Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Virginia King was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesperson. She has been so licensed for at least 15 years working for Tam Bay Realty. Respondent manages the residential unit here involved for the owners to whom she has sold several properties in past years and who have been out of the country for an extended period. In renting the property the rent is paid to Respondent, deposited into her account from which various expenses associated with the rental of the property is paid, and she makes an accounting to the owners for all monies owed to them. The dwelling in question was listed with Tam Bay Realty for sale with Respondent as listing agent, but she was also renting the property on behalf of the owner. To the Tam Bay For Sale sign on the property, Respondent attached a For Rent sign. Richard D. and Linda Grey were looking for a rental and saw the For Rent sign on the property and called Tam Bay Realty where they were put in touch with Respondent who subsequently met the Greys at the residence. The Greys liked the property and gave Respondent a check for $100 as a deposit on the lease to be executed when the Grey's presented their first month's rent. The residence needed some cleaning which Respondent agreed to have done if the Grey's would have the water turned on. Grey also wanted some trimming of hedges to which Respondent agreed. The Greys later met Respondent at the dwelling before the cleaning and trimming had been done. Grey contends that he did not have the water turned on because "that was the owner's responsibility," but the water was turned on and Respondent had the dwelling cleaned and the hedges trimmed for which she paid in excess of $100. Before the time for occupancy arrived, the Greys encountered a delay in the closing on the home they were selling and called Respondent to say they no longer wanted to rent the house and demanded a return of their $100 deposit. Respondent, contending that Grey breached the agreement to rent the property, credited the $100 to the account of the owner (whose account was also charged for the cleaning and trimming), and refused to remit the deposit to Grey.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Mitchell was a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0364014 through the Division of Real Estate. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute charges of violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, by real estate salesman who are licensed in Florida. In December 1982, while on vacation in Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Fernando Canepa accepted an invitation to take a complimentary tour of Lehigh Acres from a representative of Lehigh Corporation. Lehigh Corporation is owner of a large residential development within the community of Lehigh Acres, Florida. The community is in an undeveloped area of Lee County, Florida. A predecessor development company of Lehigh Corporation began development of Lehigh Acres as a planned community, in the early 1950's. By August 31, 1979, approximately 110,047 out of 129,000 lots had been sold within the community by the developers. The purpose of the complimentary tour, which includes a trip to the Everglades, a tour of Lehigh Acres, a promotional film and a free lunch is to sell real estate lots in this isolated and independent community. Mr. Fernando Canepa was aware of the tour's purpose when he accepted the invitation. Mr. Canepa had heard of Lehigh Corporation in Venezuela, his country of residence during 1982. As he was interested in purchasing real property in the United States, he had made the decision to visit the residential development for the possible purchase of property prior to leaving Venezuela on his vacation. A close friend of Mr. Canepa who resides in Peru, had also discussed a purchase of real estate in the United States with Mr. Canepa prior to his vacation. Mr. Ricardo Sahurie verbally authorized Mr. Canepa to seek out property in Lehigh Acre for him if Mr. Canepa believed that a purchase in that community would be a good idea. The two friends agreed that if land purchases were made, the two lots would have to be next to each other. During his tour of Lehigh Acres on January 5, 1983, Mr. Canepa was introduced to the Respondent. The Respondent was the real estate salesman assigned by Lehigh Corporation to handle lot sales within the development to members of that particular tour group. When Mr. Canepa spoke with the Respondent about a lot purchase, he was concerned about two matters: the market value of the lots and the security of his investment. Mr. Canepa was informed by the Respondent that the price for each of the two lots he wanted to purchase were $12,499.00 and $11,999.00, respectively. The prices were non-negotiable as the market value placed upon each lot was determined by the lot control department within Lehigh Corporation. Prior to the signing of Agreements for Deed on a lot for himself and a lot for Mr. Sahurie, Mr. Canepa was given the opportunity to read the Public Offering Statement on the development which had been prepared by Lehigh Corporation. On page two of the statement, potential buyers were advised of many of the inherent risks involved in a land purchase. Potential buyers were warned that land values may not increase, and that resale of lots within Lehigh Acres may be difficult or impossible. As part of the sales transaction, the Respondent was required to contemporaneously certify that he made no representations to Mr. Canepa which were contrary to the information contained in the Public Offering Statement. Mr. Canepa was given a copy of this certification, along with specific instructions to notify the Office of Interstate Land Sale Registration and the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums if representations were made to him which are contrary to those in the statement. In addition, Mr. Canepa was given seven days to cancel the Agreement for Deed signed by him on January 5, 