Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Scott William Katz (Katz), applied to Respondent, Florida Real Estate commission (Commission), for licensure as a real estate salesman. By letter of June 5, 1987, the Commission advised Katz that his application was denied because he had been disbarred from the Florida Bar Association and the Oklahoma Bar Association. Katz filed a timely request for formal hearing to contest the Commission's action. The proof established that by order of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida in The Florida Bar v. Katz, 491 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 1986), Katz was disbarred from the practice of law. The Court's opinion reads, in pertinent part: In Count I, the Bar charged respondent with violating several disciplinary rules pertaining to conflicts of interest and secrets of clients. Initially, respondent represented a wife in a dissolution of marriage action. He obtained a final judgment on her behalf which provided for child support as well as other relief. Respondent continued to represent the wife, filing a motion to modify the final judgment and a motion for contempt wherein various arrearages in child support were alleged. Approximately two years later, respondent commenced proceedings against his former client on behalf of her ex-husband, seeking a reduction in child support payments. These payments were part of the very relief sought and obtained by respondent on behalf of the wife in the original dissolution proceedings. Respondent's former client did not consent to respondent's representation of her former husband and indicated that such consent would not have been given if sought by respondent. In Count II, the Bar charged that respondent coerced an agreement from a former client to pay damages on a claim which had no legal basis.... * * * In Count III, the Bar charged that respondent misrepresented material facts in a sworn pleading in order to obtain the relief sought. Cadet Joseph K. Barbara had retained respondent when he was dismissed from West Point. Respondent filed a sworn motion before a federal court requesting the issuance of a temporary order restraining West Point from dismissing the cadet. The pleading contained the representation that West Point had no objection to the issuance of such an order. The federal judge entered the order on the basis of respondent's misrepresentation of the position of the West Point authorities. Upon finding respondent guilty of all charges, the referee recommended disbarment, stating: The cumulative guilt of the three different transgressions indicated a gross callousness and indifference to the entire Code of Professional Responsibility. In Count I, he must be presumed to have divulged secrets of his client's to the client's adversary. In Count II, he outrageously and successfully pressured his client to wrongfully agree to pay him money when his client had no legal obligation to do so. Certainly moral extortion if nothing else. He deliberately lied under oath to a Federal Judge who relied upon such falsehood in issuing the order. Certainly a lawyer can do little more culpable and destructive to the court system. The example set by Respondent must be dealt with harshly to prevent those considering such conduct in the future. Accordingly, the Court concluded: We approve the referee's findings of guilt on Count I of the Bar's complaint and find that respondent violated disciplinary Rule 1- 102(A)(5)(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct contrary to the administration of justice); Disciplinary Rule 4-101(A) and (B) (a lawyer shall not knowingly use a client's confidence or secret to the advantage of another without full disclosure), Disciplinary Rule 5-105(A) and (B)(a lawyer shall decline proffered employment if a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected), and Disciplinary Rule 9-101 (a lawyer shall avoid even the appearance of impropriety). We approve the referee's findings of guilt on Count II and find that respondent violated Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.02(3)(a) prohibiting conduct contrary to honesty, justice, or good morals. We approve the referee's findings of guilt on Count III, finding that respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(1)(a lawyer shall not violate a discipline rule); Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3)(a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4)(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); Disciplinary Rule l- 102 (A)(5)(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice); Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6)(a lawyer shall not engage in any conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law); Disciplinary Rule 7-102(A)(5)(a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact in representing a client); and Florida Bar Integration Rules 11.02(3)(a) and (b)(a lawyer shall not commit acts contrary to honesty, justice, good morals, or commit a crime). Predicated on his disbarment from the Florida Bar Association Katz was, effective February 19, 1987, disbarred from the Oklahoma Bar Association. At hearing, Katz offered no proof of subsequent good conduct and reputation, or any other reason sufficient to demonstrate that the interests of the public and investors would not likely be endangered by the granting of registration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner, Scott William Katz, for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 30th day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott William Katz 361 Midpines Road Palm Springs, Florida 33461 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether Charlie Phillips is entitled to licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact Charlie D. Phillips applied for licensure as a real estate salesman on or about May 22, 1987. That application was denied by the Florida Real Estate Commission on