Findings Of Fact In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage Solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August 1984 and August 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the Department of Banking and Finance. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the Department of Banking and Finance concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request For Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. Christensen's Stipulation which was confirmed by the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission recites that Christensen was "served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached," charging Christensen with violating certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and admits that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. But the Administrative Complaint itself apparently is not attached to the Stipulation approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission. It is not attached to the Stipulation filed in this case and is not found anywhere in the evidentiary or official record of this case. The Stipulation filed by the parties in this case does not state whether the suspension of Christensen's real estate broker license was based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order dismissing the Amended Notice Of Intention To Suspend Or Revoke And Administrative Charges And Complaint against Respondent, Terry E. Christensen, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Root, III Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gorham Rutter, Jr., Esquire Gorham Rutter, Jr., P.A. 338 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, Petitioner vs. CASE No. 86-0328 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N The Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, by and through its undersigned counsel, and the Respondent, TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, hereby stipulate and agree as to the following facts upon which the parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer herein to render his decision: In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August, 1984 and August, 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. The parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer to render his decision in this matter based upon the foregoing stipulated facts and in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. DATED this 13th day of May, 1986. JOHN B. ROOT, III, ESQUIRE GORHAM RUTTER, JR., ESQUIRE Office of the Comptroller GORHAM RUTTER, JR., P.A. 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 338 N. Magnolia Ave., Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Orlando, Florida 32801 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Telephone: (305) 423-5116 Telephone: (305) 841-7667 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, CASE NO. 0021931 vs. TEC REALTY, INC. AND TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N Terry E. Christensen; TEC Realty, Inc. and Terry E. Christensen, (Respondents), and Department of Professional Regulation, (Department), hereby stipulate and agree to the issuance of a Final Order by the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC), adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation in reference to the above-styled case. STIPULATED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent Terry E. Christensen is now a broker-salesman, but at times material herein was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0174505. Respondent TEC Realty, Inc. was at times material herein a licensed corporate real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0212593. Its registration is now in "limbo". Respondents admit that they are subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Department and of the FREC. Respondents admit that they have been served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached, which charges the Respondents with having violated certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, (and the rules enacted pursuant thereto). Respondents admit that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. Respondents admit that the stipulated facts contained in the Administrative Complaint support a finding of the Real Estate Practice Act. STIPULATED DISPOSITION Respondents shall not in the future violate Chapters 455 or 475, Florida Statutes, or the rules enacted pursuant thereto. The licenses of Respondents and of each of them, shall be suspended for five (5) years; and Respondents shall pay a total fine of $500 which fine shall be paid by cashier's check or money order made payable to the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. The action taken as reflected in the Final Order shall be published in the FREC News and Report Quarterly. It is expressly understood that this Stipulation is subject to the approval of the Department and of the FREC, and this Stipulation has no force and effect until a Final Order has been issued and filed. This Stipulation is executed by the Respondents for the purpose of avoiding further administrative action with respect to this cause. In this regard, Respondents authorize the FREC to review and examine all investigative file materials concerning Respondents prior to or in conjunction with the consideration of this Stipulation. Furthermore, should this Stipulation not be approved by the FREC, it