The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 63J2-14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate sales associate, having been issued license number SL 706026. During the time relevant to this case, Respondent was a sales associate affiliated with Jacksonville Home Finders, Inc., a brokerage company located in Jacksonville, Florida. Katrin Rabren was the broker/owner of Jacksonville Home Finders, Inc. (Homefinders). In approximately 2006, she hired Respondent as a sales associate, and Respondent's license was listed as affiliated with Homefinders in September 2006. In early April 2007, Ms. Rabren received a call from Alvin Reynolds, the owner of some property Homefinders was managing at 3501 Kernan Boulevard, Number 234, in Jacksonville. Mr. Reynolds was calling to ask for his funds from the rental of the property. The property was apparently rented and funds received from the tenant for a security deposit and first month's rent on or about March 12, 2007. However, those funds, totaling $1,444.99, were not placed in the broker's trust account. Ms. Rabren confronted Respondent about the funds and was told that Respondent spent the money on personal bills. Respondent told Ms. Rabren that she would replace the money. On April 5, 2007, Respondent gave Ms. Rabren a check made out to Jacksonville Homefinders for $1,489.99. The check was from an account for Winter Property Maintenance, Respondent's husband's company. Ms. Rabren's husband deposited the check in Homefinder's escrow account. On April 6, 2007, the check was returned for insufficient funds. Ms. Rabren paid the property owner out of her personal funds. Respondent has not replaced the funds or delivered funds to the employer/broker for deposit into the escrow account.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated the provisions of Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 63J2- 14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking Respondent's license as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent's Florida real estate license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for violations of Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to enforce the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all material times, Respondent, Lee Scott Marose, was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. 0584225, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. From December 10, 1993 to June 6, 1994, Respondent was employed as a real estate salesperson with Tam-Bay Realty, Inc., in Hillsborough County, Florida. On or about February 1, 1994, Respondent solicited and obtained a residential lease between Richard Akers, Sr. (Owner), and R. Dugan Fry (Tenant) for property located at 1731 Staysail Drive, Valrico, Florida. The lease provided for rental payments of $850.00 per month. On or about May 1, 1994, in accordance with the lease, the Tenant sent Respondent a check in the amount of $850.00 payable to Tam-Bay Realty. Respondent did not deliver the May 1, 1994 check to Tam-Bay Realty, but instead caused the Tenant to issue another check dated May 9, 1994, in the amount of $850.00 payable to Respondent. Respondent received the May 9, 1994 check, cashed the check, and diverted the funds to his own use. Due to Respondent's actions, Tam-Bay Realty refunded the money to the Owner, and dismissed Respondent from its employment. During the investigation of this matter by Petitioner, Respondent admitted to Petitioner's investigator the conversion of the rental check, but explained that his actions were an attempt to shorten the "turn-around" time on the rental check, and that he had been unable to replace the funds because money had been stolen from his personal checking account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found in violation of the above-cited statutory provisions, and that Respondent's Florida real estate license be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of September, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 8th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX As to Petitioner's proposed findings: 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson,, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lee Scott Marose 18950 U.S. Highway 144, #133 Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, George O. Waterman, was more than 59 years of age at all times relevant to this proceeding. Respondent, Berkshire Corp., d/b/a Palm Lanes, is a corporation which operates a bowling alley known as Palm Lanes. Palm Lanes is located in Gainesville, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent also operated a bowling alley in Starke, Florida. Petitioner's Employment with Respondent. Mr. Waterman was hired in March of 1993 as the head mechanic for Palm Lanes. Mr. Waterman has been employed as head mechanic of bowling alleys since 1958. Mr. Waterman attended two schools conducted by the manufacturer of the type of equipment used at Palm Lanes. Mr. Waterman was responsible for the maintenance of the bowling machinery at Palm Lanes. Mr. Waterman was also responsible for the installation of new bowling ball returns at Palm Lanes. The old returns had to be removed and new ones installed. The Termination of Mr. Waterman's Employment. On September 8, 1993, Mr. Waterman was told that he was being transferred to Respondent's bowling alley in Starke or he could resign. Mr. Waterman agreed to the transfer. On September 10, 1993, Mr. Waterman was terminated as an employee of Respondent by the manager of Palm Lanes. The manager told Mr. Waterman that he had been expected by the owner and President of Respondent, Samy F. Bishai, to turn down the transfer and resign. The manager informed Mr. Waterman that he was being terminated because Mr. Bishai believed him to be too slow in installing the new ball returns. The manager of Palm Lanes that terminated Mr. Waterman had only been employed as manager for a short period of time. Therefore, he was without personal knowledge of Mr. Waterman's ability as head mechanic or his performance as an employee of Respondent. The decision to terminate Mr. Waterman's employment was made by Mr. Bishai. William Lahmon, the head mechanic of another affiliated bowling alley, worked with Mr. Waterman at Palm Lanes when Mr. Waterman first began to install the new returns. Mr. Waterman made several telephone calls to Mr. Lahmon seeking advice on how to install the ball returns. Mr. Lahmon concluded that Mr. Waterman's work was inadequate and slow. Mr. Lahmon informed Mr. Bishai of his conclusions. Mr. Lahmon was also asked by Mr. Bishai whom was the better qualified for the head mechanic's job at Palm Lanes, Mr. Waterman or Donald E. Vachon, Jr., a former employee of Palm Lanes. Mr. Lahmon told Mr. Bishai that Mr. Vachon was the better qualified. Mr. Lahmon's conclusions were unrefutted. After the new ball returns were installed, it was necessary to turn on two alleys in order to get one alley's ball return to work. At no time prior to his termination from employment was Mr. Waterman counseled or reprimanded concerning his job performance. Respondent maintained no records concerning Mr. Waterman's employment or performance while employed by Palm Lanes. Mr. Waterman's Replacement. Mr. Waterman was replaced by Donald E. Vachon, Jr. Mr. Vachon's date of birth is March 11, 1966. At the time that Mr. Vachon replaced Mr. Waterman, Mr. Vachon was 27 years of age. Mr. Vachon had previously worked for the owner of Respondent. Mr. Vachon left employment with Respondent and was rehired in August of 1993. Conclusion. Respondent articulated a non-discriminatory reason for terminating Mr. Waterman's employment. Mr. Waterman failed to prove that he was terminated from employment with Respondent due to his age.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by George O. Waterman. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 24th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX Mr. Waterman submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Respondent did not file a proposed order. Mr. Waterman's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 2-4. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 8. Accepted in 9. 5-6 Not relevant. 7 Accepted in 5. 8-10 Not relevant. See 10. The last two sentences are taken out of context and are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 15. Not relevant. 14-15 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 16-17 and hereby accepted. Not relevant. See 12-13. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: George O. Waterman 2375 Southwest 167th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34481-8772 Ellis Pinder Director of Operations Berkshire Corp., d/b/a Palm Lanes Post Office Box 6919 Vero Beach, Florida 32961-6919 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Bldg F, Ste 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact At all times here involved Defendant was a broker registered with the FREC. In 1974 he obtained a listing on a house located at 227 River Hill Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. An associate measured the interior dimensions of all rooms in the house and the dimensions of the carport, basement, attached utility shed, covered entry way, covered patio, and walks. The interior dimensions of the heated portions of the house, which did not include the basement, was approximately 1540 square feet. The basement contained 310 square feet, the utility shed 120 square feet, the covered entry 38 square feet, a covered porch 295 square feet, two patios 497 square feet, and the carport 380 square feet. Thereafter Defendant made up and had placed in the Florida Times Union and Journal on July 14, 1974 an advertisement offering this house for sale with the ad stating the house contained 2300 square feet. Mr. and Mrs. Beaudreau saw the ad, arranged with Defendant's office to see the house, and on July 16, 1974 made an offer to purchase the house which offer was subsequently accepted by the seller. On September 3, 1974 the transaction was closed. Approximately one year later the Beaudreaus decided to put the house on the market and called a real estate broker to handle the sale. When the salesman visited the property he measured the floor area contained in the exterior dimensions of the house, excluded all unheated area and advised the Beaudreaus that the house contained approximately 1560 square feet. When the Beaudreaus asked Defendant why he had advertised the house as containing 2300 square feet and were given short shrift they complained to the FREC and the investigation and administrative complaint here involved followed. In appraising property the value of all components of the property are considered with the heated area generally receiving the highest value per square foot. The Jacksonville Board of Realtors conduct indoctrination courses which are required for all members, however, they do not teach how to determine the square footage in a house. No uniform system of measuring the square footage of a house is taught at the approved real estate course's which are compulsory for all applicants for registration with the FREC. There is no one uniform system for determining the square footage in a house. Some consider only the heated area should be included; others include areas not heated, such as porches, garages, basements, etc. No regulation has been promulgated by the FREC to standardize the procedure for determining the square footage of a residence, although the better view appears to be that only the heated area be included and all open area, such as porches, carports, patios, garages, etc. be excluded. The covered area of the residence at 227 River Hill Drive exceeded 2700 square feet. In placing the ad Defendant excluded the area of the carport to arrive at his figure of 2300 square feet.