1983. Mr. Canepa chose to continue with the purchase of the lot he selected, and recommendations were made to his friend Mr. Sahurie to continue with his purchase. The two purchasers agreed between themselves to hold onto the lots for a few years for speculation purposes. A decision to build upon the lots or to sell them could be made at a later date. This plan had been discussed with the Respondent, who had voiced his approval of the plan prior to the purchase of the lots by Mr. Canepa. The Respondent discussed the recent growth in the Southwest Florida region, and the recent increases in lot valuations when Mr. Canepa informed him of his intentions. These discussions reaffirmed Mr. Canepa's confidence in his decision to purchase the lots in the development, in spite of reminders by the Respondent that future land values are unforeseeable. On September 15, 1987, Mr. Canepa returned to Lehigh Acres and learned that the lots had not increased in value. Model home plans were obtained from Lehigh Corporation, and a resale agent was contacted to assist Mr. Canepa and Mr. Sahurie in their future plans for the property. During discussions with the real estate agent, Mr. Canepa was informed that the lots could be resold for a price between $2,500.00 to $3,000.00. When the agent was asked how much Mr. Canepa could have purchased a resale for in 1983, Mr. Canepa was told that he could have purchased a resale lot for around $2,000.00. The price requested by Lehigh Corporation for each lot is based upon a number of factors such as the costs of advertising, engineering, and development, as well as the cost of the land itself. Lehigh Acres has been a development project since 1952. During some of the earlier phases of the project, lots were sold for $500.00. Purchasers of land from the earlier phase are able to resell their vacant lots at a profit for price within the $2,000.00 price range. As an individual lot owner's expenses and motivations are different than the development corporation's expenses and motivations, lots could be obtained for less money from many individual lot owners in 1983 through 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Mitchell not guilty of the charges filed in Case No. 88-4690, and that these charges be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 8th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4690 The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #8, and #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Rejected. See HO #11. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Rejected. Argumentative and irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Closing argument. Conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John C. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-certified general real estate appraiser, holding license number RZ 2678 and doing business as Easthill Valuation and Consulting (Easthill). He has been doing real estate appraisal work since 1986. Respondent also holds a Florida real estate broker license. HBK Investments (HBK) is a hedge fund headquartered in Dallas, Texas. On June 23, 2006, HBK entered into a written agreement with Easthill in which Easthill agreed, for a $7,500.00 fee, to appraise for HBK the value of the remaining unsold inventory of an uncompleted high-rise, residential condominium project being developed by WCI Communities, Inc., on a barrier island in Pompano Beach, Florida (Ocean Side Project). The agreement did not specify, nor did HBK indicate at any time during the negotiations leading to the agreement, that time was of the essence in completing the appraisal. The agreement2 read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * The purpose of this appraisal/consultation is to estimate the market value of the fee simple estate reflecting the unsold inventory in the subject property. The report is intended to be used in making internal management decisions related to potential investment by [HBK] related to specific properties, interests, direct investments and/or securities issued by WCI. The assignment is to be a limited appraisal in a summary report format in conformance with, and subject to, the Standards of Professional Practice and Code of Ethics of the Appraisal Institute and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) developed by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. The scope of [Easthill's] assignment is to evaluate the subject property based upon the estimated remaining inventory as of the date of value for the current development based upon information obtained by the appraiser through market research and analysis. [HBK] hereby acknowledges that the subject property is owned, controlled and in the process of development by WCI. [HBK] understands and agrees that [Easthill] will receive information for the report from third party sources and that [Easthill] bears no responsibility (and shall not be liable) for the accuracy or completeness (or lack thereof) of such information. [HBK] understands that despite [Easthill's] best efforts to obtain accurate direct data pertinent to the analysis, such as but not limited to the number of sold and/or unsold units, actual transaction prices, actual or proposed development costs, current price schedules, documents pertaining to the declaration and proposed operation of the condominium development, may not be available. [Easthill] will incorporate market derived information in an effort to estimate these variables in the analysis. [HBK] acknowledges that market derived estimates may vary considerably from the actual amounts expended by WCI and can therefore reflect diverged value indicators which reflect a higher degree of subjectivity versus an analysis performed had the actual information been made available. * * * [Easthill's] fee for this assignment will be $7,500.00 and requires a 50% retainer payment prior to commencement of work with the balance due upon delivery of the report. [Easthill] will provide one bound hard copy and one electronic copy of the report