Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility for regulating the real estate profession in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0189734 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On July 16, 1991, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent which contained certain factual allegations and which charged Respondent with violating certain statutory provisions and rules regulating licensed real estate professionals in the State of Florida. The matter was assigned Case No. 9181335 by Petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearing (DOAH) for formal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Upon being referred to DOAH, the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-4852. On October 31, 1991, a formal hearing was conducted by a DOAH Hearing Officer. The Respondent was represented by counsel at that formal hearing. Following the formal hearing, a Recommended Order was duly entered by the Hearing Officer which contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the proceeding. The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner had proved the violations alleged against Respondent by clear and convincing evidence and recommended that Petitioner impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. On April 3, 1992, Petitioner entered a Final Order that adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended disposition submitted by the Hearing Officer in DOAH Case 91-4852. The Final Order imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. Respondent thereafter appealed the Final Order to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida where it was assigned Case No. 92-01033. On June 3, 1992, Petitioner entered an "Order Granting Stay" which stayed the Final Order pending the appeal. On September 21, 1992, Respondent's appeal was dismissed by order of the Third District Court of Appeal. The Final Order entered by Petitioner on April 3, 1992, was lawfully imposed, is final, and is binding on Respondent. At the time of the formal hearing conducted in this proceeding, Respondent had not paid the $1,000 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852) on April 3, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and of Section 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and which suspends Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson for ten years. It is further recommended that the final order provide that the suspension of Respondent's license be terminated upon her paying the $1,000.00 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852). DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gary, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Cecelia M. Smile 810 Rutland Drive, Apartment 726 Lincoln, Nebraska 68512 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what penalty, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, license number 0646052. On or about July 15, 1996, the Respondent completed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson that was submitted to the Department. Such application posed several questions to be completed by the Respondent by checking boxes "Yes" or "No." Among such questions was the following: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld. This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." In addition to the foregoing, the question also advised the Respondent as follows: Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. After reviewing the foregoing question, the Respondent submitted the answer "No" on his application for licensure. The Respondent represented at hearing that prior to submitting the application he consulted an attorney. The Respondent's application for licensure also contained an affidavit wherein the Respondent, after being sworn, represented that he had carefully read the application and that all answers to same are true and correct. The answer the Respondent gave to the above-described question was not accurate. In fact, in Case No. 87-2661-CF before the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, the Respondent was charged with grand theft of the amount of $4200.00, a felony. The resolution of such charge came when the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere. Thereafter the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years and was directed to pay court costs and restitution. The court withheld adjudication and the Respondent successfully completed all conditions of the probation. At the time of the foregoing plea the Respondent was represented by counsel, was apprised of his rights regarding the charge pending against him, had no prior convictions, and was approximately 19 years of age with satisfactory mental health. The record of the Respondent’s plea and the conditions of his probation have not been sealed nor expunged. The Respondent did not deny the factual allegations in the underlying criminal matter. That is, he has not alleged that the charge of grand theft was untrue. He has asserted that he believed the record would not appear on a background check and that, therefore, he unintentionally failed to disclose the criminal record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy P. Campiglia, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Thomas Payne, Esquire 3780 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33134 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 Whether Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction for which his real estate license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints filed pursuant to, inter alia, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, John Wilson Claffey, is now and was at times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in Florida, having been issued licensed number 0419730. The last license issued was as a salesperson, c/o Venice Properties and Investments, Inc., 628 Cypress Avenue, Venice, Florida. During 1985, Respondent and Mary Lou Retty (Retty), while Respondent was acting as the licensed general contractor in the employ of Venice Construction Management, Inc., entered into a verbal agreement to build five commercial structures (for Retty) in Venice, Florida. The agreement provided that Respondent would charge Retty actual costs plus a supervisory fee for each building. Respondent built the first