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. During times material herein, Respondent, George May, was a licensed real estate broker (License No. 00056693) whose principal business address is 2300 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 202, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311. On April 24, 1980, George Aro, a licensed real estate salesman, was employed by Respondent and entered into an employment agreement whereby salesman Aro, while acting in his capacity as a real estate salesman, would receive a sixty percent (60 percent) share of commission fees paid when salesman Aro was the procuring cause of a realty transaction which resulted in the payment of a commission. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On August 29, 1980, salesman Aro discussed, negotiated, and obtained a contract for purchase whereby Peter Licato agreed to purchase a vacant lot in Palm Beach County, Florida. The transaction closed during September, 1980, with Respondent receiving a commission of approximately $300.00 on the Licato transaction. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Pursuant to the employment agreement entered between Respondent and salesman Aro, Messr. Aro demanded his pro-rata share of the commission paid, which was received by Respondent. Respondent refuses to account for, or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro any portion of the commission received from the Licato transaction. On August 9, 1980, salesman Aro, while acting in his capacity as salesman with Respondent, negotiated and obtained a contract of the sale of a vacant lot in Palm Beach County, Florida from seller, Mrs. Nicholas Deickmann to purchaser, Hooshang Abid. The transaction closed sometime during September of 1980, and Respondent received a commission of approximately $330.00. Pursuant to the party's employment agreement, salesman Aro demanded his pro-rata share of the commission received, and Respondent refuses to remit or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro his portion of the commission received. In this regard the Respondent does not dispute and stipulated that salesman Aro was the procuring cause of the above-referred-to transactions, and admits that the commissions were received. Respondent's Defense Respondent defended his failure to account for or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro commissions received from the above transactions on the theory that salesman Aro failed to attend the closings of the above transactions, or that salesman Aro obligated his firm to pay certain expenses which were connected with the closing, which were not authorized. Respondent's defense was considered by the undersigned and rejected for lack of proof. Moreover, the undersigned advised Respondent during the hearing herein that the proper procedure to seek redress from salesman Aro for those claims asserted herein, which were not a part of the subject administrative complaint, is through the filing of a written complaint properly executed, with the Board of Real Estate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's real estate broker's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1981, 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 25th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Huskins, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George May 2300 West Oakland Park Blvd. Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311
The Issue The issues in these two cases are whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints, by (1) failing to return a rental deposit to a potential tenant; (2) serving as the qualifying broker for Friendly International Realty, Inc. (“Friendly”), but failing to actively supervise Friendly’s operations and/or sales associates; failing to preserve Friendly’s transaction records and escrow account documents; and (4) acting in a manner that constitutes culpable negligence or a breach of trust. If there was a violation, an additional issue would be what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency that regulates the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. King is a licensed real estate broker registered with the Department (license numbers BK 3203595, 3261628, 3293588, 3306619, 3335771, 3354773, and 3363985). Ms. King is registered with the Department as the qualifying broker for 16 brokerages located throughout the state of Florida. At all times relevant to this case, Ms. King’s registered address with the Department was 4430 Park Boulevard North, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Friendly International Realty, LLC Friendly was a Florida licensed real estate corporation, holding license number CQ 1040825. Records reflect that James Berthelot was the registered agent for Friendly at the time of incorporation, June 2011. At all times relevant, Mr. Berthelot was a licensed Real Estate Sales Associate (license number SL 3226474) registered with Friendly. In May 2014, Respondent drafted and entered into a Limited Qualifying Broker Agreement (“Broker Agreement”) with Friendly and its owner, Ivania De La Rocha.2/ Friendly and Ms. King entered into the Broker Agreement, “in order to comply with the requirements of the Florida Department of [Business and] Professional Regulation.” Under the terms of the Broker Agreement, Respondent was not paid by Friendly per transaction. Rather, Respondent agreed to serve as the “Corporate Broker of Record” in exchange for a payment of $300 a month “as a flat fee for any and all real estate business conducted by [Friendly].” The Broker Agreement also provided for a “late fee” penalty if Friendly was delinquent in this monthly payment. Section 1.1 of the Broker Agreement outlined Respondent’s duties to Friendly, requiring her to: (1) keep her and Friendly’s licenses active and in good standing under Florida law; (2) keep her other business interests separate from those involving Friendly’s interests; and (3) provide Friendly notice of any governmental inquiry involving her serving as Friendly’s broker. There was no mention in the Broker Agreement of either Respondent’s or Friendly’s responsibilities regarding oversight of transactions, training for sales associates, or day-to-day operations. Regarding document retention, the Broker Agreement provided: Section 9.0 AUDIT & REVIEW RIGHT: Broker shall have the right to enter [Friendly’s] offices upon reasonable advance written notice to verify compliance with the real estate laws of the State of Florida. There was no evidence that Ms. King ever provided Friendly with the kind of notice described in section 9.0 of the Broker Agreement. Although the Broker Agreement did not prohibit Friendly from holding funds or assets on behalf of third parties, section 10.0 (Miscellaneous) explicitly prohibited Friendly from operating an escrow account. (g) Escrow and Ernest Money Accounts. [Friendly] shall not be permitted to hold any escrow account(s). On July 31, 2014, Ms. King was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, as “manager” of Friendly. Ms. King was the qualifying broker for Friendly (license number BK3303898) from August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2015, and November 4, 2015, through January 13, 2016.3/ During the time Ms. King served as the qualifying broker, Friendly operated from a number of addresses in Miami- Dade County, including 11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 292, Miami, Florida 33181; and 2132 Northeast 123rd Street, Miami, Florida 33181. The office door of the Friendly office located on Northeast 123rd Street was painted in large letters, “FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY” and “ALICIA KING” painted underneath. At the hearing, when asked about Friendly’s address, Ms. King could only confirm that when she became the broker the office was “on Biscayne.” The Biscayne Boulevard address is the one listed on the Broker Agreement. At the hearing, Ms. King was wrong about when the Friendly office had moved from the Biscayne