via email in PDF format. The report will be completed and delivered to [HBK} within approximately four (4) to six (6) weeks from receipt of this fully executed engagement letter, the retainer fee and any additional relevant information provided by [HBK]. In the event the assignment is canceled prior to completion, an invoice will be prepared reflecting the percentage of work completed as of that date. Any credits to [HBK] will be promptly returned or any remaining balances to the appraiser will be indicated on the invoice. * * * HBK made the "50% retainer payment" by check dated July 6, 2006. The check (in the amount of $3,750.00) was deposited in Respondent's account at BankAtlantic on July 11, 2006. Thereafter, Respondent began work on the appraisal. Matthew Luth of HBK attempted to contact Respondent by telephone to inquire about the status of the appraisal after four to six weeks had gone by and he had not heard anything from Respondent. Mr. Luth was unsuccessful in his efforts to speak with Respondent, but he did leave "voice mail" messages. Mr. Luth also sent Respondent three e-mails (on August 8, 2006, August 25, 2006, and September 8, 2006) requesting an update on the appraisal. Respondent received neither Mr. Luth's "voice mail" messages, nor the e-mails Mr. Luth had sent. Jon Mosle, HBK's General Counsel, subsequently sent the following letter, dated September 26, 2006, to Respondent: I am the General Counsel for HBK Investments L.P. On June 23, 2006, HBK engaged your company to perform an appraisal related to the Pompano Beach condominium development to be known as Oceans Side. A copy of our signed engagement letter is attached. Promptly after signing the engagement letter, HBK paid the initial $3,750 payment for your services (via our check #2611, which cleared our bank on July 11, 2006). The engagement letter stated that your appraisal would be completed and delivered within approximately four to six weeks, a time frame now long passed. To date, we have seen no evidence of any work on your part. Matt Luth (the business person at HBK, who is responsible for this project) and myself have now tried to contact you numerous times and you have chosen not to return our calls or to provide any update regarding the project. From this information, I can only conclude that you are attempting to steal our retainer. Please be assured that we will not simply stand by and let this happen. If you do not call Matt Luth in the next three days to discuss this matter, we will immediately file a complaint with the State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. We will then investigate the process for reporting this as a criminal matter to the appropriate authorities. Respondent received Mr. Mosle's letter on October 14, 2006.3 Within a day or two of receiving the letter, Respondent contacted HBK and spoke with Mr. Luth. Respondent apologetically told Mr. Luth that "the report had been delayed," but he "was finishing the assignment and would have it to [HBK] within about a week." Mr. Luth said "that would be fine." The next day, however, Respondent received a telephone call from Mr. Luth, who told him that HBK was "canceling the assignment" because it "no longer needed the report." At the time of HBK's "cancel[lation of] the assignment," Respondent "had completed just about everything there was to complete except for actually writing the narrative report." He had obtained information about the Ocean Side Project, as well 14 other, comparable projects in the area, through public records reviews, on-site visits, and discussions with project staff. The information gathering process had not proceeded as quickly as Respondent had planned inasmuch as it had turned out that project staff were not always accessible at the times it was convenient for Respondent to meet with them. Respondent spent a total of approximately 60 hours collecting and analyzing data for the appraisal. Although the percentage of work that Respondent had completed was greater than the percentage (50%) of the "consultant's fee" he had been paid, Respondent did not ask HBK to pay him any additional monies (notwithstanding that his agreement with HBK authorized the making of such a request). But for HBK's "cancel[lation of] the assignment," Respondent would have delivered the "limited appraisal in summary report format" that he had agreed to provide to HBK.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2008.
Findings Of Fact In November and December, 1974 John T. Halkowich was a registered real estate salesman with the brokerage office of Ayers F. Egan. Exhibit 2, Return Receipt for Registered Mail, was admitted into evidence to show that Halkowich acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Hearing. When Halkowich applied for registration as a real estate salesman, Egan was one of his sponsors. Upon his successful completion of the requirements for registration Egan agreed to hold Halkowich's license for him in Egan's office, but because business was slow he could not allow Halkowich any floor days. He agreed to allow him to sit on houses that neither Egan nor Egan's associate wanted to hold open. During the period of 1974, when little real estate was selling on the Florida Keys, the housing development project owned by Vogler and Snowman was running on hard tines and the developers were anxious to "get out from under" the property. John Vogler, Jr., the father of the Vogler partner in the project, went to Egan to seek help with the sales. Since Egan had no work for Halkowich he suggested that perhaps the developers could make a deal with Halkowich. The developers needed someone on the property at all times to act as watchman, show prospective buyers around, keep the grass trimmed, and supervise the completion of the project. Halkowich was provided an apartent on the site to live in, complete with utilities, in consideration for performing those services. For each unit of the project that was sold the developers agreed to pay Halkowich $2,000. One of the purchasers who appeared at the hearing had stopped by the development, was shown around by Halkowich, and thereafter made an offer directly to the developers to purchase a unit. A contract was subsequently executed between the developers and the buyer and referred to the developers' attorney who performed the closing. After the closing Halkowich was paid $2,000. When Egan learned that sales had been made and that Halkowich had received compensation from the developers he demanded his commission from Halkowich. When the latter advised Egan he couldn't pay him Egan told him he was in violation of the real estate license law and that he, Egan, would report him to the Florida Real Estate Commission if he didn't pay. Thereafter Egan piously reported Halkowich's transgressions to the Commission and this Administrative Complaint ultimately followed.