two buildings as agreed in keeping with the projections he provided Retty. However, a dispute later arose between Respondent and Retty during construction of the third building about some of the billings and other accounting practices with the end result that Retty suspected that Respondent was overcharging by falsifying invoices and purchasing materials which were used for other projects, but were charged to the building he was erecting for Retty. During 1986, Retty filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for Sarasota County, Florida. Retty's object was to recover monies that she suspected Respondent had misappropriated and wrongfully charged to her project. On April 25, 1990 and June 28, 1990, Retty obtained two final judgments. The first judgment ordered Respondent to pay Retty $40,263.47 and the second final judgment ordered him to pay her the sum of $10,263.47 for civil theft, attorney fees and court costs. The interest rate for both judgments was 12% per annum. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4.) During counsel's preparation and discovery for trial, it became evident that Respondent altered several billing invoices which he sought to collect from Retty. Respondent submitted falsified invoices and charged Retty for materials that he used on other projects. Respondent unsuccessfully appealed the final judgments. To date, Respondent has not paid any of the monies he was ordered to pay in the final judgments referenced herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Respondent engaged in proscribed conduct as alleged and that his real estate license be suspended for seven (7) years. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Claffey pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR- Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Wilson Claffey 312 Venice Avenue East #126 Venice, Florida 34292 Darlene F. Keller/Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Hurston Building-North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 1772 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner should be accepted for licensure as a real estate salesman or whether that application for licensure should be denied on account of her past criminal record.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 19, 1989, the Petitioner filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of licensed real estate salespersons and with regulating and controlling entry into that profession in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules. The Petitioner answered question 6 on that application, the question inquiring as to her criminal history, by enclosing a copy of her arrest record and candidly admitting that she had been subjected to criminal prosecution in the past. That arrest record reflected charges of driving under the influence (DUI) to which she plead guilty and was placed on probation for a term of six months in each of two cases. The record also reflected 22 incidents of issuing worthless checks. She was prosecuted for these with the result that adjudication was withheld and the Petitioner was ordered to make restitution and to pay court costs. The criminal record further discloses that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of grand theft in 1985 involving a retail store, apparently Sears, in Pensacola, for which she was adjudicated guilty and placed under community control for one year, ordered to make restitution and to perform six weeks of community service followed by one year of probation. The denial was only based upon the worthless check charges and the 1983 DUI conviction as well as a conviction in Texas occurring in 1981, when the Petitioner was 17 years old. The Petitioner candidly admitted this criminal histor both on her application form and in her testimony at hearing. The Texas charge was not indicated on her application form because the Petitioner had been told by the prosecutor in Texas that the result of her offense would not be of record for purposes of later employment. That charge involved alleged grand theft which was reduced by the prosecution to a charge of disorderly conduct for which she was adjudicated guilty and required to pay a fine and court costs. The factual circumstance in the Texas charge involved the theft of a tube of lipstick and a bottle of nail polish. The Petitioner testified that the prosecutor in San Antonio had told the Petitioner's mother that it was a juvenile offense which would have no effect on her record. With regard to the bad check charges, full restitution was made to all the vendors involved before the matter went before the court for adjudication. Although the criminal records reflect various arrests through 1985 and in 1986 on the worthless check charges, in fact the Petitioner established that the checks were all written in a very short period in the summer of 1985, but were prosecuted at different times, hence the different arrests. The Petitioner is genuinely remorseful about those charges and the related conduct and established that, by way of mitigation, they occurred at a time when she was only 21 years old, was married, but was having marital discord with her then husband, who exerted a great deal of influence in inducing her to issue the worthless checks. They have since become divorced and she is making an effort to better herself and engage in a productive life and career. She freely acknowledges that at the time of the San Antonio, Texas, disorderly conduct conviction she was 17 years old and at the time of the worthless check and grand theft convictions in Florida she was only approximately 21 years of age, was quite immature and having significant personal problems which she has since overcome. She is genuinely sorry for engaging in such conduct and has consistently attempted to improve her life ever since. She has held a number of jobs as waitress and cashier for local restaurants in the Pensacola area and the Navy Club at the Pensacola Naval base. This includes the handling of large sums of money or her employers for which she has an unblemished record, accounting for all monies entrusted to her in an honest, reliable way. This testimony to this effect is borne out by various letters of recommendation which the Respondent stipulated into evidence and in which former employers and friends all uniformly attest to her good