Boulevard to the Northeast 123rd Street location, insisting it was over the Christmas holidays in 2015. Records establish Friendly moved from the Biscayne Boulevard location to the Northeast 123rd Street location sometime between April and July 2014. In January 2016, Ms. King believed the office was still on Biscayne Boulevard. In reality, it had been over a year since the office had relocated to that location. At the hearing, when asked by her own counsel how many transactions a month Friendly handled, Ms. King replied, “That’s hard to say. It was not many at all. Ten, maybe.” Respondent could not give the exact number of employees or sales associates affiliated with Friendly; when asked, she stated she could not remember the exact amount, but knew it was “very limited.” Respondent did not have any agreements or documentation related to how many sales associates were registered under her broker’s license. Respondent could not name any other sales associates affiliated with Friendly while she was the qualifying broker, except for Mr. Berthelot. While she was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Respondent did not perform any of the training for the sales associates at Friendly. Respondent did not have any face-to-face meetings with any Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have phone or e-mail contact with any of the Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have copies of any forms, handbooks, reports or files related to Friendly. All of these documents were in paper form and kept in the Friendly office. Respondent had no access or signatory authority for any of Friendly’s bank accounts. Natalie James was a registered real estate sales associate affiliated with Friendly for approximately five months, from November 2015 through March 2016. Ms. James worked out of the Friendly office and was physically present at the office at least three or four times a week. Ms. James was involved in several rentals and one sales transaction while at Friendly. For each transaction she assembled a file, which was kept in the Friendly office. For rental transactions, Ms. James would negotiate and facilitate lease agreements. When she represented potential tenants, she received deposit funds that she deposited with Friendly. Ms. James attended meetings at Friendly; Ms. King was not present at any of them. Ms. James never had any telephonic, electronic, personal, or other contact with Respondent. While at Friendly, neither Mr. Berthelot nor any of Ms. James’ co-workers mentioned Ms. King to Ms. James. Although Ms. King’s name was on the door of Friendly’s office, Ms. James was unaware Ms. King was Friendly’s broker. There was conflicting testimony as to how often Respondent visited the Friendly office. Ms. King’s testimony at the hearing was at odds with the Department’s evidence and testimony regarding this issue. Ms. King insisted that while she was Friendly’s broker, she would travel from Pinellas Park to the Friendly office once or twice a week. This was not believable for a number of reasons. First, had Ms. King visited Friendly’s office as often as she stated, she would have known about the change in location; she did not. Second, Ms. King could not give one concrete date or detail about her travels to the Friendly office. Third, and most compelling, was the testimony of Ms. James (who worked at Friendly for at least two months while Ms. King was its broker) that she had never seen, communicated with, or heard mention of Ms. King while at Friendly. Ms. James’ unbiased and compelling testimony alone supports a finding that Ms. King did not visit the Friendly office as frequently as she indicated. Ms. King was aware that Friendly and Mr. Berthelot provided rental or “tenant placement” services.4/ Friendly collected security deposits and other move-in funds from potential renters and held them in an escrow account. Ms. King was not aware Friendly had an escrow account until January 2016 when she was contacted by the Department in an unrelated case. On January 13, 2016, Respondent resigned with the Department as the qualifying broker for Friendly effective that same day. On January 14, 2016, Respondent filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for operating an escrow account and collecting deposit funds without her knowledge. Facts Related to the Viton Case In November 2015, during the time Ms. King was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Christian Viton signed a lease agreement to rent an apartment located in Miami at 460 Northeast 82nd Terrace, Unit 8 (“Viton transaction”). The Viton lease agreement listed Friendly as the holder of the deposit monies and required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds to the owner of the property. Pursuant to the terms of the Viton lease agreement, Mr. Viton remitted an initial deposit of $500, and received a written receipt from Friendly dated November 2, 2015. Mr. Viton gave Friendly a second deposit of $380, and received a written receipt dated November 4, 2015. Mr. Viton never moved into the apartment and demanded a refund of his deposit from Friendly. On December 8, 2015, Friendly issued a check to Mr. Viton in the amount of $530. Three days later, Friendly issued a stop-payment order on the $530 check to Mr. Viton. On February 29, 2016, Mr. Viton filed a complaint with the Department seeking a return of the $880 he had given to Friendly. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation into Mr. Viton’s complaint and contacted Respondent. Upon learning about the Viton complaint, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot who admitted Friendly had stopped payment on the $530 refund check, but had reissued the full amount of the deposit to a third-party not named on the lease. There is no evidence Mr. Viton ever received a refund of his $880 deposit. Facts Related to Dorestant Case In June 2015, during the time Ms. King served as Friendly’s qualifying broker, Cindy Dorestant entered into a lease agreement to rent a condominium located at 1540 West 191 Street, Unit 110 (“Dorestant transaction”). In the lease, Friendly was listed as the “broker” and holder of the deposit; TIR Prime Properties (“TIR”) was listed as the owner’s agent. The Dorestant lease agreement required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Pursuant to the terms of the Dorestant lease agreement, Ms. Dorestant gave Friendly $1,050 as an initial deposit, and received a written receipt dated June 24, 2015. In late July 2015, Ms. Dorestant contacted TIR’s property manager and sales agent to ask for information about the status of her move into the condominium. TIR explained to Ms. Dorestant that Friendly had not conveyed any of monies collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Both Ms. Dorestant and TIR attempted to contact Friendly, but Friendly was non-responsive. The TIR sales associate relayed this information to TIR’s broker, Mariano Saal, who in turn tried to reach Friendly to resolve the issue. Eventually, TIR was told by Mr. Berthelot that Friendly would release the move-in funds to TIR and that Mr. Berthelot would schedule the move-in. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly, nor did Mr. Berthelot facilitate Ms. Dorestant’s move into the condominium. On August 31, 2015, Mr. Saal contacted Mr. Berthelot and informed him that if TIR did not receive the move-in funds for the Dorestant transaction by 5:00 p.m. that day, it would be required to find another tenant. Ms. Dorestant did not move into the condominium and demanded a refund from Friendly and TIR. On September 14, 2015, Mr. Saal sent an e-mail to what he believed was Respondent’s address, demanding the $1,050 from Friendly because it considered Ms. Dorestant’s failure to move into the property a default of the lease agreement. Respondent, however, did not have access to Friendly’s e-mails. The e-mail was also sent to Mr. Berthelot, and Ms. De La Rocha. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly for the Dorestant transaction. After discovering she could not move into the condominium because Friendly had not transferred the deposit to TIR, Ms. Dorestant demanded a refund of her deposit monies from Friendly. She did not receive it. On February 10, 2016, Mariano Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, filed a complaint against Mr. Berthelot and Friendly with the Department regarding the Dorestant transaction. Ms. Dorestant initially did not receive a refund from Friendly and, therefore, filed a police report against Mr. Berthelot and sued him in small claims court. Eventually, Mr. Berthelot refunded Ms. Dorestant her deposit monies. Department Investigations of Friendly Upon receiving the Viton complaint, the Department assigned the case (DPBR Case No. 2016018731) to Erik Lluy, an Investigator Specialist II in the Miami field office. Similarly, on or around the same time the Department received the Dorestant complaint; it was also assigned to Mr. Lluy (DPBR Case No. 2016018069). On April 25, 2016, Mr. Lluy officially notified Ms. King of each of the complaints. On May 25, 2016, the Department transferred both the Viton and Dorestant complaints from Mr. Lluy to Percylla Kennedy. Ms. King provided a written response to both complaints via e-mail to Mr. Lluy on May 26, 2016. At that time, Mr. Lluy indicated the case had been transferred to Ms. Kennedy and copied Ms. Kennedy on the response. Ms. Kennedy was familiar with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. In January 5, 2016, she had conducted an investigation of Friendly in an unrelated complaint filed against Friendly by Borys Bilan (“Bilan complaint”). As part of the investigation into the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy arrived at the Friendly office address registered with the Department on Biscayne Boulevard to conduct an official office inspection. When she arrived, however, she found the office vacant. As a result, that same day Ms. Kennedy contacted the registered qualifying broker for Friendly–-Ms. King-–by phone. During that call, Ms. Kennedy asked Ms. King where Friendly’s office was located, but Ms. King did not know. Eventually, Ms. Kennedy determined the Friendly office had relocated to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Ms. Kennedy testified that during this call, Ms. King admitted to her that she had not been to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent testified she did not tell Ms. Kennedy this and as proof insisted that the January call was inconsequential and “a very short call.” The undersigned rejects Respondent’s version of events and finds Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and report regarding the January 2016 interview more reliable. First, although Ms. King describes the conversation as occurring on January 7, 2016, both Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and the Inspection Report establish the conversation occurred on January 5, 2016. Second, Respondent’s characterization of the call as inconsequential contradicts her own May 26, 2016, written response to the Department in which Ms. King outlines a number of substantive issues discussed during this phone conversation, including: the nature of Friendly’s practice, whether Friendly had an escrow account, the type of payment accepted by Friendly, and the address of Friendly’s office. After speaking with Ms. King about the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy conducted the inspection at Friendly’s Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent was not present when Investigator Kennedy conducted the office inspection. Ms. Kennedy then e-mailed the Office Inspection form to Respondent. As a result of the January 5, 2016, phone conversation with Ms. Kennedy, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot about the Bilan complaint. On January 13, 2016, Mr. Berthelot provided Ms. King with the transaction file related to the Bilan complaint. When Ms. King reviewed the lease agreement, she realized that Friendly was holding deposit funds in escrow. As a result, on December 13, 2016, Ms. King filed a resignation letter with the Department explaining she was no longer the qualifying broker for Friendly. Ms. King did not ask Mr. Berthelot or anyone else at Friendly for any other transaction records at this time, nor did she make any effort to review any of Friendly’s transaction files to determine whether Friendly had obtained other deposit funds or conducted other transactions similar to the one that was the subject of the Bilan complaint. After having knowledge of the Bilan complaint and transaction, and suspecting Friendly had been operating an escrow account, Ms. King made no immediate effort to access the operating or escrow bank accounts or reconcile the escrow account. After resigning as Friendly’s qualifying broker with the Department, Ms. King filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for unlicensed activity involving an escrow deposit.5/ Despite no longer being Friendly’s qualifying broker, on January 21, 2016, Ms. King executed and sent back to Ms. Kennedy the Inspection Report related to the Bilan complaint. Five months later, on or around May 25, 2016, Ms. Kennedy notified Ms. King she was taking over the investigation into the Viton and Dorestant cases. Ms. Kennedy testified that as part of her investigation into the Viton and Dorestant complaints, she interviewed Respondent again. Respondent denies she was interviewed by Ms. Kennedy regarding the Viton and Dorestant complaints, and instead insists she was only interviewed in January 2016 in connection with the Bilan complaint. Ms. King testified she believed Ms. Kennedy lied about interviewing her more than once because Ms. Kennedy was “lazy.” The undersigned rejects this assertion. Ms. Kennedy’s testimony was specific, knowledgeable, and credible, unlike Ms. King’s testimony, which was intentionally vague. Moreover, Ms. Kennedy specifically attributes her findings to specific sources such as Ms. King’s written response, her interview with Ms. King relating to the Viton and Dorestant transactions, and to her previous conversation with Ms. King during the Bilan investigation. The citations to information gleaned from the January 5, 2016, call were marked by the following sub-note. SUBJECT was previously interviewed by this Investigator in January 2016 for the unrelated complaint and was unaware that FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY LLC had moved from license location 11900 Biscayne Blvd.[,] Suite 292 Miami, FL 33181 to 2132 NE 123ST[,] Miami, FL 33181 (See Ex. 9). At that time, SUBJECT was unable to provide the transaction file. Ms. Kennedy would have no reason to fabricate the source of the conclusions she reached in her report or the number of times she contacted Ms. King. Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Viton complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Mr. Viton and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016. In this report, Ms. Kennedy determined that on February 25, 2016, Friendly issued a check in the amount of $875 to a person who was not listed on either the lease agreement, the receipts Friendly issued to Mr. Viton, or any other paperwork. Similarly, Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Dorestant complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Ms. Dorestant and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016, indicating Ms. Dorestant did eventually receive a refund. During the course of the Viton investigation, Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Viton transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. During the course of the Dorestant investigation Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Dorestant transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. Professional Standards Mr. Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, testified he had served as a broker for approximately ten years. As TIR’s qualifying broker, he kept the documentation related to the transactions handled by TIR’s six sales associates. The testimony of the TIR sales associate and property manager established that they relied on Mr. Saal for advice and to resolve issues. For example, when Ms. Dorestant began contacting TIR’s sales associate and property manager regarding the move-in and then for a refund of her deposit, the sales associate went to Mr. Saal to discuss the situation. Mr. Saal then attempted to resolve the issue by attempting to communicate with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in brokerages, reviewed the Department’s investigative files and reports relating to the Viton and Dorestant complaints, as well as applicable Florida Statutes and rules. Mr. Trafton’s testimony and report established that in Florida the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to others. Petitioner showed that Mr. Viton was entitled to a refund of his deposit from Friendly and that Respondent erred in not ensuring he received this refund. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. “Active supervision” is not defined by statute or rule, but by usual and customary practices exercised statewide. “Active supervision” requires a broker to: have regular communications with all sales associates, not just communicating when there is a complaint; be aware of problems, issues and procedures in the office and among sales associates; have access to and signatory power on all operating and escrow accounts; hold regular scheduled office/sales meetings; conduct in–person training meetings; provide guidance and advice for sales associates; be intimately involved in how transaction forms and other documents are stored and retrieved; and be available to provide advice and direction on short notice. In other words, a broker should set the tone at the brokerage by overseeing her sales associates’ conduct of transactions. Ms. King failed to manage, direct, and control her real estate sales associate, Mr. Berthelot, to the standard expected of a qualifying broker in both the Viton and Dorestant transactions, if not all of Friendly’s transactions. She did not actively supervise Mr. Berthelot as a sales associate. Mr. Trafton also testified that a broker, not the brokerage, is ultimately responsible for preserving transaction files, forms related to transactions, and other related documents. Although less certain than Mr. Trafton about whether a broker or the brokerage firm is responsible for preservation of transaction files, Mr. Saal testified “the broker is responsible for the . . . transactions. It’s [the broker’s] client at the end of the day.” Ms. King failed to preserve accounts and records relating to Friendly’s accounts, the files related to the Viton and Dorestant rental transactions, or any other documents related to Friendly. Petitioner also clearly established that Respondent was guilty of either “culpable negligence” or “breach of trust” in the Viton or Dorestant transaction. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Viton complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,625.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Dorestant complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,608.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Case No. 17-3989 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint in the Viton case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling $2,500 ($500 fine per count for Counts I, II and III; and $1,000 fine for Count IV). Imposing license suspension for a total period of nine months (one-month suspensions each for Counts I, II, and III; and a six-month suspension for Count IV). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,625.25. Case No. 17-3961 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint in the Dorestant case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling of $2,000 ($500 fine per count for Counts I and II; and $1,000 fine for Count III). Imposing license suspension for a total period of eight months to be imposed consecutive to the suspension in Case No. 17-3989 (one-month suspensions each for Counts I and II; and a six-month suspension for Count III). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,608.75. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 25th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been a licensed real estate sales associate since 2000. His license number is 693538. Most of Petitioner’s work in the real estate industry has involved business transactions, but he has also handled transactions involving residential properties. On August 23, 2004, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate broker. Petitioner disclosed in the application that, in July 2003, his sales associate license was suspended by the Commission for 30 days and that he was placed on probation for a period of six months. That disciplinary action was based upon a single incident that occurred on or about November 7, 2001. Petitioner agreed to the disciplinary action as part of a “Stipulation” to resolve an Administrative Complaint charging him with fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), and with having operated as a broker without a license in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2001). The Administrative Complaint contained the following “essential allegations of material fact,” which were admitted by Petitioner as part of the Stipulation: On or about November 7, 2001, Respondent, a seller’s agent, facilitated a purchase and sale transaction between Buyer and Seller. On or about November 7, 2001, [Petitioner] was not registered with a broker.[1] The transaction referenced above failed to close. Buyer released a $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] submitted the $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] instructed [Seller] to execute a check in the amount of $500.00 payable to “Cash.”[2] [Petitioner] accepted the $500.00 payment as his own payment for services. The Final Order adopting the Stipulation was filed with the agency clerk on June 25, 2003. Petitioner’s suspension commenced on July 25, 2003, which is “thirty days from the date of filing of the Final Order.” The suspension ended 30 days later, on August 24, 2003. Petitioner’s probation ran “for a period of six (6) months from the Effective Date [of the Stipulation],” which was defined as the date that the Final Order was filed with the agency clerk. As a result, the probation period ran from June 25, 2003, to December 25, 2003. Petitioner was required to complete a three-hour ethics course and a four-hour escrow management course during the probation period, which he did. Petitioner has not been subject to any other disciplinary action. Petitioner has taken several continuing education courses in addition to those required as part of his probation. He is working towards certification by the Graduate Realtor Institute. Petitioner has taken the classes necessary to become a real estate broker, and he passed the broker examination. Petitioner has worked for broker Phillip Wetter since March 2005. Petitioner manages the day-to-day operation of Mr. Wetter’s brokerage firm. His responsibilities include preparing listings, negotiating contracts, and handling escrow funds. He has been involved in over 50 successful real estate transactions under Mr. Wetter’s supervision. According to Mr. Wetter, Petitioner is meticulous in his work, including his handling of escrow funds, and he always makes sure that he “dots all his ‘I’s’ and crosses all his ‘T’s’.” Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing that what he did in November 2001 was wrong. He credibly testified that he has learned from his mistake. In his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing, Mr. Wetter attested to Petitioner’s honesty, ethics, good moral character, as well as his qualifications to be a broker. That testimony was unrebutted and is corroborated by the letters of support from Petitioner’s former clients that are contained in his application file, Exhibit R1. Mr. Wetter’s opinions regarding Petitioner’s fitness for licensure as a real estate broker are given great weight. Those opinions are based not only on his personal observations as Petitioner’s current qualifying broker, but also on his personal experience with Petitioner representing him in several business transactions while Petitioner was working for other brokers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order approving Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 22nd day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, violated provisions of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the Department), is the state agency responsible for licensing and monitoring real estate sales associates within the state. It is charged also with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints for violations of the law by real estate sales associates. Respondent, Caroline Mohan (Ms. Mohan), is a licensed real estate sales associate who holds License No. 3087231. She was registered as a sales associate with Coral Shores Realty (Coral Shores) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from September 12, 2005, to March 28, 2008. At all times relevant to the charges against her, Ms. Mohan was the Coral Shores sales associate who was the listing agent for Anthony Mannarino, the seller of property located at 10530 Versailles Boulevard, Wellington, Florida (the "subject property"). At closing, Coral Shores was to have received at 2.5 percent commission and pay a portion of the commission to Ms. Mohan. Dawn Campbell and Garth Smith (the buyers) entered into a Residential Sale and Purchase Contract (the Contract) to purchase the subject property from Mr. Mannarino. Pursuant to the contract, the buyers were to deposit $10,000 in an escrow account in two $5,000 installments. The Contract was signed on or about March 12, 2007. The transactions took place electronically and Mr. Smith sent Ms. Mohan a photocopy of a $5,000 check that he was supposed to have deposited, under the terms of the contract, in the account of Closings Unlimited Title Company (Closings Unlimited), but he never sent the check to Closings Unlimited. The seller asked Ms. Mohan to have the buyer use a different escrow agent, Southeast Land Title (Southeast), and so the buyer wired $5,000.00 to Southeast, but the Contract was not amended to reflect the name of the new escrow agent. A $5,000 deposit was sent to Southeast by the buyers, but they never paid the $5,000 balance due on the deposit. Mr. Smith testified the he could not make the second payment because he gave $5,000 in cash to an employee to deposit in his account so that he could make a wire transfer, but the employee took the money. On April 3, 2007, Southeast faxed a notice to Coral Shores, with an attached letter to the buyers, informing them of its intention to respond to a demand (presumably by the seller) to release the $5,000 held in escrow related to the subject property. As a result of a complaint filed by Dorothy Hoyt, a representative of Southeast, the matter was investigated and an Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Mohan personally received funds, fraudulently failed to account for those funds, and acted, without the proper license, as a broker by accepting the deposit. The Department's investigator testified that he was never able to determine if the escrow deposit was deposited at any bank, lending institution or with Dorothy Hoyt of Southeast Land Title of Boca Raton. He "believe[s] there was a wire for one deposit made, but [he] did not receive confirmation of that." Regarding his conversations with Ms. Hoyt, the investigator reported "she did state that . . . she had received - eventually received $5,000.00 and was still waiting [for] another $5,000.00 in order to have the full $10,000.00 deposit." In his report, the Department's investigator claimed that Respondent was terminated from employment by her Coral Shores broker, Ronald Cika, as a result of her misconduct in handling transactions related to the subject property. That claim was contradicted by Mr. Cika and by Ms. Mohan. Their testimony was supported by the contents of e-mails between his office and Respondent that show that she became inactive as a realtor while traveling overseas with an offer to reactivate with the same broker upon her return. Mr. Cika testified that he is aware of a lawsuit filed by Dawn Campbell related to a different address on the same street, 10526 Versailles Boulevard, but that he is not aware of any issues related to 10530 Versailles Boulevard, the subject property. Jannet Rodriguez, owner of Closings Unlimited, testified that she was never contacted and never opened a file to serve as either an escrow or closing agent for the subject property at 10530 Versailles Boulevard. She, too, is involved only in issues related to 10526 Versailles Boulevard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, dismissing the complaint against Respondent, Caroline Mohan. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 12th day of June, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the "formal hearing," and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October of 2000, a licensed real estate sales associate in the State of Florida, holding license number 695252. He is currently associated with AAA Realty, Inc., a broker corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida. From March 1, 2001, through June 26, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Allen Real Estate, Inc. (Allen), a broker corporation doing business in St. Lucie County, Florida. From June 27, 2001, through August 13, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Realty Unlimited, Inc. (Unlimited), a broker corporation (affiliated with GMAC Real Estate) with offices in Port St. Lucie and Stuart, Florida. Unlimited is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, owned by Kevin Schevers, a Florida-licensed real estate broker. Gary Sprauer is a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate. He is currently associated with Unlimited. Like Respondent, Mr. Sprauer began his association with Unlimited on June 27, 2001, immediately after having worked for Allen. Respondent and Mr. Sprauer worked as "partners" at both Allen and Unlimited. They had an understanding that the commissions they each earned would be "split 50-50" between them. On February 7, 2001, Allen, through the efforts of Respondent and Mr. Sprauer, obtained an exclusive listing contract (Listing Contract) giving it, for the period of a year, the "exclusive right to sell," in a representative capacity, commercial property located at 3800 South Federal Highway that was owned by Vincent and Renee Piazza (Piazza Property). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Listing Contract addressed the subjects of "compensation," "cooperation with other brokers," and "dispute resolution," respectively, and provided, in pertinent part as follows as follows: COMPENSATION: Seller will compensate Broker as specified below for procuring a buyer who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property or any interest in the Property on the terms of this Agreement or on any other terms acceptable to Seller. Seller will pay Broker as follows (plus applicable sales tax): 8% of the total purchase price or $15,000 maximum, no later than the date of closing specified in the sales contract. However closing is not a prerequisite for Broker's fee being earned. * * * (d) Broker's fee is due in the following circumstances: (1) If any interest in the Property is transferred . . . , regardless of whether the buyer is secured by Broker, Seller or any other person. * * * COOPERATION WITH OTHER BROKERS: Broker's office policy is to cooperate with all other brokers except when not in the Seller's best interest, and to offer compensation to: Buyer's agents, who represent the interest of the buyer and not the interest of Seller in a transaction, even if compensated by Seller or Broker Nonrepresentatives Transaction brokers. None of the above (if this box is checked, the Property cannot be placed in