is agreed that presentation to and consideration of this Stipulation and other documents and matters by the FREC shall not unfairly or unlawfully prejudice the Department, the FREC or any of its members from further participation, consideration or resolution of these proceedings. Respondents and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation and resulting Final Order adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation shall in no way preclude any other disciplinary proceedings by the Department or the FREC against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically set forth in the attached Administrative Complaint. Respondents expressly waive all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity and enforcement of this Stipulation and resulting Final Order of the FREC adopting and incorporating this Stipulation. SIGNED this day of , 1983. (filed document undated) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED Respondents before me this 9th Terry E. Christensen, individually, day of June, 1983. and as broker and officer of TEC Realty, Inc. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission Expires June 26, 1986 Bonded Thru Troy Fain Insurance, Inc. Approved this 21st day of June, 1983. John Huskins, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street, 308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 423-6134 Approved this 13th Fred Roche, Secretary day of June, 1983. Department of Professional Regulation JH/dm 6/6/83 EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 DOAH NO. 83-346 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN and TEC REALTY INC. CASE NO. 0021931 DOAH NO. 83-345 Respondents /
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 1984, the subject vessel, a 1969 sixty-five foot Hargrave Halmatic motor yacht, was purchased by Nelson Gross as President and principal of the corporation, Binghamton Too, Inc., for $457,500 in Houston Texas. It was financed through a Connecticut bank. The closing was held in Mr. Gross' New Jersey office. No sales or use tax has been paid on the yacht in Florida or in any other state. Mr. Gross' initial intent was to operate his new purchase as a commercial charter boat in conjunction with the "Binghamton," a ferryboat permanently moored and operating in Edgewater, New Jersey, as a floating restaurant. To get the new motor yacht there, Mr. Gross directed that it be brought to New Jersey around the Florida coast under its own power. The motor yacht reached Florida on February 17, 1984, but en route from Texas an unexpected vibration had arisen which required emergency repairs. These repairs were commissioned at Bradford Marine, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where the motor yacht remained, except for sea trials in connection with the vibration problem, until the first week in April, 1984. A cracked strut was diagnosed as the cause of the vibration problem. Repair costs of this emergency problem totalled $5,975. The balance of charges incurred at Bradford Marine, Ft. Lauderdale, was $21,729, including dockage. Many more of the repairs catalogued by Respondent's Exhibit 5, the Bradford Marine records for this period, were clearly voluntary, discretionary, and cosmetic in nature. The majority were of a non-emergency nature. The vessel, by then relettered "Binghamton Too," left Florida waters approximately April 20, 1984. "Binghamton Too" next spent approximately three weeks at Thunderbolt Marine Industries in Georgia at an approximate cost of $12,000. There, a strap was fabricated to hold the strut and the yacht proceeded on to New Jersey. The "Binghamton Too" began its charter business as part of the "Binghamton" operation in Edgewater, New Jersey on May 5, 1984. Seventy-five to eighty charters were accomplished between May, 1984 and October, 1984 under New Jersey state and local chartering, transit liquor, and environmental licenses and under U.S. Corps of Engineers permits. "Binghamton Too" returned to Florida waters sometime on or before October 25, 1984, when it was sighted at the Indian River Causeway Bridge. On October 26, 1984, it was sighted at Flagler Bridge in West Palm Beach. Thereafter, it went on to the Lantana Boat Works Marina, Lantana, Florida, for repairs. Lantana is the location of the yacht's original builder, whose equipment and expertise were preferable to that of other boatyards for certain strut repairs due to the peculiar nature of this type of yacht. After those repairs, the yacht was anchored in Palm Beach from January 1985 to April 1985. Although Mr. Gross testified that the strut repairs of necessity had to be done in the Lantana boatyard, his view is not necessarily conclusive of this issue because he admitted "Binghamton Too" was the first yacht he had ever purchased, because he was vague about equating desirability and necessity without any supporting direct expert testimony, and because of the facts found infra. The Lantana repair records from October 29 to December 31, 1984 show $42,521.82 in repairs, of which only $2,500 pertain to fabrication of a strut. Again, the majority of repairs was to refurbish and paint the vessel. Mr. Gross spent approximately October 1984 to April 1985, October 1985 to April 1986, and October 1986 to April 1987 in his father's home in West Palm Beach, Florida. By his own testimony, he confirmed that he established the "technical" office for his "Binghamton