Findings Of Fact On September 4, 1984, Idus B. Bowen and his wife, Jean, were shopping for a lamp in Respondents' furniture store in Palatka, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Bowen had recently retired and moved to Palatka where they intended to settle. The clerk they dealt with at the furniture store, who happened to be the Respondents' daughter, in the course of conversation regarding the Bowens' move, indicated that her father had a place for sale on the water. When the Bowens indicated some interest, she got some of the details as to size, location, and price from her father and discussed the matter with the Bowens. As they seemed to show some interest, she introduced them to her father, Respondent Richard Woodall, who discussed it with them and, that same day, took them out to see the property which was, at the time, occupied by his wife and him. When Woodall first talked with the Bowens about the property in his office at the furniture store, he advised the Bowens that he was a real estate broker but that he was selling this property, his personal home, as the owner and not the broker. Several times that day, both on the way to the house and at the house, he advised the Bowens he was selling as an owner and not as a broker. On the first visit to the house, Mr. Woodall showed the Bowens both the inside and the outside. They stayed approximately an hour and a half and the Bowens got a full view of the house and the property on which it was located and Mr. Woodall gave Mr. Bowen a plat of the property. No agreement was reached that day, however. Two days later, on September 6, 1984, Mr. Bowen again went to the furniture store to talk over the terms Mr. Woodall was offering on the sale. At this time he was advised by Mr. Woodall that there was an outstanding loan on the property of approximately $39,400.00 at 8 1/2% interest. This figure was determined by Mr. Woodall through a call to the lending institution and he received a tentative approval for the Bowens to assume this loan at a rate of 11 7/8%. Mr. Woodall passed this information on to the Bowens but in doing so, mistakenly stated the assumption percentage rate as 11.78%. In reality, the figure was 11 7/8% which, when converted to a decimal presentation, is reflected as 11.875%. Mr. Bowen did not realize this difference, however, until some time after the contract was signed. On this same date, September 6, 1984, after receiving the financing information from the lending institution, Mr. Woodall suggested that the Bowens again go out to the house so that his wife could show the property from a woman's point of view. When the Bowens agreed, an appointment was made for the showing by Mrs. Woodall for the next day, September 7, 1984. On the 7th, Mrs. Woodall showed the Bowens the house in detail. After doing so, she suggested that the Bowens stay for coffee and refreshments and when the Bowens agreed, called her husband to come home and join them. Before Mr. Woodall got there, however, Mrs. Woodall asked if the Bowens were ready to sign a contract. The Bowens indicated they were not. When Mr. Woodall arrived, he and Mr. Bowen went out for a walk around the property during which Mr. Bowen asked about the need for a fence around the swimming pool. Mr. Woodall assured him that since the house was located on the water, it was not necessary to fence the pool area all the way around. Mr. Woodall, while admitting Mr. Bowen asked about the water level in the canal, states there was no discussion of flooding and he further contends that Mr. Bowen did not discuss the issue of the fence until after he went to the County office subsequent to signing the contract. No doubt Mr. Woodall answered the questions asked by Bowen to the best of his knowledge and belief. Based on this information they went back to the house where Mr. Bowen agreed to sign a contract for the purchase on Saturday morning, September 8, 1984, in the Respondents' office in the furniture store. On September 8, 1984, both the Bowens and the Woodalls signed a contract for the sale of the Woodall's property for a purchase price of $125,000.00 with $5,000.00 to be placed in escrow in Respondent, Rich Hill Realty's escrow account. The contract also called for the Bowens to assume a mortgage in the amount of $39,400.00 at 11.78% and the balance due was to be paid in cash at closing to be held as soon as possible. The contract was conditioned upon the purchaser obtaining a firm assumption commitment within 15 days. At the time of signing the contract, Mr. Bowen gave the Woodalls a check for $5,000.00. When the Bowens arrived, the contract had already been prepared and signed by Mrs. Woodall. Once all remaining parties had signed, Mr. Woodall had it witnessed. The contract called for the deposit of $5,000.00 to be placed in escrow and Mr. Bowen assumed that it would be so placed because the sellers were both real estate professionals. He contends that if he had not thought the deposit would be placed in escrow, he doubts he would have paid a deposit to the Woodalls at that time. In all his previous real estate purchases, the money was placed into escrow and not drawn out until later. On September 10, 1984, after further consideration of the purchase and based on the fact that the pool was the same depth from one end to the other, a depth beyond the height of his non-swimming wife, Mr. Bowen went to Mr. Woodall to see if he would release him from the contract. When Mr. Woodall refused, however, he accepted the refusal. He immediately made application to assume the Woodall's loan with Security 1st Federal Savings & Loan Association, which, on September 18, 1984, furnished him a good faith estimate of settlement charges which reflected the interest rate at 11.875%. Just about this time, Mr. Bowen also became concerned as to whether the property was in the flood zone and called the Putnam County Zoning Board where he was advised that the property in question was in fact in the flood plain. When he also asked if the pool needed to be fenced, he was told that where there was a pool, it was required to be fenced a],1 around with a four foot high fence with lockable gates. When Mr. Bowen received this information, he immediately reported it to Mr. Woodall who said he would check with the County and get it straightened out. Mr. Woodall thereafter called Mr. Bowen back and told him that the property was declared to be in the flood plain sometime in 1983 and that the pool regulation became effective sometime before that, but that since the house was built before either regulation came into effect, it was grandfathered in and the rules would not apply. In the meantime, Mr. Bowen's application to assume the Woodall's loan was approved. No assumption agreements were ever signed by the Bowens because by this time Mr. Bowen had determined that the deal was not good for him and he had decided that he would not go through with it. Mr. Bowen consulted an attorney who discovered some additional minor discrepancies in the transaction such as (1) the legal description of the property was incorrect, and (2) the estimate of closing costs had not been furnished by the seller. Neither of these discrepancies are relevant to the issues for consideration at this hearing, however. On the basis of what he had already discovered and this additional information, Mr. Bowen refused to close on the contract as called. for on September 25, 1984, and requested a refund of the $5,000.00 deposit by a letter from his attorney to the attorney for the Woodall's. Mr. Bowen did not receive an answer to his demand for refund of the deposit and despite several subsequent requests, the money has never been refunded. No action has been filed in court to force return, however. On November 28, 1984, Respondents notified the Bowens their deposit had been forfeited for failure to close. Mr. Bowen admits that Mr. Woodall advised him on their first trip to the property that he was a real estate broker but that he did not deal ,with the public. He only dealt in real estate for his own investments. Mr. Bowen also admits that he did not read the contract in full before he signed it. He admits that there were no special clauses inserted in the contract at his request nor did he request that any comments be made in the contract regarding the flood plain or the pool. When he signed the contract, however, he claims he was relying on the representations made to him by Mr. Woodall which he checked out only after affixing his signature to the contract. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bowen declined to sign the contract contending they felt the property had been misrepresented by Mr. Woodall in the particulars regarding the alleged misrepresentation dealing with the fence around the pool, the fact that the property is located on the flood plain, and the fact that there is a discrepancy in the interest rate. The $5,000.00 deposit was in fact placed into the Rich Hill Realty escrow account by Mr. Woodall. However, on January 31, 1985, more than three months later, Mrs. Woodall, an officer of Rich Hill Realty, drew the amount out of the escrow account and purchased a certificate of deposit with the Citizen's 1st National Bank of Crescent City with it. This certificate has been rolled over upon maturity since that time. With regard to the state of the County Ordinances concerning fences around swimming pools in this County, according to Peter M. Christensen, the Codes Administrator for Putnam County, pools built before 1975 would not require fencing. The requirement for a four foot fence was enacted by the County Commission in 1976. With regard to the flood plain situation, the area where the property in question is located is classified A- 3,which means that the first floor of any dwelling must be at least six feet above mean sea level. Mr. Christensen cannot say for certain whether this particular property is located in the flood plain because he did not have the maps available to him at the hearing. However, the majority of the property in the area where the Woodall property is located is within the flood plain. According to Ms. Ann Keele, a specialist in the residential lending service of the Security 1st Federal Savings & Loan Association, which holds the mortgage on the Woodall property, at the time the Woodalls secured their loan, there was no requirement for flood insurance because there was no flood plain regulation in effect. She recalls the flood insurance program as coming into effect sometime in 1980 and her bank's policy is to require flood insurance if (1) the community is participating in the flood insurance program, or (2) if the area is prone to flooding. When the flood insurance program went into effect, the bank did not notify existing borrowers of the need to take out flood insurance. Since the Woodalls purchased their property and got their mortgage prior to 1980, they well may not have known of the change in the law and the requirement for flood insurance. As a matter of fact, had the Woodalls kept their property, they would not have had to purchase flood insurance. Upon assumption, however, a new purchaser would have to buy it. To determine those properties requiring flood insurance, the bank uses flood maps provided by a governmental agency. Most real estate agencies use the same maps but Ms. Keele cannot be sure whether Respondent had one or not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents here be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 November, 1985. APPENDIX The Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact have been considered and are, as to each: Paragraphs 1-6 Accepted 6 Accepted except that portion of the Finding which states the Buyer had relied upon Woodall's assurances that the 11.78% interest rate could be assumed. The evidence, while reflecting that the Bowens believed the rate was 11.78%, fails to establish that this was a major fact on which they relied. 8-10 Accepted 11 Accepted except for the term "neglected." The evidence clearly shows the refusal to return was based on full knowledge of the situation and not a matter of neglect. 12-13 Accepted. Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact have been considered and are, as to each: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted in part and denied in part. The evidence does reflect some conflict as to whether the Bowens were advised the property was in the flood plain or not and whether they were advised the pool had to be fenced. It has been found by the undersigned that Respondents' information given to the Bowens was in error but from ignorance rather than from design and that said negligence was simple and not culpable. 3-4 Accepted 5 Accepted as to the preparations for and failure of closing. Rejected as to the course of conduct attributed to the Bowens for the reasons implied and rejected as immaterial to the Findings Of Fact as to the availability of the courts to rectify a dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur Shell, Jr., Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Earl Nicholson, Esq. 407 St. John's Avenue Palatka, FL 32077 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director. Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether Michael Jacob Piwko (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated December 15, 2009, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. As such, Petitioner is fully authorized to prosecute disciplinary cases against real estate licensees. Respondent was at the times material to this matter, the holder of a Florida real estate associate license, license number 707518, issued by Petitioner. As last known, Respondent was an active sales associate with All Star Investment Realty, Inc., 9425 Sunset Drive #180, Miami, Florida 33173. From January 2008 through May 2008, Respondent was employed as a sales associate with Enrique Piwko, the qualifying broker for All Star Investment Realty, Inc. In January of 2008, Joaquin Inigo, a buyer, sought to purchase a condominium in Tampa, Florida. He gave Respondent a deposit for the purchase, but was later advised the deal had “fallen through.” On or about May 17, 2008, Mr. Inigo executed a contract for purchase and sale seeking to acquire a second condominium, unit number 208, at 310 Crestwood Circle, Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411. As part of the transactions with Respondent, Mr. Inigo tendered approximately $77,000.00 to Respondent to be applied to the purchase price of unit 208. Monies were tendered to Respondent directly because Mr. Inigo expected Respondent to get an employee discount related to the sale and pass that on to him. The closing date in July passed without unit 208 being conveyed to Mr. Inigo. Efforts to achieve a refund of the deposit monies were fruitless. Upon investigation of the matter, Petitioner discovered that Respondent never deposited Mr. Inigo’s funds in escrow with his broker. Petitioner did not negotiate the purchase of unit 208. Petitioner did not refund the deposit monies. All monies provided by Mr. Inigo to Respondent were for the purchase of unit 208 and were not a personal loan to Respondent. Respondent asserted in pleadings that the monies from Mr. Inigo were a personal loan. Respondent did not, however, present written evidence of the alleged loan or its terms and declined to respond to the investigatory efforts made by Petitioner. Petitioner did not present evidence regarding the cost of investigating this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding Respondent in violation of the provisions of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint as alleged by Petitioner, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00, and imposing a suspension of Respondent’s real estate license for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Heather A. Rutecki, Esquire Rutecki & Associates, P.A. Bank of America Tower 100 Southeast Second Street, Suite 4600 Miami, Florida 33131 Roger P. Enzor, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent violated the real estate licensing law, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to account and deliver a deposit; failing to maintain a deposit in a real estate brokerage escrow account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; and/or being guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and/or breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0360741. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Consolidated American Realty Services, Inc., in Tampa, Florida. From June 6, 1983, through June 25, 1984, Respondent was licensed and operating as a real estate broker under the trade name, "Benjamin Realty," in Tampa, Florida. For sometime prior to June 2, 1984, Eileen Cumbie attempted to sell a lot owned by her located at 1102 26th Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On June 2, 1984, the Respondent contacted Ms. Cumbie and informed her that he had a client interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie informed the Respondent that as long as she netted a certain amount, she would be willing to sell the property. Ms. Cumbie allowed the Respondent to put together a contract for the sale of the lot. In connection therewith, the Respondent prepared a sales contract with Danilo Castellanos, as purchaser, and Eileen W. Cumbie, as seller, for the purchase and sale of the property. Pursuant to the purchase and sales agreement, the Respondent received in trust from Mr. Castellanos a $500 earnest money deposit via check dated June 2, 1984. On June 5, 1984, the Respondent deposited the check into his real estate brokerage account maintained at the Central Bank of Tampa, 2307 W. Rennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Castellanos entered into the contract for the benefit of his son and daughter-in-law who resided in New Jersey but were planning to relocate to the Tampa area. Mr. Castellanos' daughter-in-law went to look at the lot on June 10, 1984 and decided that she did not like the area in which it was located. The closing of the transaction was set for June 15, 1984. On approximately June 13, 1984, Mr. Castellanos' daughter- in-law informed the Respondent that they were no longer interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie was out of town during the time of the scheduled closing, but had prepared and signed all of the paperwork in advance. When she returned after June 15, 1984, she called Respondent to find out how the closing went. The Respondent informed her that the buyers failed to go through with the transaction. The contract provided in part as follows: ". . . If the buyer fails to perform this contract within the time specified herein, time being of the essence of this agreement, the deposit made by the buyer shall be disposed of in the following manner: To the Broker an amount equal to his earned commission, but not to exceed 1/2 of the deposit which shall discharge the sellers obligation to him for that service; remainder to the seller to be credited to him against his damages accrued by reason of the breach of contract. " After the transaction failed to close, Ms. Cumbie requested that Respondent give a portion of the deposit to her. The Respondent told Ms. Cumbie that he would give her the entire deposit because she had paid for the survey and a few other items to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Over the next several months, the Respondent, on several occasions, promised to deliver a check to Ms. Cumbie. However, the Respondent never delivered any such check to Ms. Cumbie. Because the Respondent failed to provide Ms. Cumbie with a share of the earnest money deposit, she initiated a civil action in the County Court of Hillsborough County. On October 15, 1985, Ms. Cumbie was awarded a final judgment in the amount of $250 against Respondent for her share of the forfeited earnest money deposit. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent had not satisfied the judgment and Ms. Cumbie had not received any proceeds from the forfeited earnest money deposit. Shortly after the transaction failed to close, the purchasers requested that the Respondent return the earnest money deposit to them. However, the Respondent informed them that they were not entitled to the return of the earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit was never returned to the purchasers. On July 31, 1984, the balance in Respondent's escrow account was $568.83. However, on September 1, 1984, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account fell to S18.83. From October 31, 1984 to January 1, 1986, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account remained $3.83.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the registration of Fortunato Benjamin- Pabon as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fortunato Benjamin-Pabon 2729 N. Ridgewood Avenue, #1 Tampa, Florida 33602 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, holding license number 0419502. Ms. Linton was the owner and qualifying broker for Respondent Key Realty Co. of Pensacola, Inc. (Key Realty). Key Realty was a licensed real estate brokerage company in Florida, holding license number 0244319. Both Respondents, and in particular Ms. Linton, have excellent character references from other active members of the real estate community. On November 7, 1989, Petitioner entered a Final Order against Respondents for escrow account violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Final Order required Respondents to submit monthly escrow account status reports. From November 7, 1989, through March 27, 1990, the Respondents did not file any escrow account status reports as required by the Final Order. Ms. Linton had turned the responsibility of filing those reports over to her accountant. However, Ms. Linton did not check to see if the escrow reports were filed by her accountant. Her accountant's full-time employment was as a contract auditor for the U.S. Navy. In October, 1989, the accountant was assigned to audit a contract in the Pacific and moved to the Pacific island which was the site of the contract. The accountant advised Ms. Linton that he would be leaving in October. After' October, 1989, the accountant no longer did any accounting work for Respondent. However, Ms. Linton did not make arrangements for the filing of the escrow account reports required by the Final Order after her accountant left the country. No sufficient excuse was offered by Ms. Linton for her failure to file or ensure the filing of these escrow reports. The Respondents' rental escrow account revealed a shortage of $2,008.14 as of March 21, 1990. The money to cover the shortage was placed in a desk drawer in the Respondent's office for deposit while the Respondent was on vacation. Her employees failed to make the deposit. Given these facts, the resultant shortage was a very minor transgression of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21-V, Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, Bank charges totaling $328 were debited from the rental escrow account from June 1989 to February 1990. The Respondent's bank, Barnett Bank of Pensacola, had erroneously charged the rental escrow account for these bank charges despite instructions from the Respondent not to do so. All of the debited bank charges were either replaced by the bank or Ms. Linton. Since it was the bank's actions which caused these charges to be made to Respondents' rental escrow account and not Respondents' actions, no violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, can be attributed to either Respondent. Several checks totaling $3,605.15 were written by Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, from the rental escrow account and later returned due to nonsufficient funds. The checks were returned for nonsufficient funds due to the bank's hold policy. Since Respondent had consummated numerous transactions with Barnett Bank of Pensacola in which the hold policy was not applied to her account, Respondent had no knowledge that the bank's hold policy would be applied to her account. No reliable evidence was presented that this set of facts constituted bad accounting methods on the part of Respondents or otherwise violated the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In the course of operating a rental management business, Respondents, on October 25, 1989, entered into a rental property management agreement with Richard and Susan Vigeant. The agreement called for monthly rental statements and disbursements. Respondents collected rental funds on behalf of the Vigeants from November, 1989, to February, 1990. However, Respondents did not provide monthly statements or deliver net rental funds to the Vigeants until March 6, 1990. Respondents were under