Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission hereafter) by its representative, Charles F. Borer (Plaintiff hereafter) filed an Administrative Complaint on December 17, 1976, alleging that the Defendant, on or about April 29, 1975, was found guilty in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court of this state of engaging in lewd and lascivious acts or assault upon or in the presence of a child and that by reason thereof, the Defendant is guilty of a crime of moral turpitude fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, the Commission seeks to revoke or suspend the licensee and his right to practice thereunder. The Commission introduced into evidence an Information filed January 20, 1975, against the Defendant for engaging in Involuntary Sexual Battery, Lewd and Lascivious Act or Assault upon or in the Presence of a Child in violation of Chapter 794.021(e) and Chapter 800.04 Florida Statutes. On April 29, 1975 a jury found the Defendant guilty as charged. See Commission's Exhibit #1. Chapter 475.25 Florida Statutes set forth grounds for which the Commission may revoke or suspend a registrant's license. Subsection (e) thereof provides in pertinent part that the Commission may suspend a registrant's registration based upon a finding that the registrant has "been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States, involving moral turpitude The documentary evidence introduced and received in this case provides ample basis for a finding that the registrant has been guilty of a crime within the meaning of Chapter 475.25(1)(e). Based thereon, I make the following:
Recommendation 1. That the Defendant's registration as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Frank L. Pepperel c/o ITT Community Development Corp. 5225 Northwest 87th Avenue Miami, Florida 33166
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner should be accepted for licensure as a real estate salesman or whether that application for licensure should be denied on account of her past criminal record.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 19, 1989, the Petitioner filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of licensed real estate salespersons and with regulating and controlling entry into that profession in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules. The Petitioner answered question 6 on that application, the question inquiring as to her criminal history, by enclosing a copy of her arrest record and candidly admitting that she had been subjected to criminal prosecution in the past. That arrest record reflected charges of driving under the influence (DUI) to which she plead guilty and was placed on probation for a term of six months in each of two cases. The record also reflected 22 incidents of issuing worthless checks. She was prosecuted for these with the result that adjudication was withheld and the Petitioner was ordered to make restitution and to pay court costs. The criminal record further discloses that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of grand theft in 1985 involving a retail store, apparently Sears, in Pensacola, for which she was adjudicated guilty and placed under community control for one year, ordered to make restitution and to perform six weeks of community service followed by one year of probation. The denial was only based upon the worthless check charges and the 1983 DUI conviction as well as a conviction in Texas occurring in 1981, when the Petitioner was 17 years old. The Petitioner candidly admitted this criminal histor both on her application form and in her testimony at hearing. The Texas charge was not indicated on her application form because the Petitioner had been told by the prosecutor in Texas that the result of her offense would not be of record for purposes of later employment. That charge involved alleged grand theft which was reduced by the prosecution to a charge of disorderly conduct for which she was adjudicated guilty and required to pay a fine and court costs. The factual circumstance in the Texas charge involved the theft of a tube of lipstick and a bottle of nail polish. The Petitioner testified that the prosecutor in San Antonio had told the Petitioner's mother that it was a juvenile offense which would have no effect on her record. With regard to the bad check charges, full restitution was made to all the vendors involved before the matter went before the court for adjudication. Although the criminal records reflect various arrests through 1985 and in 1986 on the worthless check charges, in fact the Petitioner established that the checks were all written in a very short period in the summer of 1985, but were prosecuted at different times, hence the different arrests. The Petitioner is genuinely remorseful about those charges and the related conduct and established that, by way of mitigation, they occurred at a time when she was only 21 years old, was married, but was having marital discord with her then husband, who exerted a great deal of influence in inducing her to issue the worthless checks. They have since become divorced and she is making an effort to better herself and engage in a productive life and career. She freely acknowledges that at the time of the San Antonio, Texas, disorderly conduct conviction she was 17 years old and at the time of the worthless check and grand theft convictions in Florida she was only approximately 21 years of