August 19, 1987, based upon Mr. Phillips' answer to question 6, which asked whether he had been convicted of a crime. Mr. Phillips had answered yes. He had attached to the application a letter indicating that he had been convicted of the felony of indecent exposure before a minor in Colorado in April 1983, when Mr. Phillips was 21 years old. The incident involved had occurred approximately two years before his conviction. After the incident and before his conviction Mr. Phillips had engaged in counselling with a Colorado psychiatrist, Dr. Brent Steel for close to a year before the matter went to court. At the criminal hearing Mr. Phillips pled guilty, was placed on probation, and was not incarcerated for any period of time, apparently in part due to his successful participation in therapy with Dr. Steel. The Colorado court terminated the probation almost a year early. Mr. Phillips remained in counseling with Dr. Steel in Colorado for five years. Since coming to Key West, Florida, Mr. Phillips has been counselled by Dr. Tanju T. Mishara, a clinical psychologist licensed in Florida. At first, Mr. Phillips had been counselled by a psychologist working under Mishara's supervision at the mental health care center in the Lower Keys, but after the psychologist's training was completed, Dr. Mishara continued seeing Mr. Phillips. The Hearing Officer is persuaded by Dr. Mishara's testimony that Mr. Phillips has overcome the delinquent behavior which Mr. Phillips engaged in when he was young. Neither the behavior nor the urges that caused the behavior have occurred for a number of years now. Mr. Phillips has continued in therapy in Colorado and Florida beyond the period that he was required to as a result of the criminal proceeding, which Dr. Mishara regards as an important indication that Mr. Phillips resolved to take responsibility for his actions and to overcome the behavior which got him into trouble. Most people stop counseling as soon as the troublesome behavior stops without ever resolving the problem that led to the inappropriate behavior. Dr. Mishara has determined that it is no longer necessary for Mr. Phillips to remain in therapy. Mr. Phillips now is well adjusted socially, has been involved in post- secondary education, has a responsible job, has earned the respect and trust of coworkers, has a serious relationship with a young woman of his age, and is unlikely to engage in further antisocial behavior which would jeopardize his standing in the community or the integrity of a profession in which he was involved. The Hearing Officer is satisfied that Mr. Phillips is now a competent and responsible citizen who has overcome his problem. The Hearing Officer was especially impressed with the forthright manner in which Mr. Phillips disclosed his past difficulties, accepted responsibility for his actions, and detailed the efforts that he has made to overcome those past problems. In view of the both the very favorable impression which Mr. Phillips made at the hearing, and the testimony of Dr. Mishara in which she indicated she would have no reservation in recommending the approval of his application as a salesman, which is a position of trust, the Hearing Officer is persuaded of Mr. Phillips' rehabilitation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Commission enter a final order granting Charlie D. Phillips' application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of May, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on the Real Estate Commission's proposed findings of fact. Adopted in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered generally in findings of fact 4, 5, and 6. Rejected because Dr. Mishara was familiar with Mr. Phillips' case because of her supervision of the psychologist who first worked with him, Dirk Lorensen (transcript page 16) and she began seeing him in the fall of 1986. She is also familiar with his records from his therapy in Colorado. (Transcript page 17) Rejected as an insufficient characterization of Dr. Mishara's testimony. Rejected because the issue here is rehabilitation, not whether there may have been other occasions of exposure prior to the one to which Mr. Phillips pled guilty. COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLIE D. PHILLIPS POST OFFICE BOX 607 KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33041 LAWRENCE S. GENDZIER, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION SUITE 212, 400 WEST ROBINSON STREET ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 DARLENE F. KELLER, ACTING DIRECTOR DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the respondent's license as a real estate broker should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined because respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and was at all times pertinent to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker with the State of Florida, holding license number 0166810. On June 18, 1982, an information was filed in the circuit court charging that between the dates of December 10, 1980 and December 1, 1981, the respondent "did corruptly request, solicit, accept or agree to accept money not authorized by law for past, present, or future performance, to wit: by sending business to Don's Alignment Shop, which said ALBERT RONALD HURLBERT did represent as having been within his official discretion in violation of a public duty or in performance of a public duty, in violation of Section 838.016, Florida Statutes." On July 16, 1982, the respondent appeared before Judge Thomas Oakley and entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation as charged in the information. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and respondent was placed on probation for a period of four years. Respondent was given an early release from probation on August 30, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter an order finding that the respondent has been convicted or found guilty of a crime which involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing and revoking the respondent's real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Albert R. Hurlbert c/o Hurlbert Realty 8117 Lakeland Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Howard Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard C. Lightner, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0408120. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker, with a home address of 1221 Duval Street, Key West, Florida 32040. Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Real Estate brokers license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Raymond O. Bodiford, Esquire 515 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE Petitioner vs. Case No. 0154510 DOAH No. 87-3668 RICHARD C. LIGHTNER III Respondent /
