The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined because the Respondent has been found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate salesman or involves moral tupitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: At all times pertinent to the charges, the Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate salesman having been issued license number 0400199 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The license issued during all times material to the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint was as salesman, % Emerson Realty Group of Volusia County, Inc., 322 Silver Beach Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32018. The Respondent, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, entered a plea of guilty to one count of filing a false tax return, a felony, whereupon on October 17, 1988, the Respondent was sentenced to a period of probation and fined $2,500. Via letter dated October 31, 1988, the Respondent's attorney timely notified the Petitioner of the felony charges, plea and disposition. In mitigation, Respondent testified and his exhibits indicate that Respondent's former wife was the office manager and book keeper until 1983. Respondent did not prepare the income tax return for which he entered his plea, his former wife did so. He relied on his former wife's competency and goodwill in preparing all documents relating to his main business, the pest control business. She reported the errors on his income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service out of spite and greed (in hopes of collecting a 10% reward). The basis for the conviction of filing a false tax return did not involve a real estate transaction. Respondent has no prior convictions for any other crime.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of the record, including the contents of the several exhibits received into evidence, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent William Lea be found guilty of having violated Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1987) as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further: RECOMMENDED that Respondent William Lea receive a reprimand, an administrative fine of $400.00. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, 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 June, 1989. APPENDIX 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 Recommended Order: Paragraphs 1 - 3. Accepted Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order: Respondent did not submit separate findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: STEVEN W. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE SENIOR ATTORNEY DPR - DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W. ROBINSON STREET P.O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 HARRISON SLAUGHTER, ESQUIRE 56 EAST PINE STREET, SUITE A ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 DARLENE F. KELLER, DIVISION DIRECTOR DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W. ROBINSON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 KENNETH E. EASLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION NORTHWOOD CENTRE 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET SUITE 60 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, is eligible to sit for the Florida Real Estate Commission's licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and exhibits, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On or about July 26, 1981, Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. By letter dated September 28, 1981, Randy Schwartz, Respondent's counsel, advised Petitioner that the Respondent, at its duly noticed meeting of September 23, 1981, denied Petitioner's application for licensure. That letter recited that the specific reason for the Respondent's actions was baked on Petitioner's answer to question six (6) on the licensing application and her criminal record. In this regard, evidence reveals and Petitioner's application reflects that Petitioner was convicted in the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach), on September 8, 1978, of embezzlement of monies from a bank, in violation of Title XVIII, United States Code, 656. Petitioner was sentenced by the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins on that date, pursuant to the split-sentence provision of Title XVIII, United States Code, 3651, in that she was to be confined in a jail-type institution for a period of one (1) month, and thereafter, the remainder of the sentence of confinement [one (1) year] was suspended. Upon discharge from incarceration, Petitioner was to be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years under the special condition that she make restitution for the monies embezzled. Jurisdiction of that case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, and on March 29, 1982, Petitioner was terminated from probation supervision. Robert E. Lee, a chief U.S. probation officer, who supervised petitioner while she was under the supervision of the subject office as a probationer, indicates that Petitioner reflected a favorable attitude toward her probation officer, remained gainfully employed and abided by all the rules of probation. Petitioner has never been arrested since her conviction in 1978, and has received only one (1) traffic citation during December of 1981. Petitioner has been continuously employed since her conviction and is presently a secretary/receptionist where she is in charge of and controls office business for Mobile Craft Wood Products in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner has been in charge of processing cash sales for the past four (4) years. Petitioner is presently making restitution to the savings and loan association that she embezzled. Charles Demenzes, a realtor/broker who owns Demenzes Realty Inc., has known Petitioner approximately one (1) year. Mr. Demenzes spoke highly of Petitioner and was favorably impressed with her desire to become licensed as a real estate salesperson. Mr. Demenzes is hopeful that Petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to sit for the licensure examination such that she can join his sales force, if she successfully passes the examination. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner, having been convicted of the crime of embezzlement, which involves moral turpitude and therefore is ineligible to sit for the Respondent's licensure examination. In this regard, counsel for Respondent admits that the Board, when acting upon Petitioner's application for licensure, did not consider the fact that Petitioner has been released from probation supervision inasmuch as that factor did not exist at the time Petitioner made application for licensure. Character letters offered by Petitioner were highly complimentary of Petitioner's reputation and abilities as an employee. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982.
Recommendation Deny the application of Petitioner for Registration as a salesman for the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAIL: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Dwaine Eugene Spann Route 2, Box 376S Sarasota, Florida 33582
Findings Of Fact On May 3, 1982, Petitioner applied to Respondent for licensure as a real estate salesman. Question No. 6 on the application filed by Petitioner read as follows: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? If yes, state details including the outcome in full. In response to this question, Petitioner answered as follows: Yes--Please see attached letter. [sic] class C felony. I was put on probation for 2 yrs and paid restitution[sic] this occurred in May of 1978. The letter attached to Petitioner's application read, in part, as follows: On May 24, 1978, I was convicted of burglary, a class C Felony, in Circuit Court, Oneida County, Wisconsin. My sentence was withheld and I was placed on probation for two years. The court ordered that I also pay $9 court cost and restitution to the victim. The record in this cause establishes that on February 13, 1978, Petitioner was arrested in Oneida County, Wisconsin, and charged with feloniously entering a building with intent to steal, a felony punishable under Wisconsin law by imprisonment for up to ten years. On May 24, 1978, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary stemming from her arrest. Petitioner was found guilty of burglary, but adjudication was withheld, and she was placed on probation for two years and ordered to make restitution to the victim of her crime. Subsequently, Petitioner made restitution in the amount of $137.45. In addition, she successfully completed her two-year period of probation, and was terminated from probationary status on May 24, 1980, and her civil rights were restored. Subsequent to her arrest and conviction, both during her probationary period and thereafter, Petitioner has diligently pursued employment in a variety of fields in both Wisconsin and in Florida. While on probation in Wisconsin, Petitioner was employed in a mental health center where her duties included working as a receptionist-secretary, receiving clients, receiving telephone calls, setting up appointments for clients, taking care of bill payments, receiving money on behalf of the center, and maintaining confidentiality of client files. Her employers at the mental health center were aware of her arrest and conviction, and closely evaluated Petitioner prior to hiring her, including administering the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to determine whether she should be employed. She not only was employed after this analysis, but performed in a highly commendable fashion during the one-year period in which she held this position. Subsequently, Petitioner has worked as a waitress in various restaurants in Wisconsin, and has served as co-manager of a mobile home park in Florida. In the latter position, it was her responsibility for the general upkeep of the park, and to collect rentals and forward them to the park owner. At the time of final hearing, Petitioner was working as a salaried employee of a time-sharing resort development. In this position, she acts as a tour guide and salesperson, and receives deposits from purchasers and remits them to her employer. Petitioner's testimony and demeanor during the course of the final hearing was that of a mature and responsible wife and mother who feels genuine shame and contrition for the mistake which led to her criminal conviction. Her personal history since the date of the offense demonstrates that she has assumed responsibility for her behavior, and has determined to function effectively as a productive member of society. Accordingly, the record in this cause clearly establishes that because of the lapse of time since her conviction and her subsequent good conduct, that the interests of the public and investors would not likely be endangered by allowing her to become registered as a real estate salesperson.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner's application for licensure as a Real Estate Salesman should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the Petitioner and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. On approximately February 12, 1987, Petitioner filed an application to take the Florida real estate salesman's examination. In answering Question #6 of the application, regarding applicant's criminal record, Petitioner answered in the affirmative. Petitioner set forth the details, stating: "On May 14, 1985, plead (sic) nolo contendere to the offense of sexual battery. Through plea bargaining was sentenced to 10 years probation, which I am currently in good standing. Case was instituted by my sons (sic) girlfriend, who was living in my home. I had no witnesses in my behalf, made plea through the Public defenders (sic) office (I was not guilty)." (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1) During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that he affirmatively responded to Question #6 on the license application and, in explanation, states that he was unable to retain an attorney when charged and he, upon advice of a public defender, entered the nolo contendere plea as a "plea of convenience". Petitioner did not present any witnesses