age, was quite immature and having significant personal problems which she has since overcome. She is genuinely sorry for engaging in such conduct and has consistently attempted to improve her life ever since. She has held a number of jobs as waitress and cashier for local restaurants in the Pensacola area and the Navy Club at the Pensacola Naval base. This includes the handling of large sums of money or her employers for which she has an unblemished record, accounting for all monies entrusted to her in an honest, reliable way. This testimony to this effect is borne out by various letters of recommendation which the Respondent stipulated into evidence and in which former employers and friends all uniformly attest to her good reputation and character, all of whom knew of her past criminal history. They unhesitatingly describe her reputation and character as good. Her employers so attesting to her reputation for honesty and good morals attest to the fact that she worked in a capacity as waitress and cashier and successfully and honestly handle their funds. In particular, as a waitress at the Pensacola "Navy Club," she was placed in charge of the bingo concession or activity and served as the cashier for thousands of dollars collected in the course of such activities. She handled and accounted for these large sums of money in an honest, reliable and accurate fashion to the satisfaction of her employer. The Petitioner's one witness aside from herself was Rusty Coleman. He has known the Petitioner for at least three years and they are best friends. He was aware of her past criminal problems because she has told him about them herself. He finds her trustworthy and an honest, decent person who is seeking to better herself and become a reliable, productive citizen and member of society, as evidenced by her pursuing her higher education since the criminal episodes of record. It is noteworthy that although 22 incidents of prosecution for worthless checks appear at first to be a significant level of such miscreant conduct, that all the checks were issued within a short period of time in 1985 when she was under considerable stress due to her unfortunate and successful marriage situation, and related financial difficulties, and the same consideration applies to the issue of the grand theft conviction and the DUI convictions in 1983. Under ordinary circumstances this aggregation of criminal convictions and conduct would appear sufficient to preclude an applicant from licensure approval only four years after the last incident of such conduct, as was reflected in her criminal record. It is noteworthy however, that, in addition to the Petitioner's own credible, candid testimony concerning her genuine change in attitude and attempt to live an honest, productive life, that none of this type of conduct was repeated after the time when she ended her unsuccessful marriage and the related stress it caused in both an emotional and financial sense. She has honestly pursued gainful employment ever since, in positions of trust, handling large sums of money and further has embarked on a higher education career as well as, at the same time, successfully completing and passing her real estate instruction course in an effort to prepare herself for a productive, honorable profession. Under these circumstances, established by the Petitioner, her attending witness, and the corroborative statements admitted in evidence, although only four years have elapsed; it is found that in her particular situation that is sufficient time, coupled with the other evidence of her rehabilitation, to justify admitting her to licensure if she should pass the state examination involved. This is particularly true given that the Respondent has sufficient regulatory authority to oversee her entry into and practice of the profession so that it can ensure that the public is protected through its authority to impose accounting and reporting requirements on all funds and transactions the Petitioner might engage in as a realtor as conditions upon her entry into the profession. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case it is thus fund that the Petitioner has established her rehabilitation and resultant qualification for licensure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the pleadings and arguments of the parties, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2127 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted except that the criminal record in evidence shows that only 22 charges of issuing worthless checks were the subject of criminal proceedings. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted in a general context, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Delia H. Dolan 2635 Belle Christiane Circle Pensacola, Florida 32503-5860 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Walter L. Jordan, (Jordan) is entitled to licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. Petitioner presented his own testimony. Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, (Commission) had two exhibits admitted in evidence. The transcript of the proceedings was filed on November 18, 1987. At hearing the parties agreed to file proposed orders within ten days of the filing of the transcript The Commission's proposed order was filed on December 2, 1987, and is therefore untimely. Jordan has failed to file a proposed order. Accordingly, while the Commission has filed a proposed order, it has not been considered and no rulings will be made on the Commission's proposed findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact Jordan filed an application for a real estate salesman's license on or about February 14, 1987. In that application, Jordan acknowledged an arrest and conviction for possession of marijuana on February 12, 1976; an arrest and conviction for possession of a firearm in October, 1983; an arrest for aggravated assault in October, 1983, which was allegedly withdrawn by the prosecuting authority; and an arrest and conviction for breach of peace and disorderly intoxication in April, 1984. Based upon these convictions, the Commission denied Jordan's application by letter dated August 27, 1987. Jordan acknowledges these arrests and convictions, but does not believe he should be disqualified from licensure based on "two misdemeanors and one adjudication withheld." Further Jordan testified that it [the convictions] "doesn't prove I'm the best character in the world, but that's no real mar on my character, I wouldn't assume." Jordan presented no evidence of rehabilitation except that he worked for a company named Hubbard from June, 1986, to December, 1986; he was self- employed or unemployed from December, 1986, to April, 1987; he has worked for his father doing construction work since April, 1987; and he is the father of four children that he is taking care of alone.
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 denying Walter L. Jordan's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 8th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Walter L. Jordan 3225 Rosselle Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Lawrence S. Gendzier Department of Professional Regulation Fla. Real Estate Comm. 400 West Robinson, Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent stipulated at formal hearing to Paragraphs 1- 6 of the Administrative Complaint, (TR-5-6) and it is accordingly found that: Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against Respondent as licensee and against his license to practice the real estate brokerage business under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times alleged in the administrative complaint a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0191613. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Cluett Realty, Inc., 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. On about July 14, 1983, Respondent received a check in the amount of $400.00 from Mary Snodgrass, a salesman, who at the time was associated with Respondent. Snodgrass had received the money from Robert James. James had submitted four contracts which were accepted for purchase of four duplexes listed with Respondent. The $400.00 represented a deposit of $100.00 on each of the four contracts. When the check was entrusted to Respondent, Snodgrass stated that the buyer had requested the check be held a couple of days before depositing into escrow to insure it would clear. Respondent indicated this was wrong and the check should be deposited immediately. 1/ The check was not deposited into Respondent's escrow account, but, was held by Respondent until September 15, 1983, two months after initial receipt of the check. The check presented by Mr. James (buyer) to Mrs. Snodgrass (saleswoman) was drawn on the Fort Myers Barnett Bank and on its face represents it is drawn on an account in the name "Clara A. James For: Caj-Raj-Casa De Chihuahua's." There is no indicator on the check itself that Robert A. James is an appropriate signatory on this account. At hearing, Mr. James represented that he was a proper signatory on the account because Clara A. James is his wife. Mrs. Snodgrass represented that she knew Mr. James had this authority but there was no predicate laid for this knowledge on her part and there is nothing about the check itself which would convey such knowledge to someone not intimate with the James' household, nor does the check itself reveal any relationship between Mr. James and "Caj-Raj-Casa De Chihuahua' s." At the time Snodgrass submitted the check to Respondent, she informed Respondent that it was possible that the check would not clear the bank due to insufficient funds. At the time of his conversation with Mrs. Snodgrass on July 14, Respondent was aware of previous problems arising from failure of an earlier check written by Mr. James for rent to one of Respondent's other clients to clear the bank. Respondent was also aware that Mr. James had refused to vacate the premises which James, James' wife, and approximately 80 Chihuahuas occupied by rental from this other client. Respondent perceived Mr. James resented Respondent due to Respondent's involvement in getting the James entourage out of the rental properties so that Respondent's other client as seller could close sale of that property to a third party buyer. Accordingly, Respondent retained the check when it was given him by Mrs. Snodgrass for a few minutes to think about the situation. He then returned it to her and explained it was an inappropriate deposit because it did not represent cash if they knew at the time it was tendered that it might be returned for insufficient funds. He told Mrs. Snodgrass to either secure a check which would clear or to inform both potential buyer and sellers that there was no deposit placed in escrow on the four contracts. Mrs. Snodgrass denied that the check was returned