Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At the time of CMNI's application, Mr. Giunta was president of CMNI and, as such, exercised primary control over the day-to-day activities of CMNI (Tr.12). Mr. Giunta is also the president of Christian Investors Network, Inc. (CINI), and exercised similar control over the activities of that corporation (Tr. 11-12). Mr. Giunta, CMNI, and CINI have never been licensed as mortgage brokers by the Department (Tr. 12-13). CINI, with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Giunta, placed advertisements in the St. Petersburg Times (Tr. 13). One such advertisement appeared in St. Petersburg Times edition of April 20, 1986, under the heading "Loan Information." That advertisement stated "Major Real Estate Financing" and "Residential Real Estate." (Exhibit 1). Sometime in the middle of 1986, Paul Mark called Mr. Giunta in response to an advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times. Mr. Mark was seeking a mortgage loan or loans to build several houses on real estate he owned and so informed Mr. Giunta, who indicated to Mr. Mark that he could arrange a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark (Tr. 28-29). Messrs. Mark and Giunta met shortly after the telephone call. Mr. Mark handed Mr. Giunta a package of documents including a site plan, survey, credit information and a completed mortgage loan application. Mr. Giunta again stated that he would have no problem arranging a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark and requested a fee for such service in the amount of $300.00 (Tr. 30-31). After the meeting, Mr. Mark sent to Mr. Giunta a check made out to Mr. Giunta in the amount of $300.00, together with a letter dated July 16, 1986, confirming that Mr. Giunta would secure mortgage financing (Tr. 31-33); Exhibit 3). In October of 1986, Clifford Clark called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance a certain parcel of property owned by Mr. Clark. Mr. Giunta stated that he could arrange mortgage financing for Mr. Clark at an interest rate of approximately ten percent (Tr. 48-49). After the telephone contact, Messrs. Clark and Giunta met and Mr. Giunta had Mr. Clark fill out a residential loan application (Exhibit 7). Mr. Clark provided Mr. Giunta with originals of his deed to the property and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta indicated that he could obtain mortgage financing for Mr. Clark and requested a fee of $250.00, whereupon Mr. Clark gave Mr. Giunta a check for that amount (Tr. 49-51). In early 1986, Robert Miraglia called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a second mortgage. Mr. Giunta arranged to meet with Mr. Miraglia to discuss the requested loan. In August of 1986, Russell Foreman contacted Gerald Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance his home (Exhibit 5). On August 26, 1986, Mr. Foreman met with Mr. Giunta and at Mr. Giunta's request gave him copies of his deed, a survey of the lot, the mortgages to be satisfied and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta assured Mr. Foreman that there would be no problem in obtaining a mortgage loan and requested a fee of $200.00. Mr. Foreman wrote a check for that amount and gave it to Mr. Giunta (Exhibit 5). Mr. Giunta never informed Messrs. Mark, Clark, Miraglia and Foreman that he was not a licensed mortgage broker. In approximately April of 1986, Mr. Giunta met with Mr. Arthur M. James, Area Financial Manager for the Department's Tampa Regional Field Office. At that meeting, Mr. James explained to Mr. Giunta that he could not offer to arrange or negotiate mortgage loans on behalf of clients and collect a fee for such service without first becoming licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker (Tr. 84). At some point prior to May 8, 1986, Mr. Giunta was contacted by the Department and informed of the statutes and regulations applicable to advertising his services in the area of real estate financing (Exhibit 2; Tr. 23-24). At some point in 1987, CMNI, with the knowledge and approval of Giunta, listed "Christian Mortgage Network, Inc." in the yellow pages of a local telephone book under the heading of "Mortgages." (Exhibit 1; Tr. 15).
Findings Of Fact The Respondents at all times pertinent hereto are licensed real estate brokers having been issued, in the case of Lorraine B. Anthony individually, license number 0123486, and in the case of Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc., as a corporate broker, license number 0181092. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent Lorraine B. Anthony was licensed and operating as a real estate broker and the sole "qualifying" broker and officer of Respondent Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes and appurtenant rules governing the licensure standards and practice standards for real estate brokers, broker salesmen and salespersons in the State of Florida and conducting disciplinary proceedings inconnection therewith. On or about May, 1982, Mr. Leif Rosenquist journeyed to Lee County, Florida from his native Sweden with the intention of purchasing real property for the purpose of building a residence for himself and his wife. He became acquainted with Ida Chacko, a real estate salesperson operating in Lee County, Florida, and ultimately entered into a real estate sales contract partly at her behest. Ida Chacko was not then employed by the Respondent, Lorraine B. Anthony nor the Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc. Mr. Rosenquist gave Ida Chacko approximately $10,000 to place in an escrow account for him in order to effect a deposit and down payment on that real estate purchase. This transaction ultimately did not occur. Ida Chacko, however, retained $7,000 of those funds which were placed in an escrow account with Tri-County Title Company in approximately May of 1982. Shortly thereafter Ms. Chacko became an employee and salesperson with the Respondents real estate firm, with the Respondent Lorraine Anthony as her managing broker. In approximately August, 1982, Mr. and Mrs. Rosenquist entered into a "deposit, receipt and sales contract" with Santa Barbara Development Corporation and Thomas Romano, its president, for the purchase of a piece of property upon which they wished Mr. Romano to construct a duplex which they would use as their residence. The transaction was arranged by Ida Chacko. Mr. Romano owned that property and contracted with the Rosenquists to construct the dwelling. The contract terms required the payment of a $500 earnest money deposit to Mr. Romano and Santa Barbara Development Corporation. Ida Chacko assured Mr. and Mrs. Rosenquist that the $500 earnest money deposit required by the contract would be paid to Mr. Romano from the $7,000 escrow account which she maintained on their behalf. In fact, Ms. Chacko had, prior to that time, withdrawn the $7,000 from the escrow account with Tri-County Title Company for unknown purposes. Further, Ms. Chacko never paid over the $500 earnest money to the Respondent's escrow account nor to Mr. Romano or Santa Barbara Development Corporation. The contract, moreover, was contingent in its terms on the Rosenquists being able to obtain financing at terms stated on the face of the contract, secured by a mortgage with Barnett Bank. The Rosenquists however, were unable to secure compatible financing in accordance with the contractual terms regarding that financing and so that contingency was never satisfied and the Rosenquists elected to never consummate that transaction. That contingency never being satisfied, the Rosenquists never actually defaulted on the contract. Moreover, during the pendency of the Rosenquists attempts to obtain the financial arrangements with Barnett Bank, the time period stated in the contract during which it could be enforceable, expired. Pursuant to a later contract entered into September 26, 1982, the real estate involved in the Rosenquist transaction was sold to Ida Chacko's daughter. Mr. Romano sold her the property and ultimately constructed a duplex dwelling for Ms. Chacko's daughter on that property according to the same construction plans referenced in the Rosenquist contract and for a higher purchase price. He thus incurred no financial detriment caused by the failure of the Rosenquist transaction, nor did the Santa Barbara Development Corporation. Some two months after the failure of the Rosenquist transaction, Mr. Romano sought payment of the $500 earnest money deposit he believed he was due from the Respondent Lorraine B. Anthony and Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc. She initially refused to pay him the $500. The Respondent had no knowledge that the Rosenquist's agreement had been entered into, knew nothing of its particulars, nor of any representations made by any of the parties to the agreement, nor Ida Chacko, until approximately two days after the contract was executed. She learned of the contract when her office manager, Ellen Smith, told her that no earnest money deposit had been obtained on that contract. She immediately instructed Mrs. Smith to ascertain that an earnest money deposit was immediately obtained according to the terms of the contract. After later consulting with Ida Chacko and learning that the transaction never reached fruition, she did not inquire further concerning the earnest money deposit or other particulars regarding that transaction, believing that she had no reason or duty to do so. The Respondent, Lorraine B. Anthony never met with the Rosenquists nor discussed any facet of the transaction with them nor made any representations to them with regard to the transaction. She never discussed the transaction or made any representations regarding it to Mr. Romano, until he finally demanded the $500 earnest money deposit some two months after the failure of the contract with the Rosenquists and after the consummation of the second contract with Ida Chacko's daughter. The Respondents had had a successful business relationship with Mr. Romano prior to these occasions and desired to continue such relationship and therefore, in an abundance of caution, ultimately paid the $500 to Mr. Romano. He has no claim presently pending against the Respondents. Helen Smith, the Respondents' office manager, established that it was the Respondents' consistent policy to always obtain an earnest money deposit contemporaneously with the execution of a real estate sales contract in which she or her agents were involved, and to deposit such money in her escrow account. Ida Chacko was well aware of this policy at the time the Rosenquist transaction was entered into, but never obtained the earnest money deposit either directly from the Rosenquists nor carried out her assurance to the Rosenquists that she would obtain the required $500 earnest money deposit from the $7,000 "escrow account" supposedly on deposit on their behalf with Tri- County Title Company (or another unidentified party). The $7,000 which Ms. Chacko had on deposit on behalf of the Rosenquists was obtained before she was ever employed with the Respondents' firm as an agent of the Respondent and the Respondent never knew of the existence of those funds. The only connection Respondent and her firm had with this transaction and her only representation made with regard to this transaction was that Mrs. Smith should make sure that agent Chacko placed the $500 earnest money deposit in the proper escrow account in favor of Mr. Romano and Santa Barbara Development Corporation. In any event the Respondents never received the $500 earnest money deposit. The only representation made to the Rosenquists with regard to the earnest money deposit was that of Ida Chacko to the effect that she would pay it over to the Respondents' escrow account from the funds she supposedly had on deposit on the Rosenquists' behalf, which of course, she failed to do. Neither the Respondent, Lorraine B. Anthony, nor any of her agents, ever represented to Mr. Romano or Santa Barbara Development Corporation that the $500 was held on deposit on his behalf or otherwise. Finally, because the Respondents never received the $500 deposit, they could not possibly have return edit to the purchasers without the prior knowledge or consent of the seller, as alleged in Count II of the Complaint. In summary, the Respondent instructed her office manager to see that Ida Chacko received the deposit money and placed it in the escrow account at the time she believed the contract to be valid and enforceable and Ida Chacko failed to comply, thus flouting the Respondent's clearly defined office policy regarding the escrowing of deposit money, of which policy Ida Chacko was previously well aware. The Respondent had had prior and subsequent difficulties with Ida Chacko concerning her failure to follow this and other office policies required by the Respondents. The Respondent only learned definitely that no deposit money had been received nor deposited in her escrow account, approximately two months after the contract was executed and long after the contract was automatically cancelled. She at no time received any commission related to any transaction involving the subject parcel of real property. She never made any representations of any kind to any of the parties to the deal.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Lorraine B. Anthony and Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc. be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Harvey Rollings, Esquire PAVESE, SHEILDS, GARNER, HAVERFIELD, DALTON & HARRISON Post Office Box 88 Cape Coral, Florida 33910 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 475.025(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what the appropriate penalty is.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, O. Dane Streets was licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker having been issued License No. 0085710-1 for an address in Lakeland, Florida. In the Spring or early Summer of 1991, Nathan Price, a minister in Orlando, Florida, contacted Respondent to solicit Respondent's participation in representing Price's daughter, Melissa Howard, in purchasing real estate in Orlando. Price and Respondent have been business and social acquaintances for more than 10 years, and Price was helping his daughter and son-in-law in purchasing a home. The Howard's found a house they liked, Respondent obtained the listing information from the listing broker and prepared a contract for sale and purchase (Exhibit 1). As modified and accepted by all parties, this contract provided for a $1000 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Respondent's real estate company. In lieu of obtaining the deposit from Price or Howard, Respondent told Howard to give the earnest money deposit to the selling broker as all of the transactions were to be conducted in Orlando. The $1000 earnest money deposit was given to neither Respondent nor the listing broker, ReMax Southwest in Orlando. The failure of Respondent to follow up to insure that the earnest money deposit had been given to the listing broker in this transaction does not reach the status of fraud or dishonest dealing as Respondent had no such intent. Shortly before the August 21, 1991 closing date, Price advised Respondent that the mortgage lender was asking about the earnest money deposit. Respondent immediately obtained a cashier's check dated August 8, 1991 (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $1000 which Price presented at the closing on August 21, 1991. In his testimony, Respondent acknowledged that he erred in not obtaining the earnest money deposit or failing to check to be sure the deposit had been made with the listing broker. Since Respondent is located in Lakeland and the property being purchased is in Orlando when the closing was held, Respondent thought everything would be simplified if the deposit was held by the listing broker. When the listing broker learned that the deposit of $1000 had never been received by Respondent and placed in escrow, a complaint was made to the Florida Real Estate Commission, and these proceedings followed. Respondent has held licenses from the Florida Real Estate Commission for some 20 years, and this is the first time any charges have been brought against his license.
Recommendation It is Recommended that a Final Order be entered finding O. Dane Streets not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged. ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1992. Copies furnished to: Steven N. Johnson, Esquire Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate Division Director 400 W. Robinson Street Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1900 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1900 O. Dane Streets Post Office Box 6852 Jack McRay, Esquire Lakeland, FL 33807 Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, etc., or by violating a duty imposed upon him by law or by the terms of a listing contract and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty; Whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(d)1., by failing to timely account or deliver to any person any personal property such as money, funds, deposit, check draft, etc. and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty; and Whether Respondent, a sales associate, registered as an officer, director of a brokerage corporation, or general partner of a brokerage partnership is in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-5.016 and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. DOAH has jurisdiction, pursuant to section 120.574, to render a decision in this matter, which shall be final agency action subject to judicial review under section 120.68. Mr. Rivas is a licensed real estate sales associate, holding license number 3385508, issued by the State of Florida. Structure of the Brokerage Corporation On or about April 7, 2015, Respondent registered GREH with the State of Florida, Division of Corporations ("Division of Corporations"), identifying himself as the registered agent and manager of GREH. Respondent filed documents on behalf of GREH with the Division of Corporations on the following dates and identified himself with the following titles with GREH: On April 13, 2016, March 14, 2017, and April 17, 2018, Respondent identified himself as the registered agent, managing member, and president; On November 22, 2017, and April 17, 2018, Respondent identified himself as an authorized member; On April 22, 2019, Respondent identified himself as a registered agent, an authorized member, and managing member; On October 23, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent and member; On November 27, 2019, Respondent identified himself as a registered agent, member, and manager; On December 6, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent and shareholder; and On December 10, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent. On March 23, 2017, GREH registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission") as a real estate corporation in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CQ 1053189. At no time was Respondent registered with the Commission as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. From November 27, 2017, to October 3, 2019, Mr. Avila, who at that time was a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number BK 3401612, was the qualifying broker of GREH. From October 3, 2019, to October 15, 2019, and from November 25, 2019, to December 9, 2019, GREH's license was invalidated due to it not having a qualifying broker. From October 15, 2019, to November 25, 2019, Gamila Murata was the qualifying broker for GREH. From December 9, 2019, to July 29, 2020, Mr. Henson was the qualifying broker for GREH. On August 22, 2019, without the authority of the qualifying broker for GREH, Respondent filed a civil action on behalf of GREH against Arnauld and Annelyn Sylvain (collectively, the "Sylvains") in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in case number 502019CA008774XXXXMB, seeking, among other things, to recover real estate commissions allegedly claimed due by GREH and Respondent. Respondent subsequently retained attorney Monica Woodard to represent GREH in the civil proceedings, and GREH's complaint was dismissed. On or about November 19, 2019, the Sylvains filed a separate civil action against GREH in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in case number 502019CC015230XXXXMB, seeking to recover a $10,000.00 escrow deposit. Respondent failed to inform the qualifying broker of record for GREH, Mr. Henson, who assumed that position shortly after the filing of the civil action, of the pending lawsuit. Respondent opened bank accounts on behalf of GREH, including an account called an "Escrow Account," which was controlled by Respondent and at no time was controlled by a qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent deposited escrow funds into the Escrow Account for GREH, without the authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent closed the Escrow Account held in the name of GREH and removed funds that were to be held in trust from the account without authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent controlled all communications regarding certain real estate transactions on behalf of GREH, without the knowledge or authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Contract 1 On or about March 4, 2019, an "AS IS" Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase ("Contract 1") was entered into between the Sylvains, as buyers, and Frederick F. Breault and Evelyn Breault (the "Breaults"), as sellers, for property located at 16595 93rd Road North, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 ("Subject Property 1"). Respondent facilitated Contract 1 on behalf of the Sylvains. Pursuant to the requirements of Contract 1, the Sylvains deposited $10,000.00 with GREH, to be held in escrow as the initial deposit. The escrow funds were delivered to Respondent in the form of a certified check drawn from SunTrust Bank in the amount of $10,000.00 and purchased by Mr. Sylvain on March 4, 2019 ("SunTrust Certified Check"). The $10,000.00 escrow funds were deposited into a bank account held in the name of GREH. The SunTrust Certified Check was deposited into a bank account over which Respondent had sole control. The GREH account in which the SunTrust Certified Check was deposited was at no relevant time controlled by a Florida licensed real estate broker. Contract 1 provided that the Sylvains had 20 days from the effective date to obtain loan approval ("Loan Approval Period"). Paragraph 18(F) of the Contract provided as follows: TIME: Calendar days shall be used in computing time periods. Time is of the essence in this Contract. Other than time for acceptance and Effective Date as set forth in Paragraph 3, any time periods provided for or dates specified in this Contract, whether preprinted, handwritten, typewritten or inserted herein, which shall end or occur on a Saturday, Sunday, or a national legal holiday (see 5 U.S.C. 6103) shall extend to 5.[:]00 p.m. (where the Property is located) of the next business day. Because 20 days from the effective date fell on a Sunday, the Loan Approval Period expired on Monday, March 25, 2019. Paragraph 8(b)(i) of Contract 1 provided that: "Buyer [the Sylvains] shall ... use good faith and diligent effort to obtain approval of a loan meeting the Financing terms ('Loan Approval') and thereafter to close this Contract." Paragraph 8(b)(v) of the Contract further provided that if neither party timely cancelled the Contract pursuant to paragraph 8, the financing contingency would "be deemed waived." Paragraph 8(b)(vii) finally provided that "[i]f Loan Approval has been obtained, or deemed to have been obtained, as provided above, and Buyer fails to close this Contract, then the Deposit shall be paid to Seller … ." The parties agreed to close Contract 1 by April 10, 2019. The Sylvains did not obtain final loan approval ("clear to close") within the Loan Approval Period. The loan was not denied for any of the exceptions set forth in paragraph 8(b)(vii), to release of the escrow deposit to the seller. The Sylvains did not terminate the contract within the Loan Approval Period. After the Loan Approval Period expired, the Sylvains sought to extend Contract 1, without consideration for the extension. The Breaults countered the Sylvains' request to extend with an offer that an extension would be granted for consideration that the Sylvains agree to forfeit the earnest money deposit. The parties never reached an agreement to extend Contract 1 and Contract 1 failed to close. On or about May 2, 2019, the Sylvains's loan application for Contract 1 was denied. On May 8, 2019, the Breaults executed a Release and Cancellation of Contract demanding release of the $10,000.00 escrow deposit on Contract 1, which Respondent received by email on that date from Betty Khan, the sales associate representing the Breaults. The Sylvains also executed a Release and Cancellation of Contract seeking return of the $10,000.00 escrow deposit on Contract 1, which Respondent communicated to Ms. Khan on May 8, 2019. Also, on May 8, 2019, Respondent informed the Sylvains of the Breaults's claim on the earnest money deposit. Despite knowing that there were conflicting demands for the escrowed funds, Respondent failed to inform Mr. Avila, the qualifying broker for GREH at the time, or the Department, of the escrow dispute. The Breaults were never informed of any escrow dispute filed with the Department, were never sued in relation to the escrow deposit, and never went to mediation or arbitration with regard to the escrow deposit, despite making a demand for the escrow deposit. Respondent claimed that he applied the $10,000.00 escrow funds to another contract under which the Sylvains were buyers. Respondent closed the GREH Escrow Account, removing the $10,000.00 from the account, without consent of either the Sylvains or the Breaults. Contract 2 On or about May 2, 2019, an "AS IS" Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase (Contract 2) between the Sylvains, as buyers, and the Mossuccos, as sellers, for property located at 7584 Apache Boulevard, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 ("Subject Property 2"). Respondent facilitated Contract 2 on behalf of the Sylvains. In relation to Contract 2, specifically paragraph 2(a), which required an earnest money deposit in the amount of $10,000.00, Respondent requested that the Sylvains provide him a check in the amount of $10,000.00 to show the Mossuccos. On or about May 6, 2019, the Sylvains then drew a check from a business account held with TD Bank in the amount of $10,000.00 and payable to Global Business Financial Investment ("TD Bank Check"), which the Sylvains delivered to Respondent. Respondent took a photograph of the check and promised the Sylvains that the check would not be cashed or deposited. On or about May 6, 2019, Miledy Garcia, now known as Miledy Rivas, Respondent's spouse, a Florida licensed real estate sales associate, having been issued license number SL 3383271, issued an escrow deposit receipt for $10,000.00 for Contract 2 on a GREH form ("May 6, 2019, GREH Receipt"). The TD Bank Check was never deposited or cashed by Respondent; rather, the Sylvains immediately issued a stop payment order on the check to TD Bank. Despite having never deposited the TD Bank Check, Respondent communicated the May 6, 2019, GREH Receipt and a photo of the TD Bank Check to Mrs. Mossucco and Ms. Weintraub. The $10,000.00 escrow funds from Contract 1 were the escrow funds represented on Contract 2. Respondent represented that the $10,000.00 escrow