Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant David Y. Coverston, Respondent, was registered as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission and, on his registration renewal request dated February 28, 1980, he listed an office at 1231 Kapp Drive, Clearwater, Florida, and one at Gainesville, Florida. The Clearwater office was managed by Eugene Bailey, a licensed real estate salesman, and Respondent visited the office at infrequent intervals. Michael Sedwick held an inactive real estate salesman's license and in 1980 was engaged in real estate development. He worked out of the Respondent's office at 1231 Kapp Drive, Clearwater, Florida, and knew Respondent. Specifically, Sedwick was developing 12 waterfront townhouse condominiums. On February 4, 1980, Sedwick opened an escrow account in the Bank of Clearwater under the name of David Coverston. Checks were printed with the heading David Coverston, Registered Real Estate Broker, Escrow Account. Sedwick was the authorized signatory on this account. During the month of February 1980 deposits of $42,600 were placed in this account and checks totaling $41,719.08 were written against this account, leaving a balance of $880.92. During December 1980 a deposit of $4,000 was made in this account and a check for $4,000 was written against this account. On December 20, 1980, a check for $500 drawn against this account was written payable to David Coverston. This check was endorsed by Coverston and paid by payor bank on March 20, 1981, leaving a balance of $330.92 in the account (Exhibit 2) On April 8, 1981, Indian Harbor Condominiums No. 2, by its developer, Michael Sedwick, entered into a contract to sell 11 of the 12 units in this condominium to Bieder Equity Corporation and a $100,000 earnest money deposit was given by Bieder payable to David Coverston Escrow Account (Exhibit 3) and was deposited in this account. Due to defects in the title this contract failed to close and by letter dated March 22, 1982, Bieder Equity Corporation demanded return of the deposit, less certain authorized expenditures, from Sedwick (Exhibit 7). A copy of that letter was sent to Respondent. Sedwick failed to refund the deposit, and by letter dated April 6, 1982 (Exhibit 8), Bieder Equity Corporation demanded return of its deposit from Respondent. The $100,000 check was deposited in the David Coverston Escrow Account on April 10, 1981 (Exhibit 2). During the next few months small deposits were made to this escrow account and checks were written against this account. The final deposit of $200 in this account on October 2, 1981, brought the balance in the account to $91.33. It has remained at this balance since that time. Although Respondent did not open this escrow account or have signature authority on this account, he was aware the account existed. He was also aware that the contract for the sale of the 11 condominiums was being run through the Clearwater office and he anticipated the office would receive a commission on this transaction. The checkbook for this account was maintained by the real estate office secretary who prepared checks for Sedwick's signature. Neither Sedwick nor Respondent have delivered the monies due Bieber Equity Corporation.
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 Respondent Isabel A. Taquechel is licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman with license number 0126307. At all times material to these findings of fact she has been so licensed. In August of 1978 Ms. Taquechel, as a real estate salesman, entered into a condominium purchase agreement with Half Moon Towers of Miami, Inc. to purchase unit G-110. On September 12, 1978 she entered into an agreement with Mr. Vincente Alessandro which provides as follows: September 8, 1978 To whom it may concern: Let it be known by the present document that in the apartment acquired by me, Isabel A. Taquechel, it has been bought by Mr. Vincente Alessandro with a personal identity Argentinian number 684559 with the address or domicile on the street Corrientes, 1132 in Buenos Aires, the Argentina Republic. Said apartment located in a project, Half Moon Towers, number G-110 on 5055 N.W. 7th Street will be transferred to the name of Mr. Alessandro after this operation is ac cepted on behalf of the financing bank of the operation. Sincerely, /s/ Isabel A. Taquechel Her signature was notarized on September 12, 1978. The purpose of the agreement was for Ms. Taquechel to purchase the referenced condominium unit in her own name in trust for Mr. Alessandro. He is an Argentinean national and a resident of Argentina. If he purchased the unit in his own name, the bank financing the purchase would have required a larger down payment than if the unit were purchased by Ms. Taquechel who is a resident of Dade County, Florida. On December 14, 1978 Ms. Taquechel took title by a warranty deed from Half Moon Towers of Miami, Inc. to unit W-110 at 5055 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. There is no explanation in the record for the discrepancy in the unit numbers between G-110 for the unit Ms. Taquechel originally contracted to purchase and unit W-110 which she actually purchased. Throughout the course of these proceedings the parties have ignored this discrepancy. It is therefore not considered material here. Despite her agreement to take title to the condominium unit in trust for Mr. Alessandro, Ms. Taquechel has refused to convey title to him. Repeated demands for such a conveyance have been made on her by Mr. Alessandro's agents, but at the time of the final hearing she still had not executed a quit claim deed to him. All the funds for the purchase of the condominium unit have been paid by Mr. Alessandro. The agreement between Ms. Taquechel and Mr. Alessandro for her to purchase the unit in trust on his behalf was made in the course of Ms. Taquechel's