at the hearing other than his testimony on his behalf. Petitioner denied that he was guilty of the crime that he was charged and related that his son and his girlfriend lived with him from approximately 1969 through 1980. Sometime during 1980, the son became a "problem child" and was unmanageable. For that reason, the son was placed in the care and custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Petitioner again took custody of the son when he reached his seventeenth birthday so that the son and his girlfriend could live with him during commencing September 30, 1983. Approximately one year later, during April, 1984, he was charged with the crime of sexual battery. In mitigation, Petitioner avers that he is in good standing with his probation officer and that he was formerly a police officer with the Miami Police Department. Petitioner offered no corroborating witnesses or other independent evidence to refute the charges or to otherwise offer testimony as to rehabilitation of his character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the Real Estate License Examination be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Assistant Attorney General Suite 212, 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 William F. Demler 11532 Terra Bella Boulevard Plantation, Florida 33325 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 William ONeil Department of Professional Regulation General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0860
The Issue Whether Petitioner has demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good character and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, a consideration of the post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On February 13, 1982, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Commission. Petitioner, prior to moving to Florida, was employed as a deputy sheriff for the Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff's Department for approximately seven (7) years. He was honorably discharged from the Sheriff's Department. By letter dated April 27, 1982, the Commission denied Petitioner's application, stating therein that the specific reasons for its (the Commission's) actions were based on his answer to question number six (6) of the licensing application. The application form for licensure as a real estate salesman includes a question number six (.6), which inquires: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any munici- pality, state or nation, including traffic offenses . . . without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? The Petitioner responded "yes" to the inquiry. The question goes on to request: "If yes, state details, including the outcome in full." In response to this inquiry, Petitioner submitted the following: "Possession of a counterfeit substance, not found guilty, terms of probation, expunged record." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, a certified copy of judgment and sentence, shows that Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge of sale of counterfeit controlled substance, Section 817.563, Florida Statutes, and on February 12, 1982, was sentenced to five (5) years of probation with the Florida Department of Corrections. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner is presently serving the five (5) years of probation. (Tr. pp. 15-16) Petitioner acknowledges that the court informed him as to the charges against him in open court. (Tr. p. 26) Petitioner claims that he pled no contest to possession of a counterfeit controlled substance. Finally, Petitioner admitted that the arrest record for sale of a counterfeit controlled substance was not expunged. (Tr. p. 22) Petitioner has appealed the order of court on constitutional grounds and stated his belief that expungement will be granted upon satisfactory completion of his probationary term. At present however, his record relative to that charge has not been expunged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order denying Dwayne Lee Hill's application for a real estate license pursuant to Subsection 475.17(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether Charlie Phillips is entitled to licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact Charlie D. Phillips applied for licensure as a real estate salesman on or about May 22, 1987. That application was denied by the Florida Real Estate Commission on August 19, 1987, based upon Mr. Phillips' answer to question 6, which asked whether he had been convicted of a crime. Mr. Phillips had answered yes. He had attached to the application a letter indicating that he had been convicted of the felony of indecent exposure before a minor in Colorado in April 1983, when Mr. Phillips was 21 years old. The incident involved had occurred approximately two years before his conviction. After the incident and before his conviction Mr. Phillips had engaged in counselling with a Colorado psychiatrist, Dr. Brent Steel for close to a year before the matter went to court. At the criminal hearing Mr. Phillips pled guilty, was placed on probation, and was not incarcerated for any period of time, apparently in part due to his successful participation in therapy with Dr. Steel. The Colorado court terminated the probation almost a year early. Mr. Phillips remained in counseling with Dr. Steel in Colorado