funds were applied to Contract 2, prior to cancellation of Contract 1, and continued to represent the same, even after Respondent knew the Breaults were making a claim against the funds. Contract 2 failed to close. After Contract 2 failed to close, the Mossuccos and Sylvains agreed to cancel Contract 2 and release each other from liability under the terms of Contract 2, and further agreed that any earnest money deposit could be returned to the Sylvains. Respondent failed to deliver the escrow funds to the Sylvains. Rather, Respondent believed that the funds belonged to him (or one of his companies) and that he was entitled to remove the escrow funds and use them as he (or his company) saw fit. Respondent testified that he submitted a notice of escrow dispute, dated "9-30-2019," to the Department, identifying the parties to the transaction as the Mossuccos and the Sylvains, and the subject property as 7584 Apache Boulevard, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470. Respondent gave conflicting testimony, including, for example: First testifying that he believed the $10,000.00 escrow funds belonged to him (or his company) to be spent as he saw fit; then, after a break in the proceedings and on re-direct by his counsel, changing his story by saying that counsel for Petitioner put words in his mouth and that he meant only that there was a "dispute on the funds." First testifying that Mr. Avila was a signatory on the GREH "Escrow Account," then admitting that Mr. Avila was not a signatory on the account. There was also conflicting testimony between Respondent and several of the witnesses; however, where there were inconsistencies, Petitioner's witnesses' testimony was substantially consistent and supported by the documentary evidence presented. Parts of Respondent's testimony were inconsistent with documentary evidence admitted into evidence by stipulation of the parties. Facts Concerning Aggravation or Mitigation of Penalties Respondent collected escrow funds and deposited them into an account that he, only a licensed real estate sales associate, controlled, rather than one that was controlled by the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent admittedly removed escrow funds in the amount of $10,000.00 from the bank account in which they were deposited, without all parties having a claim to the escrow funds executing a release. Respondent testified that he believed the escrow funds belonged to him (or one of his companies) and that he had a right to do with the funds as he (or he through one of his companies) saw fit. Respondent used vulgar language, threats, and demeaning language toward his clients, other real estate professionals, and title agents to attempt to coerce those individuals into submitting to his demands. Respondent failed and refused to comply with the direction of the qualifying broker with supervisory responsibility over Respondent and GREH. Respondent failed to keep the qualifying broker of GREH apprised of the real estate transactions in which Respondent was involved. There was significant testimony establishing that Respondent was performing tasks that are only allowed to be performed by a licensed real estate broker, not a real estate sales associate, mortgage broker, or mortgage loan originator. Additional Facts Raised by Respondent In his proposed conclusions of law, Respondent raises, as a matter of fact, that the "Department failed to plead sufficient facts underpinning its argument" regarding the handling of escrow funds. In paragraph 25 of his Proposed Final Order, Respondent states: Nowhere in the administrative complaint does the Department allege that Mr. Rivas falsely represented that GREH received the TD Bank Check as earnest money for Contract 2, or that he falsely represented to the Sylvains that the Breaults did not have a legitimate claim against the $10,000.00 escrow funds deposited by the Sylvains toward Contract 1, or that he misrepresented to the Sylvains that the $10,000.00 funds from the SunTrust Certified Check could be and were applied to Contract 2. Respondent further argued that none of the "facts relevant to aggravation or mitigation" set forth in the Department's Proposed Final Order were pled in the A.C., in violation of Respondent's due process rights. Both of these arguments are rejected as set forth in paragraphs 108 and109 below. Additional Facts Concerning Department Costs The Department presented competent evidence that it incurred investigative costs in the amount of $1,551.00.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Perroni was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license No. 0146232; Respondent Florida First Realty and Development, Inc., was a corporation licensed to conduct real estate business having been issued license No. 0215700 and branch office license No. 0215701; and Respondent Perroni was a duly licensed real estate broker and was the qualifying broker for Respondent Florida First, a licensed brokerage corporation. Respondents negotiated a contract on or about May 13, 1980, wherein Bernice Elstrom agreed to sell certain real property to Lorraine Baretela. Pursuant to that contract, Respondents accepted $300 from Baretela as an earnest money deposit. That contract for purchase and sale specified that the closing on that purchase and sale would take place on May 19, 1980, six days later. During those six days, Theresa McMullin, the salesperson employed by Respondents who obtained the contract between Elstrom and Baretela, arranged for the buyer's title insurance policy. The title search disclosed two outstanding liens against the property: one final judgment in the amount of $364.67 plus costs, and an outstanding 1979 tax bill of $38.44 plus interest and penalties. She advised both the seller and buyer of these outstanding liens, and the seller agreed to clear those liens and close on the transaction. During the same six days, Baretela had second thoughts about whether she wished to purchase the property. She appeared on several occasions at the property with her friends to obtain their opinions on whether she should buy the property. She consulted an attorney to ascertain if there was any way she could get out of her contract without forfeiting her $300 deposit. When McMullin told her of the two liens against the property, Baretela told McMullin she was glad there were liens against the property, since she did not wish to purchase it and believed that would allow her to void her contract. McMullin advised her that was not true, that the liens would be cleared prior to or at the closing, and that if Baretela refused to close an the contract, she would forfeit her $300 deposit. Baretela advised that she would rather lose her deposit than purchase property she decided she did not want, and Baretela and McMullin continued to look at other properties for Baretela to purchase. By Monday morning, May 19, McMullin had assisted the seller in clearing the liens on the property. She spoke to Baretela on the telephone and reminded Baretela that the closing was scheduled for that day. Baretela said she would not close. McMullin again reminded her that Baretela would lose her deposit if she did not close. On May 19, the seller was ready, willing, and able to convey clear title to the property. McMullin advised Respondent Perroni that there was a problem with the closing. Within a few days after May 19, Respondent Perroni, McMullin, and Baretela met at Respondent's office. Respondent advised Baretela that she could still close on the property and avoid forfeiting her $300 deposit. Baretela advised that she would rather forfeit her deposit money and that she would not close on the property. Baretela left the office, and no further contact was made by Baretela regarding her deposit money. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Perroni disbursed one half of the $300 deposit to the seller and retained one half of the deposit. On or about November 26, 1980, Respondents negotiated a contract whereby Thomas A. and Linda Rupert agreed to purchase certain real property. Respondents accepted $500 from the buyers as an earnest money deposit on the transaction. The contract was expressly made conditional on the buyers applying for and obtaining either a mortgage insured by the FHA, under Section 235, or by the VA, in an amount not less than $40,000. On February 25, 1981, Carruth Mortgage Corporation, a company handling FHA funds, advised the buyers that they did not qualify for the required financing, since the buyers had insufficient liquid assets to close the loan. Linda Rupert contacted Larry Zimmerman, the employee of Respondents handling the transaction, and Zimmerman advised Perroni there was a problem with the transaction and requested Perroni to become involved. Perroni ran a preliminary qualification on the buyers and ascertained that the Ruperts could qualify for a $38,000 mortgage from FHA. He met with Linda Rupert and advised her that the Ruperts could still purchase the property by placing the $38,000 mortgage on the property, and Respondent offered her a $2,000 second mortgage to make up the difference. During that meeting, Rupert advised Respondent that she would have to talk to her husband about whether they wished to have two mortgages on the property, and Rupert also discussed with Respondent Perroni a refund of the $500 deposit. Perroni advised her that he would be willing to refund $370, but that he believed himself entitled to retain $130 for survey and other expenses he had incurred pursuant to the contract, which provided that in the event the buyer failed to qualify for the $40,000 mortgage, deposit moneys would be returned less expenses incurred on behalf of the buyer. Rupert advised she would not agree to reimburse Respondent for expenses incurred on her behalf, that she would discuss Respondent Perroni's offer of a second mortgage with her husband, and she would then contact Respondent to advise him of her decision. Rather than advising Respondent of the result of any discussions with her husband, Linda Rupert filed a complaint with some local citizens' dispute settlement program alleging that Respondent refused to return her money to her. Although that local agency scheduled a hearing regarding Rupert's complaint, Respondents were not notified of that hearing. When Respondents failed to appear at the citizens dispute hearing, Rupert went to the office of Congressman Skip Bafalis and spoke to one of the secretaries working there. When the secretary telephoned Respondent to inquire regarding Linda Rupert's deposit, this was the first contact that Respondents had regarding Linda Rupert's decision following her meeting with Respondent. Respondent assumed the telephone call meant the Ruperts did not want to buy the property by utilizing a second mortgage and accordingly refunded their $500 earnest money deposit. On or about July 8, 1980, Respondent Perroni entered into a contract with James D. Bell for the construction of a home on Bell's lot. The contract called for the construction to be financed by an FHA 235 loan. Respondents accepted $500 from Bell as a deposit on the construction of his home. Respondent Perroni, who is also a licensed certified contractor, explained to Bell, a carpenter-subcontractor by trade, and Bell's mother-in-law, who is in the real estate business and was involved throughout the dealings between Perroni and Bell, how the transaction would work. Since FHA does not finance the actual construction, Bell would deed his lot to Perroni. Perroni, as the contractor, would place a construction mortgage on that lot. When the house was completed, Perroni would deed back the house and the lot, and the construction mortgage would be replaced by the FHA mortgage. Bell and his mother-in-law agreed. On July 16, 1980, Bell gave Respondent Perroni a warranty deed for his lot for the purpose of constructing a new home on the property. Respondent Perroni provided Bell with a receipt of this deed stating that the title would be transferred back to Bell upon the completion of the home and closing. On September 12, 1980, Respondent Perroni placed a mortgage on Bell's lot to finance the construction of the home. On November 6, 1980, Bell was given notice that FHA 235 financing was not available. Respondent Perroni explained to Bell that the 235 program was simply between federal government budget years and that the program was being refunded so that if Bell would simply wait, the funds would be available within the next two or three months. Bell advised Respondent that he did not wish to wait for the FHA funds because he had located a friend of his who could pull the building permit so that Bell could build himself a more costly house for less money than Respondent could build for him. He demanded that Perroni deed the lot back to him and refund his $500. Perroni agreed to deed back the lot, but advised Bell that Perroni now had $2,000 in expenses from the transaction: $200 for perk and survey work, and $1,800 in costs to clear the construction mortgage. On November 25, 1980, Bell signed a release prepared by Perroni, Perroni gave Bell a quitclaim deed for the property, and Perroni paid $1,800 to clear the construction mortgage off the property. Perroni retained Bell's $500 deposit. At all times material hereto, Sheila D. Johnson was licensed as a real estate salesman. On July 1, 1980, she and Respondent Perroni entered into a contract whereby Florida First would open an office in Port St. Lucie, and Johnson would be the office manager and run the Port St. Lucie office. Under the terms of that agreement, Perroni and Johnson would each provide $3,500 to fund the new office, and thereafter all profits and all liabilities would be split between the two equally. Although all other salespersons in the Port St. Lucie office were covered by the standard commission agreement utilized by Florida First, the agreement between Perroni and Johnson makes no mention of any commissions to be paid to Johnson for sales made by her, but rather only specifies an equal split between Johnson and Perroni as to profits and losses of the company. Johnson commenced running the Port St. Lucie office. She maintained all records and was an authorized signature on all bank accounts for the company. Perroni continued to work out of Florida First's office in North Fort Myers and went to the Port St. Lucie office an average of once a week. During each of his visits, Perroni and Johnson would go through the bank accounts and other records of the Port St. Lucie office. Johnson kept no ledgers and had no central bookkeeping system. All salesmen kept their own records of commissions due or paid. All salespersons at the Port St. Lucie office were authorized to purchase lots for the 235 program with a price limit set by Perroni as to the maximum to be paid for any lot. Applicants for financing under the 235 program would then be matched with lots purchased by Respondents. By October, discussions took place between Perroni and Johnson whereby Perroni expressed his dissatisfaction with certain operational aspects of the Port St. Lucie office. He advised Johnson that certain expenses incurred by her were unreasonable and advised her of his displeasure with the fact that she had purchased lots for the 235 program from a personal friend of hers for more money than that authorized by Perroni. He provided Johnson with an accounting of office expenses in October. Perroni revoked Johnson's authorization to write checks on behalf of the company and removed the checkbooks from the office. He provided her with an accounting of the business expenses as of November 22, 1980. He subsequently gave her a copy of a computer printout showing business losses through December 1, 1980. Perroni temporarily closed the Port St. Lucie office in January, 1981. By letter dated January 5, 1981, he advised Johnson that he was declaring the July 1, 1980, agreement between them null and void effective January 1, 1981, due to her default in that agreement. He demanded reimbursement from her for business losses in the approximate amount of $10,000. By letter to Perroni dated January 10, 1981, Johnson demanded payment of total commissions due her on five transactions to be closed in the total amount of $1,737. She noted that $180 of that amount was past due. She also requested return of her initial investment pursuant to her attorney's advice. She sent a copy of her correspondence to the Port St. Lucie Board of Realtors and Florida Board of Real Estate. The letter contains no demand for an accounting. Thereafter, Perroni's attorney and Johnson's attorney engaged in demand letters between them. On April 3, 1981, and on June 15, 1981, attorneys for the Department of Professional Regulation sent letters to Perroni stating that the Department had received a complaint from Johnson that Perroni had failed to deliver commissions due to her. Four of the five transactions listed in Johnson's letter of January 10 were recited. No request for an accounting was contained in either letter. By letter dated July 8, 1981, Perroni responded to the Department explaining, essentially, that the agreement between Perroni and Johnson was in the hands of their attorneys and referred the Department to Perroni's attorney for details regarding the financial dispute between Perroni and Johnson. On September 24, 1981, the Department sent Perroni another copy of Johnson's January 10 demand letter. The Department requested Perroni to prepare an accounting of any commissions due to Johnson, with the accounting to be sent to Johnson and the Department, together with Perroni's explanation regarding Johnson's investment in the partnership. This letter constitutes the first demand for an accounting on commissions. By letter dated October 15, 1981, Perroni responded to the Department's demand for an accounting by listing the four transactions, advising that three of the four transactions had in fact closed, and reciting the commission to be paid on those three transactions. He advised that the records of the fourth transaction could not be located. Be briefly explained the terms of the agreement between him and Johnson, explained that litigation between him and Johnson would probably be necessary, and again referred the Department to his attorney for any information or documents that might be needed. This letter constitutes an accounting as requested by the Department. The transaction on which Perroni could not locate the file in order to ascertain any commission possibly due to Johnson was the Zdanowicz to McCloud transaction. McCloud is Johnson's mother. In her deposition, Johnson admitted removing from the Port St. Lucie office what she considered her "personal" files. Many of the records from the Port St. Lucie office have never been located, including the file on the James Bell transaction wherein Perroni placed his copy of the release signed by Bell. Perroni's records indicate that the total losses suffered at the Port St. Lucie office through January 1, 1981, amount to $32,492.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in all five counts of the Administrative Complaint and further dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents, John R. Perroni and Florida First Realty and Development, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 7th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred E. Johnson, Esquire 3443 Hancock Bridge Parkway #501 North Fort Myers, Florida 33903 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-083 DPR NOS. 0005124 JOHN R. PERRONI AND 0012101 FIRST FLORIDA REALTY AND 0012012 DEVELOPMENT, INC., 0012023 0013742 Respondent. /
