Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. DON J. LO PRINCE, 77-000220 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000220 Latest Update: Aug. 17, 1978

Findings Of Fact Respondent Don J. Lo Prince was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from December 29, 1975, to June 29, 1976. Until approximately two months before respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. At that time, one of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. On November 3, 1975, Walter J. Pankz, a real estate broker, began work with International Land Brokers, Inc. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc., manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records. The last week of May, respondent telephoned Miss Claire K. Bassett of Lowell, Massachusetts, and urged her not to delay in executing a listing agreement with respect to Florida realty she owned. Another salesman, Marcel Cossette, had earlier spoken to Miss Bassett on several occasions and caused the agreement to be mailed to Miss Bassett. Respondent told her to hurry so that her parcels could be assembled into a tract which respondent represented was expected to be sold in September of 1976. Miss Bassett did execute the agreement and pay a listing fee.

Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Don J. Lo Prince c/o Morton Wolf 19101 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33160

Florida Laws (1) 475.25
# 2
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. ARTHUR M. CURTISS, 77-000247 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000247 Latest Update: Aug. 02, 1977

Findings Of Fact Respondent Arthur M. Curtiss was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc, as a real estate salesman from October 18, 1974 to July 11, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioners composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.

Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Neil Flaxman, Esquire 7800 Red Road Penthouse South South Miami, Florida 33143

Florida Laws (1) 475.25
# 3
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. SCOTT STEVEN FURMAN, 77-000248 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000248 Latest Update: Aug. 23, 1977

Findings Of Fact Respondent Scott Steven Furman was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from November 6, 1974, to on or about September 17, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekend's, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records:

Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Scott Steven Furman 13655 Northeast 10th Avenue Apartment 109 North Miami, Florida 33161

Florida Laws (2) 120.57475.25
# 4
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. WALTER PENN, 77-000216 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000216 Latest Update: Aug. 17, 1978

Findings Of Fact Respondent Walter Penn was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesman, from May 15, 1975, to September 19, 1975, and again from December 29, 1975, until no later than April 11, 1976. During respondent's first period of employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex has a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. During respondent's second period of employment by International Land Brokers, Inc., Walter J. Pankz, a real estate broker, worked for the firm in a supervisory capacity. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc., manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner was interested in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salespersons had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. A week after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured he listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records. In late June or early July, respondent telephoned Carol Larson and solicited a listing of certain real estate in the Bahamas which Carol and Arthur Larson had purchased in 1970 for twenty-eight hundred dollars ($2,800.00). In a second telephone conversation, respondent told Mrs. Larson about several sales of property listed with International Land Brokers, Inc., and told her he would mail a listing agreement for signature. Arthur Larson signed the agreement and returned it together with his check in the amount of two hundred eighty-five dollars ($285.00). The listing agreement called for the property to be offered at twenty-five thousand dollars (25,000.00), a figure respondent had suggested over the telephone. After entering into the listing agreement, the Larsons received further correspondence from International Land Brokers, Inc., including a proof of a page from a catalogue, on which their property was listed. International Land Brokers, Inc., never communicated to the Larsons any offers to purchase their property.

Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Walter Penn 1300 Northeast 211th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33160

Florida Laws (1) 475.25
# 6
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. ROBERT E. CURTISS, 77-000243 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000243 Latest Update: Aug. 02, 1977

Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert E. Curtiss was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc, as a real estate salesman from October 18, 1974 to July 11, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioners composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.

Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Neil Flaxman, Esquire 7800 Red Road Penthouse South South Miami, Florida 33143

Florida Laws (1) 475.25
# 7
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. HAROLD A. HECKLINGER, 77-000276 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000276 Latest Update: Oct. 28, 1977

Findings Of Fact Since 1970 respondent Harold A. Hecklinger has been a stockholder in Farrell-Cheek Steel Company, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Ohio. Respondent is on the board of directors of Farrell-Cheek Steel Company, is secretary of the corporation, and is the company's designated agent for service of process in Florida. Until 1973 or 1974, respondent was the only officer of Farrell-Cheek Steel Company in Florida. He is the general manager of Florida Diversified Properties, a division of Farrell-Cheek Steel Company. In this capacity, he manages Gulf Gate Mall, a shopping center in Sarasota, Florida, owned by Farrell-Cheek Steel Company. Respondent hires and supervises the mall employees, handles the mall's bills, collects rent from storekeepers and negotiates leases with storekeepers for space in the Gulf Gate Mall. He negotiated one such lease with Robert E. Peters, doing business as Koin Kleen Laundry; and another with Freedom Enterprise, Inc., doing business as Mr. Freedom-Boutique. On June 14, 1973, respondent submitted an application for registration as a real estate salesman to petitioner. The application consisted of a form supplied by petitioner and filled out by respondent. A certified copy came in evidence as petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Question No. 12(a) has been omitted from petitioner's exhibit No. 1, but presumably asks the applicant to list business addresses and employment for the five years next preceding the filing of the application. Respondent's answer to question No. 12(a) does appear on petitioner's exhibit No. 1 and reads, in part, as follows: Sarasota Post Office Box 2440 Florida 1972-73 General Mgr. Florida Diversified Properties Question No. 18(a), which respondent answered with the word "No," reads, as follows: Have you, in this state, operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate broker, within one year next prior to the filing of this application? Question No. 18(b), which respondent answered with the word "No," reads, as follows: Have you, in this state, operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate salesman, within one year next prior to the filing of this application without then being the holder of a valid current registration certificate authorizing you to do so? Respondent has an excellent reputation for truth and veracity. In filling out his application form, he intended to answer each question truthfully.

Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Daniel A. Carlton, Esquire Post Office Box 3979 Sarasota, Florida 33578

Florida Laws (2) 475.01475.25
# 8
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. MICHAEL LYNN JURICK, 78-000949 (1978)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 78-000949 Latest Update: Oct. 31, 1978

Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and at all times material to this matter has been, registered with the Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. The Respondent has been the broker in charge of Lynn Real Estate Company. From approximately January 6, 1976 until February 14, 1977, Jacqueline McNabb was associated as an independent contractor with Lynn Real Estate and with the Respondent. McNabb was at that time registered with the Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. She is now registered as a broker. McNabb's relationship with the Respondent is set out in a contract which was received in evidence at the hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Paragraph 6 of the contract provides: The fees usually and customarily charged by the broker shall be charged for any service performed hereunder, unless broker shall advise the salesman of any special contract relating to any particular transaction he undertakes to handle. When the salesman shall perform any service hereunder, whereby a fee is earned, said fee shall, when collected, be divided between the broker and the salesman, in which division the salesman shall receive sixty percent and the broker shall receive the balance. In the event that two or more salesmen participate in such a service, or claim to have done so, the amount of the fee over that accruing to the broker shall be divided between the participating salesmen according to agreement between them, or by arbitration. In no case shall the broker be liable to the salesman for any fee unless the same shall have been collected from the party for whom the service was per- formed. Paragraph 8 of the contract provides: This contract, and the association created hereby, may be terminated by either party hereto, at any time upon notice given to the other; but the rights of the parties to any fee, which accrued prior to said notice, shall not be divested by the termination of this contract. On February 14, 1977, the Respondent duly terminated the contract with Ms. McNabb, as the result of a conflict which is not relevant to this proceeding. The Respondent immediately wrote to the Real Estate Commission advising that McNabb was no longer associated with him. Ms. McNabb testified at the hearing that the contract was terminated on February 15, but it is clear from the evidence that she was mistaken. While she was under contract with the Respondent, McNabb obtained a listing for the Respondent for the sale of property owned by a Mr. Davidson. The property was listed on a Multiple Listing Service. No contract for the sale of the property had been obtained prior to the time that McNabb's contract with the Respondent was terminated. On February 16, 1977, Ms. Jean Krueger, a registered real estate salesman employed by Tamarac Realty obtained a contract for purchase of the property. The contract was written at approximately 4:45 P.M. on February 15, and she immediately called the Respondent's office so that they would wait for her to get there with the contract before the office was closed for the day. Ms. Krueger delivered the contract to the Respondent, Mr. Davidson accepted it, and the transaction ultimately closed. Ms. McNabb learned that a contract had been obtained on the Davidson property approximately 3 days after the contract was signed. She made both written and oral demand upon the Respondent for a share of the commission. The Respondent, after consulting representatives of the Real Estate Commission, representatives of the St. Petersburg Board of Realtors, and legal counsel, declined to give McNabb any share of the commission. The Respondent did not know at the time that he terminated his contract with McNabb that a contract would be obtained for sale of the Davidson property. Ms. Krueger, the salesman who obtained the contract had never met the Respondent prior to taking the contract for sale to him, the day after McNabb's contract was terminated. During the course of this proceeding the Respondent has been cooperative in providing copies of documents to Ms. McNabb. The Respondent has no history of complaints being made against him to the Florida Real Estate Commission, and it does not appear that he has in the past refused to pay any salesman a commission to which the salesman was entitled.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57475.25
# 9
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. MAXINE PORTER, 79-000631 (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 79-000631 Latest Update: Aug. 15, 1980

Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Maxine Porter, has, at all times relevant to this proceeding, been registered with the Petitioner as a real estate saleswoman. From August until November, 1977, Maxine Porter, together with another individual, rented an office in Fort Lauderdale from a local businessman. They appeared to be conducting a real estate sales business in the office. In Count Two of the Administrative Complaint filed against Porter, it is alleged: That on or about the 2nd day of November, 1977, Maxine Porter, as maker, drew a check payable to the order of Andrea [sic] Faucher, in the amount of $416 for rent for the office which she was then occupying. That said check was subsequently dis honored for the reason that there were insufficient funds in the account for payment. Andre Faucher was subpoenaed as a witness at the final hearing and appeared. He was unable to find a copy of the check that was allegedly not honored. Faucher recalled that he received a check in payment for rent on the office, and that the check was dishonored. He did not recall who was the maker of the check. Although he recognized Maxine Porter, he did not recall whether the check was drawn on her account, or some other account. He did not recall whether she or someone else signed the check. Apparently, in connection with the real estate business, the Respondent placed several advertisements in local newspapers. In Count Three of the Administrative Complaint, it is charged: That on or about the 20th day of October, 1977, Maxine Porter, the defendant as maker, drew a check payable to the order of Gore Newspapers in the amount of $715.36. That said check was dishonored for the reason that there were insufficient funds in the account to make payment. Bruce H. Butler, the Assistant Credit Manager for Gore Newspapers in Fort Lauderdale, appeared as a witness at the hearing in accordance with a subpoena. He was able to find a record of various advertisements that were placed by a Winston Realty. It appeared from the records that he presented that proper payment was made for the advertisements. He was not able to find any dishonored check. Mr. Butler had no knowledge as to whether any check was issued to Gore Newspapers by the Respondent and subsequently dishonored. To his knowledge, proper payment was made for all of the advertisements.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Board of Real Estate dismissing the Administrative Complaint with respect to the Respondent, Maxine Porter. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1980.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57120.60
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer