Findings Of Fact Charles E. Richmond applied for registration as a real estate salesman in 1971, filing his application dated December 23, 1971, and received by the agency on December 30, 1971, said application being received as Exhibit 1. In 1974, Richmond applied for registration as a broker-salesman filing an application with the agency, said application being introduced as Exhibit 2. The charges in the Administrative Complaint relate to alleged fraud and concealment in these applications. The basis for the charges contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Complaint was that Richmond's 1974 application apparently indicates a traffic violation received in 1971, which had not been reported in the 1971 application. The Hearing Officer finds that regarding the allegations, there were seven days remaining in 1971 after the preparation of Richmond's application within which time Richmond could have received the ticket referred to in the 1974 application. However, more importantly, the 1974 application indicates on its face some doubt, in the applicant's mind regarding the year in which the ticket was received. Richmond qualified his response in the 1974 registration relative to the date the first ticket was received. The Florida Real Estate Commission has not presented any evidence to factually resolve the question. The Hearing Officer finds there is no conflict between the 1971 and 1974 application, no proof of any evasion regarding the tickets, and certainly no proof of the actual failure to reveal a traffic offense on the 1971 application. Paragraphs 8(a) and 9 charge that in 1974 Richmond concealed the fact of his arrest and plea to contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1972. The Florida Real Estate Commission alleges that said concealment shows that Richmond lacks the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character required by Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes, and that Richmond obtained both his registrations as a salesman and as a broker-salesman by means of fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment in violation of Subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. Regarding the contention that Richmond received his 1971 registration a salesman by fraud and misrepresentation, there is no evidence that Richmond falsified any portion of his 1971 application. The arrest and plea to contributing to the delinquency of a minor did not occur until 1972, and the question of the traffic violation was dealt with above. Concerning concealment on the 1974 application, the Florida Real Estate Commission introduced Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 which show Richmond's registration as a salesman and broker-salesman and his arrest and plea to an offense against the laws of Florida. Richmond testified that his arrest had been upon the complaint of a co-worker of his when he attempted to assist the co-worker's daughter, who had graduated from high school and who was working full time, move our of her parents' home into an apartment. Richmond stated that he had felt he was not guilty of any wrong doing but had entered a plea on the advise of Counsel and upon his representation that this would not become a matter of record. Richmond stated he knew that he had been arrested and had pled guilty to the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but felt that to report this on his application would record an incident which he felt was not of record. Richmond further indicated that he felt this was damaging to his reputation in the community, which apparently from the testimony of his employer, Earlene Cooper Usry, was good. Richmond stated his concern specifically with regard to the effect knowledge of this incident would have on his activity as president of the local Little League, with which he had been associated approximately seven years.
Recommendation Wherefore, the Hearing Officer recommends that Richmond's registration as a broker-salesman be revoked with the observation that Richmond, although he did conceal information, did so for understandable reasons, and that some consideration should be given to allowing Richmond to be reinstated after a period of six months. Further, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken regarding Richmond's salesman's license, the Florida Real Estate Commission having failed to allege any statutory basis for revocation or suspension thereof. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of December, 1975. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Richard A. Langford, Esquire Post Office Box 868 Bartow, Florida 33830
Findings Of Fact During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc. Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing. Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart. Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart. Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here. The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The Defendants, Barry Shelomith and Isaac Shelomith, son and father, respectively, were, during times material to the allegations filed herein, registered with the Commission as real estate salesmen with Alan Leavitt, a registered real estate broker, who maintains offices at 1110 N.E. 163rd Street, Suite 345, Miami Beach, Florida 33162. Defendant Barry Shelomith sometimes identifies himself as a "Mr. Barry", also being publicly known by such pseudonym, and Defendant Isaac Shelomith sometimes identifies himself as "I.B. Shelly" and is also publicly known by that pseudonym. During the period between March 15, 1975 and November 15, 1975, the Defendants, Barry Shelomith and Isaac Shelomith, jointly and/or severally and for their own accounts or for the accounts of others, negotiated the sale of a number of platted, unimproved lots located in a subdivision near DeFuniak Springs in Walton County, Florida and identified as Country Club Heights, Northeast, in Plat book 3, Page 21, Walton County, Florida. In negotiating for the sale of the lots, the Defendants placed various ads in Florida newspapers as an inducement for sale. Typical of such ads is the following: OWNER SACRIFICE Seven Mobile and Camping lots on Spring Lake. Boating, fishing, swimming. Electricity, water available. Only $375 each lot. Cash only. Call Owner, 931-1809 after 6 PM for appointment. (See Commission's Exhibit #6). Donald Vesey and his wife Jeanette Vesey purchased two lots from the Defendants based on an inducement prompted by a newspaper ad cause to be published by the Defendants. Mr. Vesey testified that Isaac Shelomith advised him that the lots were easily accessible; that