent's license was suspended, the firm broke up and the listings were shared by Mauney and Mumford. Subsequent to September 15, 1980, Mumford has remained in close contact with his attorney with respect to activities he could perform, first as a real estate broker and, after November 4, 1980, as a business broker. In accordance with the advise from his attorney, Mumford placed no advertisements as a real estate broker after October 1980 and, in all of his activities pertaining to the sale of commercial property, held himself out as a business broker. According to Mumford's testimony, which was unrebutted, he devoted most of his efforts while a real estate broker, to the sale of commercial property where his training and experience in accounting and taxation was more valuable. Following the suspension of his real estate license, he held himself out as a business broker. People with whom he had dealt as a real estate broker and with whom he subsequently dealt as a business broker, did not generally recognize any difference in the functions Mumford performed; and many did not realize he was purporting to act as a business broker despite his use of the title "Business Broker" on documents he prepared. As a result of an ad placed by Mumford on the Orange City KOA Kamp- Ground, a client of Don Gallagher Realty called about the property and arrangements were made for the buyer to see the Orange City KOA Kamp-Ground. This visit led to the consummation of a contract (Exhibit 9) for the sale and purchase of the site and related equipment. This contract contained three addenda which included, inter alia, a four-page inventory of personal property an assignment of the KOA Kamp-Ground franchise; and agreement on the part of sellers not to open another campground for the period of two years within a 50- mile radius; an agreement on the part of sellers to remain on premises for up to 30 days to assist the buyer to commence operation; and provisions for payings the commissions to the listing broker, Mumford, and the selling broker, Gallagher. Mumford signed Exhibit 9 as "Business Broker." Before the closing of this property on 2 February 1981, all parties were aware that Mumford's real estate license was suspended and that he was purporting to participate in the deal as a business broker. Gallagher called the Florida Real Estate Commission to ascertain that it was proper for him to continue with the closing as the buying broker with Mumford as the selling broker. Prior to the closing, brokerage agreements (Exhibits 10 and 16) were prepared by Mumford and Gallagher, respectively, and executed by all parties. Exhibit 10 modified addendum 2 to Exhibit 9 to clarify Mumford's status as a business broker and provided the brokerage fee be paid to Mumford over a three- year period. Exhibit 16 provided for the brokerage fee to be paid to Gallagher over a three-year period at $900 per month. Exhibit 10 provided for Mumford's commission to commence 37 months after the closing. There was insufficient cash down payment in this sale to pay the sales commission at closing. Accordingly, all parties agreed to the delayed payment provisions. In consideration of his waiting three years to start receiving his commission, Mumford entered into an oral agreement with the sellers whereby they agreed to pay him an additional $2,500. The sale price for this transaction was $675,000. In 1980 the land was carried on the tax rolls of Volusia County at $141,600 and the buildings at $41,830. In 1981 these tax rolls showed $141,600 for the land and $71,242 for the buildings. To compute the value of the Kamp-Ground as an ongoing business, Respondent used the figures from the Kamp-Ground income tax return for 1979 to arrive at the cash available from cash flow to pay interest, retire debt and leave a profit for the buyers. This resulted in an estimated value for "good will" of approximately $200,000. The value of the mobile homes not attached to realty was placed at $10,000; a value was placed on the agreement for sellers to remain for 30 days to assist buyers and not to compete for two years; on the KOA franchise; on the store inventory of $5,000; and on the value of the other personal property. The total of these values as determined by Mumford was $288,000, from which he computed his fee of $28,800. An experienced business broker called by Respondent as an expert witness opined that the non-real property value of the Kamp-Ground exceeded $300,000. An accountant also called by Respondent as an expert witness opined that the methodology used by Respondent to establish the value of the ongoing portion of the Orange City KOA Kamp-Ground business met acceptable accounting principles and that he concurred in the value of "good will" and other non-real property assets of the Orange City KOA Kamp-Ground enterprise as determined by Mumford.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven Hall, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate salesman and broker. Upon February 15, 1984, he became licensed as a broker. The Respondent was registered with and employed by J. Arnold Ausley Realty from March 31, 1983 to February 15, 1984. J. Arnold Ausley was a licensed real estate broker and operated as Ausley Properties during times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and practice of realtors in the State of Florida and enforcing the practice standards for realtors embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On February 4, 1984, the Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed salesman for Ausley Properties, arranged a contract between Champak Bhoja and Kishor Patel, as purchasers of a certain piece of real estate owned by one John D. Gilbert. In connection with that contract the Respondent obtained a $2,000 check as a deposit from Mr. Patel. At Mr. Patel's request the Respondent held this check without negotiating it awaiting Patel's instruction that sufficient funds were on deposit to honor the check. The Respondent waited four weeks and received no such instructions from Mr. Patel. The Respondent therefore contacted Patel, who was in Nebraska at the time, to tell him that he felt legally obligated to deposit the check. The check was deposited and was returned for insufficient funds. On March 19, 1984, Mr. Patel gave the Respondent a replacement check in the amount of $2,000. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Patel to make the check out to him since he had in the meantime become a broker and wanted credit for this transaction in his own business. He also informed Mr. Patel that he would need to use the money for his own personal expenses, in the nature of a "loan." Mr. Patel, however, made the check out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." The Respondent and Mr. Patel had been involved in other business ventures together during the course of which Mr. Patel had already lent the Respondent, on different occasions, a total of approximately $4,000. This course of dealing was continued in the present instance, from the Respondent's viewpoint, when the Respondent informed Mr. Patel that he needed the $2,000 for personal expense purposes and would pay it back as a loan. He believed Mr. Patel assented to that arrangement at the time. The sales contract at issue ultimately failed to be consummated due to Mr. Pate1 and Mr. Bhoja not meeting the required contingency regarding debt financing. Approximately fifteen days after the contract's closing date passed, Mr. Patel made a demand upon the Respondent for the return of the $2,000 deposit. The Respondent failed to return it at that time but assured Mr. Patel that he would repay the money and needed more time to obtain the necessary funds. The Respondent had not deposited the check in the Ausley Properties Escrow Account because such an account did not exist, although the Respondent had urged Mr. Ausley on a number of occasions to set up such an account. The Respondent rather cashed the $2,000 check and used the proceeds for his own benefit, as he had informed Patel he would do. He used the money to meet certain operating expenses and personal expenses, being in severe financial straits at the time. Pate1 knew he was experiencing financial difficulties and had lent him the previously mentioned $4,000 to help him with operating expenses and personal expenses during the pendency of the closing of their various other real estate ventures. The Respondent informed Patel he would use the subject $2,000 for similar purposes, however, the record does not clearly reflect that Patel consented to this, as opposed to his intent that the money be placed in an account as his deposit of consideration for the contract. His testimony to this latter effect is borne out by the fact that in spite of the Respondent's request that the check be made out to him personally, instead Patel made it out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." That account did not exist but the method of drafting the check reveals his intent that the money was to be used as a deposit. In any event the Respondent made no misrepresentation to Mr. Patel as to what he intended to do with the money, but at the same time he did not deposit it in an appropriate account to be held as a deposit toward the purchase of the property involved in the sales contract. Patel made numerous demands for the money and each time Respondent acknowledged this and the other debt to Patel and promised to pay. He ultimately began paying back a small portion of the indebtedness to each of his creditors starting out at a rate of $10 per month. Ultimately, the Respondent paid the entire $2,000 predicated on receipt of his 1985 income tax return.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner finding that the Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(b),(d,)(e) and (k) only to the extent delineated in the above conclusions of law and that his real estate broker's license be subjected to a six months suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven R. Hall 8880 Old Kings Hwy., Apt. 30-W Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Michael Sheahan, Esquire Two South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Rea1 Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected, although the evidence establishes that Patel intended the funds to be escrowed. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected as not comporting with the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:* Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted, but irrelevant to the charges. Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the first sentence only. The second sentence concerning Patel's response is not clearly supported by record evidence. Accepted Accepted Accepted * Although Respondent is proposed findings are accepted, some are inculpatory, some are not material and some support the conclusion that no fraudulent conduct was committed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cluett Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0216798 and whose last known address is 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida. The Respondent, Ernest H. Cluett II, is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0191613 and at all material times was employed as a licensed real estate broker by Cluett Realty, Inc. In November, 1981, Mary Ann Knopic was shown a home in Cape Coral by the Respondents. She offered the owners $92,500 for the home with a $500.00 earnest money deposit. When the home was sold to another buyer, the Respondents and Knopic agreed that the Respondents would retain the $500.00 and attempt to find another home for the complainant. In December, 1981, the Respondents showed Knopic the Soviero home and Knopic made an offer on the home and secured the offer with an additional $1,500 security deposit. In late February, 1982, the complainant informed the Respondents that she would not close on the Soviero home. The complainant decided not to close because the cost of renovating the home exceeded the original estimate. Under these circumstances, the complainant was willing to lose her $2,000 deposit rather than spend $6,000 to renovate the Soviero home. On June 8, 1982, after the complainant agreed to the February disbursement, she sent the Respondents a letter demanding either a copy of the contract which amended the earnest money amount or a refund of her $1,500. Walter V. Horn, a Respondent, was not properly served and at final hearing the petitioner agreed that he was not a proper party to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondents, Cluett Realty, Inc., Ernest H. Cluett II and Walter V. Born. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 11th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida Herbert A. Fried, Esquire 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 103 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Mr. Walter V. Horn 4732 Dee Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