the impression that the Vigeant's funds were to be held by the Respondents for minor repairs to the Lessor's property. The Vigeants were not under such an impression and, after numerous phone calls for more than a month, the Vigeants' requested disbursement of the net rental funds on February 20, 1990. The funds were disbursed to the Vigeants on March 6, 1990. Respondents failure to give the Vigeants monthly accounting reports as required by the rental management agreement violates Section 475.25 (1)(d), Florida Statutes. However, this violation, while not minor, is also not overly serious and should not receive severe discipline. None of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Linton or her business were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction. The evidence did show that Ms. Linton is not very good at maintaining the rental escrow account or at seeing that the rental escrow account was properly maintained. Respondents' recordkeeping is poor and in disarray. The evidence was clear that Ms. Linton does not have the inclination, desire, or capability to maintain her broker's escrow account. The strongest evidence to support this conclusion is that all of Respondent's latest difficulties with her escrow account occurred after she had already been disciplined for escrow account violations which occurred prior to the events under consideration here. 1/ Given this inability, Respondent cannot be entrusted to properly handle escrow funds given to her. Since Respondents are not competent to handle escrow matters Respondents' licenses should be revoked. The Respondent does not currently have the financial ability to pay any fines and such a penalty would not be appropriate in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Division enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of four violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker's licenses. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. Murata is a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license numbers BK 3266198, 3326041, 3330594, 3334183, 3338731, 3345773, 3346456, 3346845, 3350300, 3364670, 3366527, 3366441, 3368235, 3369788, 3372663 and 3378303. Ms. Murata is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner and subject to applicable statutes and rules. Ms. Murata is the owner of the Florida Qualifying Broker of Record Service and maintains the Internet website, http://floridabrokerofrecord.com, which states its business model to be an opportunity for Florida real estate sales associates to run their own real estate companies without having to share their commissions with the broker of record. Friendly International Realty, LLC ("Friendly"), was formed in June 2011. From March 3, 2016, to June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata was the qualifying real estate broker for Friendly. Ms. Murata agreed to receive a monthly fee of $289.00 in exchange for being the qualifying broker of record for Friendly. Ms. Murata did not physically visit the license location of Friendly, at 937 Northeast 125th Street, North Miami, Florida, 33161, during the time that she was the qualifying broker. Ms. Murata was not a signatory on any escrow account used by Friendly. Ms. Murata did not keep any of Friendly's brokerage records. From March 4, 2016, to November 21, 2016, Jean Berthelot was a registered real estate sales associate with Friendly. He acted as an independent contractor. Ms. Murata was aware that Mr. Berthelot was doing business on the Multiple Listing Service ("MLS"). After she became the broker for Friendly, Ms. Murata activated one sales associate to help Mr. Berthelot. Joan Feloney is the owner of the subject property. Audrey Flanders is a real estate broker acting on behalf of Ms. Feloney in her efforts to lease the subject property. Ms. Flanders received a contract to enter into a lease from Tamara Stanton, a real estate sales associate at Friendly, on behalf of Paul Allicock. Ms. Feloney accepted the offer. Mr. Allicock paid $2,350.00 to Friendly toward lease of the subject property in the form of signed money orders dated March 6 and March 18, 2016. The money was placed in a Friendly escrow account. These money orders were paid to engage the services of Friendly and Ms. Murata as broker in the rental of the subject property. Pursuant to a written statement signed by Ms. Feloney, $550.00 of this amount was to be paid to Friendly, and $1,650.00 was to be paid to Ms. Feloney. A lease agreement between Mr. Allicock as tenant and Ms. Feloney as landlord and owner of the subject property was executed on March 21, 2016. Mr. Berthelot wrote a check from the Friendly escrow account to Ms. Feloney for $1,650.00 on the same date. Ms. Feloney attempted to deposit the check, but on April 14, 2016, the check was returned to her marked "NSF," indicating that insufficient funds were in the account. She was charged a $15.00 return item fee. Under the agreement between Ms. Murata and Friendly, Mr. Berthelot was not authorized to have an escrow account or otherwise hold funds or assets on behalf of a third party. As for brokerage transactions, he was supposed to e-mail transactional records to Ms. Murata or place them in a dropbox. Neither Ms. Stanton nor Mr. Berthelot ever placed documents in the dropbox. But, as Ms. Murata told Investigator Percylla Kennedy, she did learn that Friendly was doing business on the MLS. Ms. Murata became aware of the Friendly escrow account on April 26, 2016, in connection with a complaint about a transaction unrelated to this Administrative Complaint. She discussed the escrow account with Mr. Berthelot on April 27, 2016. Ms. Murata requested that Mr. Berthelot close the escrow account, submit proof that he had closed the account, and turn over all contracts between Mr. Berthelot and current clients. Ms. Murata did not want to perform a reconciliation of the escrow account. As she testified in deposition: Q: When you learned that there were third party funds being held by Friendly International Realty, did you demand the records of that account so you could perform a reconciliation? A: No, because [sic] was to be closed, because I did not want to manage an escrow account. So when I discovered what he was doing, the agreement was that he was going to close it immediately. I was not going to manage an escrow account for him, so I demanded, what I demanded was proof that the account was closed and proof that he had engaged in a written agreement with a title company for all escrow funds. Q: Approximately when did you make that demand? A: The moment that Jessica Schuller came up and he confessed that he had kept the account from his previous broker. That he had not told me because he was going to close it. I threatened I was going to resign once he paid those funds to Jessica. But then I agreed to continue if he closed that account immediately. On May 10, 2016, a complaint was filed with the Department against Ms. Murata, as broker of Friendly, regarding the lease transaction involving the subject property. After Ms. Murata became aware that Friendly owed money to Ms. Feloney, she maintained regular contact with her brokerage in an attempt to ensure that the money owed to Ms. Feloney was paid. Ms. Murata cooperated with the Department's investigation. Ms. Feloney, through Audrey Flanders, requested on June 2, 2016, that the $1,650.00 and an additional service charge of $82.00 be paid within 15 days or a case would be filed with the state attorney's office. The parties stipulated that on June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata resigned from her position as broker of record for Friendly. She testified that she resigned because she had not received the documents or actions that she had requested of Mr. Berthelot. Ms. Murata did not write a check to Ms. Feloney to pay the amount Friendly owed her because, with an investigation underway, Ms. Murata did not want it to be construed as an admission that she had personally collected funds from Mr. Allicock. She also evidently believed that since she had resigned, she was not professionally responsible for obligations that arose during the time that she had been the broker. Ms. Murata convincingly testified that in another, unrelated, situation, she became involved as the broker to resolve a potential dispute by ensuring that the party entitled to funds was paid. On June 25, 2016, a Bad Check Crime Report was filed with the Broward County State Attorney's Office. By letter dated June 8, 2016, the Department requested that Ms. Murata provide copies of monthly reconciliation statements; bank statements and records; and sales, listing, and property management files of Friendly. As Ms. Kennedy testified, Ms. Murata never provided those accounts and records to the Department, saying she did not have them. While Ms. Murata insists that any failure was only because Mr. Berthelot actively kept information from her, the parties stipulated that Ms. Murata failed to maintain control of, and have reasonable access to, some of the documents associated with the rental of the subject property. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in real estate brokerages, reviewed chapter 475; Florida Administrative Code Rule Title 61J; the deposit paperwork of Mr. Allicock; the Bad Check Crime Report; the investigative report; and the Administrative Complaint. He prepared an expert report to the Department. As Mr. Trafton testified, the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to other parties. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. He also testified that a broker must maintain the records of the brokerage. Mr. Trafton testified that in his opinion, Ms. Murata failed to meet these standards. Ms. Murata failed to promptly deliver funds to Ms. Feloney that were in possession of the brokerage. Ms. Murata failed to manage, direct, and control Real Estate Sales Associate Berthelot to the standard expected of a broker of record. She did not actively supervise him, instead relying completely on Mr. Berthelot and other associates to provide her any information she needed to know. Ms. Murata failed to preserve accounts and records relating to the rental or lease agreement of the subject property. Petitioner did not clearly show that Respondent was guilty of either "culpable negligence" or "breach of trust." As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of this complaint through September 14, 2017, costs incurred by the Department were $1,443.75, not including costs associated with an attorney's time.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Finding Maria Camila Murata in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), and 475.25(1)(e) as charged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00; imposing license suspension for a period of two months; and imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes (1991), and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondents, Shirley M. Ferguson and Dosh Realty, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed real estate brokers in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers 0393921 and 0252372, respectively, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued were as brokers, c/o Dosh Realty, Inc., 595 N. Nova Road 105A, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. At all times material hereto, Ms. Ferguson was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Dosh Realty, Inc. On or about August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson maintained and operated a branch office of Dosh Realty, Inc., at the Aliki Condominium located in Daytona Beach. On or about August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson and Carol Savage, a licensed salesperson, entered into an "Independent Contractor Agreement" whereby Ms. Savage agreed to act as a property management agent for Dosh Realty, Inc., at the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage's license was registered with Dosh Realty, Inc. The Independent Contractor Agreement between Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Savage specifically required that Ms. Savage set up "two rental accounts - Dosh Realty, Inc./ (condo name) - one account to be a general account for rentals, the other account to be a non-interest escrow account for security deposits." On August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson opened an account, number 1130222031, at Barnett Bank in Ormond Beach, Florida. Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Savage were signatories on the account. The account was not an escrow security account. Ms. Ferguson inquired of Ms. Savage about a rental escrow account for Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage informed Ms. Ferguson that security deposits were not required or received and, therefore, no escrow account was necessary. Despite the requirement of the Independent Contractor Agreement that an escrow account be established, Ms. Ferguson did not require that Ms. Savage comply with the terms of the Independent Contractor Agreement. Between August 1, 1990, and July 20, 1991, Ms. Savage, in the course of her association with the Respondents, solicited and obtained tenants to lease condominium units at the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage informed Ms. Ferguson that the agreements for these rentals were verbal. Ms. Ferguson did not insist that written agreements be entered into. Between August 1, 1990, and July 20, 1991, Ms. Savage in fact received monies as security deposits for rentals at the Aliki Condominium. Not all of the monies received by Ms. Savage were deposited in an account of the Respondents. Respondents were not notified of the security deposits and the Respondents were not aware that the security deposits had been collected. On July 20, 1991, Ms. Ferguson became aware that Ms. Savage had been collecting security deposits from tenants of the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Ferguson learned that Ms. Savage had taken the deposits and had failed to deliver the deposits to the Respondents. On or about July 20, 1991, tenants of the Aliki Condominium began to demand a return of their security deposits and Ms. Savage left the State of Florida. Ms. Ferguson reported the foregoing events to the Department and ultimately filed a complaint against Ms. Savage. Ms. Savage ultimately surrendered her license with the Department for revocation. The Respondents have not returned the security deposits received by Ms. Savage at the Aliki Condominium. Although Ms. Ferguson was very cooperative during the Department's investigation of this matter and although Ms. Ferguson did inquire of Ms. Savage concerning the manner in which rentals were handled at Aliki condominium, Ms. Ferguson did not insist, as a condition for the continued use by Ms. Savage of Ms. Ferguson's brokers license and the brokers license of Dosh Realty, Inc., that Ms. Savage use written rental agreements, require deposits and use an escrow account. Ms. Ferguson acknowledged during the investigation of this matter that monies were received at Dosh Realty's branch office at the Aliki Condominium that were not deposited in an escrow account and that she accepted Ms. Savage's representation that no written leases were entered into at the Aliki Condominium.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the Respondents have violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1991). It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Ferguson be reprimanded, placed on probation for one year and required to complete the 30 hour broker management course. DONE and ENTERED this day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of July, 1992. APPENDIX Case Number 92-1990 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 4 3. 5 4. See 5. See 8. 8 10. See 11. The exact amount of the deposits at issue was not proved by competent substantial evidence. Hereby accepted. 11 12. 12 13-14. 14 15. 15 See 17. The Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4. 5 5. 6 8. 7 11. See 9-10. 8 10-11. 9 12 and 13. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence and is not relevant. Although it is true that the exact monies Ms. Savage took were not received by the Respondents, they were responsible and could have returned monies of the Respondents. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section Hurston Building, North Tower #308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 R. Michael Kennedy, Esquire Post Office Box 4319 South Daytona, Florida 32121 Jack Ray General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner and, if so, whether Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Charles A. McKee was a licensed real estate broker in Florida having been issued license no. 0335079 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was c/o McKee Realty, 10157 S. Federal Hwy., Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952-5607 (the "Federal Highway Office"). On November 23, 1992, the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to timely notify the Commission of an escrow deposit dispute and, based on that violation, assessing a fine of $500 against Respondent and placing him on probation for one year with a requirement that he complete a 30 hour broker management course. Respondent's former wife, Loretta McKee, is also a licensed real estate broker, and she was a partner with Respondent in McKee Realty. McKee Realty began operating as a Century 21 franchise in approximately 1986 at the Federal Highway Office. McKee Realty maintained four separate bank accounts: a general operating account; a general escrow account; a property management operating account; and a property management escrow account. Both Respondent and Loretta McKee were signatories on all of the accounts. In January of 1993, Respondent and Loretta McKee separated. Divorce proceedings were initiated in June. During the summer of 1993, Respondent and Loretta McKee engaged in mediation in an effort to resolve the property issues between them, including the distribution of the business. While the parties were attempting to finalize a property settlement agreement, they divided their time in the office. As part of their negotiations, Respondent and Loretta McKee discussed an arrangement whereby Respondent would continue the property management portion of the business and his former wife would take over the general real estate business. Sometime in the fall of 1993, Respondent transferred all of the funds in the McKee Realty general operating account and both property management accounts to a new "property management escrow account" which he opened. Respondent transferred the funds and opened the new escrow account without the knowledge or consent of Loretta McKee, one of the brokers for McKee Realty. As a result of Respondent's actions, approximately twenty checks written to clients by McKee Realty on the old accounts were returned for insufficient funds. On November 16, 1993, Respondent, without the knowledge or consent of broker Loretta McKee (his wife), removed the property management files and office equipment from the McKee Realty Federal Highway Office and took them to the new office opened by Respondent at 1926 Port St. Lucie Boulevard in Port St. Lucie. Many of the files he removed were open or pending and his actions resulted in a great deal of confusion and uncertainty for clients. On January 10, 1994, Petitioner's Investigator Terry Addleburg inspected Respondent's new office located at 1926 Port St. Lucie Boulevard and audited the escrow/trust accounts. The audit confirmed that on November 12, 1993, Respondent closed the Century 21 McKee Realty property management escrow account #2274025969 maintained at Barnett Bank of Port St. Lucie. Respondent then reopened a new escrow account bearing the name Century 21 McKee Realty Property Management Escrow Account #3388673741 at Barnett Bank. The audit also revealed that Respondent intermingled trust funds by combining $24,227.30 from the Century 21 McKee Realty property management operating account #2274025951 with money deposited in the new property management escrow account #338867341. The new property management escrow account had a total trust liability of $44,299.35 and a reconciled bank balance of $43,498.43 indicating a shortage of approximately $800.92. Petitioner's auditor also noted that Respondent had failed to maintain the required office entrance sign at the 1926 Port St. Lucie Boulevard location. In addition, Respondent failed to register this location with the Petitioner until after Petitioner's auditor pointed out that the location had to be registered. The evidence established that a Century 21 franchise is purchased for a specific location. A franchisee is not permitted to open a new location unless it is purchased and cleared through the franchisor. Respondent opened his new office and placed a Century 21 sign on the door of that location without the authority of the franchisor. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent incorrectly represented he was a Century 21 franchisee at the 1926 SE Port St. Lucie Boulevard location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations alleged in Counts I, II and III of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing Count IV. As a penalty for the violations, an administrative fine of $1,500 should be imposed against Respondent, his real estate license should be suspended for 1 year followed by a two year probationary period with such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 4th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order. The following rulings are made with respect to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower #308A 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Charles A. McKee, pro se 772 SW Hibiscus Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Chapter 475, Florida Statute, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Dean O. Vanderwoude is now a real estate broker and was at all times material hereto a real estate salesman in Florida having been issued license number 0432878 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On August 15, 1988, Respondent passed an examination to be licensed as a broker and was licensed as a broker on September 1, 1988. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a salesman and operated under the direction, control, or management of a licensed real estate broker, Anne M. Graffunder, and P.M.M. Properties under a 100 percent commission agreement whereby Respondent rented office space from his broker Graffunder. Respondent was affiliated with Graffunder and P.M.M. Capital, Inc., from approximately November 4, 1986, to October 16, 1987. When Respondent became affiliated with P.M.M., he had been licensed less than one year having first been affiliated with Security Realty Florida from December 20, 1985, to November 4, 1986. Under Graffunder's supervision, Respondent received little assistance in the form of guidance or instructions as to the methods and manner of presenting purchase contracts to sellers, little or no office support in the form of clerical assistance or technical training in the methods of handling escrow funds, no malpractice insurance coverage in the form of errors or omission's policy and no sales/training seminars. On approximately April 6, 1987, Respondent obtained a sales listing from Gary Alan Dahl (Dahl), a real estate investor, concerning real property, the record owner of which was Joe Belcik who had granted to Dahl equitable title to the property by Quit Claim Deed yet unrecorded. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The real property located at 2785 Adrian Avenue, Largo, Florida, had been purchased by Belcik from Dahl who had previously purchased the property from the Veteran's Administration. Respondent was aware of the condition of the title to the property listed by him for sale as he reviewed an abstract of the property. On April 6, 1987, prospective purchasers David and Donna A. Kiser (herein purchasers) viewed the real property at 2785 Adrian Avenue, Largo, Florida, and contacted Respondent at a telephone number observed on a "for sale" sign posted on the property. On that date, the purchasers executed a written offer to purchase the property, which offer was prepared by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In conjunction with the offer to purchase, the purchasers tendered an earnest money deposit to Respondent, by cashier's check number 703917, dated April 10, 1987, in the amount of $100.00 made payable to P.M.M. Properties. The cashier's check was deposited into the escrow account of P.M.M. Capital, Inc., Sun Bank of Tampa Bay account number 265-014-3405 on April 15, 1987. The transaction closed on April 22, 1987. Following the closing, Graffunder issued a check number 140 written on the escrow account of P.M.M. Capital, Inc., Sun Bank/Southeast, account number 265-014-3405, dated April 22, 1987, made payable to Respondent in the amount of $100.00. The check was received by Respondent with Dahl's full permission and consent. Respondent represented to the purchasers that the seller, Dahl, had accepted their offer and desired to close the transaction immediately. Toward that end, Dahl came to Pinellas County from Sarasota County and executed all documentation necessary to effectuate the transfer on or before April 15, 1987. On April 15, 1987, Respondent met with the purchasers and had them sign all closing documents. This included execution of a closing statement and the Kisers requested an extension in order to obtain the $4,900.00 closing proceeds from Mrs. Kiser's father. On April 22, 1987, Mrs. Kiser presented the closing proceeds check and the transaction was finalized. That proceeds check and the $100.00 deposit check were both placed in Graffunder's operating account and pursuant to instructions from Dahl, Respondent received the closing proceeds as agent for Dahl. Dahl and the purchasers completed the closing by executing an Agreement for Deed on April 15, 1987. That agreement provides, in pertinent part, that the purchaser's would pay Dahl the total purchase price of $65,000.00 which included a down payment of $5,000.00 and monthly payments of $557.07 commencing May 1, 1987, and continuing for twenty-nine (29) months at which time the remaining principal balance of $60,073.18 would be payable in the form of a balloon payment. Dahl agreed to carry fire insurance for the full insurable value of the property and the purchasers were to have their names added to the policy as additional insureds. Additionally, both parties agreed that a Memorandum of Interest would be filed in the records of Pinellas County at the time of entering into the Agreement for Deed. Finally, the Agreement for Deed represented that there was a first mortgage in favor of Chrysler First and stated the condition that should the purchasers fail to make payments required of them within thirty (30) days after the same becomes due, the seller may, at his option, declare the contract null and void and all monies paid may be retained as full satisfaction and/or liquidated damages. Respondent did not provide the purchasers a warranty deed until approximately June 27, 1988, when he first became aware that Dahl had not given one to the Kisers. Respondent acknowledges that given the opportunity to reconstruct that transaction, he would have ensured that the seller provided a Warranty Deed to the purchasers as agreed in the Agreement for Deed. Respondent did not follow-up to ensure that a Memorandum of Interest was filed in the public records of Pinellas County as the parties agreed. Within months following the Riser's purchase of the subject property from Dahl, they became disenchanted with the property and ceased making payments under the agreement for Deed causing a large arrearage to accumulate and a subsequent mortgage foreclosure action was initiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: The Petitioner enter a final order finding that an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed upon Respondent and his license number 0432878 be placed on probation for a period of sixty (60) days with the condition that the fine be payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of entry of the final order. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian E. Johnson, Esquire Brian E. Johnson, P.A. 7190 Seminole Boulevard Seminole, Florida 34642 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' Florida licenses as real estate broker, salesperson and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession and the licensing of real estate professionals. Respondents Frank E. Smith, Elaine M Smith, and Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc., were licensed real estate professionals, a broker, a sales person, and a brokerage corporation respectively. Respondent Frank E. Smith was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc.. On or about July 23, 1991, the Respondents and Carolyn Chaple entered into a management agreement whereby Respondent agreed to rent and manage Ms. Chaple's residence located in Tampa. The terms of the management agreement signed by Ms. Chaple and Ms. Smith called for the company to render a monthly statement of receipts, charges and disbursements, and to remit the net proceeds each month to Ms. Chaple whose address was listed in the agreement as P.O. Box 12003, Brooksville, Florida 34601. For performing this service, Respondents were to receive a commission of 8% of the monthly gross receipts. The agreement also called for the Respondents to: ... hire, discharge and pay all engineers, janitors and other employees; to make or cause to be made all ordinary repairs and replacements necessary to preserve the premises in its present condition and for the operating efficiency thereof and all alterations required to comply with lease requirements, and to do decorating on the premises; to negotiate contracts for nonrecurring items not exceeding $100.00 and to enter into agreements for all necessary repairs, maintenance, minor alterations and utility services; and to purchase supplies and pay all bills. An amendment to the agreement, initialed by Ms. Chaple only, made the provision subject to a lease agreement purportedly attached but which was not offered into evidence. Ms. Chaple contends that lease provided she would be responsible only for those repairs costing in excess of $250.00 and which she had approved. This added provision was not, however, initialed by Respondents and, therefore, never became a binding part of the management agreement, regardless of what Ms. Chaple intended. Ms. Smith asserts that if Ms. Chaple had insisted on that change, she would not have entered into the agreement. It is found, therefore, that there was no agreement limiting Ms. Chaple's liability for repairs. Pursuant to the management agreement, Respondents solicited and obtained tenants for Ms. Chaple's property. Respondent admittedly did not send a copy of the first lease to Ms. Chaple, but the tenancy was short lived and terminated when the tenant moved out owing rent. Ms. Chaple claims the Respondents did not advise her of this situation. Instead, she claims, she heard of it from neighbors. However, on December 30, 1991, Respondents obtained another lessee for the property at a rental of $600.00 per month for 12 months. Respondents' fee was %8 of that ($48.00) resulting in a net monthly rental to Ms. Chaple, exclusive of repair expenses if any, of $552.00 per month. Ms. Chaple claims that though she repeatedly asked for a copy of the management agreement she had signed, she never got one. When she began to ask for accountings, she says she got some but not all. By the same token, she claims she did not get all the receipts relating to the repair work done on her property. Between December 4, 1991 and August 16, 1992, Ms. Chaple wrote several detailed letters to the Respondents requesting information on the status of the first tenancy and efforts being made to receive compensation, and detailed explanations for expenditures made and charged to her on the account statements that were sent. She also complained of the lateness of the statements, of the Respondents' notice of intended termination of the agreement, and an explanation of large expense charged almost every month. Respondents claim they furnished Ms. Chaple a copy of the management agreement on at least 3 separate occasions by mailing a copy to her Brooksville address, that address listed for her in the agreement. Ms. Chaple, however, was living in Houston, Texas during all this period and requested the use of the Brooksville address, apparently her father's post office box. Respondents also claim they sent Ms. Chaple a monthly statement of account along with her net rent check each month. Every check sent was cashed by Ms. Chaple indicating she received them. There is no explanation as to why she did not also receive the account statements. In light of Ms. Chaple's moves, and