reputation and character, all of whom knew of her past criminal history. They unhesitatingly describe her reputation and character as good. Her employers so attesting to her reputation for honesty and good morals attest to the fact that she worked in a capacity as waitress and cashier and successfully and honestly handle their funds. In particular, as a waitress at the Pensacola "Navy Club," she was placed in charge of the bingo concession or activity and served as the cashier for thousands of dollars collected in the course of such activities. She handled and accounted for these large sums of money in an honest, reliable and accurate fashion to the satisfaction of her employer. The Petitioner's one witness aside from herself was Rusty Coleman. He has known the Petitioner for at least three years and they are best friends. He was aware of her past criminal problems because she has told him about them herself. He finds her trustworthy and an honest, decent person who is seeking to better herself and become a reliable, productive citizen and member of society, as evidenced by her pursuing her higher education since the criminal episodes of record. It is noteworthy that although 22 incidents of prosecution for worthless checks appear at first to be a significant level of such miscreant conduct, that all the checks were issued within a short period of time in 1985 when she was under considerable stress due to her unfortunate and successful marriage situation, and related financial difficulties, and the same consideration applies to the issue of the grand theft conviction and the DUI convictions in 1983. Under ordinary circumstances this aggregation of criminal convictions and conduct would appear sufficient to preclude an applicant from licensure approval only four years after the last incident of such conduct, as was reflected in her criminal record. It is noteworthy however, that, in addition to the Petitioner's own credible, candid testimony concerning her genuine change in attitude and attempt to live an honest, productive life, that none of this type of conduct was repeated after the time when she ended her unsuccessful marriage and the related stress it caused in both an emotional and financial sense. She has honestly pursued gainful employment ever since, in positions of trust, handling large sums of money and further has embarked on a higher education career as well as, at the same time, successfully completing and passing her real estate instruction course in an effort to prepare herself for a productive, honorable profession. Under these circumstances, established by the Petitioner, her attending witness, and the corroborative statements admitted in evidence, although only four years have elapsed; it is found that in her particular situation that is sufficient time, coupled with the other evidence of her rehabilitation, to justify admitting her to licensure if she should pass the state examination involved. This is particularly true given that the Respondent has sufficient regulatory authority to oversee her entry into and practice of the profession so that it can ensure that the public is protected through its authority to impose accounting and reporting requirements on all funds and transactions the Petitioner might engage in as a realtor as conditions upon her entry into the profession. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case it is thus fund that the Petitioner has established her rehabilitation and resultant qualification for licensure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the pleadings and arguments of the parties, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2127 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted except that the criminal record in evidence shows that only 22 charges of issuing worthless checks were the subject of criminal proceedings. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted in a general context, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Delia H. Dolan 2635 Belle Christiane Circle Pensacola, Florida 32503-5860 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate sales person under license number 0466167. Respondent's real estate license was invalid during the dates at issue in this proceeding. The license expired on September 30, 1993, and was activated on February 1, 1994. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a voluntary inactive sales person at 171C Springwood Boulevard, Longwood, Florida. On October 28, 1993, Mr. Frank Canty, terminated Respondent from employment at Frank G. Canty Realty ("Canty"). Mr. Canty notified Respondent of the termination by telephone on or about the same day and immediately filed the form required to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") of Respondent's change in status. 2/ Mr. Robert Sirianni and Respondent are long time friends. Mr. Sirianni is the broker and owner for Bay Hill Realty, Inc ("Bay Hill"). Mr. Sirianni hired Respondent as a real estate sales person for Bay Hill on November 22, 1993. Mr. Sirianni signed the completed form required to notify the Commission that Respondent had placed his license with Bay Hill. Mr. Sirianni gave the completed form to Respondent to hand deliver to the Commission. However, Respondent failed to deliver the form to the Commission. On November 22, 1993, Respondent showed a condominium to prospective buyers. Respondent represented that he was an employee of Canty. Respondent delivered a written offer of $36,000 to Watson Realty Corporation ("Watson"), the listing office. Respondent used his Canty business card in the transaction. A representative of Watson contacted Mr. Canty to discuss some problems in the transaction. Mr. Canty informed the representative that Respondent was terminated from Canty on October 28, 1993. Watson caused a new contract to be executed between the buyers and sellers showing Watson Realty as the listing and selling office. The transaction closed on the new contract. On December 13, 1993, Mr. Sirianni faxed a memorandum to Watson claiming the sales commission purportedly earned by Respondent. Mr. Sirianni withdrew the demand after learning of the facts and circumstances surrounding the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order: finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.42(1)(b); authorizing the issuance of a written reprimand; placing Respondent on probation for one year; and imposing a fine of $1,000 to be paid in accordance with this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May 1995.