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Scarlett P. Faulk and Scarlett Faulk and Associates, Inc. were licensed as a broker and corporate broker, respectively, by the Florida Board of Real Estate. Lily Nelson, broker at Sandpiper Realty, managed property at 1800 Gulf Boulevard, Bellaire Shores, owned by Larry and Sheena Bowa, who resided out of state. This property consisted of a residence which Ms. Nelson rented on behalf of the Bowas. Scarlett Faulk owned a residence located at 1720 Gulf Boulevard which she had purchased in June, 1986. In late June, 1986, Faulk telephoned Lily Nelson to ask if the Bowas were interested in selling their property at 1800 Gulf Boulevard as she might have a client interested in the property. Ms. Faulk's brother, Mac Phillips, was planning to move to Clearwater and was looking for a residence. Also, Faulk had another client, Clarence Trice, to whom she had sold several properties over the past few years. At the time, Trice was contemplating the purchase of property at 1420 Gulf Boulevard and had asked Faulk to join him in a joint venture to purchase this property. Faulk declined, but suggested that her brother, Mac Phillips, might be interested. On June 25, 1986, Phillips wired $62,500 to Faulk to participate in this purchase, but Trice opted to purchase the property by himself. Faulk held these funds in her escrow account (Exhibit 2). Mrs. Bowa told Lily Nelson that she would talk it over with her husband and call back. When she did call back to say they were interested in selling, she inquired about prices in the neighborhood. Mrs. Bowa then agreed to have the property listed for $600,000. This was communicated to Ms. Faulk who passed the information to Phillips. Phillips made an offer of $500,000 for the property, and Bowa countered with $525,000 which Phillips accepted. The contract to purchase the property at 1800 Gulf Boulevard was executed by the buyer on July 1, 1986, and by the sellers on July 7, 1986. Rebecca Watson, at all times relevant, was registered as a real estate sales person and associated with the Respondent. Ms. Watson had a client, Scane Bowler, whose wife was interested in having a house built on a lot facing the Gulf of Mexico. Lots on the west side of Gulf Boulevard face the Gulf of Mexico. Rebecca Watson asked Respondent Faulk if she could show the Bowlers the residence at 1720 Gulf Boulevard that Faulk had recently purchased. Faulk agreed, met Watson and her client, and allowed Watson to show the house. This was the occasion on which Faulk first met the Bowlers. This meeting occurred June 27, 1986, the day the Bowlers departed to attend the tennis matches at Wimbleton. Bowler told Watson the price Faulk was asking, $725,000, was more than the $600,000 he was willing to pay for gulf front property. Bowler asked Watson to keep looking and he would contact her when they returned from Wimbleton in about ten days. When Bowler returned to Clearwater from Wimbleton on July 10, 1986, he contacted Watson to inquire if any lots had become available. Watson showed the Bowlers 1800 Gulf Boulevard and told them that Phillips, the brother of Faulk, had a contract to purchase the property. The Bowlers liked the property and inquired if Phillips would sell the contract to them. Following some negotiation, Phillips sold the contract to the Bowlers for $100,000, and Bowler was the grantee on the deed executed by Bowa. When Bowa learned from Bowler that Bowler was paying $625,000 for the property for which Bowa was getting only $525,000, Ms. Bowa wrote a letter to the Florida Board of Real Estate. After the closing, Bowler instituted civil proceedings against Faulk.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(e) and (1)(m), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed real estate sales associate. She was licensed in 2003. Her license number is 3061179. Respondent was working for Weichert Realty in the Orlando area at the time of the final hearing. She started working for that firm in October 2006, and prior to that, she “did not do a whole lot with [her] license as far as practicing real estate.” Respondent filled out and submitted her license application over the Internet. She submitted a signed notarized statement dated January 15, 2003, attesting that she answered the questions in the application “completely and truthfully to the best of [her] knowledge.” She also submitted a fingerprint card. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that there were at least three material misstatements and omissions in Respondent’s license application. First, Respondent did not provide a Social Security number (SSN) in her license application. The SSN that she subsequently provided to the Division, 378-72-0704, was incorrect. Respondent testified that her SSN is 378-62-0704. That is the SSN listed for Respondent in the driver’s license records maintained by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV). There is evidence suggesting that Respondent’s SSN may actually be 380-80-3178, but the evidence is not clear and convincing on that point.3 The document on which Respondent provided the incorrect SSN was not offered into evidence by the Division. Respondent denied providing an incorrect SSN, and she testified that if she did provide an incorrect SSN, it must have been typographical error. Second, the only name listed for Respondent in her license application was Yolanda Orr, which was Respondent’s married name and her legal name at the time she submitted her application. Respondent answered “no” to the question that asked whether she has ever “used, been known as or called by another name (example - maiden name . . .) or alias other than the name singed to the application.” (Emphasis supplied.) Respondent’s maiden name is Yolanda Small. She used that name until July 1998, when she was married. She was divorced in February 2006, and she is again using her maiden name. Respondent currently has two valid forms of identification issued by DHSMV: a Florida driver’s license in the name of Yolanda D. Small (No. S540-964-67-7491) and a Florida identification card in the name of Yolanda D. Orr (No. O600-964-57-7490). The driver’s license was issued in March 2006,4 and expires in July 2010; the identification card was issued in August 2002, and expires in July 2007. The birth date listed on the driver’s license is July 9, 1967, whereas the birth date listed on the identification card is July 9, 1957. Respondent testified that her middle name is Daniella, not Denise. She further testified that she has never used the name Yolanda Denise Orr. In response to a request to the state court in Michigan for records relating to Respondent, the Division was provided documentation of multiple traffic offenses committed in Flint, Michigan in 1999 and 2001 by Yolanda Denise Orr, as well as documentation of criminal offenses committed in Michigan by Yolanda Daniella Orr and Yolanda Danielle Orr. The traffic records do not list the defendant’s Social Security number, but the birth date listed in the records matches Respondent’s birth date. Respondent’s testimony that the traffic offenses did not involve her was not persuasive, nor was her claim there must be multiple Yolanda Orr’s in Flint, Michigan, with the same birth date as hers. Respondent admitted to being in Flint, Michigan at the time of the traffic offenses, and she admitted that she drove a Ford vehicle at the time of the ticket that was issued to Yolanda Denise Orr in October 2001 while driving a Ford. Moreover, the Michigan driver’s license number of Yolanda Denise Orr contained in the traffic records -- O600961139544 -- is identical (except for one number) to the Michigan driver’s license number -- O600961135544 -- that Respondent surrendered to DHSMV when she first applied for a Florida driver’s license. The evidence is clear and convincing that the Yolanda Denise Orr referred to in the traffic records is Respondent, and that Respondent failed to disclose that name (and her maiden name, Yolanda Small) in her license application. Third, Respondent only disclosed one criminal offense in response to the question in the application that asked whether she had “ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) . . . .” The criminal offense that Respondent disclosed was, according to the application, a 1987 offense in Louisiana which Respondent “used the wrong social security number” when “filling out [her] financial aid papers for the first time.” There is no evidence that Respondent was prosecuted for such an offense in Louisiana. Respondent was, however, prosecuted in federal court in Michigan in 1993 for using a false SSN on two separate student loan applications. Those offenses were prosecuted as part of an indictment that also included four counts of filing fraudulent tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service and two counts of using a false SSN on tax returns. In February 1995, Respondent pled guilty to one count of filing a fraudulent tax return, one count of using a false SSN