Too" business there. He applied, in early December 1984, for a Florida sales tax registration to operate a charter business, representing Palm Beach as his place of business. The account was established January 1, 1985 with the account number of 60-22-080051-61. The captain and mate of the "Binghamton Too" also wintered in Florida each of these years. On December 6, 1984, Mr. Gross wrote the State of New Jersey's Division of Taxation that the yacht's "principal location and headquarters are in West Palm Beach, Florida where it maintains an office and full-time employees," thus successfully arguing that the "Binghamton Too" should be exempt from New Jersey's registration requirements for any vessel residing in that state in excess of 180 days. This correspondence was in connection with a tax problem of the mother ship "Binghamton," still moored in New Jersey. Mr. Gross further represented that Florida was "Binghamton Too's" primary location with trips to the Bahamas." For most of the period from late December, 1984 to early April, 1985, the yacht was in Palm Harbor Marina, West Palm Beach, Florida, the first time not in repairs, and clearly could have returned to New Jersey under its own power had Mr. Gross chosen to do so. From January 24 to March 26, 1985, the boat was in operation, as sighted at the Pompano Beach and Fort Lauderdale bridges. From April 1985 until October of 1985, the yacht was operated as part of Petitioner's commercial charter operation in New Jersey, which included over 100 charters during this time period. Nonetheless, on June 10, 1985, Mr. Gross purchased a boat slip at Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo, Florida. This slip was later sold. Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact 6-12, which clearly establish a pattern of wintering the yacht in Florida waters, it is inferred that, despite Mr. Gross' testimony that it was "necessary" to have "Binghamton Too's" strut repaired in late 1984 by the original Florida manufacturer of the yacht, its presence in Florida from October 1984 until April, 1985 was primarily and substantially due to the preference of Mr. Gross, Petitioner's President, and not due to necessity or emergency. In October of 1985, the yacht returned to Florida where it remained until April of 1986. During this time, the boat underwent further repairs, including the complete repainting of the hull, the need for which Mr. Gross attributed to the old paint being cracked and shaken off by the vibration of the yacht. From April 1986 until October of 1986, the yacht was operated as part of Petitioner's commercial charter operation in New Jersey, which included over 100 charters during this time period. The yacht returned to Florida in October, 1986, and again remained in Florida until early April, 1987, when it left for New Jersey. In late October 1987, the yacht returned to Florida where it was traded in as part of the consideration for a larger yacht in November of 1987. The closing date was December 30, 1987. The cash equivalent received by Petitioner as credit on the trade-in was $100,000. In all, Petitioner asserts that over $200,000 was spent by the corporation on the "Binghamton Too" before it was traded. Shortly after buying the "Binghamton Too", Petitioner had begun trying to sell it for the highest price obtainable. These sales efforts included large ads in national yachting publications and listings with active yacht brokers. The highest outright offer received by Petitioner was $75,000. However, this was Mr. Gross' first sales effort of this kind, and his opinion testimony that the "Binghamton Too" was not bought from the Petitioner outright and at a good price because of latent defects and cost of repair is neither credible nor persuasive since his opinion does not possess the reliability of an expert in assessing whether it was the condition of the yacht, its unusual "Halmatic" type, or some other factor which made the "Binghamton Too" undesirable to potential purchasers. The Florida Department of Revenue issued a Notice of Delinquent Tax January 30, 1987, of five-percent use tax upon the purchase price plus 25 percent penalty. Interest was figured at 12 percent per annum. Petitioner timely protested. The agency conceded that the purchase price on the original notice was mistakenly listed at $475,000, that the assessment appropriately should have been on $457,500 (see Finding of Fact No. 1) and that the State presently claims only the tax amount of 5% of Petitioner's initial $457,500 purchase price at $22,875, the 25 percent penalty at $5,719, and interest on the tax from February 18, 1984, to June 18, 1989 at $14,650. (Interest accrues at $7.52 daily.) The total assessment through June 18, 1989 is $43,234.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order affirming the assessment of $22,875, with 25% penalty and interest at $7.52 per day from February 18, 1984 until paid. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon consideration of Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes the following rulings are made upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 2,3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22: Accepted except to the degree not proven. 4: Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. 6, 12: Rejected in part as not proven, in part as subordinate and unnecessary, and in part as to the conclusion-if law as "latent." 7, 8, 9: Accepted except as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 16: Accepted that Mr. Gross testified to this amount, however, the evidence does not support the amount precisely nor that it all went to "repairs." 20: Accepted as modified to better express the record as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: 1: Accepted, but as a Conclusion of Law. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: Accepted. 5: Accepted in substance; what is not adopted is either mere recitation/characterization of testimony, is cumulative, or is subordinate to the facts as found. 6: Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 7: Sentence 1 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as mere legal argument or subordinate to the facts as found. 8, 11: Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole. Mr. Gross testified to a May 5, 1984 date for No. 8. 18: Except for mere legal argument, accepted. 24: Accepted upon the terms set forth in the Recommended Order. 25: Except as subordinate and unnecessary, accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene D. Brown, Esquire 3836 Killearn Court Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William D. Moore, General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Kirk was a registered real estate broker licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission at all times relative to the Administrative Complaint. Juneau Edwards negotiated a valid and binding contract for sale between Wilbur Davis as seller and Julius and Elizabeth Lau as buyers. The Laus paid $500 as a deposit under the contract on October 3, 1975 to Edwards. The contract, Exhibit 3, contains the following provisions: "Full purchase price $27,500, payable $27,500 in cash, of which the deposit shall apply as part and sale be held by said agent (Kirk Realty) in escrow pending closing of transaction, balance payable in the following manner: Cash at closing, contingent upon buyer se- curing first mortgage loan from Mid- State Federal Savings and Loan Association of Dunnellon, Florida. . ." The contract also contains a provision that the buyer forfeits his deposit if he fails to perform under the terms of the contract. The Laus submitted an application for a first mortgage in the amount of $21,000 on October 6, 1975, which was disapproved for that amount. Disapproval was communicated to the Laus by a letter from David L. Belcher dated October 15, 1975, Exhibit 7. The evidence reveals that the amount of the loan requested exceeded 80 percent of the appraised value of the Davis property by $34,000. Pursuant to the contingency provision of the contract, the contract was void when then loan request was disapproved. However, when the Laus met with Edwards and Kirk they advised them that the loan had not been approved in the amount requested, but did not demand the refund of their $500.00 deposit. Instead, when Kirk and Edwards suggested that Davis be advised and negotiations for a lower price for different terms be undertaken, the Laus assented to this. Arrangements were made by Kirk for such a meeting between Davis and the Laus; however, the Laus did not attend this meeting because they had become interested in a second house which they ultimately purchased. On October 23, 1975, the Laus applied for a mortgage to Mid-State to purchase another house using their initial application and changing the amount of the loan request to $17,500. This application was approved and the Laus closed on the second house. The Laus did not tell Kirk of their other negotiations on the second house and Kirk learned of the Lau's contract for the second house through Mid-State. After contracting to purchase the second house, the Laus contacted Kirk Realty requesting a refund of the $500 deposit paid on the Davis contract. Kirk visited the Laus at their new house and advised them that he considered them in default under the Davis contract. Kirk distributed the money to Davis and Kirk Realty on December 5, 1975 under the forfeiture provisions of the contract.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the factors in mitigation mentioned above, would recommend that Kirk be ordered to pay Lau $500 and receive a letter of admonition. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1977. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX A The proposed findings regarding the contract and its provisions between the Laus and Davis presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings regarding the negotiations before and after the disapproval of the loan application between the Laus and Juneau Edwards, a/k/a Zerban, presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings regarding the submission of the loan application to Mid-State Federal Savings and Loan Association and its disapproval presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The testimony of Belcher in his deposition clearly established that it was disapproved for the amount sought. The proposed findings that the Lau-Davis contract was valid presented in paragraph 2 of the Proposed Recommendation Order is contained in paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the Laus failed to make demand for their deposit presented in paragraph 3 of the Proposed Recommended Order is contrary to the testimony and evidence which indicated that the Laus delayed in making demand for return of their deposit as found in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order and later requested their money back after contracting to purchase the second house as found in paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the Laus breached the contract is a legal conclusion contrary to that reached by the Hearing Officer based upon the contingency provision of the contract which made the contract contingent upon approval of the Lau's loan application. When that application was disapproved, the contact became void. Therefore, the Laus could not have breached it. The Lau's representations to Kirk that Kirk should continue negotiations with Davis does not create another contract between Davis and the Laus; however, it can and has been considered in mitigation of the impression the Laus gave Kirk regarding their continued interest in the Davis property which lead Kirk to the erroneous conclusion the Laus had breached the contract. The proposed finding that there was no violation of Section 475.25(1)(c) presented in paragraph 4 of the Proposed Recommended Order Conclusions of Law is contrary to the evidence and testimony. The Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered by the Hearing Officer this 19th day of August, 1977. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Daniel Hicks, Esquire Tucker, Hicks, Blanchard, Brannen, Dirlam and Stillwell, P.A. Post Office Box 24 Ocala, Florida 32670 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, an Agency of the State of Florida Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3182 MARION COUNTY vs. CASE NO. 77-685 TYREE C. KING, t/a KIRK REALTY, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has been a registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission from February 17, 1967, until the present. The Respondent was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida and charged with devising and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud certain named persons and entities by use of the mails and further charged with the commission of an overt act in furtherance of said scheme. U.S. v. Hawk, Case No. 68-47-ORL CR, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. On October 11, 1968, the Respondent pled guilty to the offense of devising a scheme to defraud others and executing said scheme by use of the United States Mail and by telephone in violation of Title 18, Section 1341, U.S.C. The Respondent was sentenced to four years' imprisonment upon his plea of guilty. He served 17 months of his sentence before being paroled, which parole ended in October, 1972. The charge to which the Respondent pled guilty and was found guilty did not, in any manner, involve the sale of real property. Since his conviction and release from prison, the Respondent has worked as a real estate salesman. The Florida Real Estate Commission has shown no complaint lodged against Mr. Hawk regarding his registration as a real estate salesman from February 17, 1967, until the present, other than the complaint and allegations presently being considered. There has been no showing that Nelson F. Hawk engaged in any conduct warranting suspension of his registration as a real estate salesman other than that conviction heretofore referred to in 1968. Nelson F. Hawk is guilty of a crime against the laws of the United States involving fraudulent dealing as evidenced by the certificate of Wesley R. Thies, Clerk, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The Issue Whether respondents' real estate licenses should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined on charges of false promises, misrepresentation, culpable negligence, and breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Terry L. Baker is now and was at all times material to the charges a licensed real estate broker holding license no. 204679. (P-1) He also was president, secretary, and treasurer of respondent Terry L. Baker and Associates, Inc., a licensed real estate brokerage corporation (lic. no. 213974) located at 1418 West Edgewood Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. There are no other officers, directors, or members of this brokerage corporation; respondent owns 100 percent of the capital stock. (P-1) Respondent was, and continues to be, the active broker for this real estate brokerage corporation. (P-1) On July 21, 1982, respondent assisted in the negotiation and closing of a real estate sales transaction between Dolores B. Hawkins, as seller, and James W. and Patricia L. Dobson, as purchasers. The real estate involved was a residential lot and dwelling unit located at 7065 Bishop Hatcher Drive East, Jacksonville, Florida, and was, at the time, the subject of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. (Testimony of Hawkins, Baker; P-2, P-6) The real estate sales contract was signed by the seller and buyers on July 21, 1982. At that time, respondent submitted a written estimate of the seller's closing costs. This estimate, signed by both respondent and the seller, showed that the seller would net $1,598.25 from the transaction. It was specifically noted that this net figure did not include an Atlantic Bank payment. This payment was a recognized obligation of the seller and was required to obtain the release of a record judgment lien held by the bank. Ms. Hawkins, the seller, understood that this payment was her obligation and was not included in the $1,598.25 figure. The written