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. From January 24, 1994, through the present, Respondent Ernest Eric Yeghian, has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number BK- 0583985, as well as the broker/officer of Vikon Realty Corp., a broker corporation located at 131 South F Street, Lake Worth, Florida. For the two-year period preceding his licensure as a broker or, stated otherwise, from 1992 to January 24, 1994, Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. Respondent's conviction In early 1996, Respondent pled guilty to one count of bank bribery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1), pursuant to a plea agreement reached in the matter of United States of America v. E. Eric Yeghian, United States District Court, District of Rhode Island, Case No. 1:95CR00021-004. Respondent resolved, in part, to enter such plea based on advise of counsel that the banker's coercion, discussed infra, would not constitute a legal defense to the offense charged. On March 20, 1996, judgment of conviction was entered on Respondent's plea and he was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment and fined $10,000.2 The judgment further provided that upon release from imprisonment, Respondent would be on supervised release for a term of 3 years. Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of the guilty plea or his conviction within 30 days of having pled guilty or having been convicted. Respondent voluntarily surrendered to the United States Bureau of Prisons (FPC Jesup, Georgia) on April 17, 1996, and was released to a halfway house (located in West Palm Beach, Florida) on or about December 17, 1996, to serve the last 60 days of his sentence. Respondent was released from custody on or about February 14, 1997, and will have completed his probation (supervised release) on February 14, 2000. The pending complaint At some point following Respondent's licensure as a real estate broker, the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) requested a criminal background check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). That investigation was completed on November 30, 1995, and revealed that Respondent had been arrested on March 30, 1995, on the charge of bank bribery. Subsequently, the Department learned of Respondent's plea and conviction, and on December 23, 1996, filed a Uniform Complaint Form which initiated an investigation to resolve whether cause existed to believe that Respondent had violated Section 745.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by having failed to notify FREC of his plea of guilty or conviction. By letter of December 27, 1996, the Department advised Respondent of the pendency of the complaint and investigation, and proposed to schedule a meeting to discuss the complaint. The letter further provided that "[y]ou may submit a written response to the information contained in the complaint within 20 days after receipt of this letter." Respondent was interviewed by the Department's investigator on December 30, 1996, and by letter of January 3, 1997, he submitted a written response to the complaint, as well as an excerpt from court documents that explained his version of events (Respondent's Exhibit 4), and character reference letters that had been submitted to the federal judge (Respondent's Exhibits 6-13). Respondent's response to the complaint included the following explanation regarding his arrest and conviction: In 1983, I graduated from high school. I had been accepted by the University of Massachusetts and began my studies there in the fall of that year. It soon became apparent to me that even though I was doing well at school, I had to drop out . . . to assist my family financially. . . . I began to work full time as a laborer in a scrap metal yard in the winter of 1983. As I continued to work as a laborer and save my earnings, I began to learn as much as I could about the real estate business. In 1984, a friend and I pooled our savings and purchased our first property, and [sic] abandoned tenement in Providence's Armory district. I moved in and completely renovated the building from top to bottom myself. I then advertised and sold the home. We reinvested the profit into two similar properties. Fortunately, these properties also were sold at a profit. We continued to repeat this process many times over the next 3-4 years, also doing all the work ourselves. * * * In early to middle 1987, it became apparent to me that, due to the rapidly rising prices of real estate in Rhode Island, attractively priced existing properties would continue to be more and more scarce. I decided that it would be more cost effective to begin building new properties. However, since I was inexperienced at this type of development, I decided to associate with partners who were older and more seasoned. A partnership was formed to build 48 condominiums in North Providence. We agreed that my role would be to supervise the day to day construction and that they would secure the bank financing for the project. The construction began in early 1986. Most everything went well and soon we were selling the condominiums at a profit. Around that time, one of my partners introduced me to a college friend of his, an attorney named George Marderosian. Mr. Marderosian began to do work for the partnership as well as becoming my personal attorney. Early in 1987, Mr. Marderosian became aware of [a] piece of property, selling at a reasonable price, which was suitable for the same type of condominium development. Because the first project was going well, it seemed a [sic] natural to proceed and do this project as well. . . . In early 1987, . . . [my partner and I] decided to put a deposit on the land. I then spent the next 8-10 months verifying the zoning, getting permits for water and sewer service, having engineering and construction plans prepared, etc. This along with the eventual supervision of the construction was my usual role. In the course of this work, I provided all of this development information to Mr. Marderosian, who was preparing the application for the bank loan. The application was made for the loan in the fall of 1987. I learned in late 1987 that