practice as a real estate salesman. She has broken that agreement. During the time when Ms. Taquechel was refusing to execute a deed conveying the unit to Mr. Alessandro, she filed a Petition for Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. She listed the condominium unit as "property held for another person in her bankruptcy Statement of Financial Affairs for Debtor not Engaged in Business. The filing of her bankruptcy proceedings stayed a pending suit by Mr. Alessandro in circuit court against Ms. Taquechel for the imposition of a constructive trust over the condominium unit. Subsequently the trustee in bankruptcy conveyed a deed to Mr. Alessandro for the condominium unit. Its title is clouded by the status of bankruptcy proceedings due to the United States Supreme Court decision of Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, U.S. , 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982). Because of the title cloud Mr. Alessandro may not sell the condominium unit for full value at the present time. On June 17, 1979 Ms. Taquechel drew a bank check on her own account payable to Jose Lococo in the amount of $1,000. That amount represented a loan to her from Mr. Lococo as a personal favor. There is no evidence in the record of when Mr. Lococo presented the check for payment. 1/ The record does reflect a debit memorandum made by the drawee bank, Republic National Bank of Miami. That memorandum is dated December 21, 1979. The memorandum reflects that the check was not paid because Ms. Taquechel had closed the account on which it was drawn. The record does not reflect when she closed her account.
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 Ms. Isabel A. Taquechel guilty of a breach of trust in a business transaction and suspending her license as a real estate salesman for a period of five (5) years. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1983.
Findings Of Fact In 1985 James M. Rickly (Rickly) filed suit in the County Court, Martin County, Florida, against Respondent, Carl J. Bruner (Bruner) and Two Rivers Realty Corporation (Two Rivers), to recover $2,500.00 he alleged he was owed on earned real estate commissions. On December 31, 1985, Rickly and Two Rivers entered into a written stipulation whereby Two Rivers agreed it was indebted to Rickly in the sum of $2,500.00 on account of his claim, together with court costs in the sum of $54.80. Two Rivers agreed to pay Rickly $100.00 on January 3, 1986, the sum of $100.00 on the first of each month thereafter until January 1, 1987, when the remaining balance would be paid in full. Two Rivers made no payment to Rickly under the stipulation. On February 25, 1986, the court in the foregoing proceeding entered a final judgment for Rickly and against Two Rivers in the sum of $2,500.00 and costs in the sum of $54.80. Contemporaneously, the court entered an order dismissing Bruner from the case since he was "not a proper party".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint against Bruner be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 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 10th day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carl J. Bruner c/o Two Rivers Realty Corp. Post Office Box 1672 Stuart, Florida 33495 Harold Buff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Benton, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William R. Weigel, Jr., is a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0094158. He is not presently active in real estate sales, but specializes in land appraisal. In 1955, the Respondent and his wife acquired a parcel of land in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, fronting 158 feet on Ortega Farms Boulevard, and running approximately 1,040 feet to McGirts Creek, a navigable waterway. In 1956, the Respondent and his wife had this property cleared and a canal excavated along the southerly boundary, approximately 30 feet in width. The dredged material was deposited on the remaining land and additional fill brought in, so that the entire parcel of land was level, clear, and approximately 3 to 4 feet above the water level of McGirts Creek. The Respondent and his wife resided in an existing dwelling on this parcel for two years. In 1958, they moved 25 miles away to Middleburg, Florida. Neither of them had visited or been on the subject parcel of land in the past 24 years, and they were unaware of the character or physical condition of the property at the time of the sale which is the subject of this proceeding. After the Respondent and his wife acquired this property, they divided the land into eight separate parcels, each of which was sold off over the years except for the waterfront parcel fronting on McGirts Creek known as Parcel 8B, which they considered the prime lot. This lot was retained so that the Respondent and his wife could offer it to one of their children as a building site. In 1978, with their children grown, and the Respondent and his wife living in Middleburg, they listed parcel 8B for sale with Harris Real Estate & Associates, Inc. The listing was obtained by T. J. Slora, an associate in this real estate office, who represented the Respondent and his wife throughout the remaining transactions. Neither the Respondent nor his wife furnished the description of the property as contained in the listing agreement, namely, "Beautiful waterfront lot on Ortega River. 