for five years. Since coming to Key West, Florida, Mr. Phillips has been counselled by Dr. Tanju T. Mishara, a clinical psychologist licensed in Florida. At first, Mr. Phillips had been counselled by a psychologist working under Mishara's supervision at the mental health care center in the Lower Keys, but after the psychologist's training was completed, Dr. Mishara continued seeing Mr. Phillips. The Hearing Officer is persuaded by Dr. Mishara's testimony that Mr. Phillips has overcome the delinquent behavior which Mr. Phillips engaged in when he was young. Neither the behavior nor the urges that caused the behavior have occurred for a number of years now. Mr. Phillips has continued in therapy in Colorado and Florida beyond the period that he was required to as a result of the criminal proceeding, which Dr. Mishara regards as an important indication that Mr. Phillips resolved to take responsibility for his actions and to overcome the behavior which got him into trouble. Most people stop counseling as soon as the troublesome behavior stops without ever resolving the problem that led to the inappropriate behavior. Dr. Mishara has determined that it is no longer necessary for Mr. Phillips to remain in therapy. Mr. Phillips now is well adjusted socially, has been involved in post- secondary education, has a responsible job, has earned the respect and trust of coworkers, has a serious relationship with a young woman of his age, and is unlikely to engage in further antisocial behavior which would jeopardize his standing in the community or the integrity of a profession in which he was involved. The Hearing Officer is satisfied that Mr. Phillips is now a competent and responsible citizen who has overcome his problem. The Hearing Officer was especially impressed with the forthright manner in which Mr. Phillips disclosed his past difficulties, accepted responsibility for his actions, and detailed the efforts that he has made to overcome those past problems. In view of the both the very favorable impression which Mr. Phillips made at the hearing, and the testimony of Dr. Mishara in which she indicated she would have no reservation in recommending the approval of his application as a salesman, which is a position of trust, the Hearing Officer is persuaded of Mr. Phillips' rehabilitation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Commission enter a final order granting Charlie D. Phillips' application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of May, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on the Real Estate Commission's proposed findings of fact. Adopted in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered generally in findings of fact 4, 5, and 6. Rejected because Dr. Mishara was familiar with Mr. Phillips' case because of her supervision of the psychologist who first worked with him, Dirk Lorensen (transcript page 16) and she began seeing him in the fall of 1986. She is also familiar with his records from his therapy in Colorado. (Transcript page 17) Rejected as an insufficient characterization of Dr. Mishara's testimony. Rejected because the issue here is rehabilitation, not whether there may have been other occasions of exposure prior to the one to which Mr. Phillips pled guilty. COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLIE D. PHILLIPS POST OFFICE BOX 607 KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33041 LAWRENCE S. GENDZIER, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION SUITE 212, 400 WEST ROBINSON STREET ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 DARLENE F. KELLER, ACTING DIRECTOR DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue Whether the respondent's license as a real estate broker should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined because respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and was at all times pertinent to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker with the State of Florida, holding license number 0166810. On June 18, 1982, an information was filed in the circuit court charging that between the dates of December 10, 1980 and December 1, 1981, the respondent "did corruptly request, solicit, accept or agree to accept money not authorized by law for past, present, or future performance, to wit: by sending business to Don's Alignment Shop, which said ALBERT RONALD HURLBERT did represent as having been within his official discretion in violation of a public duty or in performance of a public duty, in violation of Section 838.016, Florida Statutes." On July 16, 1982, the respondent appeared before Judge Thomas Oakley and entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation as charged in the information. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and respondent was placed on probation for a period of four years. Respondent was given an early release from probation on August 30, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter an order finding that the respondent has been convicted or found guilty of a crime which involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing and revoking the respondent's real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Albert R. Hurlbert c/o Hurlbert Realty 8117 Lakeland Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Howard Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802