Findings Of Fact Robert Hartnett was at all times pertinent to this complaint a registered real estate broker. Bill Dew and Dave Allman sought to lease a specific piece of real property for business purposes. In this regard they contacted William Hartnett, who had previously leased a piece of real property which included the specific piece of property Messrs. Dew and Allman desired to lease. Messrs. Allman and Dew entered into an agreement to sublease a portion of the Hartnett leasehold. A contract was prepared by William Hartnett and delivered by Robert Hartnett to Dew and Allman, who executed the contract. Although there is conflicting testimony, the testimony of Robert Hartnett is accepted as the more accurate explanation of his role in the transaction. Robert Hartnett had no interest in William Hartnett's business venture or in the leasehold, and did not appear or function as a real estate broker in this transaction. The owner of the property, Mr. Grossinger, testified he agreed to lease the property to William Hartnett. Hartnett was permitted to occupy the premises and paid rent. William Hartnett prepared a written lease which was not signed by the owner, Mr. Grossinger. Grossinger terminated the agreement when Hartnett subleased the premises to Allman and Dew without notifying him and instituted legal action to evict William Hartnett. Under the circumstances, there was an oral lease between Hartnett and Grossinger. Messrs. Dew and Allman made arrangements with contractors to make modifications to the subleased premises, and the modifications were begun. These modifications were in part the cause for the owner terminating the lease with William Hartnett. Messrs. Dew and Allman or their agents did have occupancy of the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against Respondent Robert Hartnett. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis M. Jepeway, Esquire 619 Dade Federal Building 101 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0312860. The last license issued was as a broker. Respondent Super Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate corporation in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0231630. The last license issued was as a broker located in Hollywood, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Super Realty, Inc. Respondents advertised for sale by newspaper advertisement a VA repossessed property being a four unit apartment building in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In April, 1985, Warren and Judith Fieldhouse responded to Respondents' ad, and Respondent Agarwal arranged to meet the Fieldhouses at the property. At the property, the Fieldhouses informed Respondents that they wished to purchase a property as an investment and required that any property purchased by them result in income to them as opposed to resulting in a loss for them. Respondent Agarwal specifically represented to the Fieldhouses that the rental character of the neighborhood had been assessed by the Respondents, that Respondents were qualified to appraise the rental character, and that each unit could be rented for $300 or more per month. Respondent Agarwal further represented that the rent for the property would therefore exceed its expenses. The Fieldhouses decided that they wished to purchase the property based upon Respondents' representations. Respondent Agarwal required the Fieldhouses to give him a check for $1,000 a while still at the property before he would return with them to the office of Super Realty, Inc., to draft a purchase contract. Respondent Agarwal and the Fieldhouses went to Super Realty, Inc., where a purchase contract was drafted by Respondent Agarwal and signed by the Fieldhouses. Respondent Agarwal refused to give to the Fieldhouses a copy of that contract. Respondent Agarwal further advised the Fieldhouses that they were to obtain the required liability insurance on the property from his insurance agency and that they were not to use their own insurance agency. The Fieldhouses refused to comply with Agarwal's direction to them. Changes were subsequently made by Respondents to the Fieldhouses' purchase contract. Although those changes were approved telephonically by the Fieldhouses, Respondents never obtained the Fieldhouses signatures approving the changes in the contract. A closing was scheduled by Respondents at the office of Super Realty, Inc., on May 22, 1985. The Fieldhouses inspected the property just before the closing and found that the property's "as is" condition on the day of closing was worse than its "as is" condition on the day that they first saw it and entered into the contract for the purchase and sale of the property. Appliances were missing, and damage was done to the structure. The Fieldhouses objected to the condition of the property on the date of closing. Yet, the closing began. Respondent Agarwal began handing the Fieldhouses individual documents to sign. When he handed them a required financial disclosure statement, the Fieldhouses realized that the mortgage plus insurance and taxes payments would exceed the rental income which Respondents had represented could be projected from the units, that the amount of payments and other representations initially made by the Respondents were not incorporated into the closing documents, and the rental income for the property would not exceed the property's monthly expenses. The Fieldhouses refused to continue with the closing. They demanded copies of the documents that they had signed, but Respondents refused to give them copies of those documents. They demanded a refund from Respondents of their $1,000 deposit, but Respondents refused to refund their money to them. Although the Fieldhouses had signed a note and mortgage on the property before they refused to continue forward with the closing, they gave Respondents no monies toward the purchase of the property to increase the $1,000 earnest money deposit to the required down payment for the property. Respondents knew that the Fieldhouses did not pay the required cash to close on the property, the additional consideration required under the contracts. After the closing, the Fieldhouses made additional demands on Respondent for the return of their $1,000. Respondents refused to return that money to them and further refused to discuss the matter with them further. Respondents submitted the Fieldhouse closing documents to the Veterans Administration claiming a sales commission due to the Respondents in the amount of $5,740, even though Respondents knew that the sales transaction had never closed. Since the Veterans Administration had experienced difficulties with Respondents' complying with their rules and regulations on previous occasions, the VA took the position that the Respondents were not entitled to a commission since no sale had taken place and that the Respondents should refund to the Fieldhouses their $1,000. Respondents sued the Veterans Administration for a sales commission. At the time that Respondents sued for a commission, they knew that they were entitled to no commission since there was no sale. When the Veterans Administration filed an Answer to Respondents' Complaint indicating that it intended to fully defend Respondents' false claim, Respondents voluntarily dismissed their litigation against the Veterans Administration. The VA now has possession of the Fieldhouses' $1,000 deposit which it intends to return to the Fieldhouses. Although Mr. Fieldhouse was a licensed real estate salesman during the time period material hereto, he had not actively worked as a real estate salesman. Therefore, the Fieldhouses relied upon the Respondents as licensees to responsively perform the sales transaction and further relied upon Respondents' representations regarding the property's income and expenses. Respondents never advised the Florida Real Estate Commission that demands had been made for the return of the $1,000 which Respondents held in escrow until such time as they voluntarily forwarded the money to the Veterans Administration despite the Fieldhouses' demands for its return to them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondents guilty of the remaining allegations in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker licenses. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Super Realty, Inc. c/o Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
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, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Richard A. Dunham, Jr., is now and was at all times material to the complaint a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 0130830 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a salesman, c/o Merrill Lynch Realty, operating partnership L.P. LTD., 1234 West Palm Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34236. Respondent was the sole stockholder of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., a corporation that was not licensed with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent formed Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., for the purpose of engaging in real estate ventures. Respondent was also the sole stockholder in other corporations established for the same purpose. On August 21, 1986, Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., entered into a lease agreement with Gail Walker whereby Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., leased a furnished townhouse for two years at $500 per month. Thereafter, respondent contacted Elizabeth Mitchell, a business associate and friend of respondent, to obtain her help in subleasing the townhouse. Respondent agreed to let Ms. Mitchell live in the townhouse in return for her maintaining the property and showing it to prospective sublessees. Respondent also agreed to pay Ms. Mitchell $200 if she subleased the property. On September 22, 1986, Kathryn E. Kelly entered into a written lease agreement with Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., to lease the townhouse for $600 per month. Ms. Kelly also agreed to pay a security deposit of $500. Ms. Kelly gave Elizabeth Mitchell a bank check, written to Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., in the amount of $500 for the security deposit. Ms. Mitchell thereafter delivered Ms. Kelly's check of $500 to respondent who deposited the check into the general corporate account of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc. Prior to signing the lease, Ms. Kelly met respondent. She was under the impression that respondent owned Guaranteed Leasing and that Ms. Mitchell worked for him. In December of 1986, Ms. Kelly vacated the townhouse premises. She had paid all appropriate rental payments. Ms. Kelly asked respondent, in person, to return her security deposit. Neither respondent nor Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., returned the security deposit. Neither respondent nor Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., gave notice of intent to impose a claim for damages upon the security deposit. After repeatedly demanding return of the security deposit, which demands were ignored by respondent, Ms. Kelly obtained counsel and filed a lawsuit against respondent, Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., and Ms. Mitchell. On July 1, 1987, a default judgment was entered against respondent, Elizabeth Mitchell and Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., jointly and severally in the amount of $544, plus costs and attorney's fees, for a total judgment of $785. The judgment has not been satisfied. Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., is no longer in existence. Respondent was the sole stockholder of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., and was an officer of the corporation. Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., had no salaried employees. The only business activity of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., was the transaction involved in this case. Respondent was in total control of the corporation's activities and was responsible for its actions. Indeed, as perceived by both Ms. Kelly and Mrs. Mitchell, Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., was, in essence, the respondent. Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., was merely the instrumentality through which respondent conducted this business transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that respondent committed those acts set forth in Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes, suspending respondent's license for a period of three months, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings: 1-2. Accepted. 3. Accepted, except as to finding that Mitchell was an "employee" of respondent; however, it is clear that Mitchell was acting as respondent's agent in her dealings with Ms. Kelly. 4-9. Accepted generally. Respondent's proposed findings: 1-8. Accepted generally except as to proposed finding that Mitchell was an "employee" of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc. Mitchell was acting as respondent's agent in her dealings with Ms. Kelly. 9. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert P. Rosin, Esquire ROSIN & DAVIS 1900 Main Street Suite 210 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation was at all times material to this proceeding a corporation registered as a real estate broker with the Commission, with its principal business address at 240 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, 33577. Irving Z. Mann was at all times material to this proceeding a real estate broker registered with the Commission, and the holder of two registration certificates: one as an individual broker with an office at 2197 Princeton Street, Sarasota, Florida 33577; and the other license as president and active broker of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. Stanley M. Robbins was at all times material to this proceeding a registered real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. At all times material to this proceeding Fritz K. Grolock was a registered real estate salesman, and from April 12, 1972, to February 2, 1976, he was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. From February 2, 1976, to November 29, 1976, Mr. Grolock was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. At all times material to this proceeding Irving Z. Mann was president, and Stanley M. Robbins was vice president, assistant secretary, treasurer and general sales manager of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation which was the owner and developer of the Palma Sola Harbor condominium development in Sarasota County, Florida. On or before February 4, 1976, Mr. Grolock and Mr. Robbins had agreed that Mr. Grolock would receive for his services as a real estate salesman for I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. a three percent commission based upon the sales price of individual condominium units sold at Palma Sola Harbor. Commissions were to be paid to Mr.Grolock at the end of the month in which the sale of each such unit was consummated. Mr. Robbins explained to Mr. Grolock at the time of this agreement that I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. was short of cash, and that should Grolock make any sales, he might have to wait for some indefinite period of time to receive his commission. Mr. Grolock indicated his willingness at the time to proceed on that basis. No testimony was adduced, and no documentary evidence was offered to establish that Mr. Grolock was employed by I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., at any time material to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Elmer C. Sutter and Ruth W. Sutter, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $26,450, and the evidence established that Mr.Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $793.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Martin G. Tepatti and Dorothy L. Tepatti, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained real property sales contract (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) dated April 29, 1976, between Donald F. Brown and Barbara S. Brown, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a real estate commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. Mr. Grolock did not attend the closing of any of the three transactions referenced above and described in the Administrative Complaint. However, the only evidence of record establishes that these transactions resulted in "negative closings" that is, after deductions of amounts due on the pre-existing construction mortgage, charges for documentary stamp taxes, tax pro-rations and the like, no funds remained for disbursement to I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. for payment to Mr. Grolock as a commission. Neither Mr. Mann, Mr. Robbins, I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, nor I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. received any funds at the closing of these transactions. Some time after the closings of the three transactions described in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Grolock spoke with Mr. Robbins concerning non- payment of his commissions. Mr. Robbins