158 feet on Ortega River plus 140 feet on canal. Many shade trees, fantastic building site". This description was the language of T. J. Slora of Harris Real Estate and Associates, Inc. The purchaser, Mr. Robert Johnson, never saw the listing agreement and did not rely upon the description contained therein. The Respondent's wife had the only direct contact with the listing agent, T. J. Slora. The Respondent made no representations or communications to the listing agent regarding either the property, or its character, or suitability as a building site. His only activity with respect to the listing agreement was the act of signing it. After obtaining the listing, Harris Real Estate & Associates, Inc., undertook to sell the property. The advertising sign located on it was seen by Mr. Johnson, who contacted Carol L. Jones, another sales associate with Harris Real Estate & Associates, Inc. Mr. Johnson looked at the property with her, and submitted a written offer through her. After dealing back and forth on price through the sales associates of Harris Realty, a purchase and sale agreement for Parcel 8B was agreed upon, and executed by Mr. Johnson on April 2, 1978. T. J. Slora of the Harris office mailed the contract to the Respondent and his wife, who signed it on April 4, 1978. Throughout these negotiations, the purchaser, Mr. Johnson, dealt through Carol Jones of Harris Realty, and had no direct contact with the Respondent, William R. Weigel, Jr., who was dealing through T. J. Slora of the Harris office. The purchaser, Mr. Johnson, never met or talked with the Respondent until the closing on May 5, 1978. The Respondent had made no representations of any kind regarding the subject property, either orally or in writing. At the closing, the purchaser, Mr. Johnson, and the Respondent discussed the subject of building generally, but no representations were made by the Respondent regarding the land as a building site. By the time of the closing, the purchaser had walked over the entire parcel of land and was familiar with its nature, character, and elevation. At the closing, the Respondent cautioned the purchaser that if he made any improvements on this property which fronted on navigable waters, he would need a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to the time the purchaser began to truck fill dirt onto the property, he was informed by the owner of the adjoining parcel that bringing fill dirt in without a permit could cause him problems. The purchaser responded that he had connections and could handle any such problems. The purchaser did not obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Environmental Regulation. Nevertheless, he began to bring fill dirt and other material onto Parcel 8B and ultimately trucked in over 600 loads of fill material, and spread it around the 164 foot by 158 foot parcel with a tractor and a bulldozer. Upon discovery of this fill being trucked in by the purchaser, the Corps of Engineers issued a Cease and Desist Order under the Clean Water Act of 1977. Subsequently, the Department of Environmental Regulation also issued a Cease and Desist Order. Although the Respondent was aware that a Corps of Engineers permit was required for bulkheading or building of docks, he had no knowledge of the applicability of the wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 until after the cease and desist orders were entered. Thus, the Respondent's actual knowledge of applicable governmental regulations was not superior to or any better than that of the purchaser, who himself knew that the property fronted on navigable waters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, William R. Weigel, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 24 day of February, 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 24 day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Esquire 119 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward A. White, Esquire 902 Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are: (1) whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, failed within a reasonable time to satisfy a civil judgment relating to a real estate commission; (2) whether Respondents failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; and (3) whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them, if Petitioner proves one or more of the violations charged in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Veloso Judgment Toirac and Elena Veloso ("Veloso") did business together and wound up as opponents in court. Veloso got the better of Toirac, obtaining, on June 5, 2001, a judgment in the amount of $4,437.60 against her and HCIC from the Dade County Court. The judgment liquidated a real estate commission that Veloso claimed the defendants owed her. On June 12, 2001, Toirac filed a Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment, wherein she asked the county court to (a) vacate its judgment in favor of Veloso, on the ground that the defendants had not been served with process and (b) consolidate Veloso's county-court proceeding with an action then pending in circuit court, which Toirac had brought against Veloso.1 As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac's motion, after four years, had not been heard or decided. As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac had not satisfied the judgment in favor of Veloso. The Escrow Account Shortfall On January 24, 2002, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt, on or about June 20, 2001, of a complaint from Veloso.) Pursuant to the audit, Ms. Morales determined that the balance in Toirac's escrow account was $4,961.05. Ms. Morales determined further that Toirac's trust liability, i.e. the total amount of money that she should have been holding in escrow on her clients' behalf, was $12,242.00. Thus, there existed a shortfall of $7,280.95 in Toirac's escrow account. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to explain the shortfall. A few weeks later, however, by letter dated February 13, 2002, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that the shortfall had been caused by the issuance, "in error," of a check in the amount of $7,345.00, which was drawn on HCIC's escrow account and payable (evidently) to HCIC; HCIC had deposited the funds into its operating account, thereby creating, according to Toirac, an "overage" of $7,345.00 in the latter. To correct the problem, Toirac had arranged for the transfer of $7,345.00 from HCIC's operating account to its escrow account, which was accomplished on or about February 1, 2002. The Charges In counts I and IV, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.2 Petitioner's position is that Respondents failed within a reasonable time to satisfy the county-court judgment in favor of Veloso. In counts III and V, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that the escrow account shortfall identified on January 24, 2002, is proof that funds held in escrow had been disbursed without proper authorization. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no dispute (for Toirac admitted at final hearing) that the judgment debt owed by Respondents to Veloso relates to a real estate commission. It is also undisputed that, as of the final hearing, the county-court judgment had not been satisfied. The undersigned determines that Respondents have failed to satisfy the civil judgment in Veloso's favor within a reasonable time.3 Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.4 It is determined that the erroneous transfer, via check, of funds from HCIC's escrow account to its operating account constituted an unauthorized disbursement of funds entrusted to Toirac by others who had dealt with her as a broker. While this might have resulted from the simple mistake of an incompetent bookkeeper, as Toirac maintains, nevertheless the disbursement was unauthorized and substantial——amounting to approximately 60 percent of Toirac's total trust liability. Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has established the charges set forth in counts I, III, IV, and V of its Administrative Complaint, by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: (a) finds Respondents guilty as charged in counts I, III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint; (b) suspends Respondents' respective real estate licenses for 90 days; and (c) imposes an administrative fine of $2,500 against Respondents, jointly and severally; and (d) places Respondents on probation for a period of at least 3 years, subject to such lawful conditions as the Commission may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, German H. Rodriguez, committed the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent has been licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0434907. On March 20, 1995, Respondent submitted a license renewal form to the Petitioner which resulted in the automatic issuance of a renewed license for two years, ending March 31, 1997. The license renewal form provided, in pertinent part: I hereby affirm that I have met all of the requirements for license renewal set forth by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or the professional regulatory board indicated on the reverse side of this notice. I understand that, within the upcoming licensure period, if my license number is selected for audit by the Department and/or professional regulatory board, I may be required to submit proof that I have met all applicable license renewal requirements. I understand that proof may be required by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or professional regulatory board at any time and that it is my responsibility to maintain all documentation supporting my affirmation of eligibility for license renewal. I further understand that failure to comply with such requirements is in violation of the rules and statutes governing my profession and subjects me to possible disciplinary action and, further, that any false statements herein is in violation of section 455.227 Florida Statutes, subjecting me to disciplinary action as well as those penalties provided below. I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action on my license and/or criminal prosecution as provided in section 455.2275, Florida Statutes. When Respondent executed the renewal form he did not have documentation supporting his eligibility for license renewal. Specifically, Respondent did not have a course report documenting completion of the required 14 hour continuing education course. The course report that Respondent later received from an approved real estate school noted that Respondent had started the course June 1, 1995, and had finished it June 26, 1995. Respondent knew that the 14 hour continuing education course was required by the Department for license renewal. Further, Respondent knew that the course was to be completed before the renewal came due. Respondent maintains that he intended to complete the course before the renewal because he had, in fact, requested a correspondence course from an approved real estate school, had completed the course work, and had filled out the answer sheet. Unfortunately, according to Respondent, the envelope was misplaced and he failed to timely mail the answer form to the company for scoring. Therefore, Respondent did not get credit for the work until June, 1995, when he completed the work again. As chance would have it, Respondent was selected for audit in August, 1995. By this time he had completed the continuing education course work as required by the Department for license renewal but, as indicated above, did so after the renewal form had been submitted. In response to the audit, Respondent represented that he had completed the work prior to renewal but, through inadvertence, had not gotten the course credit until after the renewal period. Respondent did not successfully complete 14 hours of continuing education prior to submitting the renewal form. Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker for ten years during which time he has never been disciplined. At the time of the renewal, Respondent was not using his real estate license and was in an inactive status.