owners could drive to their lots and that the lots were platted and that electricity and water was available. The Veseys were given warranty deeds for the lots during early April, 1975, and thereafter they attempted to see the lots during a visit to Defuniak Springs. The Veseys stated that they were unable to see the lots because they are "completely surrounded by privately owned property and there is absolutely no access to this property". However, the adjoining land owner, a Mr. Strickland, showed them approximately where their property was situated and was further able to show them that their property was "land-locked". Mr. Vesey testified that there were no access roads to the property and that the surrounding area is heavily wooded. (See Commission's Exhibits 3 & 4). Cynthia and Charles Derditsch, husband and wife, also purchased a lot from Defendant, Barry Shelomith, who advised that the property was accessible to the lake and Mr. Derditsch, based upon this representation, considered the property to be a good investment. Carl and Francis Milam also purchased property from the Defendants which was located in Walton County. Mrs. Milam testified that Isaac Shelomith told her the lot sizes were approximately 25 by 150 feet, however, she testified that she later learned that the property was smaller. Mrs. Milam's testimony in this regard is unspecific inasmuch as she could not either confirm or deny the lot sizes because she did not view the property and her husband had no recollection of the transaction involving the purchase of the property. George A. Torrence, also purchased a lot from the Defendants which he was unable to see because there was no easy access. He went to Spring Lake, the adjoining property, and the land owner, Mr. Strickland denied his access. To the best of his recollection, he testified that a Mr. Astor, who accompanied Defendant Barry Shelomith, made all the representations regarding the amenities of the property. Defendant Barry Shelomith told him that he represented Miami Sunshine, Inc., an active Florida Corporation to which he (Torrence) tendered the purchase price for the property. His testimony is that Barry Shelomith advised that his uncle, Ben Mione, was President of Miami Sunshine, Inc. (See Commission's Exhibit #12). Mr. Torrence also recalled that the property was represented to be 50 by 100 feet whereas in actuality it only measured 25 by 100 feet. Barry Shelomith testified that there were two means of access to the property in question. One mean was through the adjoining landowner's property and the other is through the use of a heavily wooded area off State Road #183. He testified that the plat map which was provided to all prospective purchasers was given them (the Defendants) by Budget Systems, Inc., the former owner and that the plat map was certified by a licensed surveyor. He denied any intent to defraud prospective purchasers by using the pseudonym "Mr. Shelly" instead of his last name which means "peace" in the Jewish community. He testified that by utilization of the word "Shalom" would possibly hinder his sales efforts outside the Jewish community. He denied any attempt to conceal his last name and admitted that he was not registered with the Commission as being employed by anyone other than his then registered broker, Alan Leavitt. He further admitted that the pseudonym "Shelly" was not registered with the Commission. While he admitted to directly selling the property of an owner while having his license registered with the Commission through broker Alan Leavitt, he saw no violation in this instance inasmuch as the property was owned by his uncle. He opined that this was permissible inasmuch as an owner was free to sell less than 49 parcels and secondly that the property owner in question here was a blood relative i.e., his uncle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED as follows: That the Defendant, Barry Shelomith, registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of two (2) years. That the Defendant, Isaac Shelomith, registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of two (2) years. That the complaint in all other respects be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of March, 1977. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Morgentaler, Esquire 1600 NE Miami Gardens Drive Greater Miami Beach, Florida 33179 Bruce I. Kamelhaire, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue Whether J.C. Hoffman violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact J. C. Hoffman also known as Jean Hoffman was a registered real estate salesman whose certificate expired September 30, 1974. On March 31, 1975, Hoffman reapplied and was recertified by the Florida Real Estate Commission. During the intervening period, Hoffman continued to be registered by the Commission. In late 1974, Jean Hoffman showed David W. Jarrett two lots which Jarrett subsequently offered to purchase. Jarrett gave Hoffman $1,500 as a deposit receipt on this transaction in two checks, one for $300 and the other for $1,200. These checks were received into evidence as Exhibit 2. The contract entered into by Jarrett was received into evidence as Exhibit 1. Because Hoffman was not present at the hearing, Jarrett identified a picture of Hoffman taken from the files of the Florida Real Estate Commission as the individual who he had known as Hoffman. This picture was received into evidence as Exhibit 4. After entering into this transaction, Jarrett waited some time and when a closing did not take place, attempted to contact Hoffman. He was unable to contact Hoffman and unable to obtain the return of his $1,500. Jarrett also identified a letter from Barbara E. Green, the owner of the property, which he had received in reply to a letter to her concerning this transaction. This letter was received as Exhibit 3, and indicates that Green had rejected the offer. All Jarrett's efforts to obtain return of his money from Hoffman failed and the money and Hoffman have disappeared.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of J. C. Hoffman also known as Jean Hoffman. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 J. C. Hoffman % Patrick N. O'Keef Dist. Road 5-7837 and N. Hwy 452 Lake Yale Village Leesburg, Florida 32748
