Findings Of Fact By letter of August 1, 1983, the legal advisor to respondent Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission") informed petitioner that the Commission intended to deny his application for registration as a real estate salesman because of alleged failure to satisfy Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which requires that applicants be "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and . . . have a good reputation for fair dealing." The letter noted that petitioner had a record of 14 criminal arrests, almost all relating to possession or sale of illicit drugs. On August 29, 1983, petitioner disputed the Commission's intended action and requested a formal hearing. This case was then forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. By notice of November 22, 1983, copies of which were sent by U.S. mail to both parties, hearing was set for 8:30 A.M. on February 2, 1984, in Room A, Elisha Newton Dimick Building, 111 Georgia Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. The hearing was delayed until 8:55 A.M., but petitioner did not attend. He did not notify the undersigned of any reason why he could not attend, nor did he request a continuance. Attempts to telephone him at approximately 8:45 A.M. were unsuccessful. The Commission placed into evidence the basis for its intended denial of petitioner's application.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman in Florida be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph Armstead, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Scott J. Miller 3781 Mil Pond Court Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charges, respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, on inactive status, holding license no. 0330793., and residing in Lake Worth, Florida. In early October, 1983, Jack Barlage entered the offices of Colony Real Estate in Lake Worth, Florida. He was a builder and looking for acreage to purchase. Joyce Adams, a real estate salesman with Colony Real Estate, met with him and, two or three days later, showed him a 5.207 acre tract of land in sunny Urban Meadows, an unrecorded subdivision located west of Loxahatchee, Florida. He expressed an interest in the property; she told him that the owner, Richard Moore, might be willing to sell it. A day or two later, Mr. Barlage called Ms. Adams and asked if she would call owner Moore and obtain a purchase price. She responded that she would not get a commission from selling the property and that he should deal with "Leon," who would be able to contact Mr. Moore, the owner. A day or two later, Ms. Adams introduced Mr. Barlage to "Leon," who was Leon Dennis, respondent's husband--the original developer of Sunny Urban Meadows. This meeting took place at a nearby coffee shop in Royal Palm Beach, called Sandy's. John Adams, Ms. Adams' husband and a real estate salesman, was also present. Respondent did not attend this meeting and there is no evidence that she was, at this point in time, involved in the transaction. This coffee shop meeting was Ms. Adams' last contact with Mr. Barlage, and she had no further involvement in this real estate transaction. A contract for "purchase and sale" of the Sunny Urban Meadows tract was prepared at this meeting and signed by Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. Leon Dennis, respondent's husband, retrieved the form "purchase and sale" contract from his car, returned to the coffee shop, and completed it in the presence of the others. He filled in the terms, including a $28,000 purchase price. He arrived at this figure based on her knowledge of current land values in the area. The form "Brokerage Fee" provision on the bottom of the contract, however, was not filled in; no sales commission was indicated and no broker identified. Mr. Dennis told purchaser Barlage that he would have the contract presented to owner Moore. At that time, Mr. Barlage had not yet had any contacts with respondent, Mr. Dennis's wife. Mr. Dennis, with the help of a relative who was a close friend of Mr. Moore's, then had the contract delivered to Mr. Moore, in Punta Gorda, Florida. Approximately a week earlier, respondent had telephoned Mr. Moore, asking if he wanted to sell the subject property. At that time, a sales commission was not discussed; neither did she represent that she was a licensed real estate salesman or broker. But when the original contract was subsequently delivered to him by Mr. Moore's relative, the "Brokerage Fee" provision had been completed, providing for payment of ten percent of the gross price or $2,800 to Pat Dennis, the respondent. Her name was hand printed above the line labeled, "Name of Broker." Upon receiving the contract and discovering the sales commission, Mr. Moore telephoned respondent and told her that he would not pay a ten percent commission--he said he would agree only to a six percent commission, to be split between her and his own real estate brokerage firm. He also told her that if those terms were not acceptable to her, he "would go ahead and do it without her and give-her her money after the deal was done." (TR-21) Mr. Moore then arranged to meet directly with Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. On October 9, 1983, Mr. Barlage drove to Punta Gorda and met Mr. Moore in a hospital parking lot to finalize the contract. Mr. Moore, noting the "Brokerage Fee" provision, said "Who are these people?" and "Well, I'll take care of them," or words to that effect, (TR-10). He then drew a line crossing out the "Brokerage Fee" provision and initialed it. He then told Mr. Barlage he wanted to do a credit check; one or two days later, he called Mr. Barlage and told him he was going to accept the contract. It was at that time, on or about October 9, 1983, that Mr. Moore executed the contract as seller. For reasons not material, the contract of sale was never carried out by the parties. Mr. Barlage unilaterally cancelled the contract. When Mr. Moore called him to inquire about the $500 earnest money deposit, which the contract had indicated was held by "Stewart Title," Mr. Moore learned that a deposit had not been received by Stewart Title; in fact, Mr. Barlage had made no deposit at all. There is conflicting testimony as to whether respondent ever communicated with Mr. Moore concerning this real estate transaction. Respondent denies any direct involvement. Her denial is rejected and the testimony of Mr. Moore, who had no discernible bias or motive to falsify, is accepted as persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license as a Florida real estate salesman be revoked for violating Section 475.25(1)(a) and (b) and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in the manner described above. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 25th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard McClain, Esquire 6167 Haddon Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Recommendation Deny the application of Petitioner for Registration as a salesman for the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAIL: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Dwaine Eugene Spann Route 2, Box 376S Sarasota, Florida 33582
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1995).
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. Respondent is and was at all times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida Real Estate Salesperson. He was issued licensed number 0625149 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. His license is currently inactive. On or about April 6, 1995, Respondent submitted an application for licensure as a Real Estate Salesperson. Question number 9 on the application read as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of any other state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO". If you answered "Yes," attach details including dates and outcome, including sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records, Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not understand the question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent marked the "NO" box beside question number 9. Respondent then signed the "Affidavit of Applicant" which read above his signature: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and recollection permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever, that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. On or about July 6, 1989, Respondent, going by the name of Pablo Alfaro, pled no contest to misdemeanor "joyriding" in Case No. 93CM04225, in Santa Ana, California. Respondent admitted to pleading no contest to a "joyriding” charge. By letter dated August 27, 1997, addressed to Petitioner, Respondent's employer at the time, John Maizie, Executive Sales Director of Cypress Pointe Resort, wrote that Respondent was an ethical and valued employee.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that Respondent's license should be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Chief Deputy Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Juan Bonitto 2851 Runyon Circle Orlando, Florida 32837-5214 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner has demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good character and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, a consideration of the post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On February 13, 1982, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Commission. Petitioner, prior to moving to Florida, was employed as a deputy sheriff for the Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff's Department for approximately seven (7) years. He was honorably discharged from the Sheriff's Department. By letter dated April 27, 1982, the Commission denied Petitioner's application, stating therein that the specific reasons for its (the Commission's) actions were based on his answer to question number six (6) of the licensing application. The application form for licensure as a real estate salesman includes a question number six (.6), which inquires: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any munici- pality, state or nation, including traffic offenses . . . without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? The Petitioner responded "yes" to the inquiry. The question goes on to request: "If yes, state details, including the outcome in full." In response to this inquiry, Petitioner submitted the following: "Possession of a counterfeit substance, not found guilty, terms of probation, expunged record." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, a certified copy of judgment and sentence, shows that Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge of sale of counterfeit controlled substance, Section 817.563, Florida Statutes, and on February 12, 1982, was sentenced to five (5) years of probation with the Florida Department of Corrections. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner is presently serving the five (5) years of probation. (Tr. pp. 15-16) Petitioner acknowledges that the court informed him as to the charges against him in open court. (Tr. p. 26) Petitioner claims that he pled no contest to possession of a counterfeit controlled substance. Finally, Petitioner admitted that the arrest record for sale of a counterfeit controlled substance was not expunged. (Tr. p. 22) Petitioner has appealed the order of court on constitutional grounds and stated his belief that expungement will be granted upon satisfactory completion of his probationary term. At present however, his record relative to that charge has not been expunged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order denying Dwayne Lee Hill's application for a real estate license pursuant to Subsection 475.17(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Charles E. Richmond applied for registration as a real estate salesman in 1971, filing his application dated December 23, 1971, and received by the agency on December 30, 1971, said application being received as Exhibit 1. In 1974, Richmond applied for registration as a broker-salesman filing an application with the agency, said application being introduced as Exhibit 2. The charges in the Administrative Complaint relate to alleged fraud and concealment in these applications. The basis for the charges contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Complaint was that Richmond's 1974 application apparently indicates a traffic violation received in 1971, which had not been reported in the 1971 application. The Hearing Officer finds that regarding the allegations, there were seven days remaining in 1971 after the preparation of Richmond's application within which time Richmond could have received the ticket referred to in the 1974 application. However, more importantly, the 1974 application indicates on its face some doubt, in the applicant's mind regarding the year in which the ticket was received. Richmond qualified his response in the 1974 registration relative to the date the first ticket was received. The Florida Real Estate Commission has not presented any evidence to factually resolve the question. The Hearing Officer finds there is no conflict between the 1971 and 1974 application, no proof of any evasion regarding the tickets, and certainly no proof of the actual failure to reveal a traffic offense on the 1971 application. Paragraphs 8(a) and 9 charge that in 1974 Richmond concealed the fact of his arrest and plea to contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1972. The Florida Real Estate Commission alleges that said concealment shows that Richmond lacks the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character required by Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes, and that Richmond obtained both his registrations as a salesman and as a broker-salesman