the use of an intermediary to transmit mail, it cannot be said Respondents did not send the agreements. This is not to say Ms. Chaple did receive them all, merely that the Respondents dispatched them to her. Ms. Chaple also claimed she never got a copy of a lease from the Respondents. Respondent, Elaine Smith, admits this indicating she did not send copies of leases to owners as a matter of practice. It is noted that Ms. Chaple repeatedly requested itemized explanations for the major expenditures deducted from the rent each month and characterized on the account statement solely as "maintenance." The management agreement obliging the owner to pay for such expenditures as a deduction from rent is silent on the need on the Respondents to explain such deductions. The agreement obliges the agent to "render a monthly statement of receipts, disbursements and charges and to remit each month the net proceeds to the [owner]." While it may be true the monthly statement of accounting showing "maintenance" might be acceptable evidence to the Internal Revenue Service, when, as here, such expenses are relatively large and frequent, it is not at all unusual or unreasonable for the owner to request and expect to receive an explanation of those deductions. To be sure, Respondents did send some receipts as requested, but it is clear they did not do so in all cases. Clearly the mere use of the word, "maintenance" does not constitute a sufficient showing of "disbursements" or "charges" as are called for in the agreement. This is so especially in light of the fact Respondents also operated a maintenance company through which they contracted for almost all maintenance and repair work except air conditioning. The charge to the owners was cost plus 10%. Ms. Chaple ultimately filed a complaint with the Division which, on March 18, 1992, sent its investigator, J.L. Graham, to the Respondents' office. As a part of her investigations, Ms. Graham did an audit of the Respondents' escrow accounts maintained at the Sun Bank in Tampa. She discovered that Respondents maintained a security escrow account which had a shortage of $5,780.00 and a rental escrow account which had a shortage of $4,261.31. Respondents admit a shortage had existed ever since the business was purchased in 1986 and claim that due to the shrinking inventory of properties they managed, the need to pay $500.00 a month on the purchase price, and $1,300.00 a month on obligated rent, they did not have sufficient income from operations to reimburse the accounts the amount of the shortages. There is no evidence that Respondents misappropriated any of the funds represented by the shortages and it is accepted they did not cause or increase either shortage. However, it is equally true they did nothing to eradicate or reduce either, routinely drawing their lawful commissions which were placed in the company's operating account and used to pay routine expenses. In any event, within 2 days of Ms. Graham's inspection, Respondents borrowed the money to reimburse the escrow accounts for the amount of the shortages in full. Ms. Graham also found that Respondents failed to prepare and sign written monthly reconciliations of the escrow accounts and had no supporting documentation for the accounts other than the check register, leases and the management agreements. Respondents' books were primarily kept in a computer and the information in support of the escrow accounts was not being kept in a manner readily accessible to the Division's representatives. Mr. Smith admits he did not do the required reconciliations, claiming that between the computer records and the bank statements, he knew what was going on. This is insufficient to satisfy the Division's requirements. Mr. Smith contends that immediately after the audit, he began doing the required reconciliations and would be willing to furnish them to the Division on a repeated basis if necessary. Respondents also failed to prepare and furnish to the tenants of clients' properties the required disclosure of agency relationship, notifying the tenants in writing that they, Respondents, represented the respective landlords, not them. Respondents asserted they made it clear to each tenant that they did not own the units being rented, but this does not meet the rule or statutory requirement. Review of the corporation records also revealed that Mrs. Smith, a licensed salesperson, was listed as an officer of the brokerage corporation. Respondents admit this but claim they did not know it was improper and that their accountant failed to so advise them. Gennie Amick has known and been friends with Respondents for more than 7 years. She has used their services in the past as managers of property she then owned and both her son and her daughter do so at the present time. They have had absolutely no complaints about the Respondents' management. Ms. Amick knows Mrs. Smith very well and considers her to be a very honorable person. Respondent's integrity has never been questioned, to the best of Amick's knowledge, and she goes out of her way to help her clients, doing more than her contract requires of her. Mr. Smith is also an honorable person. Because of Ms. Amick's trust in the Respondents, she loaned them $6,000.00 when she learned of their difficulties with the Division and this loan was repaid when Respondents thereafter mortgaged their home. Respondents have owned Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc. since they bought it in 1986, paying $20,000.00 for the business. They put $1,500.00 down and agreed to pay the balance off at $500.00 per month. They also agreed with the seller to rent his office for $1,300.00 per month. It was these commitments, and the shrinking of the client list, which prevented them from making up the shortages in the escrow accounts. Mr. Smith has been in the real estate business, both in Florida and elsewhere, since 1967. He has been licensed as a broker since 1988 and he and his wife have operated Sunshine, which does not handle sales, only property management, since 1986. It is their livelihood. He became the qualifying broker for the firm in 1988. Neither he nor Mrs. Smith has been the subject of a complaint before now. At no time did either Respondent intend to break any rules or to unlawfully profit by their improper actions. They claim any infractions are as a result of ignorance rather than design and so it would appear. Their relationship with Ms. Chaple was less than an acceptable business relationship, yet Ms. Chaple did not make a good witness. It appeared she had her own agenda to follow and her memory of facts seemed selective. She appears to be difficult to deal with and it is reasonable to believe that much of the difficulty she had with the Respondents was as a result of her own attitude and approach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered placing all Respondents' licenses on probation for a period of 1 year under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Division and imposing an administrative file of $500.00 upon each Respondent Smith for a total fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3898 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the word, solicited. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein, Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein 5. Accepted to the extent that the evidence shows the agree-ment and accountings were sent to the best evidence available to the Respondents. 6. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law, 7. & 8. More a comment on the state of the evidence, than a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 14. Accepted. Rejected as implying the disclosures made satisfied the rule requirements. Accepted. & 18. Accepted as to what Respondent's did and that no harm to the public or any client resulted, but rejected to the extent public benefit is asserted. 19. & 20. Accepted but relevant only to the quantum of punishment to be imposed. 21. - 23. Accepted. 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Hurston Building - N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Sheldon L. Wind, Esquire 110 E. Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33504 Jack McRay General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