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found. Respondent Villanueva was registered as a real estate salesman on July 12, 1974. For the registration year October 1, 1976, through September 30, 1977, his status changed to a nonactive salesman. Upon respondent's plea of guilty to the offense of possession of marijuana in Case No. 74-725C, the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County entered an order on June 7, 1974, withholding adjudication of guilt and placing respondent on probation for a period of one year. By an administrative complaint filed on October 7, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission charged respondent with being guilty of a crime of moral turpitude, fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of Florida Statutes s475.25(1)(e). The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing, and the undersigned was duly designated as the Hearing Officer. On March 31, 1977, the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County entered an order on respondent's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty previously entered in Case No. 74-725C. By this Order, it was adjudged that the plea of guilty previously entered "be and the same is hereby stricken from the records and shall be of no force and effect and in lieu thereof a plea of nolo contendere is accepted in this cause." The Court reconsidered, and reaffirmed its action taken with regard to sentence.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the administrative complaint filed by petitioner on October 7, 1976, be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 12th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 12th day of May, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William F. Garcia, Esquire 512 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= August 4, 1977 TO: Renata M. Hendrick, Supervisor FM: Manuel E. Oliver, Staff Attorney, Legal Section RE: PD 3024 Richard R. Villanueva Registration Certificate No. 0136894 Attached please find registration certificate in the name of Richard R. Villanueva, No. 0136894. The effective date of the Final Order is August 11, 1977, however, this certificate was received by us on Monday, August 1, 1977, and therefore his suspension period will begin on that date, and end on September 1, 1977 at which time he may re-apply for registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Also attached for your reference and record is a copy of the Final Order filed by the Commission on July 12, 1977.* * NOTE: The Attachment is not on file with this Division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document. The July 12, 1977 date has been used as the Agency Final Order Issue date in the ACCESS index.
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not, based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, the Respondent is guilty of a course of conduct constituting fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, etc., in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979); whether or not Respondent has obtained a real estate license by means of fraud, misrepresentations or concealment, in violation of Subsection 475.25 (1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979); whether or not Respondent has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises and false pretenses, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979); and whether or not Respondent has been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state involving fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979). 2/
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Patricia C. Alters, Respondent herein, is a registered real estate salesperson and has been so registered since approximately February 18, 1980. Respondent has been issued License No. 0330568 by the Petitioner. On November 10, 1979, Respondent made an application for registration as a real estate salesperson to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Question No. 6 of that application required that Respondent report if she had ever been arrested for or charged with the commission of any offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation. Respondent filed a negative response to question No. 6. (Petitioners Exhibit No. 1.) On June 18, 1979, an arrest warrant was issued in Duval County, Florida, charging Respondent with issuing worthless checks and drafts, in violation of Chapter 832, Florida Statutes (1979). Pursuant to that warrant, Respondent was arrested on June 20, 1979, by the Clay County Sheriff's Department. Respondent was booked and released on her own recognizance. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 and Respondent's Exhibit No. 1.) On May 19, 1980, Respondent was charged with the issuance of a worthless check drawn on or about December 19, 1979, in the amount of $12.71. The check was issued to the J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) Respondent pled guilty to said charge and was adjudged guilty by the court on May 19, 1980, in criminal proceeding No. 80-9979MM in the County Court of Duval County, Florida. She was fined $50.00 plus court costs. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5.) On or about October 7, 1978, Respondent leased a residence located in Clay County, Florida, from one Lon E. Brugh. Respondent defaulted on said lease on several occasions failure to timely pay the rent and late charges, namely the rent for the months of June and July, 1979, and for late charges on the months of October, November and December, 1978, and January through July, 1979. Lon E. Brugh filed a civil suit in the County Court in and for Clay County, Florida, and charged that the Respondent had defaulted on the terms of the lease. On November 30, 1979, Respondent was adjudged to be in default of said lease and ordered to pay to Lon E. Brugh the sum of $929.05 plus his (Brugh's) costs of $34.00. Evidence reveals that Respondent issued three (3) checks to Lon E. Brugh during late April and early May of 1979, for payment of rent and late charges for the residence which she leased from Brugh. Evidence also revealed that Respondent immediately instructed her bank to place stop payments on the checks which she had issued to Brugh for rent payments. Respondent contends that she placed stop payments on these checks due to a dispute that she had with Brugh concerning her responsibilities under the lease. Evidence reveals that the checks here involved were either for past due rents or for late charges. (Tr. pp. 62-66.) RESPONDENT'S POSITION AND DEFENSE Initially, Respondent's position is that she was not licensed when the civil suit was filed by Lon E. Brugh or when she entered the lease agreement and therefore the facts surrounding the civil suit and related matters which occurred prior to her licensure should not be considered as a basis for Petitioner to take disciplinary action. Secondly, Respondent countered that she issued all checks, which were the basis for the civil action filed by Brugh while