Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order directing Capitol Rental and Realty, Inc. and Lawrence D. Van Ore cease and desist from using non-registrants as real estate salesmen and further from failing to use the full name of the registrant and the term "Broker" or "Realtor" within its classified advertisements. The Hearing Officer further recommends that the registration of the registrant be suspended until the corporate broker and associate broker Lawrence D. Van Ore have complied with said order of the Commission. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Gough, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Don Scarlet, Esquire 801 Magnolia - Suite 317 Orlando, Florida 32803
Findings Of Fact On or about February 11, 1986, Pantino filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman, which was denied based upon Pantino's prior criminal record. It is undisputed that Pantino was convicted of possession of a weapon in 1969 and was convicted of sale of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, trafficking in cocaine, possession of a machine gun, and receiving stolen property in 1981. The 1969 incident occurred in New York and a Certificate of Relief from disabilities was granted in New York on June 25, 1976. The arrest for the 1981 offenses occurred on November 5, 1981. On September 1, 1982, Pantino pleaded guilty and was sentenced to terms of probation of 10 years and 5 years, to run concurrently. The probation was terminated early by Order of the Circuit Judge on July 18, 1985. Pantino applied for real estate licensure in 1983, but was denied by the Florida Real Estate Commission for essentially the same reasons as the present denial. Pantino has the burden of proving that he is "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character" and that he has "a good reputation for fair dealing." Section 475.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Further the above criminal convictions constitute conduct which would disqualify Pantino from licensure "unless, because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient, "it appears that the interest of the public and investors will not likely be endangered if licensure is granted." Section 475.17(1)(a). For the last four years Pantino has attended group therapy and individual psychotherapy with both Marcelene Thompson, an experienced and licensed mental health counselor, and Barbara Leah, a licensed psychologist. Both of these professionals believe that Pantino is in good mental health and is extremely honest and trustworthy. According to Leah, Pantino would not cause harm to any other individuals or institutions and he does not now have any criminal tendencies. Based upon the testimony of James Rehill, David Waldron, Ron Clayton, Michael Dingman, Alfred Zenger and George Patterson, it is found that Pantino is honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and that he has a good reputation for fair dealings. The opinions of these witnesses are further corroborated by the written character references contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 2. It has been approximately five years since the criminal conduct which forms the basis for the initial denial of licensure. In those five years, Pantino has exhibited good conduct and has developed a good reputation for honesty and trustworthiness. During that time, Pantino has experienced the termination of his marriage and has been solely responsible for the care of his two children He has been a good and responsible parent to his children. He has supported his family both through self employment and with a disability pension from the veteran's Administration based on severe wounds received in Viet Nam. With apparent full knowledge of Pantino's past criminal conduct, Mel Ezell, owner of Compass Points Real Estate, signed Pantino's application showing his willingness to have Pantino's license placed with his company and to employ Pantino as a real estate salesman. The Florida Real Estate Commission presented no witnesses and the evidence of Pantino's good reputation for honesty and fair dealing is uncontroverted. There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the public and investors will likely be endangered if Pantino is licensed. In fact, the uncontroverted evidence is that Pantino is now honest and trustworthy and not a danger to investors or the public. All of the evidence presented shows that Pantino has rehabilitated himself.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order GRANTING Charles A. Pantino's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles A. Pantino 229 Shore Lane Indian Harbour Beach, Florida 32937 Joyous D. Parrish, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212, 400 W. Robinson Orlando, Florida 32001 Fred Roche Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1721 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner. 1. Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. 2. Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is unnecessary. 3. Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 4. Proposed Finding of Fact 4 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 5. Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. 9. Proposed Finding of Fact 9 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Proposed Finding of Fact 10 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 8. Proposed Finding of Fact 11 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 8. Proposed Finding of Fact 12 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 8. Proposed Finding of Fact 13 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 8. Proposed Finding of Fact 14 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 8. Proposed Finding of Fact 15 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 4. Proposed Finding of Fact 16 is unnecessary. Proposed Finding of Fact 17 is adopted in substance inFindings of Fact 3 and 4. Proposed Finding of Fact 18 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 19. Proposed Finding of Fact 19 is unnecessary. 20. Proposed Finding of Fact 20 is unnecessary. 21. Proposed Finding of Fact 21 is modified in Finding ofFact 9. 22. Proposed Finding of Fact 22 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 23. Proposed Finding of Fact 23 is irrelevant. 24. Proposed Finding of Fact 24 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 25. Proposed Finding of Fact 25 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact 5. 11. 9. 9. 2. 13. 1. 2. 2. 5. 3. 7. 8. 10. Proposed Finding of Fact 26 is modified in Finding of Fact 13. Proposed Finding of Fact 27 is adopted in substance inFinding of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 28 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent. Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 4 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 9 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and processing applications for licensure of real estate salesmen in the State of Florida. On February 20, 1989, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent seeking licensure in the State of Florida as a real estate salesman. Question 7 of the application form required Petitioner to disclose whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, had been found guilty of a crime, or had entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a crime. The question explicitly applied to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (except parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether the applicant had been placed on probation, had had adjudication withheld, had been paroled, or had been pardoned. Petitioner disclosed the following violations of law in his handwritten response to Question 7: In 1985, attempted possession of cocaine less than 1 gram for which he received 60 days probation; In 1985, disorderly intoxication for which he received three months probation; In 1985, speeding for which he received a fine; In 1985, vandalism for which no disposition was shown; In 1986, violation of probation for which no disposition was shown, and In 1986, possession of a stolen automobile tag for which he received two years probation. Petitioner failed to disclose the following violations of law in his response to question 7: In 1977, sexual battery for which he was placed on five years probation; In 1980, violation of probation; and In 1980, driving under the influence of alcohol for which he received six months probation and a fine of $100. Petitioner knew that he had committed the undisclosed offenses and he knew that he had not listed the undisclosed offenses in response to question 7. Petitioner could not justify his failure to list the undisclosed violations in his response to question 7. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based on the violations of law disclosed by Petitioner, on the violations of law Petitioner failed to disclose, and on the failure of Petitioner to disclose violations of law. Following the denial of his application, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order which denies Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3180 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact of paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. The proposed findings of fact of paragraph 4 that the charge of sexual battery was reduced to attempted sexual battery is rejected because there was no evidence that the charge was reduced. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are accepted. The proposed findings in paragraph 5 are rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of paragraph 6 are accepted as part of the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order, but they are rejected as findings of fact as being unnecessary to the result reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack P. Hardin 722 Fernwood Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 32801 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212, 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 33405 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent alleging a violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, through the entry of a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of vehicular homicide, a felony, as described in Section 782.071, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as a governmental agency in the State of Florida, licenses and regulates those persons who are engaged in real estate sales within Florida. The authority for this regulatory function may be found in Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and associated rules. Respondent has held a real estate salesman's license issued by the Petitioner during all relevant periods. On September 13, 1986, that license held by the Respondent was inactive. On October 13, 1986, Respondent activated his real estate salesman's license and it remained active at the point of final hearing. In October 1986, Respondent placed his real estate sales license with a real estate broker in Gainesville, Florida, Richard Fort Rogers. Richard Fort Rogers is the father of the Respondent. Respondent continues in his affiliation with his father's real estate brokerage operation. On September 13, 1987, Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. He was operating the motor vehicle in question and through that operation caused the death of Harold E. Thompson. Out of these circumstances, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of vehicular homicide. Section 782.071, Florida Statutes. This disposition is set forth in Petitioner's composite exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. The plea was by negotiation in the case The State of Florida vs. Richard Fort Rogers in the Circuit Court, for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Alachua County, Court, #86-3203-CF-A. The amended information to which the Petitioner pled dates from December 10, 1986. The negotiated plea was entered on February 2, 1987. On that same date the Court entered an order accepting the plea. For this offense, adjudication of guilt was withheld, the Respondent was given three years' probation, required to pay court costs and was screened for alcohol counseling. Following the disposition of his case, by correspondence of February 13, 1987, as received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on February 17, 1987, Respondent advised the Commission of his plea of nolo contendere to the charge of vehicular homicide.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner is a real estate salesman registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. In September of 1978, petitioner submitted an application to the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate broker. By an Order dated December 4, 1978, the respondent denied the application for the reason that the applicant had not made it affirmatively appear that he possessed the necessary qualifications under F.S. 475.17. Specifically, the Commission found "That it appears to the Commission that Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Wallace W. Staff's name as a witness to Dunkum's signature on a contract offer to purchase real estate without authorization. In addition, Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Staff's name to a listing agreement without authorization." The petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing on the denial of his application and the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the proceedings. The petitioner Dunkum admits that he did sign broker Staff's name as a witness to his own signature on a contract for the sale of real estate. Mr. Dunkum has been a notary public for approximately fifteen years and was aware that he should not have signed Staff's name as a witness. Petitioner was the purchaser under the contract and did in fact purchase the real estate. Thus, neither the purchaser nor the seller was harmed by the wrongdoing. The petitioner further admits that he did sign broker Staff's name to a listing agreement. He admits that he was wrong to sign Staff's name, without adding his initials or name under the signature. Petitioner believed he had the authority to sign Staff's name to listing agreements in Staff's absence. Mr. Staff testified that he never gave petitioner authority to sign his name and that all listings were to be under his signature. Mr. Staff was aware that petitioner had signed his name on documents prior to September of 1978. Nevertheless, on September 18, 1978, Mr. Staff entered into a three year independent contractor agreement with petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for registration as a real estate broker be DENIED, but that petitioner be permitted to submit another application for registration nine (9) months after the Order of the Commission dated December 4, 1978. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Rupert E. Dunkum 5900 94th Avenue Pinellas Park, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question six in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by 475.17 and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d), F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question 15(a) in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d) , F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William J. Windsor, is now and at all times material to the complaint was a registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission and is and was so operating and registered in the employ of Watson Corporation of Jacksonville, 6206 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville Florida. The application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman was subscribed and sworn to on January 14, 1976, and filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 15, 1976. The Florida Real Estate Commission approved the application for William J. Windsor to become a real estate salesman on February 3, 1976. The application for registration as a real estate salesman contained within it a question no. 6 which provides as follows: "6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offences (but not parking, speeding, inspection or signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question no.6 in the negative by placing the word "no" in the space provided. At the time of the execution of this application, the Respondent, William J. Windsor, knew or should have known that his answer to question six was false and untrue since he had failed to disclose and explain certain charges and arrests. The first matter was an arrest on September 11, 1973, by the Sheriff's office of St. Johns County, Florida under dockets no. 73-626, 73-626A and 73- 626B, three charges of the offense of "issuing a worthless check". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, also failed to reveal an arrest of October l8, 1973, by the Sheriff's office, St. Johns County, Florida, case no. 121992, on a charge of "contempt of court". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, did not reveal an arrest on October 19, 1973, by the Sheriff's Office, Polk County, Florida, on charges of "embezzlement-misapplication of funds, making false reports and furnishing false statements". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, failed to reveal in his answer to question six, that an order was entered which withheld the adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent, William J. Windsor, on probation for a period of five (5) years', and an order of restitution after he had entered a plea of nolle contendre to the offense of misapplication of funds (five counts), case no. CF-73-2357, Circuit Court, Florida, May 1, 1974, in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County. This plea was entered as an agent, officer, an employee of Mar-Bil Enterprises, Inc. The probation that was received was modified by orders of the committing court and a copy of those orders, whose contents are admitted as fact, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits #1 & #2. In the subject application for registration as a real estate salesman, William J. Windsor, the Respondent, answered a question no. 15(a) which question provided as follows: "15(a). Has any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, procession or nation, upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law, or is any proceeding now pending?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question 15(a) with the word "no", inserted in the place provided for response. At the time the Respondent, William J. Windsor, gave the answer to question 15(a), he knew or should have known that the answer was false and untrue since he had failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain the revocation of his contractor's license (RG- 00l2898) on January 8, 1975, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Respondent-licensee, William J. Windsor, having pled guilty to eleven (11) charges of violation of 468.112, F.S., at a formal hearing held on December 20, 1974, Hillsborough County Courthouse, Tampa, Florida. A copy of the notice of revocation of the Respondents license held with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is Petitioner's Exhibit #3, admitted into evidence and accepted as fact. The date of this letter of notification is January 29, 1975. The Respondent, William J. Windsor, tried to explain his failure to answer questions 6 and 15(a) above, by stating that he had made numerous inquires of the Florida Real Estate Commission about the possibility of being granted a real estate salesman's license in view of his plea of nolle contendre and probation for the aforementioned offenses. The summary of the contact with the Florida Real Estate Commission, put concisely, would be that the Real Estate Commission did not foreclose the possibility of the Respondent being granted a real estate salesman's license; however, no one in the Florida Real Estate Commission office indicated that the Respondent would not be required to answer questions 6 and 15(a) completely. Respondent's Exhibit #1 is a copy of a letter of May 30, 1975, from the probation officer of the Respondent, addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission This letter concerns the possibility of Respondent, William J. Windsor, obtaining a real estate salesman's license, and is a part of the contact which the Respondent had with the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, as a real estate salesman, license no. 0158593, be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William J. Windsor c/o Warson Corporation of Jacksonville 6206 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida Joseph C. Black, Esquire 1106 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