estimate also included seller's cost of approximately $2,000 for attorney's fees and back mortgage payments. The attorney's fees were related to the legal costs associated with the mortgage foreclosure proceeding. An existing mortgage balance, to be assumed by the buyers, was listed as approximately $19,000. (Testimony of Hawkins, Baker; P-3) On two separate occasions prior to closing, respondent told seller Hawkins that there had been an increase in the charge for attorney's fees associated with the mortgage foreclosure. (Testimony of Hawkins, respondent) Prior to closing, respondent loaned seller Hawkins $220 to help her pay her apartment rent. They agreed that the loan would be repaid out of the proceeds from the sale of her property. (Testimony of Hawkins, Baker; P-4) At closing on August 17, 1982, respondent presented the seller with a Seller's Closing Statement listing various charges to the seller, including the loan repayment of $220, the payment to Atlantic Bank (for release of lien) of $425, attorney's fees of $638.50, and an assumed mortgage of $19,847.51. The net amount due the seller was $675.82. The buyers paid the balance due at closing and the seller delivered the warranty deed to respondent for recording. A couple of days later, respondent, in turn, wrote a check for $675.82 and delivered it to the seller as net proceeds from the sale. Payment of respondent's commission was shared by the seller and buyers at closing. Respondent received the warranty deed at closing and the parties to the transaction expected him to have it recorded. He accepted this duty and undertook to perform it. However, he did not record the warranty deed on the public records until October 4, 1982--almost three months later--after repeated requests by the mortgage service company for a copy of the recorded deed. The delay was caused by respondent's waiting to receive a release of the Atlantic Bank lien so that he could record the two instruments at the same time. But after repeated requests for a copy of the recorded deed, he finally recorded it even though he had not yet received the release of lien. (Testimony of Baker, Hawkins, Dobson) Contrary to the Department's contention, respondent's delay in recording the deed does not constitute culpable negligence, false promises, misrepresentation, or breach of trust in a business transaction. His lack of diligence in recording the deed is, instead, an act of simple negligence. His carelessness exposed the buyers to unnecessary risk. During this delay of almost three months, the seller, while record titleholder, could have reconveyed the property or subjected it to additional encumbrances. Respondent, in delaying recordation almost three months, failed to exercise that degree of care which a reasonable man, in the same situation and with similar experience, would not have omitted. His failure to exercise due care does not, however, demonstrate willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the rights of others. The Department also charges that respondent did not have--at time of closing--the lien of Atlantic Bank satisfied. Prior to closing, the respondent- -on behalf of the seller--negotiated the outstanding debt with attorneys for Atlantic Bank: He was told that the bank would accept fifty cents on the dollar, or $425. Thereafter, respondent collected this amount as a charge to the seller at closing. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent, however, did not have an executed release of lien form, or the judgment lien satisfied, at closing. He asserts--without contradiction-- that the bank's attorney at first offered to prepare the release, but later asked respondent to do so. By the time of closing, respondent had been either unable to obtain the release from the attorney, or he had been unable to obtain and complete the form on his own. When asked why he proceeded to close the transaction although the release had not been obtained, he states that both buyers and seller consented to the closing because the property was facing foreclosure. Respondent's assertion that the parties consented to closing, in the absence of a release of lien, is unrefuted and accepted as fact. No evidence was presented that, in light of the parties' consent, closing of the transaction was improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint, and all charges contained therein, be dismissed for failure of proof. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1983.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman should be revoked for violation of Section 475.25(2), F.S. The Hearing Officer explained to the Respondent the nature of the hearing and his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, including the right to be represented by counsel at his own expense if he so desired. It was also explained to the Respondent that he could testify in his own behalf, that he is not required to do so, and that if he did so testify, he could be cross-examined by counsel for Petitioner. Respondent acknowledged understanding of these rights and elected not to testify in his own behalf.
Findings Of Fact 1. Counsel for Petitioner introduced into evidence Respondent's application for registration as a real estate salesman (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) and rested his case. No evidence was introduced in support of the allegation against the Respondent.