to her by Respondent or that this conversation ever took place; she assumed the check would be held by Respondent until evening and in the evening she went out and got the sellers to sign the 4 contracts previously signed by James. Mrs. Snodgrass placed the signed contracts in a file drawer in Respondent's office and never again initiated any title work or any conversation with Respondent about the transaction. The testimony of Mrs. Weise and Mrs. Cluett support the material particulars of Respondent's version of this second interchange between Mrs. Snodgrass and Respondent. Mr. James testified that he did, indeed, go the following day (July 15) to the bank to transfer funds if needed, but did not then notify Mrs. Snodgrass or Respondent because the money transfer was not necessary. Upon this evidence and due to the credibility problems recited in footnote 1, supra and in Findings of Fact Paragraph 8 infra, the Respondent's version of this interchange is accepted over that of Mrs. Snodgrass and provides additional, but not contradictory, information to Finding of Fact Paragraph 1-e as stipulated by the parties. In early September, Mrs. Snodgrass secured employment with Barbara Ware Realty, a competitor of Respondent. She then turned in all of her keys, gear, and papers to Cluett Realty. Shortly thereafter, Helen Weise, secretary to Respondent, discovered the July 14, 1983, check on what had been Mrs. Snodgrass's desk. This discovery is confirmed by both Respondent and Mrs. Weise. Respondent knew Mrs. Snodgrass and Mr. James were personal friends. He telephoned Mrs. Snodgrass about the status of the James' transaction when the check was discovered. Mrs. Snodgrass admitted she thereafter called Mr. James to verify the status of the transaction and then called Respondent to tell him she thought the sale would go through, but she now denies telling Respondent that the July 14, 1983, check was good or even that Respondent mentioned the check when he called her the first time. Respondent then deposited the check into his escrow account the next day, September 15, 1983. He immediately placed the request for title search and insurance. Thereafter, two duplexes out of the four involved in the four James contracts with Cluett Realty were sold by Mrs. Snodgrass through her new employer, Barbara Ware Realty, and two were sold by Mary Cluett, Respondent's wife, through Cluett Realty. During the period from July 14, 1983, until September 15, 1983, Mr. James was apparently aware that the check submitted to Cluett Realty had never been deposited by Cluett Realty because it did not show up in monthly bank statements. After September, Mr. James clearly was further aware of what was going on because he admits to trying to get Mary Snodgrass to pursue the transaction under her new employer's auspices, despite Cluett's retaining the exclusive listing for the sellers of the properties. It was not established whether or not the sellers were misled by Respondent's failure to immediately deposit the July 14, 1983, check, but Mr. James testified that when Respondent approached him about refunding his deposit or at least a portion thereof, he, (Mr. James), told the Respondent to keep it or give it to the sellers or at least not to give it back to him due to all the inconvenience. Mr. James and Mrs. Snodgrass were friends on July 14, 1983. They became friendlier thereafter. Apparently, in early September, Mrs. Snodgrass left Respondent's employ upon very unfriendly terms. The terms may be characterized as "unfriendly" even if one accepts Mrs. Snodgrass' version that her job hunt was successful before she was fired by Respondent and therefore she should be viewed as quitting upon being asked by Respondent to resign. Respondent has previously filed an unsuccessful complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation against Mrs. Snodgrass. It was she who initiated the complaint giving rise to these instant proceedings against Respondent. Mrs. Snodgrass' resentment of Respondent's filing a complaint against her was evident in her demeanor on the stand. An attempt at formal hearing to impeach Respondent's credibility upon the basis of a supposed prior admission to Petitioner's investigator that Respondent forgot to deposit the crucial check and upon the basis of Respondent's July 13, 1984, letter to the Department of Professional Regulation (P-7) left Respondent's credibility intact. When Investigator Potter's testimony as a whole is compared with Respondent's letter as a whole in light of Potter's investigation of three separate complaints over a period of many months 2/ there is no material variation of Respondent's representations. Also, what was "forgotten" and when it was forgotten is vague and immaterial in light of consistent information supplied to the investigator by Respondent that there was a request to hold the July 14, 1983, check for a couple of days due to insufficient funds.