on a tax return, and one count of using a false SSN on student loan applications. The other counts of the indictment were dismissed as part of her plea agreement. In September 1995, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the offenses to which she pled guilty and was sentenced to six months in federal prison, followed by three years of probation. She was also required to pay restitution in the amount of $8,177 to the Internal Revenue Service and restitution in the amount of $2,761 to the U.S. Department of Education. Respondent testified that “the whole reason the [federal] case came about” was that she filed a tax return not knowing that one had already been filed on her behalf by H&R Block; that the investigation into the “double” filing of the tax return led to the charge involving the “student loan application that had the wrong social security number on it”; and that it was her understanding that the offenses related to the student loan application submitted to Grambling State University, not any colleges in Michigan. Respondent’s testimony regarding the circumstances giving rise to the federal offenses was not credible because, among other things, she was charged with filing false tax returns on three separate occasions -- in 1990, 1991, and 1992 - - not just one time. The background check conducted on Respondent based upon the fingerprint card that she submitted as part of her license application identified two additional criminal offenses that Respondent did not disclose in her application. The first undisclosed offense was a 1990 felony retail fraud offense prosecuted in state court in Michigan. Respondent pled guilty to the offense and was sentenced to one year of probation. The record does not reflect the circumstances surrounding the retail fraud offense, but Respondent described it as “basically a petty theft.” The second undisclosed offense was a 1991 bad check charge, which was also prosecuted in state court in Michigan. The case was not resolved until February 2001 because, according to Respondent, it involved a check she wrote prior to leaving for college and she was unaware that that a case was pending against her until she returned to Michigan after college. Respondent was required to disclose criminal traffic offenses in her license applications; she was not required to disclose traffic offenses such as “parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations.” The traffic records suggest that several of the offenses may have been criminal in nature (e.g., driving with a suspended license), but the evidence was not clear and convincing on that issue.5 Respondent testified that she did not disclose the state court offenses because she did not remember them at the time she submitted her license application. She testified that she considered the federal offenses to be related and that she thought that disclosing one of the offenses was adequate since the other offenses were related and prosecuted together. Respondent’s explanation as to why she did not disclose all of her federal offenses is not entirely unreasonable under the circumstances. The offenses were all prosecuted in a single criminal proceeding and, even though they involved offenses committed in Michigan between 1990 and 1992 (rather than in Louisiana in 1987), they did involve use of an incorrect SSN on a student loan application. Respondent’s explanation as to why she did not disclose the offenses prosecuted in state court was not plausible. It is understandable that Respondent might not recall all of the details of the retail fraud offense since it occurred more than 10 years before the date of her application, but her testimony that she did not even remember the existence of the offense at the time she filled out her application was not credible or reasonable. Respondent’s testimony that she did not remember the bad check offense at the time she filled out her license application was even less credible because the court records related to that offense reflect that the case was not finally resolved until February 2001, which only two years prior to the date of Respondent’s license application. Respondent testified that she was told by a Division employee that she did not need to disclose all of the counts of the federal case because the related offenses would be discovered as part of the background screening based upon the fingerprint card submitted by Respondent. Respondent offered no evidence to corroborate her unpersuasive, self-serving testimony on this point. Respondent testified that she was directed by the same Division employee to provide a supplemental letter to the Division explaining the federal offenses, and that she did so. However, there is no record of what, if anything, Respondent submitted to the Division. Respondent’s application did not go to the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) for approval even though a criminal history was disclosed in the application. The Commission policy in effect at the time authorized the Division to approve such applications on a case-by-case basis. The policy did not require an applicant such as Respondent to appear before the Commission, as is the case under current Commission policy. Respondent did not present any evidence of mitigation at the final hearing. However, in her post-hearing filing, she stated, “I am a single mother, and as such, I rely on my real estate business as my only source of income.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order that: finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count I of the Administrative Complaint); finds Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2) and, hence, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Count II of the Administrative Complaint); revokes Respondent’s license; and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000 or the Division’s investigative costs, whichever is less. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2007, 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 19th day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated February 29, 2013, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of real estate licensees pursuant to chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Mardy was licensed as a Florida Real Estate Broker. Her license number is 3048239. No prior disciplinary action has been brought against Respondent. Mardy has been actively licensed as a broker in Florida since April 6, 2010. From April 8, 2010, to present, Mardy also served as the registered broker with Mardy’s Premier Properties, Inc., license number CQ1036525. The brokerage company was located at 12180 Southshore Boulevard Suite 101A, Wellington, Florida 33414. Approximately seven years ago, Mardy assisted Alix and Patricia Pasquet (“Pasquets”) with a rental transaction. In 2011, when the Pasquets decided that they wanted to lease a rental residence near their sons’ school, they decided to contact Mardy to assist them in obtaining the rental residence since they had been satisfied with her previous service. The Pasquets decided to lease the rental residence at 11188 Millpond Greens Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida 33473, (“Millpond”). The Pasquets made an offer to pay the rent a year in advance to benefit from the reduced rental amount with a full year’s payment. Mardy informed the Pasquets that the rental money needed to be in the U.S. instead of Haiti in order to execute the leasing agreement and then the Millpond owner would accept their offer to lease the property if they showed proof of funds in the U.S. prior to April 6, 2012. On or about April 5, 2012, the Pasquets wired Mardy the total rent for the year in the amount of $33,365.00 to Mardy’s Premier Properties, Inc.’s bank, PNC Bank, at Mardy’s request. Mardy received the monies in the corporation’s operating account ending in 6863. Mardy accepted the Pasquets’ rental funds with the direction to use the monies to secure Millpond as a rental residence for the Pasquets. On or about April 9, 2011, the Pasquets signed a lease addendum, which was predated to April 5, 2011. The addendum indicated the rent payment would be wired to the Millpond owner upon commencement of the lease or prior thereto. After the addendum was signed, Mrs. Pasquet tried to follow-up with Mardy to schedule the Millpond walk through that had been discussed at the previous meeting. She attempted to contact Respondent to no avail for about a week to schedule the Millpond walk through. When Mrs. Pasquet finally reached Mardy, Respondent informed her that her unavailability was because of a death in the family since her grandmother had passed. Around April 25, 2011, Mardy informed Mrs. Pasquet that she no longer had the Pasquets’ $33,365.00. Respondent provided several different reasons for use of the Pasquets’ monies. All explanations given were for both a personal and improper use, and without the Pasquets’ permission. Hence, the undersigned rejects any of Mardy’s excuses as valid or credible. Respondent never delivered the Pasquets’ rental monies to the Millpond owner nor closed the rental deal with the Millpond owner or his agent for the lease of Millpond. At hearing, Respondent admitted that she used the Pasquets’ $33,365.00 without their permission. On or about April 26, 2011, the Pasquets negotiated a lease directly with Millpond owner and leased Millpond for six months. They did the walk through on or about April 29, 2013, and moved into the Millpond property on or about May 8, 2013. After the Pasquets discovered that Mardy had taken their $33,365.00, they contacted an attorney to assist them with the matter to try to get the rental monies back. The police also became involved in the attempt of the Pasquets to get their rental monies back. When the police became involved, Respondent agreed to pay the money back to the Pasquets. On or about July 7, 2011, Respondent paid the Pasquets $10,000.00 with check number 75053315-2. On or about July 8, 2011, Respondent paid the Pasquets $3,365.00 with check number 75115202. On or about October 27, 2011, Respondent paid the Pasquets $5,000.00 with check number 0734873625. At the hearing, Mardy had not made a payment since October 2011. The Pasquets have spent thousands of dollars on legal fees trying to get their rental monies back from Respondent. Respondent owes them approximately $15,000.00. The Pasquets were forced to withdraw unbudgeted funds from their business in order to pay for the six-month lease for Millpond, which has been a financial hardship for the Pasquets. Jonathan Platt ("Investigator Platt") is employed by the Division as a Lead Investigator. Investigator Platt has worked for the Division for approximately 22 years. Investigator Platt was assigned the complaint regarding the Pasquets' missing rental funds. He interviewed Respondent and requested Respondent's corporation bank records as part of his investigation. Mardy failed to deliver the bank records to Investigator Platt. Respondent also failed to maintain an escrow account or accounting of rent deposited into the corporation’s bank account ending in 6863 with PNC Bank. Investigator Platt completed his investigation by obtaining Mardy's requested records directly from PNC Bank with an investigative subpoena duces tecum. Afterwards, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against Mardy in which it charged violations of sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.42(1)(i), 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2010); and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61J2-14.012(1) and 61J2- 14.010(1). Respondent challenged the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing. No dispute exists that the request for hearing was timely filed.