the loan was approved and was gratified because I had invested the better part of one year in preparing the project. . . . After I was told our loan was approved (and only several days before the closing) Jay Moore, my partner in both the old and new projects, explained to me that he had been approached by our loan officer, Kenneth Annarummo, who was looking for money. I am not entirely sure about the exact circumstances. However, I am sure that this first approach was not to me personally. My best recollection is that Mr. Moore explained to me that Mr. Annarummo told him he wanted $20,000 and that he had reluctantly agreed to give it to him. I do recall discussing the matter with our attorney. He told us that he, not being a customer of the bank himself, could give money to Mr. Annarummo. He instructed Mr. Moore and me to give him $10,000 and he would take care of the rest. With so much at stake and so much already invested, I simply wanted to put the problem behind us. I rationalized that it was just part of doing business. However, while I could not say exactly what law was being broken, I realized paying Mr. Annarummo was wrong. In early 1988, I found another property I felt was an excellent value. . . . I spent the first 7-8 months of 1988 doing all the due diligence work on the site. I put down a deposit on the land, spent money on engineering, environmental tests, wetlands studies, etc. By summer 1988 all the research and 3 separate appraisals seemed to indicate the property was an excellent value. In approximately August, 1988 I applied for the loan for this property. About a month later, while I was home during the work week with a broken arm I called to my office to check my messages. There was a message to call Mr. Annarummo at his bank in reference to my loan application. I called Mr. Annarummo and he told me that the loan committee had approved my loan and that the loan could close within several weeks. About one week later during the early evening I was home, again, with the same broken arm. I was not expecting anyone. There was a knock on my door, It was Mr. Annarummo and his wife. He had never been to my home before and he was not invited on that occasion. At first, I did not know why he was there. He stepped inside and told me that he wanted to speak to me about something. He said he had a car loan that he wanted to "get rid of." I genuinely did not know what he was talking about and I asked him what he meant. In response he bluntly stated that he wanted me to pay off his car loan. I did not know what to say. I responded that I would have to get back to him and, with little else said, he and his wife left. After he left, I tried to put the approach out of my mind and pretend it never happened. I thought perhaps he wouldn't bother me anymore or be too embarrassed to bring it up ever again. A few days passed and I was back at work and I got a phone call from Mr. Annarummo. He started to press me for an answer. Again, I told him I'd have to get back to him. Quite plainly, I did not want to pay him money, but I also did not know what to do. I told him I had a customer in my office and I'd have to get back to him and hung up. By then it was obvious to me that he was not going to drop the issue. I contacted Mr. Marderosian and told him what had happened and I asked him how I should handle it. Mr. Marderosian said to me that it was unfortunate that Mr. Annarummo was doing this to me but if he handled the situation for me that would solve the problem for the time being. We agreed that in future projects I should develop a relationship with another bank so I would not be placed in such a tight position. (At the time, Mr. Annuarummo also controlled the day to day funding of the two major projects in which I was involved) I agreed to give him the money. Inherently, I knew then and clearly know now that what Mr. Annarummo was demanding and what George Marderosian helped me to do, was wrong. At those particular moments I felt I had only two choices. to give him the money or to refuse to do so. I did not want to give him the money because he had no right to it. Besides, I knew it was wrong and probably illegal. I did not want to refuse because I felt Mr. Annarummo had the power to ruin or at the very least severely disrupt everything I had been working to build my whole life and most importantly the livelihood and support of my family. I felt stuck in the middle with only two bad choices. Eventually, my fear of the potential ramifications of not appeasing Mr. Annarummo in conjunction with Mr. Marderosian offering an apparent way out led me to make the decision I made. It was a wrong decision. With the benefit of hindsight, I now see that there was a third choice. I could have brought Mr. Annarummo's approach to the attention of his superiors at the bank and/or the appropriate authorities. This experience is indelibly burned into my consciousness. I am older, wiser and more secure in my judgement. If ever I were to find myself confronted with this type of situation again, my reaction would be completely contrary to what I have done in the past. . . . (Respondent's Exhibit 14.) Respondent explained his failure to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of his plea or conviction within 30 days of having pled guilty or having been convicted, as follows: . . . it was my absolute intention to address this issue with the F.R.E.C. upon returning home (which I did just 12/17/96). I clearly am in error in terms of the timetable for notification which I now understand should have been within 30 days of the plea or conviction. I, wrongly, was under the impression that notification was required prior to resuming the use of ones' license. I should have known the notification procedure and I am clearly at fault for not doing so in the required time frame. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, at page 3.) Thereafter, on April 18, 1997, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which charged that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, "by having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate salesperson or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing" (Count I), and Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by "not having informed the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty (30) days of having pled guilty or having been convicted of a felony" (Count II). According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought for such violations was stated to be as follows: . . . The penalty for each count or separate offense may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 3 At hearing, Respondent offered testimony consistent with the explanation he had previously offered the Department, discussed supra. Respondent also observed that, at the time, he was fearful that if he refused the banker's demands, the banker would interrupt the funding that had been obtained for the projects. Respondent further testified that he fully disclosed the circumstances to his attorney and on the attorney's advice delivered the funds (to the attorney) for delivery to the banker. Finally, Respondent averred that he never misrepresented or withheld any material facts regarding the projects during the loan process; had no involvement in structuring the loan transactions; and only agreed to pay the banker (on advice of counsel) to avoid disruption of the previously approved funding. In Respondent's view he was not offering money (a bribe) for something he was not entitled to, but was being extorted by the banker to receive that to which he was entitled (the approved funding). Respondent's explanation regarding the circumstances surrounding the events which led to his conviction is credited. Respondent also offered credible proof that he cooperated fully with the government; that he accepted responsibility for his actions; and that he suffered a significant penalty for his misjudgment. The proof further reveals that the events which led to his conviction occurred over 11 years ago (when Respondent was 22-23 years of age); that in the 7 years Respondent has been licensed in Florida (as a salesperson or broker) no complaints have been filed against him; that among those who know of him, Respondent is considered honorable and trustworthy; and that his involvement in the events leading to his conviction was more likely attributable to naivete than guile. Finally, the proof demonstrates that Respondent continues to provide financial support for his parents and that loss of licensure would impose a severe financial hardship on Respondent and his family.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds the Respondent not guilty of the offense charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of the offense charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and that for such offense Respondent receive a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 9th day of July, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, (Division), was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. At the same time, Respondent, Thomas Twitty, Jr. was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, operating under license number 0090569, and was broker for the Respondent, Twitty and Company, Ltd., which operates under license number 0211681 at 13090 B. Starkey Road, Largo, Florida. Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, was a licensed real estate salesman under license number 0442127. On March 12, 1985, while employed as a salesman with Twitty & Company, Ltd., Fitton solicited and obtained from James L. Schneider a sales listing for Schneider's house located at 1316 Kennywood, Largo, Florida. The listed sales price was $129,500.00. Mr. Schneider had purchased the property, along with another individual no longer involved, Mr. Daly, from Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association in December, 1984 for $50,000.00 in a distress sale. The property had been occupied but was abandoned, and Pioneer, which had held the mortgage on it, gained title in a foreclosure action. When Schneider purchased the house, it was in poor condition. The walls and cement slabs on which it rested were severely cracked in numerous places. The foundation, pool decking, and decorative block walls were severely cracked, and it was determined that this condition was due to an abnormal settling and subsidence of the ground on which the house had been constructed. This settling caused and continues to cause door and window frames to fall out of square resulting in a poor fit and, in many cases, large gaps and along the window and door parameters. After Mr. Schneider purchased the property, Fitton, along with Fitton's father, both of whom resided next door to the property in question, assisted Mr. Schneider in making repairs to the property. Cracks were filled in with cement, plaster and caulking, and the property was painted which covered up the filled in cracks and gaps which had existed. When the repairs were completed, the property was put on the market with Fitton securing the listing. There is little evidence as to how the repairs were made to the property other than that the cracks were filled and painted. No effort was made to correct the soil conditions which underlay the problem. No evidence was produced to indicate whether the corrective actions taken by Mr. Schneider, along with the Fittons, was appropriate to correct problem causing the cracks or if filling was the appropriate method of correction. Also, it was not clearly established how much and of what nature the work was accomplished by Respondent, Fitton. Whereas he indicates his participation was limited to only carrying away trash and debris, Ms. Renshaw indicates he was actively engaged in actual repair work. Whatever the actual work involvement, it is clear that he knew of the condition of the house and was familiar with the steps taken to correct the deficiencies. In May, 1985, Yvonne L. and Lorraine Renshaw, sisters, were shown the property by Diane Y. Palcelli (Booth), a salesperson employed by a different realty company. The Renshaws made an initial offer of $96,000.00, and Ms. Palcelli transmitted the offer, through Fitton, (and Twitty & Co.), to Mr. Schneider who resided out of state. A series of proposals by both sides followed and ultimately, on June 1, 1985, the parties agreed upon a sales price of $106,000.00. After the sales price had been agreed upon and the contract for sale signed, during the interim period leading up to closing, which was held in late July, 1985, the Renshaws, along with their agent and friends, visited the property on numerous occasions even going so far as to commence decorative