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is registered as a real estate salesperson and by application dated 26 March 1979 applied for registration as a real estate broker (Exhibit 1). In item 6 on this application, in response to the question regarding the commission of an offense against municipal or state laws, Petitioner replied she had been "charged with Grand Theft with intent to Fraud - Plead Guilty - adjudication was withheld, 5 years probation given." Petitioner is current with her parole conditions including $190 per month restitution to the victim, the Pan American Bank. Barring any parole violations, her parole officer would possibly recommend her parole be reduced or terminated 2 1/2 years after it commenced on January 15, 1979. Although her paroled officer has had face-to-face contact with Petitioner only three times during the eight months she has been Petitioner's parole officer, Petitioner has contacted her by telephone at least monthly as required by the parole conditions and the parole officer would trust Petitioner to handle her money in an escrow account. Two business associates for whom Petitioner worked as a real estate salesperson consider Petitioner to be a competent real estate salesperson with whom they would trust escrow funds. A casual but long-term acquaintance who has had both social and professional contacts with Petitioner for the past two years has seen nothing to make her believe Petitioner to be untrustworthy. The absent witness, a member of the Florida Bar whose testimony was stipulated, has used Petitioner as his agent in the sale and purchase of a residence and he was satisfied with her performance. Further, he has never known Petitioner to cheat anyone and believes her reputation in the community to be good.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the application for registration of Susan Long Bruner as a real estate broker be denied and her petition dismissed. ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1980. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Kenneth Meer, Esquire P.O. Drawer B Winter Park, Florida 32790 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Defendant, Theodore Michael Lakos, was at all material times, registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On or about April 20, 1976, a Second Amended Information was filed by the State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida against Theodore Michael Lakos, and others in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida. A copy of the Second Amended Information was received in evidence at the hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. On or about August 25, 1976, Theodore Michael Lakos withdrew his previous plea of not guilty of the charges, and entered a plea of nolo contendere to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 of the Second Amended Information. On or about November 9, 1976, Theodore Michael Lakos was adjudicated guilty of the charges alleged in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 of the Second Admended Information. Sentencing was stayed for a period of ten years, during which time the Defendant will be on probation under the supervision of the Florida Parole Commission. A copy of the Judgment and Sentence was received in evidence at the hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. In accordance with the Defendant's plea of nolo contendere, and the court's judgment, it is found that the Defendant, Theodore Michael Lakos, did knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agree, conspire and confederate with others to commit the felony of breaking and entering, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 810.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 1 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, between March 1, 1975, and up to and including, on or about March 28, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired, and confederated with others to commit the felony of grand larceny, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 2 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant between, on or about March 1, 1975, ad up to and including, on or about March 28, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired and confederated with others to commit the felony of first degree larceny, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 806.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 3 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, between on or about March 29, 1975, and up to and including on or about April 18, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired, and confederated with others to commit the felony of grand larceny in violation of Section 833.04, and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 4 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree the commission of a felony, to wit: breaking and entering, in that he aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured others to unlawfully break and enter a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny in violation of Sections 776.011 and 810.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 6 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree, the commission of a felony, to wit: grand larceny, in that he aided abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured others to unlawfully take, steal, and carry away certain property of the aggregate value of more than one hundred dollars, in violation of Sections 776.011 and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 8 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree the commission of a felony, to wit: first degree arson, in that he aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured another to willfully and maliciously set fire to a dwelling house in violation of Sections 776.011 and 806.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 10 of the Second Amended Information.