the MLS). * * * 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: This Agreement will be construed under Florida law. All controversies, claim and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be settled by first attempting mediation under the rules of the American Arbitration Association or other mediator agreed upon by the parties. . . . Shortly after they left the employ of Allen and began working for Unlimited, Respondent and Mr. Sprauer showed Nicholas Damiano the Piazza Property. Mr. Damiano thereafter made a written offer to purchase the Piazza Property, which the Piazzas accepted, in writing, on July 4, 2001. The sales price was $165,000.00. Mr. Damiano put down a $10,000.00 deposit, which, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the contract between Mr. Damiano and the Piazzas (Sales Contract), was "held in escrow by [Unlimited]." The obligations of Unlimited, as escrow agent, were described in paragraph 6 of the Sales Contract, which provided as follows: ESCROW. Buyer and Seller authorize GMAC, Realty Unlimited Telephone: . . . Facsimile: . . . Address: . . . to receive funds and other items and, subject to clearance, disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Escrow Agent will deposit all funds received in a non- interest bearing account. If Escrow Agent receives conflicting demands or has a good faith doubt as to Escrow Agent's duties or liabilities under this Contract, he/she may hold the subject matter of the escrow until the parties mutually agree to its disbursement or until issuance of a court order or decision of arbitrator determining the parties' rights regarding the escrow or deposit the subject matter of the escrow with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the dispute. Upon notifying the parties of such action, Escrow Agent will be released from all liability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow. If a licensed real estate broker, Escrow Agent will comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In any suit or arbitration in which Escrow Agent is made a party because of acting as agent hereunder or interpleads the subject matter of the escrow, Escrow Agent will recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at all levels, with such fees and costs to be paid from the escrowed funds or equivalent and charged and awarded as court or other costs in favor of the prevailing party. The parties agree that Escrow Agent will not be liable to any person for misdelivery to Buyer or Seller of escrowed items, unless the misdelivery is due to Escrow Agent's willful breach of this Contract or gross negligence. Paragraph 12 of the Sales Contract addressed the subject of "brokers" and provided as follows: BROKERS. Neither Buyer nor Seller has utilized the services of, or for any other reason owes compensation to, a licensed real estate broker other than: Listing Broker: Allen Real Estate, Inc. who is a transaction broker and who will be compensated by x Seller _ Buyer _ both parties pursuant to x a listing agreement _ other (specify) Cooperating Broker: GMAC Realty Unlimited who is a transaction broker who will compensated by _ Buyer x Seller _ both parties pursuant to _ an MLS or other offer of compensation to a cooperating broker _ other (specify) (collectively referred to as "Broker") in connection with any act relating to the Property, included but not limited to, inquiries, introductions, consultations and negotiations resulting in this transaction. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify and hold Broker harmless from and against losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees at all levels, and from liability to any person, arising from (1) compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this Paragraph, (2) enforcement action to collect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10, (3) any duty accepted by Broker at the request of Buyer or Seller, which duty is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475, F.S., as amended, or (4) recommendations of or services provided and expenses incurred by any third party whom Broker refers, recommends or retains for or on behalf of Buyer or Seller. The Damiano/Piazza transaction was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2001. At the request of the Piazzas, the closing was rescheduled for August 7, 2001. A few days before August 7, 2001, Mr. Sprauer asked Respondent "where the closing was going to take place" and "what title company" would be handling the matter. Respondent replied that the closing was "going to be delayed again because Mr. Damiano . . . was going to have to have some type of cancer surgery." It turned out that the closing was not "delayed again." It took place on August 7, 2001. At the closing were Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, Respondent, and the closing agent from the title company, First American Title Insurance Company (First American).3 Neither Mr. Schevers, nor Mr. Sprauer, was in attendance. Mr. Sprauer did not even know that the closing was taking place. He was under the impression, based on what Respondent had told him, that the closing had been postponed. Had he not been misinformed, he would have attended the closing. Respondent did not contact Mr. Sprauer following the closing to let him know that, in fact, the closing had occurred. Mr. Schevers, on the other hand, was made aware that closing would be held on August 7, 2001. He was unable to attend because he had "prior commitments." It was Respondent who informed Mr. Schevers of the August 7, 2001, closing date. The morning of August 7, 2001, Respondent went to Unlimited's Stuart office and asked Mr. Schevers for the $10,000.00 Unlimited was holding in escrow in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction, explaining that he needed it for the closing that was going to be held later that day. Before complying with Respondent's request, Mr. Schevers contacted First American and asked that he be faxed a copy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement (HUD Statement) that First American had prepared for the closing. As requested, First American faxed a copy of the HUD Statement to Mr. Schevers. Upon reviewing the document, Mr. Schevers "immediately noticed that [it indicated that] the entire commission [of $7,000.00] was going to Allen." Mr. Schevers "then proceeded to call First American" and asked why Unlimited was not "reflected on this settlement statement." Mr. Schevers was told that a First American representative "would get right on it and get back to [him]." Mr. Schevers did not wait to hear back from First American before handing an "escrow check" in the amount of $10,000.00 to Respondent. He instructed Respondent, however, to "not give anybody this check unless that statement [the HUD Statement] [was] changed and reflect[ed] [Unlimited's]" share of the commission earned from the sale of the Piazza Property. He further directed Respondent to telephone him if this change was not made. Respondent did not follow the instructions Mr. Schevers had given him. He delivered the $10,000.00 "escrow check" to the closing agent at the closing, even though the HUD Statement had not been changed to reflect Unlimited's sharing of the commission. At no time during the closing did Mr. Schevers receive a telephone call from Respondent. According to the HUD Statement that Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, and the closing agent signed at the closing, Allen received a commission of $7,000.00 "from seller's funds at settlement." The document makes no mention of any other commission having been paid as part of the closing. On or about August 9, 2001, Respondent received a "commission check" from Allen. The check was made payable to Respondent and was in the amount of $3,000.00. Under the "DOLLARS" line on the check, the following was typed: 4200 Total Comm[4] 1200 ADVANCE[5] Typed next to "MEMO" on the bottom left hand corner of the check was "DAMIANO-PIAZZA 165,000 S&L." It has not been shown that the "commission