work to fix it up to their tastes. Also during this period, Fitton, who had done some work on the repairs to the property, advised his broker, Twitty, that there had been defects in the property and asked if it was necessary to disclose this. Mr. Twitty, who himself had, at this point, not seen the property, asked if the defects had been corrected, and when told that they had been, advised Fitton it was not necessary to make any further disclosure. During the course of their repeated visits to the property, the Renshaws noted some minor cracking which they brought to Fitton's and Daly's attention. Fitton mentioned this to Twitty who suggested they have someone out to look at them. Someone was called, reportedly an engineer, who looked at the cracks and agreed to fix them. Daly indicated insurance would cover the repairs and agreed to have the cracks repaired. They were. Ms. Palcelli, (Booth), also advised the Renshaws to have the property examined by their own expert to insure it was structurally sound. The Renshaws did not do this. The sale was closed on July 23, 1985 for the $106,000.00 purchase price and both Fitton and Twitty & Co. received their respective shares of the commission. Several months after the closing, the Renshaws noticed cracks beginning to open in the walls of the house and between the pool deck and the house wall. They contacted Ms. Palcelli, (Booth) who examined the property and then tried to contact Fitton. Both Fitton and Twitty disclaimed any responsibility for the damage. Thereafter, the Renshaws filed suit against Schneider, Daly, Fitton, Twitty and Twitty & Company in Circuit Court in Pinellas County alleging one Count of fraud and one Count of grand theft. On February 22, 1991, the Court entered its Order granting Defendants', (Respondents') Motion to Dismiss the Count alleging grand theft, but denied a similar motion relating to the fraud Count. That same date, the Court entered a Final Judgement concluding that the knowing representation the property was in "excellent" condition when they knew it was not, in an anticipation of making a profit on the sale, constituted fraud. Twitty was faulted for not having inquired of Fitton, his "novice employee", more thoroughly before advising him no disclosure to the buyers was necessary. Fitton is faulted by the Court for having: ... intentionally, knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented to the [Renshaws] the high quality, excellent condition and good value of the property, intending that the [Renshaws] would rely on those representations; [they] hid the true condition of the property from the [Renshaws] and induced them to make the purchase, believing that they were purchasing a quality property worth the price being asked. The Court also concluded that the [Respondents] were obligated to disclose to the [Renshaws] the information and knowledge which they had regarding the cracking and repairs. Fitton has moved for a rehearing on the basis that the property was described as excellent on the listing sheet by Mr. Schneider, not by him. However, he was obviously aware of the condition of the property from his frequent visits to the site while it was being readied for sale. In addition, the Judgement has now been appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals by Twitty and Twitty & Company, Ltd..
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered herein providing that: The salesman's license of Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, be reprimanded, and he be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of two years, and The licenses of Respondents, Thomas J. Twitty, Jr. and Twitty & Co., Ltd., be reprimanded and they be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of six months. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1608 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. First, second and fourth sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence modified to reflect that Fitton concealed but Twitty was culpably negligent in failing to disclose. FOR RESPONDENT, TWITTY AND TWITTY & CO. LTD.: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. 9. Accepted, but Twitty's agent, Respondent, Fitton, worked on and was familiar with the condition of the property prior to sale. Accepted. FOR RESPONDENT, FITTON: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted except for the assertion that the individual who viewed the cracks was an engineer. There was no proof of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dominic E. Amadio, Esquire 100 34th Street North, Suite 305 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Daniel J. Grieco, Esquire 19139 Gulf Blvd. Indian Shores, Florida 34635 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be disqualified from taking the real estate salesman license examination based on his alleged failure to disclose on his licensing application a prior arrest and conviction for possession of marijuana.
Findings Of Fact On December 19, 1980, Schwartz filed with the Board his application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In answer to the application's Question No. 6: "Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations) without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" (R-1), Schwartz answered, under oath, "Yes." If an applicant answers "Yes", the application asks for details, including the outcome. Schwartz responded: 2.28.69 Possession Marijuana Broward Cty. Sentenced 31 months, Released 4/30/71, No Further Record. (R-1.) He further explained his answer in a letter attached to the application: Sirs: In regard to question #6, I was arrested 2.28.69 in Broward County for possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Sentenced by Judge Robert Tyson in Broward County Criminal Court, Ft. Lauderdale, Fl in June of that year to two years, seven months. Released M.C.R. on 4/30/71. No problems since. H. Jeffrey Schwartz (R-1.) As part of the application, Schwartz executed an affidavit which provides in part: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesman, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the person so applying, that he has carefully read the foregoing application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete, as h[is] knowledge information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever, . . . (R-1.) In