Recommendation Based on 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: Finding Guirlande Mardy violated Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing revocation of Guirlande Mardy's license identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 30th day of April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Christina Ann Arzillo, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Guirlande Mardy 14541 Draft Horse Lane Wellington, Florida 33414 Juana Watkins, Director Division of Real Estate 400 W Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 W Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent operated as a real estate broker or sales associate without a license, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has not been licensed as a real estate broker, broker sales-associate, or sales person in the state of Florida. Respondent entered into an arrangement with Tina Mathews, who holds a valid broker or sales person's license, to find buyers in return for which she would split the commission with him. Although Respondent never showed the properties to prospective buyers, after finding them, he performed other, unspecified tasks to ensure that the deals closed and he would be paid. Respondent's defense is that he did not know that what he was doing was illegal. In fact, this case arose by a complaint filed by Respondent against Ms. Mathews, who had paid him several times in the past for similar work in connection with other transactions. When Ms. Mathews declined to pay Respondent in connection with three other transactions described in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent contacted Petitioner, which, after an investigation, brought these charges against Respondent for two transactions, as identified in the Administrative Complaint, for which Ms. Mathews paid him. In one letter (received June 12, 2007) from Mr. Haque to Petitioner, he acknowledges that he has "done 10 more deals with [Ms. Mathews] in the past for which she compensated me 1/3 of her commission. Enclosed are the HUDS for Ronald Nicolas and Beryl George . . .." These are the two transactions that are the subject of the Administrative Complaint, so there is no doubt that Respondent received compensation for his work on these two transactions. It is difficult to determine exactly what Respondent did to "earn" his share of the commission, although clearly he found the buyers. Although Respondent claims to have substantial work on each of these transactions, he is vague about what he did, and the weight to be accorded this admission is limited due to Respondent's persistent misunderstanding of this case as some sort of vehicle by which he can obtain payment for his share of the commission for the three subsequent transactions about which he filed a complaint against Ms. Mathews. The only remaining element of Petitioner's case against Respondent involves any ownership interest that Respondent may have had in the two properties identified in the Administrative Complaint. A summary of the investigator's interview with Ms. Mathews, who did not testify, states that she told the investigator that the deals that she did with Respondent were with properties that he owned. However, Respondent supplies the needed evidence as to this critical point when, in his post- hearing statement, he refers to this statement from the investigator and disputes it by stating: "The fact is, this is the only property in my complain [sic] I own with Ms. Mathews as agent of record." It is impossible to determine whether this admission applies to one of the two transactions that are the subject of the Administrative Complaint or one of the transactions for which he is, even now, seeking payment. At minimum, though, even if the statement applies to one of the two subject transactions, it applies to only one of them, and, by negative implication, Respondent concedes that he was not an owner of the other property. On the basis of this record, Petitioner has proved all of the above-cited allegations of the Administrative Complaint in connection with both transactions that underlie Count I.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of operating as a broker or sales person without a license and imposing an administrative fine against him of $5000. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Syed Haque 10100 Country Brook Road Boca Raton, Florida 33428
The Issue Pursuant to chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and section 255.25, Florida Statutes,1/ the Department of Management Services (DMS) released an Invitation to Negotiate for a contract to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 (ITN). After evaluating the replies, negotiating with five vendors, and holding public meetings, DMS posted a notice of intent to award a contract to CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) and Vertical Integration, Inc. (Vertical). At issue in this proceeding is whether DMS’s intended decision to award a contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to CBRE and Vertical is contrary to DMS’s governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the ITN’s specifications, or was otherwise clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Background5/ DMS released Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 on March 18, 2013, and released a revised version of the ITN on May 14, 2013, for the selection of a company to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida. Thirteen vendors responded to the ITN. The replies were evaluated by five people: Bryan Bradner, Deputy Director of REDM of DMS; Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS; Rosalyn (“Roz”) Ingram, Chief of Procurement, Land and Leasing of the Department of Corrections; Clark Rogers, Purchasing and Facilities Manager of the Department of Revenue; and Janice Ellison, Section Lead in the Land Asset Management Section of the Department of Environmental Protection. Five vendors advanced to the negotiation stage: Cushman (score of 87), JLL (score of 87), CBRE (score of 87), Vertical (score of 89), and DTZ (score of 86). DTZ is not a party to this proceeding. The negotiation team consisted of Beth Sparkman, Bryan Bradner, and Roz Ingram. Janice Ellison participated as a subject matter expert. DMS held a first round of negotiations and then held a public meeting on July 16, 2013. DMS held a second round of negotiations and then held a second public meeting on August 1, 2013. A recording of this meeting is not available, but minutes were taken. Also on August 1, 2013, DMS posted Addendum 8, the Request for Best and Final Offers. This Addendum contained the notice that “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3) . . . shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes.” The vendors each submitted a BAFO. DMS held a final public meeting on August 14, 2013, at which the negotiation team discussed the recommendation of award. All three members of the negotiation team recommended Vertical as one of the two vendors to receive the award. For the second company, two of the three negotiation team members recommended CBRE and one negotiation team member recommended JLL. DMS prepared a memorandum, dated August 14, 2013, describing the negotiation team’s recommendation of award. The memorandum comprises the following sections: Introduction; The Services; Procurement Process (subsections for Evaluations and Negotiations); Best value (subsections for Selection Criteria, Technical Analysis, Price Analysis, and Negotiation Team’s Recommendation); and Conclusion. Attached to the memorandum as Attachment A was a memorandum dated April 30, 2013, appointing the evaluation and negotiation committees, and attached as Attachment B was a spreadsheet comparing the vendors’ BAFOs. DMS posted the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE and Vertical on August 16, 2013. Cushman and JLL timely filed notices of intent to protest the Intent to Award. On August 29, 2013, JLL timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. On August 30, 2013, Cushman timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. An opportunity to resolve the protests was held on September 9, 2013, and an impasse was eventually reached. On October 10, 2013, DMS forwarded the formal protest petitions to DOAH. An Order consolidating JLL’s protest and Cushman’s protest was entered on October 15, 2013. Scope of Real Estate Services in the ITN Prior to the statutory authority of DMS to procure real estate brokerage services, agencies used their own staff to negotiate private property leases. Section 255.25(h), Florida Statutes, arose out of the legislature’s desire for trained real estate professionals to assist the State of Florida with its private leasing needs. The statutorily mandated use of tenant brokers by agencies has saved the state an estimated $46 million dollars. The primary purpose of the ITN was to re-procure the expiring tenant broker contracts to assist state agencies in private sector leasing transactions. Once under contract, the selected vendors compete with each other for