check" Respondent received from Allen was for anything other than the commission Allen owed Respondent for services performed when Respondent was still employed by Allen. Mr. Schevers' consent to Respondent's receiving this $3,000.00 "commission check" was neither sought nor given. Less than a week after the closing, having spotted Mr. Damiano mowing grass on a vacant lot that Mr. Damiano owned, Mr. Sprauer walked up to him and asked "how his surgery [had gone]." Mr. Damiano "acted very surprised [like] he didn't know what [Mr. Sprauer] was talking about." Mr. Damiano's reaction to his inquiry led Mr. Sprauer to believe "that the closing had probably taken place." He "immediately contacted [Mr. Schevers] and asked him to check into it." Mr. Schevers subsequently learned from First American that Allen "had gotten all of the [commission] check" at the closing. Mr. Schevers then telephoned Respondent. This was the first communication he had had with Respondent since before the closing. Respondent told Mr. Schevers that "he got the check" and "he would be right over with it." Respondent, however, did not keep his promise. After his telephone conversation with Respondent, Mr. Schevers discovered that Allen "had cut [Respondent] a check and [Respondent] had gone immediately and deposited it." This discovery prompted Mr. Schevers to place another telephone call to Respondent. This telephone conversation ended with Mr. Schevers telling Respondent "he was terminated." Mr. Schevers thereafter notified Petitioner in writing that Respondent was no longer associated with Unlimited. He also filed with Petitioner a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction. Mr. Schevers had expected Unlimited to receive, for the role it played in the Damiano/Piazza transaction, "50 percent of the total commission," or $3,500.00, in accordance with the provisions of the "multiple listing service for St. Lucie County."6 He holds Respondent responsible, at least in part, for Unlimited's not receiving these monies.7 At the time of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, Unlimited had contracts with its sales associates which provided that the associates would receive "70 percent of the net" of any commission Unlimited earned as a result of the associates' efforts. Had Unlimited received a commission as a result of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, it would have "split" it with Respondent and Mr. Sprauer as required by the contracts it had with them.8
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in the instant case in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of July, 2004.
The Issue At issue herein is whether respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined for-the alleged violations set forth in the administrative complaint. Based upon all of the evidence, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Juan Rios, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0155126 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Victoria R. Rios, is a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0331183 by petitioner. The Rios are husband and wife and presently reside at 855 80th Street, #1, Miami Beach, Florida. On December 13, 1982, Juan Rios obtained a six-month multiple listing agreement to sell a house located in Hacienda Estates at 11451 S.W. 33rd Lane, Miami, Florida. The agreement was executed by Rios "As Realtor" and by the property owner, Mercedes Garcia. At Mercedes' request, the Rios placed an initial sales price of $145,000 on the home. On December 15, a similar agreement was executed by Rios and Garcia on condominium unit 9B, Laguna Club Condominium, 10710 N. W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. That property was also owned by Garcia. Although the agreement introduced into evidence does not contain Rios' signature, at final hearing Juan Rios acknowledged that he had executed such an agreement. The listing agreements provided that if the properties were leased during the term of the agreements, the listing realtor would receive a brokerage fee of 10% for such leasing. The agreement also provided that the realtors were not responsible for vandalism, theft or damage of any nature to the property. Garcia is a native and resident of Venezuela, where she owns a radio station. The two properties in question were previously owned by her father. When the father died, apparently sometime in 1982, Mercedes inherited the house and condominium. The Rios were friends of the father, and agreed to list and manage the properties as a favor to the deceased. Mercedes left the country after the agreements were signed, and has apparently not returned. Although she is the complainant who initiated this matter, she did not appear at final hearing. The house at 11451 S. W. 33rd Lane had been vandalized prior to the listing agreement being signed. According to documents introduced into evidence, the property has also been the subject of subsequent vandalisms, the nature and extent of which are unknown. A tenant was eventually procured by Mercedes' aunt in February, 1983 at a monthly rate of $800. The tenant, a Mrs. Ramirez, paid some $4,800 in rents and deposits before she was killed at the home in June, 1983. The Rios spent some $2,644.36 of the $4,800 on repairs to the vandalism and for general maintenance. They also retained a 10% commission for their services, or $480. That left $1,675.64 owed to Mercedes. No lease was apparently ever signed by Ramirez, or at least none was given to the Rios by the relative who procured the tenant. The home was eventually sold to Mercedes' aunt for $85,000.1 None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. The condominium unit was rented in June, 1983. The tenant, Oscar Ruiz, had answered an advertisement run by the Rios in a local newspaper. Although Ruiz executed a lease to rent the unit at a monthly rate of $500, the Rios did not have a copy of same, and claimed none was kept in their records. According to the Rios, Ruiz continued to rent the unit through April, 1984, or for eleven months. Total monies collected by the Rios from Ruiz, including a $500 security deposit, were $6,000, of which $3,364.86 was spent for maintenance, utilities, two mortgage payments, and a $500 payment to the owner (Mercedes). An additional $40.33 was spent on a plumbing bill, and $600 was retained as a commission by the Rios. This left $2,724.53 owed to Mercedes. None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. In the spring of 1984, Mercedes retained the services of an attorney in Miami to seek her monies due from the Rios. Up to then, she had received no income or accounting on the two properties. The attorney wrote the Rios on several occasions beginning in April 1984, asking for a copy of the lease on the condominium unit, the security deposit, an accounting of the funds, and all other documents relating to the two, properties. He received his first reply from the Rios on May 3, 1984 who advised him that they had attempted to reach Mercedes by telephone on numerous occasions but that she would never return their calls. They explained that rental proceeds had been used to repair vandalism damage and structural defects. When the attorney did not receive the satisfaction that he desired, he filed a civil action against the Rios on October 10, 1984. On October 26, 1984 the Rios sent Mercedes a letter containing an accounting on the two properties reflecting that she was owed $4,400.17 by the Rios. To pay this, they sent a $140 "official check," and a promissory note for the balance to be paid off in 40 monthly installments at 10% interest. They explained that their real estate business had closed, and due to financial problems, they were unable to pay off the monies due any sooner. They also asked that she instruct her attorney to drop the suit. Mercedes rejected this offer and has continued to pursue the civil action. It is still pending in Dade County Circuit Court. At final hearing, the Rios characterized their involvement with Mercedes as a "professional mistake," and one undertaken out of friendship for Mercedes' father. They acknowledged they did not use a trust account on the transactions and that they had used the $4,400 in rental money due Mercedes for their own use. They considered the excess rent proceeds to be compensation for other "services" performed by them on behalf of Mercedes. However, there is no evidence of any such agreement between the parties reflecting that understanding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Juan and Victoria Rios be found guilty as charged in Counts II and III, and be found guilty of culpable negligence and breach of trust in Count I. It is further recommended that Juan Rios' license be suspended for one year and that Victoria Rios' license be suspended for three months. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1986