answering Question No. 6, Schwartz failed to disclose that he was indicted, arrested, and subsequently convicted of felonious possession of marijuana by the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, on January 31, 1968. Court records indicate that Schwartz, then 19 years old, pled not guilty to the charge; that he was represented by counsel during trial; and that upon hearing the evidence the court found him guilty and returned him to jail pending a pre-sentence-investigation. Subsequently, on March 18, 1968, the court suspended imposition of sentence "during. . .good behavior or until further order of this Court" (R-4), ordered him to pay costs of court, and placed him on supervised probation for an indefinite period. (R-4.) Schwartz then moved to Florida. In February, 1969, he was convicted of felonious possession of marijuana by the Circuit Court of Broward County and sentenced to 31 months at hard labor. On April 30, 1971, after serving his sentence, he was extradited by Virginia authorities on grounds that his Broward County conviction violated the "good behavior" condition of his earlier suspended sentence. After a hearing, at which Schwartz was again represented by counsel, the Hustings Court found he had not violated the provisions of his 1968 suspended sentence, and released him. At that time, Schwartz was 22 years old. (Testimony of Schwartz; R-4.) The Board does not contend that these two prior criminal convictions occurring over 12 years ago render him unqualified for examination and licensure as a real estate salesman. Since that time, Schwartz has been a law-abiding and responsible individual. He has conducted research and performed feasibility studies for various commodity marketing firms, and has gained the respect and confidence of his employers. On March 25, 1981, his civil rights were restored- -except to possess or own a firearm--by order of the Governor and Cabinet of Florida. (Testimony of Schwartz; P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4.) The Board seeks to deny Schwartz's license application based solely on his failure to fully disclose on the application his prior arrest and conviction for marijuana possession in 1968. Schwartz's defense is that he honestly believed the 1968 offense in Virginia was a juvenile matter, not a criminal offense; and that Question No. 6 on the licensing application did not cover juvenile offenses or adjudications. In reply, the Board acknowledges that Question No. 6 is ambiguous with respect to whether information concerning juvenile offenses is required. It follows that, if Schwartz--rightly or wrongly--believed that his 1968 offense was juvenile in nature, his answer to Question No. 6 was not unreasonable and cannot fairly demonstrate lack of honesty, truthfulness, and good character. (Prehearing Stipulation, Acknowledgment of Board Counsel.) Schwartz's testimony that he sincerely believed his 1968 offense to be juvenile in nature, and thus outside the purview of Question No. 6, is rejected as unworthy of belief. His assertion is uncorroboratcd by any independent evidence and is inconsistent with the effect of the following: The Official Court Records. These records, on their face, indicate that Schwartz was charged with and convicted of a criminal offense in 1968. The Procedures Used to Convict Him. At his 1968 trial, he pled not guilty; was represented by defense counsel--who unsuccessfully moved the court to strike the evidence as insufficient to support a judgment of guilty; and, after being found guilty was returned to jail pending pre-sentence investigation. It is unlikely that a 19-year-old could go through such an experience without realizing that he was being charged with and convicted of a crime. His Extradition and Return to the Virginia Court. His subsequent criminal conviction in Florida led to his extradition and return, under guard, to the Richmond Court of Hustings for alleged violation of probation imposed pursuant to his 1968 conviction. After hearing, where he was again represented by counsel, he was reinstated to probation. It is unlikely that Schwartz, then 22 years old, did not understand--by this second encounter with defense counsel and the Court of Hustings--that his 1968 offense was a crime, and that he had been convicted in a criminal, not a juvenile proceeding. Schwartz's Demeanor and Intelligence. Schwartz's demeanor as a witness showed him to be an articulate and intelligent individual. As a marketing analyst, he is required to conduct research and perform studies upon which others can rely. Such work requires rational investigation and analysis. His ostensible conclusion that the 1968 offense was a juvenile proceeding was not the result of diligent investigation and analysis: it represents a departure from the analytical habit he has developed in the working environment. (Testimony of Schwartz; R-4.) Since Schwartz's assertion that he genuinely believed his 1968 conviction was a juvenile matter is rejected, it follows that his answer to Question No. 6 was incomplete and evasive. With regard to the traits of honesty and truthfulness, it places his character in serious question. To the extent the parties' proposed findings of fact are incorporated in this Recommended Order, they are adopted; otherwise, they are rejected as unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of H. Jeffrey Schwartz for licensure as a real estate salesman be denied, without prejudice to his right to reapply in the future. DONE AND REC0MENDED this 19th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, John J. Piccione, is an instructor at Gold Coast School of Real Estate, Inc., holding instructor's permit number ZH 31158. He has been a licensed instructor for approximately fifteen years. Piccione used to be the permit holder for Gold Coast School of Realty, Inc., but as of January 3, 1984, the school permit was issued to Mary Piccione. Additionally, Mary Piccione is the chief administrator of Gold Coast School of Realty, Inc. John J. Piccione's license as a real estate broker was suspended for one year, from November 3, 1983 to November 2, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John J. Piccione 1515 E. Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 105-WG Ocala, Florida 32670 Harold R. Huff, Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802