the opportunity to act on behalf of individual agencies as their tenant broker, but there is no guarantee particular vendors will get any business. The core of the services sought in the ITN was lease transactions. The ITN also sought to provide a contract vehicle to allow vendors to provide real estate consulting services, including strategies for long and short-term leases, space planning, and space management as part of the negotiation for private leases. As part of providing real estate consulting services, vendors would also perform independent market analyses (IMAs) and broker opinions of value (BOVs) or broker price opinions (BPOs). In almost all instances, this would be provided at no charge as part of the other work performed for a commissionable transaction under the resulting contract. However, the resulting contract was designed to allow agencies to ask for an IMA or BOV to be performed independently from a commissionable transaction. In addition to the primary leasing transactions, the contract would also allow state agencies to use the vendors for other services such as the acquisition and disposition of land and/or buildings. These services would be performed according to a Scope of Work prepared by the individual agency, with compensation at either the hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or at the percentage commission rate negotiated between the vendor and the individual agency. However, these services were ancillary to the main purpose of the contract, which was private leasing. In Florida, most state agencies are not authorized to hold title to land. However, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) serves as staff for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board”), which holds title to land owned by the State of Florida. In that capacity, DEP buys and sells land and other properties on behalf of the Board. DEP recently began using the current DMS tenant broker contract for acquisitions and dispositions. The process was cumbersome under the current contract, so DEP asked to participate in the ITN in order to make the contract more suitable for their purposes. The ITN was revised to include DEP’s proposed changes, and DMS had Ms. Ellison serve first as an evaluator and later as a subject matter expert. At hearing, Ms. Ellison testified that she was able to participate fully, that her input was taken seriously, and that the proposed contract adequately addressed DEP’s concerns. While DEP anticipated that under the proposed contract it would use more BOVs than it had previously, there was no guarantee that DEP would use the proposed contract. DEP is not obligated to use the contract and maintains the ability to procure its own tenant brokers. Additionally, administration and leadership changes may cause a switch of using in-house agency employees instead of tenant brokers to perform real estate acquisition and disposition services. Specifics of the ITN The ITN directed vendors to submit a reply with the following sections: a cover letter; completed attachments; pass/fail requirements; Reply Evaluation Criteria; and a price sheet. The Reply Evaluation Criteria included Part A (Qualifications) and Part B (Business Plan). Qualifications were worth 40 points, the Business Plan was worth 50 points, and the proposed pricing was worth 10 points. For the Business Plan, the ITN requested a detailed narrative description of how the vendors planned to meet DMS’s needs as set forth in section 3.01, Scope of Work. The ITN requested that vendors describe and identify the current and planned resources and employees to be assigned to the project and how the resources would be deployed. Section 3.01, Scope of Work, states that the primary objective of the ITN is to “identify brokers to assist and represent the Department and other state agencies in private sector leasing transactions.” The ITN states that the contractor will provide state agencies and other eligible users with real estate transaction and management services, which include “document creation and management, lease negotiation and renegotiation, facility planning, construction oversight, and lease closeout, agency real estate business strategies, pricing models related to relocation services, project management services, acquisition services, and strategic consulting.” Id. The ITN also specifies: Other real estate consulting services such as property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales or those identified in the reply or negotiation process and made part of the Contract (e.g., financial services, facilities management services, lease v. buy analyses). The ITN lists the following duties the contractor will perform: Act as the state’s tenant broker, to competitively solicit, negotiate and develop private sector lease agreements; Monitor landlord build-out on behalf of state agencies; Provide space management services, using required space utilization standards; Provide tenant representation services for state agencies and other eligible users during the term of a lease; Identify and evaluate as directed strategic opportunities for reducing occupancy costs through consolidation, relocation, reconfiguration, capital investment, selling and/or the building or acquisition of space; Assist with property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding property, property auctions and direct sales; and Provide requested related real estate consulting services. The ITN set the commission percentage for new leases at 4 percent for years 1-10 and 2 percent for each year over 10 years; 2 percent for lease renewals, extensions, or modifications; and 2 percent for warehouse or storage space leases. Id. For “other services,” the ITN states: With respect to all other services (e.g., space management services, general real estate consulting services, property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales), compensation will be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the broker and the using agency. The ITN also required that vendors specify the number of credit hours to be given annually to DMS. Each vendor gives a certain number of credit hours at the start of each year under the contract. The state earns additional credit hours as the vendors perform transactions. DMS manages the pool of accumulated credit hours and gives them to individual agencies to use on a case-by-case basis as payment for individual projects. These credit hours are commonly allocated to pay for IMAs and BOVs that are not part of commissionable transactions. With the exception of one legislatively mandated project, DMS has never exhausted its pool of credit hours. The ITN further specified that IMAs and BOVs must be offered at no cost when performed as part of a commissionable transaction. Historically, most IMAs and BOVs are performed as part of a commissionable transaction. They have only been performed separately from a commissionable transaction a handful of times under the current contract, and many of these were still provided at no cost through the allocation of free credit hours available to the agencies. Therefore, most IMAs and BOVs to be performed under the proposed contract will likely be at no cost. The ITN states that points to be awarded under the price criterion will be awarded based on the number of annual credit hours offered and the commission rate paid per transaction per hour of commission received. The ITN further provides that DMS will evaluate and rank replies in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible to award, and then the team will proceed to negotiations. Regarding negotiations, the ITN states: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent’s demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the section criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. The ITN also states: At the conclusion of negotiations, the Department will issue a written request for best and final offer(s) (BAFOs) to one or more of the Respondents with which the negotiation team has conducted negotiations. At a minimum, based upon the negotiation process, the BAFOs must contain: A revised Statement of Work; All negotiated terms and conditions to be included in Contract; and A final cost offer. The Respondent’s BAFO will be delivered to the negotiation team for review. Thereafter, the negotiation team will meet in a public meeting to determine which offer constitutes the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria. The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the State. The ITN and draft contract permit subcontractors to perform under the contract and provide an avenue for a contractor to add subcontractors by submitting a written request to DMS’s contract manager with particular information. Best and Final Offers After the conclusion of negotiations, the negotiation team requested each vendor to submit a BAFO, to be filled out in accordance with the RBAFO format. The RBAFO noted that each vendor would get a set percentage commission for leasing transactions, but asked vendors to submit their prices for IMAs, BOVs, and BPOs performed outside a commissionable transaction and to submit the number of annual credit hours vendors would give DMS at the start of the new contract. In an effort to increase potential savings to the state, DMS lowered the percentage rates of the commissions for lease transactions in the RBAFO below the rates initially set in the ITN. By selecting only two vendors instead of three, the additional potential volume for each vendor on the contract could support the lower commission rates being requested of tenant brokers. The state would ultimately save money due to the impact of the reduced commissions on the overall economic structure of each lease. Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS, expounded on the rationale for reducing the number of vendors under the new contract to two: The Court: To me, it’s counterintuitive that having fewer vendors would result in more favorable pricing for the state of Florida; and yet you said that was the anticipated result of reducing the number of vendors from three to two – The Witness: Correct. The Court: -- for the new contract. I’m unclear. Tell me the basis for the team’s anticipation that having fewer vendors would result in better pricing. The Witness: When the original ITN was released, it had the same percentages in there that are under the current contract. And I’ll talk, for context, new leases, which right now is at 4 percent. So the discussion was – and 4 percent is typical of the industry. That’s typical for what the industry pays across the board. So the desire was to reduce the commission, to reduce those commission amounts to drive that percentage down. So we went out with the first BAFO that had a range that said for leases that cost between zero – and I can’t remember – zero and a half million, what would your percentage be? Thinking that when we had a tiered arrangement, those percentages would come down. They really didn’t. So when we sat down as a team and discussed: Well, why didn’t they – and you know, because typical is 4 percent. So we came back and said: Well, if we reduce the percentage on new leases to 3.25 but restrict the reward to two vendors, each vendor has the potential to make as much money as they would have made at 4 percent, but the savings would be rolled back into the state. Each of the five vendors invited to negotiate submitted a BAFO, agreeing as part of their submissions to comply with the terms and conditions of the draft of the proposed contract and agreeing to the lowered set percentage commission rates in the RBAFO. The RBAFO listed selection criteria by which the vendors would be chosen, to further refine the broad criteria listed in the ITN. The RBAFO listed the following nine items as selection criteria: performance measures (if necessary), sliding scale/cap, IMA set fee, broker’s opinion of value, balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum), contract concerns, credit hours (both annual and per deal hour), hourly rates, and vendor experience and capability. CBRE’s BAFO submission followed the format indicated in the RBAFO, but CBRE included an additional section giving its proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions of land. These rates were also submitted by other vendors at other parts of the procurement process, but CBRE was the only vendor to include such rates as part of its BAFO submission. DMS considered this addition a minor irregularity that it waived. In its BAFO submission, Cushman offered a three-tiered approach to its pricing for IMAs and BOVs. For the first tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for free as part of a commissionable transaction. This is redundant, as the ITN required all vendors to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when part of a commissionable transaction. For the second tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when the user agency has previously hired Cushman on tenant representative work. Ms. Sparkman testified that this provision was unclear, as Cushman did not define the scope of this provision or what amount of work qualified the agency for free services. For the third tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for $240 when not part of a commissionable transaction for an agency with which it had never done business. Best Value Determination The five BAFOs were sent to the negotiation team for review on August 8, 2013, and on August 14, 2013, the team met in a public meeting to discuss the BAFOs, consider the selection criteria, discuss the team’s award recommendation, and draft a written award recommendation memorandum. During the August 14, 2013, meeting the team determined that CBRE and Vertical represented the best value to the state, by a majority vote for CBRE and by a unanimous vote for Vertical. Ms. Sparkman stated at the meeting that, from her perspective, CBRE and Vertical represented a better value than the other vendors because they were more forward thinking in their long term business strategies for managing Florida’s portfolio. Also at this meeting, Ms. Sparkman noted that CBRE’s prices for IMAs and BOVs were somewhat high but that she would attempt to convince CBRE to lower its prices during the contract execution phase. This was part of an attempt to equalize costs to ensure user agencies selected vendors based on individual needs rather than cost. However, CBRE represented the best value to the state regardless of whether its pricing changed. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that if CBRE had refused to lower its pricing, DMS would still have signed a contract with them based on the pricing submitted in its BAFO. Ms. Sparkman also stated at the public meeting that if she were unable to come to contract with both CBRE and Vertical, she would arrange for another public meeting to select a third vendor with whom to proceed to the contract execution phase. This statement did not refer to DMS selecting a third vendor to replace CBRE should CBRE refuse to lower its price, but rather reflected the possibility that during the contract execution phase, DMS and either one of the vendors could potentially be unable to sign a contract because the vendor was unwilling to execute the written terms and conditions. The “contract negotiations” referenced during the public meeting are the remaining processes to be worked out during the contract execution phase and are distinct and separate from the negotiation phase. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that in the past, vendors have refused to sign a contract because their legal counsel was unwilling to sign off on what the business representatives agreed to. Thus, if either CBRE or Vertical refused to sign the contract altogether, DMS would potentially have selected a third-place vendor in order to have a second vendor on the contract, according to Ms. Sparkman. International experience weighed in favor of CBRE and Vertical, according to team member comments made at the public meeting. Although the phrase “international experience” was not specifically listed in the selection criteria of the ITN or RBAFO, many vendors highlighted their international experience as part of the general category of vendor experience. Vendor experience and capability is specified in both the ITN and RBAFO as part of the selection criteria. Ms. Sparkman testified that international experience is indicative of high quality general vendor experience because international real estate market trends change more rapidly than domestic market trends. None of the negotiation team members recommended Cushman for a contract award, and in fact, Cushman's name was not even discussed at the award meeting. The Award Memorandum Also during the August 14, 2013, public meeting the negotiation team prepared a memorandum setting forth the negotiation team’s best value recommendation of CBRE and Vertical, and many of its reasons for the recommendation. There was no requirement that the memorandum list every single reason that went into the decision. For example, the memorandum did not state that the team found CBRE and Vertical’s focus on long term strategies more impressive than Cushman’s focus on past performance under the current contract. The award memorandum included a “Selection Criteria” section which simply repeated the nine selection criteria that had been previously identified in the RBAFO. The memorandum then went on to include a section labeled “B. Technical Analysis” that stated: Analysis of pricing is provided in section C below. As to the remaining selection criteria items, the Team identified the following key elements for the service to be provided: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. The selection criteria provided above were used by the Team to make its best value recommendation. Ms. Sparkman testified that while the choice of wording may have been imprecise, the items listed in the Technical Analysis section were simply elaborations of the selection criteria in the ITN and RBAFO, and not new criteria. The first four are subsumed within vendor experience and capability, and the fifth was specifically listed in the RBAFO. Indeed, Cushman’s Senior Managing Director testified at hearing that Cushman had addressed the first four items in their presentation to DMS during the negotiation phase to demonstrate why Cushman should be chosen for the contract. The memorandum failed to note that CBRE had included non-solicited information in its BAFO regarding proposed rates for the acquisition and disposition of land. However, the negotiation team considered CBRE’s inclusion of these proposed rates a minor irregularity that could be waived in accordance with the ITN and addressed in the contract execution phase, since those rates were for ancillary services, and there was no guaranteed work to be done for DEP under that fee structure. The memorandum included a chart, identified as Attachment B, that compared the proposed number of credit hours and some of the pricing for IMAs and BOVs submitted by the vendors in their BAFOs. The chart listed Cushman’s price for IMAs and BOVs as $240 and failed to include all the information regarding the three-tiered approach to IMAs and BOVs Cushman listed in its BAFO. However, Ms. Sparkman testified that the chart was meant to be a side-by-side basic summary that compared similar information, not an exhaustive listing. The Cushman Protest Negotiations After Award of the Contract Cushman alleges that DMS’s selection of CBRE violates the ITN specifications because DMS selected CBRE with the intent of conducting further negotiations regarding price, which provided CBRE with an unfair advantage. Cushman further argues that the procedure of awarding to one vendor and then possibly adding another vendor if contract negotiations fail violates Florida’s statutes and the ITN. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 23, 28 & 31. Section 2.14 of the ITN specifically reserved DMS's right to reopen negotiations after receipt of BAFOs if it believed such was in the best interests of the state. Specifically, section 2.14 A. provides: The highest ranked Respondent(s) will be invited to negotiate a Contract. Respondents are cautioned to propose their best possible offers in their initial Reply as failing to do so may result in not being selected to proceed to negotiations. If necessary, the Department will request revisions to the approach submitted by the top-rated Respondent(s) until it is satisfied that the contract model will serve the state’s needs and is determined to provide the best value to the state. The statements made by Ms. Sparkman at the August 14, 2013, public meeting and in the award memorandum, that DMS would attempt to reduce CBRE's prices for ancillary services during the contract execution process were not contrary to the ITN or unfair to the other vendors. Both Ms. Sparkman and Mr. Bradner, the two negotiation team members who voted to award to CBRE, testified that they recommended CBRE as providing the best value even considering its arguably higher prices for ancillary services. Ms. Sparkman further confirmed that even if CBRE refused to lower its prices during the contract execution phase, DMS would still sign the contract, as CBRE's proposal would still represent the best value to the state. The anticipated efforts to obtain lower prices from CBRE were simply an attempt to obtain an even better best value for the state. Ms. Sparkman also testified that section 2.14 F. allowed continued negotiations, even though it was silent as to timeframe. Paragraph F states: In submitting a Reply a Respondent agrees to be bound to the terms of Section 5 – General Contract Conditions (PUR 1000) and Section 4 – Special Contract Conditions. Respondents should assume those terms will apply to the final contract, but the Department reserves the right to negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if the Department determines that it provides the best value to the state. Ms. Sparkman also cited section 2.14 I. as authority for reopening negotiations following receipt of the BAFO’s. That section provides: The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving the BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the state. Ms. Sparkman’s statement that if DMS failed, for any reason, to successfully contract with either of the two vendors selected, it would consider pulling in another vendor, is not inconsistent with the clear language of the ITN. Selection Criteria Cushman alleges that DMS used criteria to determine the awards that were not listed in the ITN or the RBAFO. Amended Pet. ¶ 25. Section 2.14 E of the ITN established broad selection criteria, stating: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent's demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the selection criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. (emphasis added). Following the negotiations, and with the assistance of its subject matter expert, the negotiation team provided in the RBAFO additional clarity as to the selection criteria, and identified the "Basis of Award/Selection Criteria" as follows: Performance Measures (if necessary) Sliding scale/cap IMA set fee Broker's opinion of value Balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum) Contract concerns Credit hours (both annual and per deal hour) Hourly rates Vendor experience and capability The foregoing selection criteria, as well as the selection criteria stated initially in the ITN, make clear that pricing was only one of the criteria upon which the award was to be made. Indeed, Cushman's representative, Larry Richey, acknowledged during his testimony that criteria such as "Performance Measures," "Contract Concerns," and "Vendor Experience and Capability" did not refer to pricing, but rather to the expected quality of the vendor's performance if awarded the contract. As the principal draftsman of the ITN and DMS's lead negotiator, Ms. Sparkman explained that the RBAFO's statement of the selection criteria was intended to provide greater detail to the broad selection criteria identified in the ITN, and was used by the negotiation team in making its best value determination. Ms. Sparkman further testified that the best value determination resulted from the negotiation team's lengthy and extensive evaluation of the vendors' initial written replies to the ITN, review of the vendors' qualifications and comprehensive business plans, participation in approximately two and a half hours of oral presentations by each vendor (including a question and answer session with regard to the proposed implementation and management of the contracts), and a review of the vendors' BAFOs. Applying the selection criteria contained in the ITN and the RBAFO, the negotiation team selected Vertical for several reasons, including its performance indicators, employees with ADA certification, computer programs and employee training not offered by other vendors, its presence in Florida, and the strength of its business plan and presentation. Similarly, the negotiation team selected CBRE for an award based on the strength of its ITN Reply, its broad look at long-term strategies, its key performance indicators, the experience and knowledge of its staff, the comprehensiveness of its proposal and business plan, size of its firm, and creative ideas such as use of a scorecard in transactions. Ms. Sparkman observed that both Vertical and CBRE specifically identified the CBRE staff who would manage the state's business and daily transactions, while it was not clear from Cushman's ITN reply and related submissions who would actually be working on the account. Cushman likewise did not discuss out-of-state leases and how such leases were going to be handled, which was a significant concern because DMS considered out-of-state leases to be particularly complex. Ms. Sparkman also noted that with respect to the vendors' business plans, both Vertical and CBRE focused primarily on strategic realignment and plans for the future, whereas Cushman discussed their current transactions at length, but did not demonstrate forward thinking to the negotiation team. Cushman's reply to the ITN also included various discrepancies noted at the final hearing. While Cushman's ITN reply identifies a Tallahassee office, Cushman does not in fact have a Tallahassee office, but instead listed its subcontractor’s office.6/ Additionally, two of the business references presented in Cushman's ITN Reply appear not in fact to be for Cushman, but instead for its subcontractor, Daniel Wagnon, as Cushman's name was clearly typed in above Mr. Wagnon's name after the references were written. Finally, Cushman failed to provide in its ITN Reply the required subcontractor disclosure information for at least one of its "Project Management Partners," Ajax Construction. Based on all of the above, DMS's decision to award contracts to Vertical and CBRE as providing the best value to the state was not arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition. Simply stated, and as the negotiation team determined, the submissions by Vertical and CBRE were more comprehensive and reasonably found to offer better value to the state than Cushman's submission. Indeed the negotiation team did not even mention Cushman as a potential contract awardee, but instead identified only Vertical, CBRE and JLL in their deliberations as to best value. Cushman's argument that DMS award memorandum improperly relies on the following as "key elements" related to services does not alter this analysis: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. While Ms. Sparkman acknowledged that the choice of language in the memorandum could have been better, it is clear that the foregoing are indeed "elements" of the selection criteria stated in the ITN and RBAFO, as the first four elements plainly relate to the vendors' ability to effectively provide the services, their technical proposal, performance measures, and vendor experience and capability, while the last element relates to the pricing portion of the criteria. Cushman also argues that the award memorandum failed to inform the final decision-maker that Cushman offered IMAs and BOVs at no charge when Cushman was engaged in a commissionable transaction or was performing other work for an agency under the contract. As a result, Cushman asserts, the Deputy Secretary was provided with inaccurate information relating to price. Cushman's argument that the award process was flawed because the pricing chart attached to the award memorandum did not accurately reflect Cushman's proposed pricing is without merit. As Ms. Sparkman testified, the chart was prepared by the negotiation team to provide for the decision-maker an apples-to- apples broad summary comparison of the vendor's proposed pricing for the proposed ancillary services. The chart was not intended to identify all variations or conditions for potential different pricing as proposed by Cushman.7/ Best Value Determination Cushman contends that the negotiation team’s decision to award a contract to CBRE did not result in the best value to the state. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 26, 28 & 29. Cushman further argues that DMS did not meaningfully consider differences in proposed pricing. The failure to consider price for potential ancillary services, Cushman argues, was contrary to competition as it gave an unfair advantage to CBRE whose prices were higher than Cushman’s prices in all but one category. Although pricing for the potential ancillary services was relevant, the ITN's initial scoring criteria made clear that DMS was primarily focused on evaluating the experience and capability of the vendors to provide the proposed services. For this reason, the ITN's initial scoring criteria awarded 90 percent of the points based upon the qualifications and business plan of the vendors, and only 10 percent of the points based on the pricing for potential ancillary services. The negotiation team members testified that this same focus on qualifications and the vendors' business plan continued during the negotiation phase and award decision, although without reliance on the mathematical scoring process utilized during the initial evaluation phase. Nothing in the ITN specifications altered this focus, and the negotiations were directed to gaining a greater understanding of the vendors' proposed services, the qualifications and bios of individuals who would actually do the work, vendors' approach to the work and parameters the vendors would use to evaluate their performance. Pricing remained of relatively minor significance primarily because the RBAFO established a uniform lease commission rate for all vendors, effectively removing pricing as a means to differentiate between the vendors. As a result, vendors were required to quote pricing only for certain potential ancillary services, including IMAs and BOVs, and the number of free credit hours to be provided to the state. Pricing for these potential ancillary services was not considered particularly important, since historically these services were seldom used, and the ITN required all vendors to provide IMAs and BOVs free of charge when related to a commissionable