explained t6hat the three transactions had resulted in "negative closings," but that if Mr. Grolock would be patient he would be paid his commissions in due course. Mr. Robbins discussed the commissions once or twice thereafter with Mr. Grolock, each time explaining that the company was short of money but that Mr. Grolock would be paid eventually. Because of poor market conditions in the condominium industry, I.Z. Mann Realty & Associates experienced financial problems which ultimately resulted in the company's insolvency. The company eventually voluntarily relinquished its assets to creditors, or had its interest in those assets foreclosed, and at the present time is no longer actively engaged in business. By letters to Mr. Robbins dated December 7, 1976, and January 19, 1977, (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Mr. Grolock demanded that some arrangements be made for payment of his past due commissions. When he received no reply to these letters, Mr. Grolock sent a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) to Mr. Mann dated April 25, 1977, listing the transactions which resulted in $3,040.50 being owed to him for real estate commissions. Shortly after receiving this letter, Mr. Mann telephoned Mr. Grolock, on May 5, 1977, and told him ". . . the company had been inactive for a long time, but that I would see to it that he would get paid eventually. Just give us a chance to get some money to do it." (Transcript, p. 63). Mr. Grolock agreed at that time to wait for payment of his commissions. Some time after his May 5, 1977, telephone conversation with Mr. Mann, Mr. Grolock filed a complaint with the Commission ". . . [b]ecause I found no other recourse. . . [t]o obtain my commission . . . ." (Transcript, p. 26).
The Issue The issues presented in This case are whether the Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and whether such acts constitute a violation of the statutes. Petitioner submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, is a broker salesman holding license number 0317199. The Respondent, Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, is a real estate salesperson holding license number 0137930. In June 1980, Jansen held an individual broker's license in the State of Florida. In late summer of that year, he entered into an agreement with Flora Harwood, a licensed broker in the State of Florida and owner of Select I Realty. Under this agreement, Jansen and Harwood would form a corporation and participate in a brokerage company under the name Select I Realty, in which Jansen would open and operate a branch office of Select I Realty. The exact details of the corporation and the division of shares were not worked out between the parties; however, Harwood undertook to have a corporation formed the name Jansen and Harwood, Inc., and two attempts were; made to register Jansen as a broker with Jansen and Harwood, Inc., doing business as Select I Realty. These applications were rejected by the Florida Real Estate Commission for various reasons, to include the requirement that a corporation operate only in the corporate name and the failure of the applicants to submit corporate papers. The incorporation and application to the Commission were handled by Flora Harwood's attorney. The last denial of the application was on October 22, 1980. During the period the applications were being filed with the Commission, Harwood became disenchanted with the idea of the corporation because of her perception that Jansen was not cooperating with her. Therefore, after the second application was denied, Harwood did not take action to timely file a third application. Although Jansen was aware of the denial of the application, the evidence does not show that he was aware that Harwood delayed the third application. By the end of 1980, Jansen and Harwood had both independently abrogated their agreement, and shortly thereafter Jansen left the business totally. Until he left, Jansen continued to actively manage the branch office of Select I Realty, which he had established and organized and from which he conducted his real estate business as a broker for Jansen and Harwood, Inc. The policy of the Florida Real Estate Commission with regard to applications is that the applicant may operate if a license application is not returned. If the application is returned for correction and corrected and resubmitted timely, the applicant may continue to operate. If the application is not returned in a timely fashion, the applicant may not work. The failure of Jansen and Harwood to eventually incorporate, followed by the severance of their business relationship, intensified the conflict between them, out of which several of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint arose. On September 5, 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe contracted to buy for herself Lot 3 of Ozona Shores from Preston and Grace King. On January 5, 1981, LaCrampe closed the transaction with the Kings. At that closing, a check for $825 in commissions to Select I Realty was disbursed by the closing agent to the Respondent Jansen. Jansen deposited said check to his personal account. Flora Harwood asserted a claim to a share of the commission on the purchase of the property by LaCrampe. When Harwood discovered that this sale had occurred, she checked with the closing agent and found that a commission check had been paid to Jansen. She further discovered that Jansen had deposited this check to his personal account, and because the check was made out to Select I Realty Harwood had the bank take action to collect the $825 and pay it to her, which the bank did. Harwood's claim to the $825 was based upon an office policy applicable to employees which required that commissions on real estate purchases for investment purposes by employees of Select I Realty be shared with the office. However, this contract closed on January 5, 1981, after the relationship between Jansen and LaCrampe had been severed with Harwood. The competing claims between Jansen and Harwood to the $825 in commission are part of the severance of the business relationship between two persons operating as co-brokers. Testimony was received that in the operation of the branch office Jansen had authority to receive checks, deposit checks, and write checks. On or about December 10, 1980, Jansen participated in the rental of a condominium by Eugene Donahue from Glen and Mary Mitchell. The rental contract incorporated an option to purchase. Said rental contract required that Donahue pay $400 per month, $50 of which was a maintenance fee. Jansen received the first check from Donahue in the amount of $400, negotiated the check, and received a bank check in the amount of $350 payable to Glenn Mitchell and $50 in cash. It is asserted in the Administrative Complaint that Jansen received the $50 in cash as a commission payment to which he was not entitled. However, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 reflects that Glenn and Mary Mitchell here in arrears on their maintenance payment in the amount of $49.75, and the policy of Coachman Creek Condominium Association was not to grant any approval of lease or sales contracts until all maintenance payments were up to date. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 shows that approval of the subject rental contract was granted when Jansen produced the late payment. Several allegations of the Administrative Complaint relate to real estate transactions in which the Respondents Jansen and LaCrampe were involved with Heinz Lehman and allege fraud and misrepresentation arising from failure of Jansen to identify LaCrampe as his mother to Lehman. The first occasion on which Lehman met the Respondents was when Lehman visited a store in a strip shopping center which Jansen was selling as a broker. Lehman testified that Jansen identified LaCrampe at that time as a real estate associate and his "girl Friday." Lehman's testimony revealed that he knew LaCrampe was a real estate salesperson and an associate of Jansen but did not know that LaCrampe was Jansen's mother until after their series of transactions had occurred. Lehman did not buy the strip store but later purchased a condominium through Jansen and then sold it through Jansen after fixing it up. In November 1980, Lehman contracted to purchase Lot 3 of Ozona Shores (see paragraph 8 above) from LaCrampe. On January 5, 1981, after LaCrampe had purchased the property, she in turn sold the property to Lehman on the same day. In November 1980, prior to entering into the contract for the purchase of Lot 3, Lehman had visited Ozona Shores and had looked at several pieces of property. Thereafter, Jansen presented him with the opportunity to purchase Lot The evidence is clear that Jansen never identified Lot 3 on the, ground or by plat to Lehman. Lehman purchased the property without a survey and without reference to any plat. After he had purchased the property, Lehman found that Lot 3 was not tie lot which he though it was. At a later date, after being unable to finance a house on this property for speculative purposes, Lehman let the lot, 90, back to LaCrampe. On or about January 22, 1981, Jansen visited Florence Smith, who was interested in selling a house which she owned at 1550 Laura Street, Clearwater, Florida. Without obtaining a listing contract, Jansen thereafter advised Smith that he had a potential purchaser. On January 29, 1981, Smith contracted to sell her house to LaCrampe for nothing down and a $37,000 mortgage payable to Smith. Thereafter, Smith determined that she would prefer a balloon note, and LaCrampe agreed to a balloon note if the price were reduced to $36,000, to which Smith agreed. This slightly reduced the monthly payments to Smith. On February 12, 1981, LaCrampe contracted to sell this property to Lehman for $5,000 down, assumption of the second mortgage to Smith, and payment of a $1,400 commission by Lehman to Jansen. LaCrampe obtained modification of her contract with Smith to permit LaCrampe to assign her contract to purchase. In this transaction, Jansen did not identify LaCrampe as his mother or as a real estate salesperson and his associate. Jansen did not explain to Lehman that the money which Lehman paid down was to be paid to LaCrampe. On or about March 10, 1982, Leo Huddleston, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, visited Jansen's office at the address at which Jansen was registered. Huddleston did not find the required sign at the office identifying it as that of Frank Jansen, a real estate broker. At that time, Jansen had registered as broker for Suncoast Investments and Realty, Inc., and was renting office space with telephone-answering and secretarial services in an office suite complex. Although the building directory listed the suite as the office of Jansen as a real estate broker, the office suite did not have Jansen's real estate brokerage sign. When this matter was brought to Jansen's attention, an appropriate sign was provided. In November 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Jansen and Harwood, Inc.
Recommendation Having Found the Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, in technical violation of Rule 2IV-10.24, Florida Administrative Code, an thereby Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Jansen receive a cautionary letter. Having found the Respondents, Frank R. Jansen and Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, guilty of one violation each of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that their licenses be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 16th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Frank R. Jansen 108 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Ms. Lillian LaCrampe Soave 114 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0013099 0017680 FRANK R. JANSEN and 0021257 LILLIAN LaCRAMPE DOAH NO. 82-2891 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
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 (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1987.