The Issue Whether Respondent, based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, and dishonest dealing, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on September 30, 1981.
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. Based on admissions, Gary Steinman, Respondent herein, is a registered real estate salesman and holds license number 0084567. During times material to the allegations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent was a registered real estate broker/salesman. During the period from November, 1974, until February of 1977, Respondent was employed by Suncoast Highland Corporation (Suncoast), an owner/developer. From February 25, 1977, and extending through June of 1978, Respondent was employed by Suncoast Highland Realty Corporation, a licensed real estate corporation. For purposes herein, the two (2) corporations are the same. (Tr. 150) 2/ From November of 1974 through June of 1978, in his efforts to induce prospective purchasers to buy lots in a Suncoast development known as Shadow Run, Respondent, in his capacity as a salesman for Suncoast, made the following verbal representations pertaining to the parcels in Shadow Run: Underground utility connections would be used exclusively in the sub- division; That a recreation area would be constructed, including tennis courts and a concrete boat ramp; and That a central water system would be installed by the developer. In November of 1974, Suncoast opened and offered for sale individual residential lots in Shadow Run. Respondent, during his employment with Suncoast is not now nor has he ever served as an officer or director of that corporation. Nor did Respondent formulate or participate in the formulation of policy or development decisions for the corporation. (Testimony of Respondent and C. Thomas Peterson, the President of Suncoast since 1964.) To summarize, Respondent is charged with making certain representations to purchasers or prospective purchasers of lots in Shadow Run Subdivision which allegedly Respondent knew or should have known were false. As stated, one such representation was that underground utilities (electric and telephone) would be installed for all lots in Shadow Run. The testimony and exhibits produced in evidence reveal and Respondent admits, without dispute, that the developer, Suncoast, did make such promises and representations in its initial public offering statement dated September 16, 1974. That public offering statement was in effect when Shadow Run Subdivision opened in November of 1974. The evidence reveals, and Respondent admits that he first learned, on January 15, 1975, that the developer decided not to install underground utilities and therefore would have conventional overhead utilities. C. Thomas Peterson verified that the decision to change utilities was not communicated to Respondent until January 15, 1975. (Tr. 119-120) This fact was also verified by another Suncoast salesman, William Mayer. (Tr. 139) Sue Reed and her husband purchased a lot in Shadow Run during December of 1974, and Respondent was the salesman. Respondent admits and the evidence reveals that Respondent represented to the Reeds, prior to the sale, that underground utilities would be installed in the development. Alfred Vetrano also purchased a lot in Shadow Run and again Respondent was the salesman. Mr. Vetrano first viewed Shadow Run during early 1976. At that tine, the decision had been made by Suncoast not to install underground electric utilities. In fact, overhead utility lines were completely installed in Shadow Run Subdivision at that time. Mr. Vetrano, a trained, licensed plumber, admits that he saw the overhead lines and power poles prior to the time that he purchased his lot sometime during 1976. (Tr. pp. 51-52) Chester C. Fennell also purchased a lot in Shadow Run during approximately March of 1976. (Tr. 92) Respondent sold Mr. Fennell his lot, although from Mr. Fennell's own testimony, he was also receiving certain information about the property in Shadow Run from another salesman, whose name he (Fennell) could not recall. When Mr. Fennell purchased his lot, the decision had been made by Suncoast not to install underground utilities. In fact, Mr. Fennell admits to seeing the overhead electric utilities. James Dovin also purchased a lot in Shadow Run on April 25, 1975. Respondent and another salesman, whose name Mr. Dovin could not recall, sold Mr. Dovin his lot. (Tr. pp. 107-108) According to Dovin, Respondent represented to him during his sales presentation, on or about April 25, 1975, that all underground utilities would be utilized in the development and that a park or recreation facility, including a tennis court and a boat dock and ramp would be built on the property. Mr. Dovin could not recall precisely whether Respondent or another unnamed salesman made representations to him during April of 1975. (Tr. 110- 111) Also, Mr. Dovin could not recall from which of the two (2) offices that were selling lots in Shadow Run, that he obtained the information concerning the subdivision. Nor, in view of the seven (7) year hiatus between the time he purchased the lot and the subject hearing, could Mr. Dovin recall with any specificity, exactly what took place and who made what representations. (Tr. pp. 111-114) Mr. Dovin, like other purchasers who had been told that a central water system would be utilized in the Shadow Run Subdivision, was offered by Suncoast a $1,000.00 credit toward the purchase price for the installation of a well. Concerning the representations allegedly attributed to Respondent respecting the construction of the recreation area with a boat ramp and the tennis courts, Respondent admits to having made these representations. Suncoast's president Peterson indicated his intention to install a boat ramp and tennis courts at the subdivision; however, the actual construction date for these facilities has been postponed on several occasions. In this regard, the evidence reveals that Respondent relayed these representations to prospective purchasers as they were told to him by officials of Suncoast. William Mayer, another Suncoast salesman who was involved in the day-to-day sales presentations at Shadow Run, corroborates Respondent's testimony on the above points. From the outset, it also appears, and the evidence reflects, that the developer in fact intended to construct a central water system for the subdivision. To accomplish their purpose, Suncoast purchased the pipe for transmission of the water to the various lots but later abandoned its efforts to construct a central water system based on cost prospectives and other factors. As a result, Suncoast resold the pipe it had bought to complete the central water system at a loss to the developer. (Testimony of president Peterson) Finally, as noted above, Suncoast gave a $1,000.00 credit to all property owners who had been told that a central water system would be constructed, as a means to help defray the costs of the homeowners in getting a well drilled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Respondent, Gary Steinman, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1992, 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 30th day of June, 1982.