transaction (thereby greatly reducing the impact of any "free" IMA or BOV services). For these reasons, the negotiation team considered the potential ancillary services and pricing for these services not to be significant in the award decision and only incidental to the core purpose and mission of the intended contract, to wit, leasing and leasing commissions. As a result, the negotiation team referred to these potential ancillary services as "balance of line" items which were nominal and added little value to the contract. Notwithstanding Cushman's argument that it should have been awarded the contract because it offered the lowest pricing for these ancillary services, its prices were not in fact the lowest offered by the vendors. Indeed JLL offered to provide all IMA and BOV services (with no preconditions) at no cost. Cushman's pricing for the ancillary services also was not materially different than CBRE's pricing. CBRE's consulting services rates are comparable, if not lower, than Cushman's rates, and the difference between Cushman's and CBRE's proposed charges for IMAs and BOVs is only a few hundred dollars. When considered in terms of the anticipated number of times the ancillary services will be requested (rarely, based on the prior contract), the total "extra" amount to be spent for CBRE's services would be at most a few thousand dollars. The negotiation team reasonably considered this to be insignificant in comparison to the multimillion dollar leasing work which was the core purpose of the intended contract.8/ Because pricing for the potential ancillary services was of lesser significance to DMS's award decision, Cushman's position that DMS should have awarded Cushman a contract based upon its pricing for ancillary services is not consistent with the ITN and does not render DMS's intended awards to Vertical and CBRE arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous or contrary to competition. To the contrary, DMS articulated a rational, reasonable and logical explanation for the award. CBRE’s Proposal Non-Responsive to ITN and RBAFO? Cushman alleges that CBRE’s BAFO was not responsive to the ITN and the RBAFO because CBRE included a set rate for acquisitions and dispositions in its proposal. Amended Pet. 30. Since CBRE's BAFO materially deviated from the ITN's specifications, CBRE’s proposal should have been deemed non- responsive and therefore rejected, Cushman argues. The ITN originally requested pricing related only to credit hours as the ITN set the rates for leases. The ITN stated that “other services” would be determined on a case-by- case basis as negotiated by the agencies. However, as part of the ITN process, DMS discussed with the vendors the potential for them to assist the state in the sale and acquisition of property, and what commission rates might be charged for this work. For this reason, CBRE included proposed commission rates for acquisition and disposition services in its BAFO. DMS considered the inclusion of potential rates for acquisitions and dispositions to be a minor irregularity which did not render CBRE's BAFO non-responsive. This determination is consistent with the terms of the ITN, which at section 2.14(g) states "[t]he Department reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in replies." The form PUR 1001 incorporated by reference into the ITN likewise reserves to DMS the right to waive minor irregularities and states: 16. Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the state's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. Consistent with the above-cited provisions, the negotiation team noted at its August 14, 2013, meeting that CBRE's inclusion of the proposed rates was not material, and that during the contract execution process, DMS would either exclude the proposed rates from the contract, or possibly include such as a cap for these services. Both of these alternatives were available to DMS given CBRE's commitment to follow the terms of the draft contract, which specifically stated that fees for acquisitions and dispositions would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, CBRE's inclusion of proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions did not give CBRE an advantage over the other vendors, or impair the competition, because Cushman and JLL also submitted, as part of their ITN responses, proposed commission rates for the acquisition and disposition of property. Do the ITN Specifications Violate Section 255.25? Cushman's final argument is that the ITN specifications, and the proposed contract, violate section 255.25(3)(h)5., Florida Statutes, which states that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract and may not be supplemented or modified by the state agency using the contract." Cushman's argument has two components. First, Cushman argues that the specifications included at Tab 5, page 13 of the ITN violate the statute by providing: "With respect to all other [ancillary] services, . . . , compensation shall be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by a percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the using agency.” Cushman also argues that the language in the award memorandum stating that the BOV rates are "caps" and "may be negotiated down by agencies prior to individual transactions," violates the statute. This latter reference to "caps" correlates to the "ceiling rates" stated in the above quoted ITN specification. Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires vendors to file a protest to an ITN’s terms, conditions, or specifications within 72 hours of the release of the ITN or amendment; failure to protest constitutes a waiver of such arguments. DMS included this language with the release of the ITN and each amendment, so Cushman was on notice of its protest rights. Cushman's challenge to the ITN specifications as violating section 255.25 is untimely and has been waived. Having been fully informed of this specification since May 14, 2013, when the revised ITN was published, Cushman could not wait until the ITN process was completed some four months later, and then argue that the ITN specifications do not comply with section 255.25 and must be changed. Such argument plainly constitutes a specifications challenge, and such a challenge is now time-barred. Even were Cushman’s challenge not time-barred, it would still fail. Section 255.25 requires only that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract," and not that all terms identifying the compensation be specified. The challenged ITN specification, actually added via Addendum 2 at the request of DEP and its subject matter expert, does specify the approved methods by which the state could compensate the vendor, which DMS determined would best be determined on a case-by-case basis. By stating the approved methods which can be used by the state agencies, the ITN specifications and term contract did specify the terms "relating to" the compensation of the vendor, i.e., an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or a percentage commission rate. DMS established these terms because the exact compensation would best be determined by the state agency on a case-by-case basis in a Statement of Work utilizing one of the specified compensation methods.9/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the petition of Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc., and affirming the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE, Inc., and Vertical Integration, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 24th day of January, 2014.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate license in Florida should be disciplined because the Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Michael A. Lippis, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0502783 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker at 4904 Eisenhower Boulevard #350, Tampa, Florida. In August 1989, John Steven Gieder and Kathryn Marie Gieder made an offer to purchase a house from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Gieders entrusted a $2,000 earnest money deposit to the selling broker, Realty Shop. Respondent who was neither an agent nor subagent for the seller or the purchasers in the transaction accepted the offer on August 17, 1989. Subsequent to August 17, 1989, Respondent in bad faith and not as a party to the transaction began calling the purchasers and their relatives telling the they were paying too much money for the property, were mislead by their broker and that the property was bad and so was the neighborhood. Around August 21, 1989, Respondent in bad faith sent unsolicited information to the purchasers. Respondent even telephoned the purchasers' mother, Pat Gieder, and questioned her about her son's pending purchase from HUD. Respondent told Mrs. Gieder that the property was priced too high and tried to persuade Mrs. Gieder to keep her son from purchasing the property. Respondent also told Mrs. Gieder that he was "sick and tired of losing commissions" to other brokers who out bid him. The transaction closed on August 31, 1989. Respondent did not participate. Respondent had been actively certified as a HUD broker. During this same period, Respondent contacted more than one buyer and attempted to interfere in sales. Respondent stated to a HUD official that he would continue to interfere in HUD transactions even though he was employed as one of HUD's agents, if he thought the contracts were being presented at too high a price. The loyalty of a HUD broker to his employer is the same fiduciary duty a broker owes to any seller who employs him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Respondent be found guilty of having violated subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), as charged in the Administrative Complaint, that Respondent's real estate license be suspended for a period of one (1) year, that the Commission require Respondent to pay a fine of $500 and complete a course in ethics in real estate. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3805 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (in part),8,9 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 7 (in part) Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Michael A. Lippis 4904 Eisenhower Boulevard, Apartment No. 350 Tampa, FL 32806 Lawrence H. Luppens, Jr., Esquire 100 Twiggs Street Tampa, FL 33602 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