The Issue Whether respondent violated sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by the manner in which she handled the real estate transaction involving the property located at 29 S. Lawsona.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman and was a licensed real estate salesman at all times relevant to the instant charges. In September 1983, respondent was registered as a real estate salesman with 100 percent Real Estate Incorporated. Robert Sinclair was the qualifying broker for 100 percent Real Estate Incorporated. On or about September 29, 1983, respondent obtained an Offer of Purchase on a home located at 29 S. Lawsona from Linda O'Leary and James T. Bagley along with a check from James T. Bagley in the amount of $500 as earnest money. The resulting contract was entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. On the day the purchasers signed the contract, but after they had signed the contract, the purchasers visited the home and discovered that there appeared to be extensive termite damage. Mr. Bagley was concerned about the termite damage, as was the respondent, and therefore the respondent promised Mr. Bagley that she would hold his check until she could get the termite estimate from Mr. Babcock and check with the termite company to find out how bad the damage was. Although the respondent was able to obtain the termite estimate from Mr. Babcock's office the following day, she was unable to contact the person who had conducted the termite inspection. She also was unable to contact the purchasers. She was unable to contact Mr. Bagley for approximately a week and it was another week before Mr. Bagley went to the house with a contractor to determine how much it would cost to repair the termite damage. The contractor thought that the minimum cost would be $10,000. At that point Mr. Bagley decided that he was no longer interested in the house, and the respondent returned his check. The $500 check was never turned over to Robert Sinclair or 100 percent Realty. Respondent knew she should not have held the check and was aware that by doing so she was, as she stated, "in hot water." However, respondent also believed that the seller had misrepresented the extent of the termite damage and was misinterpreting the terms of the contract. Mr. Sinclair was unaware of the existence of the contract until the end of October, although he had a discussion earlier with the respondent regarding whether an "as is" clause in a contract could override the specific printed provision of the standard contract related to termite infestation. That discussion was obviously related to the contract on the house on Lawsona.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding that the respondent is guilty of violating sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and suspending respondent's license for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 1st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ms. Anne Rockafield 713 Woodward Orlando, Florida 32803 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In 1976, while working as a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida and as the owner of two pharmacies in Miami, Florida, Petitioner engaged in a course of conduct which resulted in his selling approximately 300,000 pills of highly addictive controlled substances to a drug dealer. Petitioner attempted to cover-up his criminal activity through his record keeping. On February 24, 1977, Petitioner's license to practice pharmacy in the State of Florida was revoked by Respondent. The basis for the revocation was Petitioner's failure to properly maintain records for the dispensing of Schedule II and Schedule III controlled substances. The hearing officer described in his recommended order Petitioner's conduct as being "... a gross violation of the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes ..." The Final Order entered by Respondent on February 24, 1977, adopted the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, and the recommendations of the hearing officer as its Final Order and revoked the license of Petitioner. On May 10, 1977, Petitioner was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida of having violated the, provisions of Title 21 U.S.C., Sections 846, 841(a)(1), and 843(a)(4), by having conspired to possess with intent to distribute various Schedule II controlled substances; by having distributed various Schedule II controlled substances; and by having furnished false and omitted information on required records. Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years with a three year special parole term upon his release from prison. On February 11, 1982, Petitioner received an early parole of his seven year sentence. On May 17, 1984, Petitioner began his term of special parole. On June 18, 1986, Petitioner received an early termination of his special parole period, which completed his sentence. In 1981, Petitioner's license to practice pharmacy in the State of New York was revoked by the New York Commissioner of Education based on his conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In 1984, Petitioner applied for restoration of his right to practice pharmacy in the State of New York. On April 24, 1986, the New York Commissioner of Education modified the prior order of revocation so as to allow Petitioner to commence practicing pharmacy in New York subject to certain terms and conditions. Petitioner has met all of the requirements set forth in the order of the New York Commissioner of Education and is free to practice pharmacy in the State of New York without restriction. Since the restoration of his license in New York, Petitioner has been actively engaged as a pharmacist and has served as a supervising pharmacist for approximately the last two years. Through December 15, 1989, Petitioner has completed thirty (30) hours of continuing education. Petitioner also applied for the reinstatement of his license to practice pharmacy in the State of Florida in 1981, 1987, and 1989. The 1981 request to appear before Respondent in support of his application for reinstatement was denied with the following entry in the minutes of Respondent's 1981 meeting under the entry "Requests to Appear Before the Board to Petition for Reinstatement of Licenses": 3. Monroe Schiffman - Denied. The Board further instructed that due to the nature of the violations indicated at the time his license was revoked, that if at any time in the future a petition was to be considered by the Board the office must provide the Board Members with copies of the entire file for their review and consideration. Petitioner was notified by letter that his 1987 application for reinstatement was denied by a letter dated July 27, 1987, to Petitioner's attorney. This letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Your client's Petition for Reinstatement was presented to the Board at the June board meeting for review. Based upon the investigative file and Administrative Complaint filed in the above-referenced case, it was the decision of the Board to deny this request. Attached to the request for the assignment of a hearing officer filed by Respondent with the Division of Administrative Hearings in this matter, is a letter which is not among the documents attached to the Stipulation and Agreement filed by the parties. This letter provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At the February 1989 meeting of the Board, the Board Members had an opportunity to review your application to participate in the June 1989 licensure examination. Because of the disciplinary action taken against your license in the past, the Board has denied your request to sit for Florida's examination to become relicensed in this State. The Board of Pharmacy intended in 1977 when it revoked Petitioner's license that reinstatement of his license would never be available to him. No conditions were imposed as to reinstatement of Petitioner in the order of revocation entered by Respondent in 1977 because the Board of Pharmacy did not intend for Petitioner to ever be eligible for reinstatement. Respondent has adopted no rules which establish criteria for the reinstatement of previously revoked licenses to practice pharmacy in the State of Florida. Petitioner relies primarily on his own affidavit, prepared after his application was considered by Respondent, in support of his application for reinstatement. The other documents upon which Petitioner relies were prepared for and relate to the reinstatement proceedings brought in the State of New York, or were prepared for and relate to the 1987 reinstatement proceedings brought in Florida. This evidence fails to establish Petitioner's rehabilitation or his ability to safely practice pharmacy in the State of Florida. There is no contention by Petitioner that Respondent failed to review all information pertinent to this application and available to it before its determination to deny the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pharmacy, enter a final order which denies the application for reinstatement of his licensure as a pharmacist in the State of Florida submitted by Petitioner, Monroe C. Schiffman. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 16th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2130 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. These proposed findings of fact are incorporated as part of the preliminary statement. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 and 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5-10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 12 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 14 and 15 are rejected as being contrary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The contentions of the parties are discussed in the conclusions of law portion of the recommended order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 2 are discussed in the conclusions of law portion of the recommended order but are rejected as findings of fact. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4 and 5 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Rubinstein, Esquire Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. 17071 West Dixie Highway North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 John J. Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rod Presnell, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary measures against her license as a licensed Real Estate Salesperson.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Barbara Gordon Schneider, at all times material to this matter, was a licensed Florida Real Estate Salesperson, holding license no. 0481077 with an address of 5825 Indian Trail, Keystone Heights, Florida 32656-9773. As a consequence of previous disciplinary action, Respondent’s license has been suspended since February 17, 1995, due to non-payment of a fine. Basically, that case revolved around a finding of Respondent’s guilt of culpable negligence and operating as a broker while licensed as a salesperson. Respondent did not inform her then current employer, Coursey and Associates Real Estate (Coursey and Associates) of the February 1995 suspension of her license. Additionally, as documented by a certified copy of judgment admitted at final hearing as Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, Respondent also failed to notify Petitioner of Respondent’s plea of guilty to a felony charge of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, Florida, on December 19, 1989. Adjudication was withheld by the Court and Respondent was placed on probation for 18 months. On or about July 14, 1995, while employed as office manager and selling manager for Coursey and Associates, Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase for Flint and Jessica Banther as buyers for property located at 2276 Chablis Court, West, Orange Park, Florida. Also, Respondent negotiated an occupancy agreement whereby the Banthers agreed to rent the property they were planning to purchase. Kevin Coursey, the broker for Coursey and Associates, had no knowledge of this transaction although Respondent signed the occupancy agreement on behalf of Coursey and Associates. On or about July 14, 1995, the Banthers gave Respondent a $500 cash binder for the purchase of the Chablis Court property. The money was not turned over to her employer by Respondent. Respondent had previously procured, on or about May 17, 1995, a listing agreement on behalf of Coursey and Associates for a home owned by Gary J. and Agnes Beagles which was located at 4854 Gopher Circle North, Middleburg, Florida. Respondent rented the Beagles’ home to Christine and Jim Weaver, without the knowledge or permission of Kevin Coursey on behalf of Coursey and Associates. Coursey and Associates were not in the business of brokering rental property and had no insurance to cover such activity. Respondent was accepting checks from the Weavers and depositing them into the Beagles’ bank account. On or about June 23, 1995, Christine Weaver made check no. 2952 in the amount of $250 payable to Coursey and Associates. Respondent endorsed the check by writing “Coursey & Assoc.” On the back of the check and signed her name with “co-owner” written under her name. Kevin Coursey did not authorize Respondent to endorse the check. Respondent never informed Kevin Coursey of the check’s existence and deposited it into her personal bank account at the Jax Navy Federal Credit Union without Coursey’s authorization. Respondent also procured renters for the Weavers’ home without the knowledge and consent of her employer. Initially, Robert and Pamela Campbell, the renters of the Weaver home, gave Respondent a check which was returned for insufficient funds. When the check was returned, the Campbells gave Respondent cash in the amount of $600 in place of the check. Respondent did not turn the cash over to the Weavers and, as a result, Coursey and Associates were later compelled to pay the Weavers the $600. Sometime around July 26, 1995, Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase for Charles Crum as the buyer of property located at 5615 Indians Trail, Keystone Heights, Florida. Crum gave Respondent a binder for the property consisting of three money orders totaling $500. The money orders were payable to Coursey and Associates, but Respondent did not deliver the funds to her employer. Approximately three weeks later, Respondent did deliver the binder, in the form of a different set of money orders, to Kevin Coursey. At some point prior to July 30, 1995, Respondent negotiated the rental of property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richard J. Connell. The renter was James Cawley. This was accomplished without knowledge or consent of Kevin Coursey, although Respondent led the Connells to believe that the property was being rented through Coursey and Associates. The Connells never received the cash security deposit paid to Respondent by Cawley. By letter dated September 19, 1995, Richard J. Connell and James L. Cawley informed Coursey and Associates of Connell’s entry into a rental agreement with that firm on February 25, 1995. Respondent had negotiated the agreement which provided that Cawley would initially rent the property for $350 a month until he established credit for the purchase. Respondent, it was agreed, on behalf of Coursey and Associates, would collect the rent every month. Coursey and Associates would receive a ten percent commission on the rental proceeds and also retain $65 per month in escrow for repairs. Respondent signed the Connells’ names to the agreement without their consent. Respondent left the employ of Coursey and Associates, without notice, on or about July 30, 1995, and contacted Martha J. O’Shields, co-broker for Century 21 Bryant and O’Shields Realty, about coming to work for O’Shields. Respondent did not tell O’Shields that Respondent’s salesperson license was suspended. O’Shields hired Respondent. On or about August 2, 1995, Respondent negotiated a contract for sale and purchase of the property owned by the Beagles. Coursey and Associates were, of course, the listing agents. Instead of presenting the offer to Coursey and Associates, Respondent presented the offer directly to the owners. Respondent signed the contract on behalf of Coursey and Associates, although she was then working for O’Shields. Respondent had the buyers of the property sign a consent to dual agency although she was not acting as a dual agent and had not been authorized by O’Shields to present the offer in this fashion. On or about August 2, 1995, Respondent proceeded to list the buyers’ property located at 1594 Twin Oaks Drive West in Middleburg, Florida, on behalf of Bryant and O’Shields. O’Shields discovered on or about August 15, 1995, that Respondent had taken all files upon which she was working from the office. By letter dated August 18, 1995, O’Shields notified Petitioner that she had terminated Respondent’s employment on August 15, 1995. According to O’Shields’ notification, Respondent had sales pending and O’Shields had not been previously aware of Respondent’s license suspension.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of counts I through V, counts VII through VIII, counts X through XII, counts XV through XVI, and counts XIX through XXI of the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent’s license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 28th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Barbara Gordon Schneider 5086 Granny's Place Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 James Kimbler, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate broker license should be disciplined based upon the alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1)(b),(c),(d)1. and (e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Bernard L. Covington is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0178235 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license was issued as a broker at 4383 U.S. Hwy. 1, Edgewater, Florida 34141. On September 6, 1990, Terra Mar Village's prospectus to sell proprietary leases in mobile home lots was approved by the Florida Department of Business Regulation. Included in said prospectus is a form Contract for Purchase and Installation of a Cooperative Unit and Manufactured Home at Terra Mar Village for use when lot was to be sold in said Village. On July 25, 1992, Respondent, through the actions of his agent, Alvin D. Booten, solicited and obtained a purchase agreement between sellers, Terra Mar Village Association, and buyers, Jack W. Miller and Jacqueline Miller for Lot 132 in Terra Mar Village. Respondent's agent represent that the buyers were purchasing a mobile home lot in fee simple at the Village. In actuality, they were only purchasing a proprietary lease in the lot. Al Booten, an unlicensed agent, was employed by Terra Mar Village, LTD. as a sales representative. In the course of his employment, he promised the Millers a deed to the property. They relied on his representations, and they put down their deposit on the lot. Booten never advised the Millers they were buying into a cooperative association. Respondent failed to use the approved Contract for Purchase agreement form contained in the prospectus approved in September 1990 by the Department in its dealings with the Millers. The Respondent failed to disclose prior to the closing that the buyers were purchasing only a proprietary lease in the lot. On January 14, 1993, the transaction closed with Respondent acting on behalf of Terra Mar Village, LTD. and Terra Mar Village Association, Inc. After closing, the buyers received the Prospectus and title policy. Upon examining their title insurance policy, they learned that they had purchased a proprietary lease, not a fee simple interest in the lot as has been represented to them by Booten. The mobile home park has gone into foreclosure and the ownership interest of the Millers, among others, in their lots have been put in jeopardy. The Millers had relied on the representations of the Respondent as a licensed broker in their decision to purchase a lot in Terra Mar Village. Respondent committed a breach of trust by failing to disclose that the lot being sold was by proprietary lease. On April 1 and May 10, 1993, buyer Reginald B. Randolph gave Respondent's unlicensed agent, Al Booten, two checks totalling $45,000 for the purchase of a mobile home and lot at Terra Mar Village. On May 10, 1993, Respondent closed the transaction without the knowledge or consent of the buyer. However, Respondent failed to have the title to the property recorded. Randolph was misled by the Respondent's agent Booten, who told Randolph and his wife that they could buy a lot on a canal in the Village. When the Randolphs discovered they had been deceived and demanded their money back, the Respondent refused to refund it. They also discovered the money was not being held in escrow. The Randolphs believed Al Booten was a licensed real estate salesperson because he claimed he was selling the lot. There were many problems associated with the park. The source of potable water at the park was not approved and a moratorium was placed on it by Volusia County. Later, Terra Mar Village, LTD. filed for bankruptcy, but it was denied. The Respondent seeks to blame the "recession" and the water problems for the difficulties he encountered with the Millers and Randolphs. However, Respondent collected their downpayments and misappropriated the funds after allowing them to be misled by his agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Florida Real Estate Commission issue and file a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d)1 and (e), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. The Final Order should further direct that all of Respondent's real estate licenses, registrations, certificates and permits, be suspended for a period of two (2) years and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 10th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-14 Respondent's proposals. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bernard L. Covington, pro se 1034 Old South Lane Apopka, Florida 32702 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Northwood Centre 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues presented in This case are whether the Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and whether such acts constitute a violation of the statutes. Petitioner submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, is a broker salesman holding license number 0317199. The Respondent, Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, is a real estate salesperson holding license number 0137930. In June 1980, Jansen held an individual broker's license in the State of Florida. In late summer of that year, he entered into an agreement with Flora Harwood, a licensed broker in the State of Florida and owner of Select I Realty. Under this agreement, Jansen and Harwood would