she was hospitalized during April and May of 1979. Respondent contends that Mr. Brugh deposited the three (3) checks before she could make a deposit in her bank to cover the checks inasmuch as she was in the hospital. Respecting the events surrounding Petitioner's allegation that Respondent was arrested, Respondent counters that she thought that she had never been arrested, inasmuch as she was driven to the sheriff's office in Clay County during the early morning hours on June 20, 1979, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Duval County Sheriff's Department. That arrest centered around a worthless check which Respondent issued to Sears. Respondent does not deny that the check was worthless when issued; however, she points out that restitution has been made to Sears. In support of her belief that she had not been arrested, Respondent points to the facts that she did not post bond; was not placed behind bars and was allowed to leave under her own recognizance. In response to that charge, Respondent entered a written plea of not guilty. She therefore considered that she was not arrested. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3.) As to the circumstances surrounding the worthless check which Respondent issued to Penney's during December of 1979, Respondent noted that she made restitution for said check; that Penney's returned the monies which she paid them, inasmuch as she did not obtain the merchandise which was in the form of a lay-a-way purchase. Respondent admits to her plea of guilty; however, she testified that she had been issued a $3,500.00 check which was deposited into her account and was returned for non-sufficient funds, which, in turn, caused several of her checks to be returned. Finally, Respondent generally denied all of the allegations involved herein and affirmatively stated that she made restitution for all of the checks which had been returned returned for non-sufficient funds; that she has established a good record of honesty and trustworthiness in the community and is well respected by realtors and other officials involved in the real estate business in the area. (Testimony of Respondent, Ken O'Leary, Sheldon Wardwell, John Drago and Peter Dalton.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson be revoked and that the revocation be suspended for a period of forty-five (45) days during which time Respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to re-submit her application to be licensed as a real estate salesperson. It is further RECOMMENDED: That, in the event Respondent re-submits a, new application to be licensed as a real estate salesperson, which truthfully and completely responds to Question 6 of that application, Petitioner consider the character and mitigating evidence offered by Respondent herein. In such case, if Respondent re-submits her application for licensure within the above-referred forty-five (45) day period, it is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, after completing the filing of a new application as set forth herein, which otherwise fully satisfies and comports with Petitioner's procedures, be issued a new license, which license shall be placed on a probated status for a term of two (2) years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1982, 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 22 day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondents violated the provisions of Section 475.624, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1-7.001, as charged in the Administrative Complaints, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate appraisers pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Part II, Florida Statutes (2009). Respondent, Fred Catchpole, is a licensed real estate appraiser, having been issued license number RD-7674. Respondent, William E. Woods, is a registered trainee appraiser, issued license RI-4855. At the times relevant to these complaints, Mr. Woods was supervised by Respondent Catchpole. On October 8, 2009, the Department issued Administrative Complaints against both Respondents. At the heart of both Administrative Complaints were allegations related to an appraisal report allegedly prepared by Catchpole and Woods. With the exception of the order in which Respondents are identified, the allegations in paragraphs four and six of the Administrative Complaints are identical. Quoting from the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 09-6822 (DBPR Case No. 2009016581), the Administrative Complaint alleges the following: On or about September 25, 2007, Fred Catchpole (Respondent) and William Woods developed and communicated an appraisal report (Report 1) for property commonly known as 2250 Braxton Street, The Villages, Florida 32162 (Subject Property), and estimated its value at $190,000.00. A copy of Report I is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1. * * * 6. Respondent made the following errors and omissions in Report 1: Incorrect effective on the cover of the report, the correct date is September 25, 2007; Incorrect effective date on in the Reconciliation section of the report; Incorrect effective date on the signature page of the Report; Incorrect Subject Property Inspection date on the signature page of the Report; Incorrect Comparable Sales inspection date on the signature page of the report; . . . . The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges the same facts, with the same dates. At hearing, it was established that there is no appraisal report developed or communicated that is dated September 25, 2007. The Report, attached to each Administrative Complaint and each Amended Administrative Complaint, is actually dated February 25, 2007. Once it was established that there was no appraisal report matching the dates alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the Department moved to dismiss the Amended Administrative Complaints in their entirety, with prejudice.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Appraiser's Board enter Final Orders with respect to each Respondent dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaints in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Fred Catchpole 5449 Marcia Circle Jacksonville, Florida 32210 William Woods 2103 Herndon Street Dover, Florida 33527 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, I recommend that the information filed herein be dismissed in it's entirety. Done and Entered this 24th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Walsh and Associates By Gerald M. Walsh, Esquire 404 Courthouse Square Building 200 Southeast Sixth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