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Joan B. Cross, is a registered real estate salesperson holding certificate number 0018497. On her application for registration in November, 1972, in answer to question 9 pertaining to having been arrested for or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of the municipality or state, she answered "yes". She completed the "If yes, state details in full" question with "careless driving, 7-27-69 DWI 1970". Exhibit 2, Certified Copy of Court Record, shows that on May 6, 1965 Respondent was convicted of disorderly conduct and fined $15.00. Exhibit 3 and 4, Certified Records from the Criminal Court of Record, show that on June 9, 1969 Respondent was charged with, and found guilty of, unlawful possession of marijuana and of contributing to the dependency of minors. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for 18 months. Testifying in her own defense Respondent acknowledged both offenses. With respect to the disorderly conduct charge, she stated she forgot to include that on her application. Following a lunch birthday party the group retired to a bar and when they became too noisy the police came and took them to the police station. With respect to the charges of possession of marijuana and barbiturates she testified that she was represented by counsel who advised her after the trial that she was not adjudicated and that she could forget the incident. She testified that she understood all record of this incident had been expunged, and that she could forget it. She also testified she didn't fully understand withholding adjudication of guilt. In this regard it is noted that she pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and nolo contendere to the charge of contributing to the dependency of minors.
Findings Of Fact By application filed with respondent, Division of Real Estate (Division), on July 5, 1988, petitioner, Garth Arin Malloy, sought licensure as a real estate salesman. In response to question six an the application, petitioner acknowledged that he had been arrested in August 1984 for possession of marijuana, a felony, and burglary and sexual misconduct, both misdemeanors, and ultimately pled guilty to the felony charge of possession of marijuana and the misdemeanor charge of sexual misconduct. After reviewing the application, and securing petitioner's record of arrests, respondent issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter on October 3, 1988, denying the request on the ground petitioner was not "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character" and did not "have a good reputation for fair dealing." The denial prompted petitioner to request a formal hearing. Malloy, who is twenty-eight years old, graduated from Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama in February 1983 with a degree in psychology. After graduation, he worked as a recreation director for a residential care facility for emotionally disturbed children in the Mobile area. In August 1984 he was arrested for possession of marijuana after police found marijuana plants growing in his backyard. The charge was a felony under Alabama law. A short time later, one of Malloy's neighbors lodged charges of sexual abuse against him for allegedly making improper advances on her thirteen year old son. A charge of second degree burglary, a felony, was added for Malloy allegedly unlawfully entering the house where the minor resided Upon advice of his attorney, Malloy accepted a negotiated plea offered by the state and pled guilty to the felony charge of possession of marijuana and to a reduced misdemeanor charge of sexual misconduct, and the state agreed to dismiss the burglary charge. After the plea was accepted, Malloy was placed on probation for five years. Except for these offenses, petitioner has never been charged with or convicted of any other crimes. Malloy accepted the above arrangement since he did not wish to go to trial and risk incarceration. He readily acknowledged the presence of marijuana plants in his back yard which he said were for his own consumption and that of some friends. However, he vigorously denied the sexual misconduct and related burglary charges and blamed them on the neighbor who he contended was mentally unstable and vindictive. Since Malloy's plea, he has been on supervised probation which is scheduled to end on January 1, 1990. Under the terms of his probation, Malloy must check in once a month, report his activities to a supervisor and attend counseling sessions. He is currently in the process of requesting an early termination of probation. Malloy left Alabama in early 1985 and worked briefly at a resort in Key West. In late 1985 he began employment with a satellite communications firm in St. Petersburg and was in charge of sales, credit and installations for three area stores. In that capacity, he handled the firm's money and was required to frequently deal with the public. After a brief stint as an assistant store manager with a Sarasota department store, Malloy worked two years as a teller for a Sarasota savings and loan institution where he handled large amounts of cash on a daily basis. It is noteworthy that the bank hired petitioner with the knowledge of his criminal background. Pending the outcome of this proceeding, Malloy is working as an office manager with a Sarasota air-conditioning firm. Malloy now wishes to enter the real estate profession and eventually specialize in appraising. Malloy's honesty, trustworthiness and good reputation were attested to by the branch manager of the bank where Malloy was employed and the owner of the business where he now works. Malloy was described as being honest, reliable and trustworthy. Both had the utmost confidence in entrusting Malloy with handling moneys. Indeed, all positions held by Malloy since 1985 have involved unsupervised responsibilities, the handling of cash and dealings with the public. As such, he has established rehabilitation. There was no evidence to contradict these findings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Garth Arin Malloy for licensure as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5666 Petitioner: 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. 2-3. Covered in finding of fact 4. 4-6. Covered in finding of fact 2. 7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Covered in finding of fact 4. 10-11. Covered in finding of fact 3 12-13. Covered in finding of fact 4. 14. Covered in finding of fact 3. 15. Covered in finding of fact 6. 16-32. Covered in finding of fact 7. 33. Rejected as unnecessary. 34. Covered in finding of fact 5. 35. Covered in finding of fact 4. 36. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 37-38. Covered in finding of fact 7. 39. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin M. Boyer, Esquire 2055 Wood Street, Suite 220 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Room 212, 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Mr. Durden qualifies for licensure as a bail bondsman in view of the plea of guilty he entered to contributing to the delinquency of a minor in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County in November, 1963, on which he was convicted and sentenced to three months incarceration.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bobby E. Durden, is 42 years old (Tr. 17). 1/ He has applied for licensure as a limited surety agent with the Florida Department of Insurance (RX 1), which would permit him to become a bail bondsman. Mr. Durden has received a license as a private investigator by the State of Florida, Department of State, as well as a license to manage a security patrol firm (Tr. 17, 19) despite his past conviction (Tr. 19-20). Mr. Durden and his common law wife, Cynthia, had five children (Tr. 23). Mr. Durden first met Cynthia approximately 25 years ago, in 1961, when she was 12 or 13 years old and Mr. Durden was around 16 years old (Tr. 23-24). When Mr. Durden was a senior in high school and Cynthia was a freshman in high school (in approximately ninth grade), Cynthia became pregnant by Mr. Durden (Tr. 24). As a result of this pregnancy, Mr. Durden was charged with the crime of indecent assault upon a female minor under the age of 14 years in violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1963) in the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida, Case 63-7498. As a result of this prosecution, on November 5, 1963, Mr. Durden pled guilty to the misdemeanor of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and was sentenced to three months confinement in the Dade County Jail (RX 2). From the time Mr. Durden was released from the Dade County Jail, he and Cynthia lived together as husband and wife (Tr. 25). Mr. Durden supported her over the years, and together they raised their five children (Tr. 26). The youngest child Mr. Durden had with Cynthia is now 18 years old. In about 1975 Mr. Durden and Cynthia separated (Tr. 26). Two witnesses familiar with Mr. Durden for many years, Georgia Jones Ayers and James Brown, testified as character witnesses for Mr. Durden. The uncontradicted evidence is that Mr. Durden enjoys a reputation for honesty and good moral character (Tr. 14-15).
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered granting the application of Bobby E. Durden for licensure as a limited surety agent as a bail bondsman. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0200291. He was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of broker John Wesley Bridwell at all times material to these proceedings. In early 1982, Respondent came into possession of bank checks totaling $1,275 belonging to his employing broker John Bridwell and which appeared to carry the signature of Bridwell as payor. Respondent deposited these checks in various bank accounts opened and maintained by Respondent. Respondent knew the checks were stolen at the time be deposited the checks into his bank accounts. On August 11, 1982, Respondent was arrested by the Seminole County Sheriff's Department, Sanford, Florida, on the charge of depositing stolen checks with intent to defraud. Respondent confessed to this charge, and on April 15, 1983, adjudication was withheld in the Circuit Court, Seminoles County, Florida, Case No. 32-1250 CFA. Respondent was sentenced to thirty days confinement followed by ten weekends of confinement in the Seminole County Jail, ordered to make restitution of the $1,275, pay fines exceeding $1,500, and perform 200 hours of community service work.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty as charged in the three counts of the Administrative Complaint, and revoking his real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian D. Rist 3181 Harbado's Ct. Apopka, Florida 32803 Harold Huff, 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