The Issue Broadly stated, the issue in this proceeding the validity of the proposed deficiency in petitioner's corporate income in the amount of $25,712.80 for the 1972 fiscal year. More specifically, the issue is whether Florida may lawfully tax for the gain it realized on the sale of securities in the of $941,418.00. Included within this issue is the question of whether the apportionment formula set forth in Florida Statutes is applicable to petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, the stipulations the parties and the record in this proceeding, the following relevant During the calendar year 1972, petitioner was a foreign " Corporation subject to the Florida Corporate Income Tax, imposed Chapter 220, Florida Statutes. Petitioner also operated a business in St. Louis, Missouri. January 1, 1972, petitioner held a 95 percent interest in Bal Harbour Joint Venture, which owned and operated the Ivanhoe Hotel and Restaurant in Bal Harbour, Florida. On December 15, 1972, petitioner was the sole owner of the Ivanhoe Hotel and Restaurant. November 16, 1972, the petitioner acquired by merger 100 percent interest in the Clearwater Beach Hilton, a motel and restaurant business located in Clearwater, Florida, and continued to own this interest on December 31, 1972. The Clearwater and Ivanhoe hotel and restaurant businesses in Florida and the petitioner's business in Missouri have separate, individual general managers. There is no central purchasing by the hotels and no centralized operating records are maintained by petitioner. There are no central reservation services available between the hotels and the hotels advertise separately and unilaterally in local publications in the cities in which they are located. No standardized product lines exist. On November 2, 1972, petitioner sold certain securities which resulted in a realized gain to petitioner for federal income tax purposes of $941,418.00. Said securities were purchased, located and sold in the State of Missouri, and had no relationship to petitioner's Florida transactions. Petitioner timely filed its 1972 Florida corporate income tax return on which it subtracted from its federal taxable income the gain realized from the sale of the securities. Its "Florida net income" and its "total tax due" were thus reported as "none." On or about May 8, 1974, respondent advised petitioner of a proposed deficiency in petitioner's 1972 tax in the amount of $29,392.00. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Sec. 214.11, petitioner timely filed with respondent its protest of the proposed deficiency assessment. After a hearing, respondent issued to petitioner its Notice of Decision in which the proposed, deficiency was reduced to $25,712.80, and the reasons therefor were set forth. Petitioner requested reconsideration by respondent. On March 11, 1975, the parties stipulated that further proceedings in this cause would be, processed under the Florida Administrative Procedures Act. The petition for hearing was forwarded by respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, the undersigned was duly assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: the proposed deficiency assessment in the amount of $25,712.80 be vacated and set aside; and The respondent permit petitioner to file an amended 1972 return utilizing, within the discretion of the respondent, the employment of either separate accounting, a monthly averaging formula or another method which would effectuate an equitable apportionment of petitioner's income to the State of Florida. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Pleasants Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 Louis de la Parte, Jr. 725 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Patricia S. Turner Assistant General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker salesman in the State of Florida at all times material hereto having been issued license number 0158288 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On June 10, 1985 a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118 concerning Respondent, which recommended that "a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." On July 16, 1985 the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order imposing the penalty against Respondent which had been recommended by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118. The Final Order provided further that, "This Order shall be effective thirty (30) days from the date of filing, with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation." The Final Order was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation on July 24, 1985. To date, Respondent has not paid the $1,000 fine imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85- 0118. Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to pay the $1,000 fine within thirty (30) days of entry of the Final Order, referenced above. Rule 21V-10.31, Florida Administrative Code, imposes a thirty-day time limit for the payment of fines imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission from the date of imposition by order of the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's license-number 0158288. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 24th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0989 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Roy Ahringer 232 Harmony Avenue Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