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 Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand with an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 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 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 German H. Rodriguez 703 Southwest 89th Avenue Plantation, Florida 33324
Findings Of Fact William O. Boyd is licensed as a general contractor with the Construction Industry Licensing Board and was so registered at all times here relevant as the qualifying licensee for B & J Harris, Inc. In 1978 Respondent, as trustee of Kings Point Subdivision in Kissimmee, Florida, was looking for someone to do construction in the subdivision and was approached by Harris, who was not licensed. B & J Harris, Inc. was formed, with apparently little capitalization, and with Harris, his wife and son as officers of the corporation. In his application for 1978/1979 Competency/Registration Card (Exhibit 1) dated 9/7/78 Respondent showed he was employed with Empire Builders, Inc., the same firm with which he was affiliated for the previous 12-15 years. Fidelity Bond dated 3-17-78 (Exhibit 2) issued to B & J Harris, Inc. shows Respondent as qualifying general contractor for B & J Harris, Inc. B & J Harris, Inc. entered into a contract with Charles and Connie Arnold (Exhibit 4) to construct a residence on Lot 128, Kings Point Subdivision, obtained Building Permits (Exhibit 3) and commenced construction. Financing for the construction was arranged by Harris and Respondent did not participate in this project in any manner. B & J Harris, Inc. was paid the full contract price by the lending institution and the Arnolds (Exhibits 5 and 15) prior to the scheduled March 7, 1979 closing date. When advised on 7 March 1978 that closing was scheduled that day, Respondent called Mrs. Arnold to advise her that the closing could not proceed as scheduled because B & J Harris, Inc. could not convey clear title to Lot 128 as Harris had not paid Respondent for this lot. Respondent was advised by the lending agency that no other liens existed and Respondent, in consideration of a note secured by a mortgage on Harris' residence, conveyed title to Lot 128 to Harris. The closing took place on 7 March 1978 with the lending institution holding the funds and deed in escrow pending the clearance of the title. Harris executed a Certificate of No Lien on 7 March 1978 (Exhibit 7) and presented a Waiver of Lien form (Exhibit 15) executed by numerous subcontractors. At least two of the signatures on this Waiver of Lien form were denied by the persons whose signature they purported to be. Several subcontractors filed mechanics liens against the property on Lot 128 after the closing, and others filed affidavits and presented testimony that they had not been paid. (Exhibit 10-12). On 23 March 1979 B & J Harris, Inc. filed Petition for Voluntary Bankruptcy (Exhibit 14).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, John J. Piccione, is an instructor at Gold Coast School of Real Estate, Inc., holding instructor's permit number ZH 31158. He has been a licensed instructor for approximately fifteen years. Piccione used to be the permit holder for Gold Coast School of Realty, Inc., but as of January 3, 1984, the school permit was issued to Mary Piccione. Additionally, Mary Piccione is the chief administrator of Gold Coast School of Realty, Inc. John J. Piccione's license as a real estate broker was suspended for one year, from November 3, 1983 to November 2, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 21st day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John J. Piccione 1515 E. Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 105-WG Ocala, Florida 32670 Harold R. Huff, Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802