form a corporation and participate in a brokerage company under the name Select I Realty, in which Jansen would open and operate a branch office of Select I Realty. The exact details of the corporation and the division of shares were not worked out between the parties; however, Harwood undertook to have a corporation formed the name Jansen and Harwood, Inc., and two attempts were; made to register Jansen as a broker with Jansen and Harwood, Inc., doing business as Select I Realty. These applications were rejected by the Florida Real Estate Commission for various reasons, to include the requirement that a corporation operate only in the corporate name and the failure of the applicants to submit corporate papers. The incorporation and application to the Commission were handled by Flora Harwood's attorney. The last denial of the application was on October 22, 1980. During the period the applications were being filed with the Commission, Harwood became disenchanted with the idea of the corporation because of her perception that Jansen was not cooperating with her. Therefore, after the second application was denied, Harwood did not take action to timely file a third application. Although Jansen was aware of the denial of the application, the evidence does not show that he was aware that Harwood delayed the third application. By the end of 1980, Jansen and Harwood had both independently abrogated their agreement, and shortly thereafter Jansen left the business totally. Until he left, Jansen continued to actively manage the branch office of Select I Realty, which he had established and organized and from which he conducted his real estate business as a broker for Jansen and Harwood, Inc. The policy of the Florida Real Estate Commission with regard to applications is that the applicant may operate if a license application is not returned. If the application is returned for correction and corrected and resubmitted timely, the applicant may continue to operate. If the application is not returned in a timely fashion, the applicant may not work. The failure of Jansen and Harwood to eventually incorporate, followed by the severance of their business relationship, intensified the conflict between them, out of which several of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint arose. On September 5, 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe contracted to buy for herself Lot 3 of Ozona Shores from Preston and Grace King. On January 5, 1981, LaCrampe closed the transaction with the Kings. At that closing, a check for $825 in commissions to Select I Realty was disbursed by the closing agent to the Respondent Jansen. Jansen deposited said check to his personal account. Flora Harwood asserted a claim to a share of the commission on the purchase of the property by LaCrampe. When Harwood discovered that this sale had occurred, she checked with the closing agent and found that a commission check had been paid to Jansen. She further discovered that Jansen had deposited this check to his personal account, and because the check was made out to Select I Realty Harwood had the bank take action to collect the $825 and pay it to her, which the bank did. Harwood's claim to the $825 was based upon an office policy applicable to employees which required that commissions on real estate purchases for investment purposes by employees of Select I Realty be shared with the office. However, this contract closed on January 5, 1981, after the relationship between Jansen and LaCrampe had been severed with Harwood. The competing claims between Jansen and Harwood to the $825 in commission are part of the severance of the business relationship between two persons operating as co-brokers. Testimony was received that in the operation of the branch office Jansen had authority to receive checks, deposit checks, and write checks. On or about December 10, 1980, Jansen participated in the rental of a condominium by Eugene Donahue from Glen and Mary Mitchell. The rental contract incorporated an option to purchase. Said rental contract required that Donahue pay $400 per month, $50 of which was a maintenance fee. Jansen received the first check from Donahue in the amount of $400, negotiated the check, and received a bank check in the amount of $350 payable to Glenn Mitchell and $50 in cash. It is asserted in the Administrative Complaint that Jansen received the $50 in cash as a commission payment to which he was not entitled. However, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 reflects that Glenn and Mary Mitchell here in arrears on their maintenance payment in the amount of $49.75, and the policy of Coachman Creek Condominium Association was not to grant any approval of lease or sales contracts until all maintenance payments were up to date. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 shows that approval of the subject rental contract was granted when Jansen produced the late payment. Several allegations of the Administrative Complaint relate to real estate transactions in which the Respondents Jansen and LaCrampe were involved with Heinz Lehman and allege fraud and misrepresentation arising from failure of Jansen to identify LaCrampe as his mother to Lehman. The first occasion on which Lehman met the Respondents was when Lehman visited a store in a strip shopping center which Jansen was selling as a broker. Lehman testified that Jansen identified LaCrampe at that time as a real estate associate and his "girl Friday." Lehman's testimony revealed that he knew LaCrampe was a real estate salesperson and an associate of Jansen but did not know that LaCrampe was Jansen's mother until after their series of transactions had occurred. Lehman did not buy the strip store but later purchased a condominium through Jansen and then sold it through Jansen after fixing it up. In November 1980, Lehman contracted to purchase Lot 3 of Ozona Shores (see paragraph 8 above) from LaCrampe. On January 5, 1981, after LaCrampe