by means of fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment in violation of Subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. Regarding the contention that Richmond received his 1971 registration a salesman by fraud and misrepresentation, there is no evidence that Richmond falsified any portion of his 1971 application. The arrest and plea to contributing to the delinquency of a minor did not occur until 1972, and the question of the traffic violation was dealt with above. Concerning concealment on the 1974 application, the Florida Real Estate Commission introduced Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 which show Richmond's registration as a salesman and broker-salesman and his arrest and plea to an offense against the laws of Florida. Richmond testified that his arrest had been upon the complaint of a co-worker of his when he attempted to assist the co-worker's daughter, who had graduated from high school and who was working full time, move our of her parents' home into an apartment. Richmond stated that he had felt he was not guilty of any wrong doing but had entered a plea on the advise of Counsel and upon his representation that this would not become a matter of record. Richmond stated he knew that he had been arrested and had pled guilty to the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but felt that to report this on his application would record an incident which he felt was not of record. Richmond further indicated that he felt this was damaging to his reputation in the community, which apparently from the testimony of his employer, Earlene Cooper Usry, was good. Richmond stated his concern specifically with regard to the effect knowledge of this incident would have on his activity as president of the local Little League, with which he had been associated approximately seven years.
Recommendation Wherefore, the Hearing Officer recommends that Richmond's registration as a broker-salesman be revoked with the observation that Richmond, although he did conceal information, did so for understandable reasons, and that some consideration should be given to allowing Richmond to be reinstated after a period of six months. Further, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken regarding Richmond's salesman's license, the Florida Real Estate Commission having failed to allege any statutory basis for revocation or suspension thereof. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of December, 1975. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Richard A. Langford, Esquire Post Office Box 868 Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether Dorothy M. Azar answered Question 6 on her application incorrectly with the intent to obtain her license by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment.
Findings Of Fact Dorothy M. Azar is a registered real estate saleswoman holding License No. 0164341 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Azar applied for licensure initially on June 7, 1976. See Exhibit 1, pages 1 and 2. Azar subsequently reapplied on August 24, 1976. This application was stamped received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on August 27, 1976. Azar was arrested on June 9, 1976 pursuant to the Information filed by Robert Eagan, State Attorney, Ninth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, which charged Azar with a violation of Florida Statute 812.021 and alleged that she took, sold or carried away property; to wit: clothing, the property of Robert Kleinmann as custodian and of a value of more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) with the intent to permanently deprive Kleinmann of the clothing. This criminal information was received as Exhibit 2. When Azar completed her second application on August 25, 1976, no action had been taken on the criminal charges pending against her. On or about this date, according to her testimony, she went from Lehigh Acres, Florida, to the Florida Real Estate Commission Offices in Winter Park, Florida, to review the examination which she had taken and failed in July. While there, she filled out her second application, pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 1. According to her testimony, Azar was very rushed because her review appointment was for only one hour and she had arrived late. She stated that prior to her review she was given an application to fill out and that she did not even read the questions but copied her answers from her first application. She further testified that she had at first copied her old address in Orlando on the second application, correcting it to her new address in Lehigh Acres in the margin of the application. See page 3, Exhibit 1. On September 8, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission made a check of any arrests of Azar as indicated by the annotation on the second application under Question 6. On November 30, 1976, Azar entered a plea of no contest to the charge of attempted grand larceny and adjudication was withheld. See the Court Minutes, Exhibit 3, and the testimony of Azar. On November 15, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued Azar her license as a registered real estate saleswoman. The answers to Questions 4 and 5 on the second application filed by Azar differ slightly from the answers given to those questions on her first application. Although Azar testified that she did not read the questions on the second application but recopied her answers from her first application, the fact that the entries on the second application to Questions 4 and 5 differ from those on the first application indicates that Azar at least read the two questions preceding Question 6. This fact and the content of Question 6 lead to the conclusion that Azar did read Question 6. Further, an arrest on a charge of Grand Larceny within the preceding ninety days would be sufficiently memorable for Azar to recall when prompted by reading Question 6. Having determined, that Azar did in fact read Question 6 and would have remembered her arrest, one must conclude that Azar knowingly did not correctly answer Question 6 and therefore intended to conceal her arrest.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of Dorothy N. Azar as a registered real estate salesman with leave for Azar to immediately refile her application. DONE and ORDERED this 12th 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: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 E. G. Couse, Esquire 2069 First Street, Suite 202 Post Office Drawer 1686 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