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Lori Wilk has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0349551. The last license issued was as a broker in care of Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0253076. At all times material hereto, Respondent Wilk has been licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert, as owner, had listed for sale certain real property with Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc./Gil Amara. Respondents obtained LPS Investments, Inc., as purchaser pursuant to a sales contract which was accepted by the seller on March 14, 1989. LPS Investments is owned by Leo and Patricia Scarola. Patricia Scarola was a former salesperson for Respondents. That Contract for Sale And Purchase of Real Property provided that a total of $500 as deposit monies was to be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract which acknowledged receipt of the first $100 of the deposit monies. Respondents' escrow account deposit slips reveal the first $100 was deposited into Respondents' escrow account. No proof of receipt of the additional $400 exists among the escrow account deposit slips admitted in evidence; however, Respondent Wilk's testimony is accepted that Respondents received in trust a total earnest money deposit in the sum of $500. Thereafter, LPS Investments, Inc., refused to close, alleging misrepresentation by the seller of the property. Although the property had been advertised as a "handyman special" and the Contract provided that the property was accepted in an "as is" condition, the Scarolas who never saw the property before they entered into the Contract to purchase it discovered that it would cost more to improve the property than they had guessed. They decided not to close. Rather, Pat Scarola instructed Respondents to transfer the $500 earnest money deposit to another piece of property not involving Gwendolyn Taylor- Herbert. Without the prior knowledge or consent of the seller or of the listing broker, Respondents transferred the Scarolas' earnest money deposit to another transaction for the benefit of the purchaser (LPS Investments, Inc.) and not involving the same seller. This was done without even considering whether the seller or the seller's agent might have an interest in the deposit. At no time prior to the time that the Respondents' transferred the deposit to a different property did the Respondents give the listing broker or the seller an opportunity or notice to make a demand upon the Respondents for the deposit. After the transfer, and after the contract failed to close, the seller and the seller's agent made a demand that the $500 deposit be accounted for and delivered. It was not. On June 1, 1989, Respondents obtained an offer from Herb Sider, as purchaser, for the property owned by Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert. That offer was accepted by the seller. The Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property provided that a total deposit of $1,000 was to be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty. Respondent Wilk executed that portion of the Contract acknowledging that the first $100 of the earnest money deposit had been received by Respondents. That representation was false. Sider never gave Respondents the earnest money deposit specified in the Contract, and Respondents failed to advise anyone that the representation in the Contract was false. Although Respondent Wilk testified that she would "normally" keep $100 of Sider's money in her escrow account to be applied to the various contracts that he entered into through her, there is no evidence that there was $100 in Respondents' escrow account at the time or that it was available to be applied to this Contract. Rather, Respondent Wilk's testimony is accepted that she never received either the initial $100 or the additional $900 deposit monies from Sider for this property. Herb Sider refused to close. The seller, Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert, agreed to lower the sales price, and a modified contract was executed between Taylor-Herbert and Sider. Thereafter, Sider again refused to close. At no time did Respondents notify anyone that they did not have an earnest money deposit in escrow for the Taylor-Herbert/Sider transaction. Diane Quigley, branch manager of Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., sent a letter dated July 11, 1989, to the Respondents transmitting release of deposit receipt forms and instructing Respondents to release the $500 earnest money deposit of LPS Investments, Inc., and the $1,000 earnest money deposit of Herb Sider to the seller Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert. Respondents ignored that demand letter. By letter dated August 25, 1989, Quigley again wrote to Respondents demanding the release of the Sider and the LPS Investments, Inc., deposits to the seller. That letter referred to the July 11th letter which Respondents had ignored and the numerous phone calls placed by Quigley to Respondents which had not been returned. On September 13, 1989, Respondents for the first time notified Petitioner of possible conflicting demands. That letter misrepresented the facts of the situation and suggested that the seller and buyer might still be able to strike a deal. On October 3, 1989, Respondents again wrote to the Florida Real Estate Commission advising that "there is now a conflicting demand" on the deposits relative to the Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert property. Respondents' letters reveal a lack of understanding of the basics of a real estate contract. Neither letter advised the Commission that Respondents did not have any of the monies in escrow at any rate. On December 27, 1988, Respondent Wilk made an offer to purchase real property from Bel-Properties, Inc., which offer provided that $100 earnest money deposit would be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., and an additional $2,050 earnest money deposit would be placed in the Stars and Stripes escrow account within 72 hours of acceptance. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property acknowledging that the initial $100 deposit had been received. That representation was false. The Contract which she prepared listed as the buyer "Lori Wilk, a lisenced [sic] real estate broker, and/or assigns." The offer was accepted by the seller on December 30, 1988. In connection with that offer, Respondent Wilk represented that she was the purchaser when, in fact, she was acting on behalf of the actual purchaser HBS Investments, Inc., a corporation owned, controlled, and operated by Herb Sider. Immediately upon the acceptance of Respondent Wilk's offer, she assigned the sales contract to HBS Investments, Inc. At no time did Respondent Wilk or HBS Investments, Inc., place the $2,150 earnest money deposit in the escrow account of Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., as represented by Respondent Wilk to the seller and as required by the Contract. Further, at no time did Respondents advise the seller that they did not have an earnest money deposit in the Stars and Stripes escrow account. On November 28, 1988, Respondent "Wilk, a lisenced [sic] real estate broker, and/or assigns" made an offer to purchase real property from Darlene Farris. Farris accepted that offer on December 6, 1988. That Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property provided that an initial deposit of $100 had been placed in the escrow account of Stars and Stripes Realty and that an additional earnest money deposit of $1,900 would be placed in escrow within 72 hours of acceptance. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract acknowledging that she had received the initial $100 earnest money deposit. That representation was false. In fact, Respondent Wilk never placed any of the $2,000 earnest money deposit in her escrow account and never advised the seller or the seller's listing broker that no earnest money deposit had been made. On or about February 2, 1989, Respondents solicited and obtained Willy Pearson as a tenant for the Farris property. Respondents represented to Pearson that the lessor was HBS Investments, Inc. Respondent Wilk prepared a Memorandum to Enter Into a Lease acknowledging the receipt of $550 as a deposit from Pearson, although Respondent Wilk only received $250 from Pearson. When Respondent Wilk received half of the rental deposit, she gave Pearson both a receipt and immediate possession of the property. Respondents obtained the tenant without the prior knowledge and consent of Darlene Farris, owner of the property. Further Respondents did not notify Farris or Farris' broker that Respondents had rented Farris' property until sometime after Respondents had received the $250 deposit from Pearson and had given him possession of Farris' property. Neither Respondent Wilk nor HBS Investments, Inc., ever closed on the Farris property. Further, Respondent Wilk never obtained authority from Darlene Farris to obtain or place a tenant in Farris' property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them and revoking the licenses of Respondents Lori Wilk and Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2468 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-21 and 23-28 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 22 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2-9, 19, and 23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 27 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24, 25, 28, and 30 have been rejected as not been supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 26, and 29 have been rejected as being irrelevant to determination of the issues involved in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section - Suite N-308 Hurston Building - North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Monte K. Rassner, Esquire Rassner, Malove, Rassner, Kramer & Gold Plaza 7000, Suite 500 7000 Southwest 62nd Avenue South Miami, FL 33143 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to deliver a deposit to the person entitled to said delivery in violation of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent appeared at the hearing without legal counsel and was advised of his rights to same at his own expense. He elected to represent himself at the hearing. He was further advised as to his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act including the right to testify on his own behalf if he so desired. He indicated his understanding of his rights. It was stipulated by the parties that Joseph Sopotnick, Joseph Sopotnick, Jr., and Joe Sopotnick are one and the same person.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times under consideration in these proceedings, Respondent was a registered real estate broker (Stipulation of parties, Exhibit 2) In March 1974, Alvin K. Whittington of Marietta, Georgia, upon the recommendation of his job supervisor, who had dealt with Respondent in the past, called the Respondent on the telephone concerning the possibility of purchasing land in Florida. Although the Respondent indicated that he had none available at that time, he called Whittington later on in the day and told him that he had certain property which was for sale and inquired as to when he could come down to Florida to look it over. Whittington informed him that he did not know when he would be able to visit Florida and Respondent advised him to send a deposit in order to hold the land since there was a contractor interested in the same property. Whittington told him that he did not like the idea of placing a deposit on property that he had not seen and inquired as to whether or not he could secure a return of the deposit if, after he had seen the land he did not wish to purchase it. Respondent told him "That's no problem. You can get your deposit back". He advised him to send the deposit and that he would hold it until he came to Florida. Accordingly, Whittington sent a check for $360.00, dated March 20, 1974, to the Respondent which indicated on its face that it was a "deposit on Fla. shore lots - N.W. corner Needle Palm & 18th". The check was signed by Mrs. Whittington on a joint account with her husband. The sum of $360.00 represented 10 percent of a purchase price of $3600.00. After talking to Whittington, Respondent on March 20 wrote to the owners of the property, advised that a deposit check would be forthcoming and enclosed a standard sales contract for the sellers to execute and return to him. This was accomplished and Respondent then forwarded the contract to the Whittingtons for execution and return which they received on April 1st. Mr. Whittington thereupon called the Respondent and told him that he could not sign the contract without seeing the property. On April 12th, he and his wife went to Florida, met with the Respondent, looked over the lots in question, and informed the Respondent that he would call him the following Monday as to whether or not he wished to make the purchase. On April 15th, Whittington called the Respondent, informed him that he did not wish to purchase the property and requested return of his deposit. Respondent informed him he could not return it and that disposition of the deposit would be a matter to be determined by the seller. Thereafter, on April 19th, Respondent wrote to the Whittingtons informing them that after careful consideration, he intended to treat the matter as a forfeiture of deposit situation, and unless he heard from them to the contrary he would disburse the deposit to the seller under the terms of the contract. However, he stated in the letter that he would apply the full deposit to any purchase that the Whittingtons might thereafter wish to make. After receipt of this letter, Whittington again called the Respondent concerning the situation at which time Respondent informed him that he would try to get 1/3 of the deposit returned if Whittington would send him a letter indicating that he would accept such an amount. Nothing further was heard from the Respondent and the deposit was never refunded (Testimony of Mr. & Mrs. Whittington, Composite Exhibit 1, Exhibits 3, 4). On or about July 2, 1974, Respondent remitted 1/2 of the deposit to sellers and retained 1/2 for himself (Stipulation of parties) Respondent testified that Whittington had insisted he accept the deposit and send the contract to the seller to insure that he would be able to purchase the property, and that the proposed deal was not contingent upon the buyer's satisfaction with the property. He denied telling Whittington he could get his deposit back. He also testified that after the Whittingtons viewed the property in Florida, he asked Whittington about the contract and the latter said that he had not brought it with him but would send it within a few days. That when he thereafter called upon his return to Georgia, he informed Respondent that he did not wish to make the purchase because his wife was about to have a baby. Respondent contended at the hearing that he was never sure that Whittington wanted his deposit back, however, conceded that Composite Exhibit 1f was his letter to the sellers advising that the Whittingtons had requested the return of the deposit. Respondent asserted that it was his impression that if a deposit had been made in good faith, it was proper to consider that there was a binding contract even though the depositor had not signed a sales contract. He further indicated that if he was wrong in this respect he would return the deposit. At no time did the Respondent ever discuss the transaction with the sellers. He was unaware of the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(c), by which a registrant may seek advice from the real estate commission if he entertains, in good faith, doubt concerning his duty to account and deliver a deposit. Respondent has been in the real estate business for twelve years (Testimony of Respondent, Composite Exhibit 1f).
Recommendation That Respondent's registration as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of 60 days. That the period of suspension in excess of 30 days be vacated if the Respondent returns the $350.00 deposit to Mr. & Mrs. Alvin K. Whittington prior to the expiration of the aforesaid period of 30 days from the original date of suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Hollywood, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker engaged in real estate activities. Hollywood, Inc., is also a subdivider and builder of residential homes in Broward County. One of the qualifying brokers for Respondent Hollywood, Inc., is the Respondent William D. Horvitz, who also serves as President and a Director of the corporation. On or about March 12, 1981, Mildred McGehee, a real estate salesman working for the Respondent Hollywood, Inc., showed a model home and building in Rock Creek, a Hollywood, Inc., development, to Andrew and Linda Medvin. As a result of McGehee's efforts, the Medvins, as Buyers, signed a contract with Respondent Hollywood, Inc., as Seller, to construct and purchase a dwelling unit for a total purchase price of $118,900. Pursuant to the contract, the Medvins gave the Respondent Hollywood, Inc., a good faith deposit for $11,890 at the time the contract was executed. The Medvins' deposit was not placed into a broker's escrow account by the Respondent Hollywood, Inc. The subject contract required the Medvins to supply $11,910 cash at closing and to make application to a qualified lending institution for the mortgage balance, $95,100. Under the provisions of paragraph (c) on page two of the contract, the contract was contingent upon: "BUYER obtaining a firm commitment (the term 'firm commitment' as used in this Contract shall mean a written agreement by a Qualified Lending Insti- tution to make a mortgage loan to BUYER on the Property in the amount of the above MORTGAGE BALANCE) for said loan within thirty (30) days from the date of execution hereof by SELLER." Respondent's Exhibit 1. The mortgage balance referred to in the contract was $95,100. The failure of the Medvins to make and complete an application for the mortgage financing or failure of the Medvins to timely satisfy any conditions in the firm commitment was cause for default under the contract unless the Medvins made other arrangements satisfactory to Respondent Hollywood, Inc., for payment of the total purchase price at closing. The Medvins timely filed applications for $80,000 rather than $95,100 as set forth in the contract, with four lending institutions. Two of the lending institutions rejected the application, one offered a $75,000 loan and one, Hollywood Federal, offered a commitment of $80,000 subject to the Medvins' sale and verification of the sale of the home which they then owned. The delivery by the Medvins of the disapproval for mortgage financing from a qualified lending institution would have resulted in the return of the Medvins' deposit and termination of the contract. A copy of a disapproval of financing was never delivered to Respondent Hollywood, Inc., by the Medvins. The Medvins gave the letter of commitment with conditions issued by Hollywood Federal to Respondent Hollywood, Inc., pursuant to the contract. As long as the special conditions of the mortgage loan commitment made by Hollywood Federal were met, the lender was obligated to make the loan to the Medvins. The Medvins intended to personally supply at closing the difference between the amount due Respondent Hollywood, Inc., under the contract and the mortgage financing received from Hollywood Federal. Upon receipt from the Medvins of the mortgage loan commitment with conditions, the Respondent Hollywood, Inc., commenced construction on their home pursuant to the contract. The Respondent Hollywood, Inc., constructed a residence for the Medvins in accordance with the specifications contained in the contract and the changes and modifications to the residence requested by the Medvins during the course of construction. A condition of the mortgage financing commitment from Hollywood Federal received by the Medvins was that they sell their present home prior to February 19, 1982, the scheduled date of closing. The Medvins did not sell their present home prior to February 19, 1982, the scheduled date of closing. Section 2.C of the subject contract provides: Failure by the Buyer to timely make and complete application for mortgage financing or failure by the Buyer to satisfy any conditions in the firm commitment timely shall be cause for default of Buyer under Paragraph 7 (as hereinafter) of the Contract unless Buyer makes other arrangements satisfactory to the Seller for pay- ment of the Total Purchase Price at closing. (Emphasis added.) Respondent's Exhibit 1. Pursuant to the contract, the Respondent Hollywood, Inc., notified the Medvins that their home was constructed and complete and a closing date of February 19, 1982, was set. Although Linda Medvin had repeated contact with Hollywood, Inc.'s personnel between April 20, 1981, and February, 1982, regarding extras and changes to the house being constructed for her, the Medvins did not inform Hollywood, Inc., until February 10, 1982, that they did not intend to close on the home. The Medvins failed to appear at the closing which was scheduled for February 19, 1982. The contract provides that as soon as Seller notifies the Buyer of his readiness to close, it is the duty of the Buyer to execute all documents required by the lending institution in order to close the mortgage loan and home purchase simultaneously. The Respondent Hollywood, Inc., was informed by legal counsel that the failure of the Medvins to make arrangements satisfactory to Hollywood, Inc., for payment of the purchase price at closing constituted a default by the Medvins as Buyers under the terms of the contract and all payments including the deposit were to be retained by the Seller as liquidated damages. The Medvins through counsel demanded the return of their earnest money deposit. The Respondents have refused to return the deposit based on their belief that the Medvins were in default under the contract. The Respondent, William D. Horvitz, has not personally engaged in any dealings with the Medvins and is not the only licensed broker associated with Hollywood, Inc. The Respondent Horvitz was not involved either directly or in a supervisory capacity in the transaction between the Medvins and Hollywood, Inc.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents Hollywood, Inc., and William D. Horvitz. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Carlos Alvarez, Esquire and Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Howard Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission presented evidence of the service of the Notice of Hearing upon Madison B. Graves, Esquire, 612 East Carson, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101, as Counsel for Barbara Orcutt, by certified mail return receipt requested. Barbara Orcutt is presently a non-active broker; however, Barbara Orcutt was at the time in question in the Administrative Complaint a registered real estate broker with Gold Palm Realty Corporation, 1701 S. Federal Hwy., Boca Raton, Florida, 33632. Sigurd N. Hersloff was the owner of real estate described as 819 Lake Drive, Boca Raton, Florida. Hersloff contacted Jacqueline M. Winter, an associate broker with Gold Palm Realty, and advised her of his intent to sell said real property. Winter, in turn, mentioned the fact that Hersloff desired to sell his home to the Respondent, Barbara Orcutt. Orcutt stated to Winter that she (Orcutt) knew of a potential buyer for Hersloff's real property. David F. Young was advised by Orcutt of the availability for purchase of Hersloff's real property. Orcutt showed Hersloff's property to David F. Young, and subsequently David F. Young made an offer for purchase of Hersloff's real property for a purchase price of $76,200 putting up a $500 earnest money deposit. This proposal was presented to Hersloff in the presence of Winter. Hersloff was concerned and annoyed that Orcutt had received only $500 as an earnest money deposit. Hersloff told Orcutt that he did not consider $500 earnest money deposit sufficient compensation for taking his property off the market and advised Orcutt that Young would have to pay a full 10 percent of the $76,200 purchase price as earnest money deposit. Orcutt advised Hersloff that Young could not pay an earnest money deposit. Hersloff advised Orcutt that if Young could not pay the $7,620 earnest money deposit that he would accept a promissory note for the difference between the $500 and the $7,620. Orcutt left Hersloff and Winter presumably to return to Young to present Hersloff's objection to the contract for purchase. Orcutt later returned and spoke with Hersloff and Winter. She represented to Hersloff and Winter that she had obtained a promissory note from Young made out to Gold Palm Realty Corp. and that same would be deposited in Gold Palm Realty Corporation's escrow account together with Young's $500 earnest money deposit. Upon this representation Hersloff executed the contract for purchase presented by Orcutt in Young's behalf. The contract for purchase provided in part that Hersloff was to hold a second mortgage in the amount of $15,000 for a period of four months from the date of closing, said second mortgage to bear no interest. Young, who was in the process of selling real property in another state, became concerned that he might not be able to repay the second mortgage to Hersloff within the four months as stated in the contract. He spoke with Orcutt and asked her if she could obtain an extension of two months within which to pay the second mortgage. Orcutt represented to Young at that time that she did not anticipate that Hersloff would have any objection to such an extension. Subsequently in a conversation between Hersloff and Young, Hersloff determined that contrary to Orcutt's representation, she had not obtained a promissory note from Young. Young, at that time, learned that Orcutt had not mentioned a possible extension of the mortgage to Hersloff. On November 11, 1974, the Parties closed the transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the registration of Barbara Orcutt as a non- active broker be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd 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: Louis B. Guttman, III, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Madison B. Graves, Esquire 612 East Carson Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