had purchased the property, she in turn sold the property to Lehman on the same day. In November 1980, prior to entering into the contract for the purchase of Lot 3, Lehman had visited Ozona Shores and had looked at several pieces of property. Thereafter, Jansen presented him with the opportunity to purchase Lot The evidence is clear that Jansen never identified Lot 3 on the, ground or by plat to Lehman. Lehman purchased the property without a survey and without reference to any plat. After he had purchased the property, Lehman found that Lot 3 was not tie lot which he though it was. At a later date, after being unable to finance a house on this property for speculative purposes, Lehman let the lot, 90, back to LaCrampe. On or about January 22, 1981, Jansen visited Florence Smith, who was interested in selling a house which she owned at 1550 Laura Street, Clearwater, Florida. Without obtaining a listing contract, Jansen thereafter advised Smith that he had a potential purchaser. On January 29, 1981, Smith contracted to sell her house to LaCrampe for nothing down and a $37,000 mortgage payable to Smith. Thereafter, Smith determined that she would prefer a balloon note, and LaCrampe agreed to a balloon note if the price were reduced to $36,000, to which Smith agreed. This slightly reduced the monthly payments to Smith. On February 12, 1981, LaCrampe contracted to sell this property to Lehman for $5,000 down, assumption of the second mortgage to Smith, and payment of a $1,400 commission by Lehman to Jansen. LaCrampe obtained modification of her contract with Smith to permit LaCrampe to assign her contract to purchase. In this transaction, Jansen did not identify LaCrampe as his mother or as a real estate salesperson and his associate. Jansen did not explain to Lehman that the money which Lehman paid down was to be paid to LaCrampe. On or about March 10, 1982, Leo Huddleston, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, visited Jansen's office at the address at which Jansen was registered. Huddleston did not find the required sign at the office identifying it as that of Frank Jansen, a real estate broker. At that time, Jansen had registered as broker for Suncoast Investments and Realty, Inc., and was renting office space with telephone-answering and secretarial services in an office suite complex. Although the building directory listed the suite as the office of Jansen as a real estate broker, the office suite did not have Jansen's real estate brokerage sign. When this matter was brought to Jansen's attention, an appropriate sign was provided. In November 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Jansen and Harwood, Inc.
Recommendation Having Found the Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, in technical violation of Rule 2IV-10.24, Florida Administrative Code, an thereby Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Jansen receive a cautionary letter. Having found the Respondents, Frank R. Jansen and Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, guilty of one violation each of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that their licenses be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Frank R. Jansen 108 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Ms. Lillian LaCrampe Soave 114 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0013099 0017680 FRANK R. JANSEN and 0021257 LILLIAN LaCRAMPE DOAH NO. 82-2891 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Nelye Bunch, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0315615. The Respondent, AA Real Estate, Inc., of Kissimmee, is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having been issued license number 0214153. In December of 1980, Grace Makuch, a licensed real estate salesperson, entered into an employment agreement with the Respondents, whereby Grace Makuch became employed as a real estate salesperson in the brokerage office of the Respondents. Pursuant to this employment, Grace Makuch and the Respondents entered into an oral agreement in which Grace Makuch would be compensated by receiving 60 percent of the selling broker's commission on every real estate sale she brought into the office. On or about March 6, 1981, Grace Makuch negotiated a contract for the sale of real property on Nova Road in Osceola County, Florida, between Earl Croft and his wife, as sellers, and Larry Henninger, as buyer, for $96,200. This transaction closed in April of 1981. The Respondents received the real estate commission due, in the amount of $4,810, and paid Grace Makuch $1,154.40. Under the employment agreement, Grace Makuch should have been paid $2,886. Demand for the balance due of $1,731.60 has been made by Grace Makuch and her attorney, but nothing further has been paid by the Respondents. In February of 1981, Grace Makuch negotiated a contract for the sale of real property on Donegan Avenue in Kissimmee, Florida, between Michael F. Sweeney, Trustee, as seller, and Dominick Tattoli and his wife, as buyers, for $115,000. This transaction closed in May of 1981. The Respondents received the real estate commission due, in the amount of $5,000 and tendered to Grace Makuch a check for $250. Under the employment agreement, Grace Makuch should have been paid $3,000; thus, she refused to accept the check for $250. Demand for the full amount of her share of the commission on this transaction in the amount of $3,000 has been made by Grace Makuch and her attorney, but nothing has been paid by the Respondents.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0315615 held by Nelye Bunch, be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that license number 0214153 held by AA Real Estate, Inc., of Kissimmee, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8 day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8 day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida Richard H. Hyatt, Esquire 918 North Main Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741
