The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses held by Respondent as a real estate broker, licenses numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 300092222, and as a real estate instructor, license number 32195, for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(f), (n) and (p), Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact Facts Alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint Uncontested by the Answer: Petitioner is a state government 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 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed Florida real estate broker, issued license numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 3092222, in accordance with Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued were as a broker at AAA Realty of Florida Comm. Real Estate Properties/Investments, Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118, and at AAA Realty of Florida International Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. Respondent is a licensed real estate instructor issued license number 32195 with AAA College of Real Estate. Additional Facts: More specifically concerning licenses issued to Respondent as a real estate broker, from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker doing business as AAA Realty of Florida License No. BK3000807, a brokerage sole proprietorship located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. From January 1, 2005 to March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker, License No. BK3092222, affiliated with AAA Realty of Florida International, Inc., License No. CQ0000000, a brokerage corporation located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. License No. BK3000808 expired March 31, 2004. In State of Florida vs. Fadel Fawzi Elbadramany, in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Division 41, Case No. 2001-36519CFAES, the defendant, Respondent here, was tried and found guilty by a jury of grand theft of over $20,000, an offense recognized in Subsections 812.014(1) and (2) (b), Florida Statutes. On February 11, 2005, an order of judgment was entered by Circuit Judge R. Michael Hutcheson adjudicating the defendant in that cause, Respondent, in the present case, guilty of grand theft. On that same date an order of sentence was entered against the defendant/Respondent, by which he was committed to the Department of Corrections to be imprisoned for a term of 15 years, with credit for 105 days of time served while incarcerated before the imposition of this sentence. By separate order the defendant/Respondent was required to pay certain charges, costs and fees. That order was entered on February 11, 2005. In Fadel Elbadramany, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fifth District, July term 2006, Case No. 5D05-754 decision filed August 8, 2006, the court entered a per curium affirmance. On September 27, 2006, that court ordered "that appellant's motion for rehearing, rehearing En Banc and request to issue a written opinion filed August 22, 2006 and Appellant's Supplemental to Request to Issue a Written Opinion, filed September 18, 2006 are denied." Respondent is presently confined in Washington Correctional Institution where the final hearing was held. He is inmate number V21541. His tentative release date from his imprisonment is October 26, 2019. His confinement is in relation to the grand theft offense.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes (2004), that Respondent did not violate Section 475.25(1)(p) Florida Statutes (2004), and revoking the real estate broker licenses and real estate instructor license held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings and supporting documents, the following findings of fact are determined: On August 16, 1991, respondent, Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), issued Request For Proposal No. 92-002 (RFP) in which it invited various firms to submit proposals for assisting DPR and the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) in the production and scoring of the Florida Real Estate and Appraisal Examination for the period beginning January 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993, with a renewal option of one to two years. Such proposals were to be filed no later than September 20, 1991. After all proposals were filed, the RFP called for an evaluation of such proposals by a six-person evaluation committee who would make a recommendation to the Secretary of DPR. In addition, the Commission made a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary who retained final authority to award the contract. Proposals were timely filed by three firms, including petitioner, Professional Testing Service, Inc. (PTS), Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. (AMP), and National Assessment Institute. After an evaluation of the proposals was made, the committee recommended that the contract be awarded to AMP. By a 4-3 vote, the Commission concurred in this recommendation. Thereafter, on October 24, 1991, the Secretary selected AMP as the recipient of the contract. A protest was then filed by PTS, and after informal efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned Case No. 91-7429BID. An evidentiary hearing on the bid dispute was conducted on December 2, 1991. Thereafter, on January 3, 1992, a recommended order was issued recommending that AMP's proposal be found materially nonresponsive and that the contract be awarded to one of the other two vendors. It is noted that, with one minor exception, the recommended order found each of the grounds raised by PTS to be meritorious. On January 23, 1992, DPR issued a final order adopting in toto the findings of fact and conclusions of law and awarding the contract to PTS. That order was not appealed and is now final. Because it is undisputed that PTS is a corporation having its principal place of business in this state, has less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of not more than $2 million, PTS is a prevailing small business party in Case No. 91-7429BID. Through affidavits attached to its petition, PTS has established that the requested amount of $12,049.93 in attorney's fees and costs is reasonable and accurate. Respondent does not contest the fact that petitioner incurred that amount of fees and costs in prosecuting the bid protest. Petitioner contends that there was no rational justification for DPR making an award of the contract to AMP since AMP's bid was clearly nonresponsive on its face and DPR had ample opportunity to ascertain those defects prior to the award of the contract. Findings of fact 27 through 30 in the recommended order issued in Case No. 91-7429BID and adopted by DPR in its Final Order establish that AMP's proposal filed on September 20, 1991, deviated in several material respects from the RFP. These included a failure by AMP to differentiate between costs incurred for candidates examined and candidates who were scheduled to take the examination but did not appear, the use of nine cost components to develop the cost per candidate scheduled instead of the eight components specified in the RFP, the proposed use of DPR personnel rather than its own personnel to provide unofficial grade reports to candidates at the examination site, and a failure to agree to establish an office in the greater Orlando area. All of these deficiencies were present in AMP's original proposal filed on September 20, 1991, and were known by both the evaluation committee and the DPR Secretary prior to the award of the contract. Indeed, this was confirmed by testimony adduced at the evidentiary hearing. In addition, there was an evidentiary showing that DPR allowed AMP to amend and clarify its proposal after all proposals had been filed and declined to enforce material requirements in the RFP. The lack of a reasonable basis in law or fact to justify the preliminary award of the contract to AMP was further corroborated by the statements contained in the affidavit of Charles E. Barner, Jr. Therefore, it is found that the agency was not substantially justified in initially awarding the contract for RFP-91-002 to AMP and that there were no special circumstances present which justified the agency's actions. There is no evidence to support a finding that the parties intended for Subsection 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1991) to apply to this proceeding. Indeed, it was not shown that petitioner was required to post a bond with DPR at the time it filed its formal written protest to the award of the contract, and the agency's final order did not contain a provision reimbursing PTS for "fees and charges excluding attorney's fees" incurred in prosecuting Case No. 91- 7429BID.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner field applications for registration as a real estate salesman with respondent on October 10, 1977. Question 16 of the application reads as follows: 16. Have you, in this state, operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate salesman or broker, within one year next prior to the filing of this application without then being the holder of a valid current registration certificate authorizing you to do so? The petitioner answered "no" to Question 16. On December 8, 1977, respondent Florida Real Estate Commission issued an order denying the application based on its determination that the applicant had operated, attempted to operate or held himself out as a real estate broker or salesman within the one year period prior to filing his application. Petitioner thereafter requested a hearing in the matter. (Exhibit 1) Petitioner is the president of Marketing Institute Corporation of the Americas, Ltd. of San Jose, Costa Rica. (MICA) The firm operates as a real estate sales organization under the laws of Costa Rica, and is owned by Insco S.A., a Costa Rican holding company. (Testmony of McIntire, Figueredo) In 1975, petitioner became associated with William W. Landa, president of Costa del Sol, a condominium project in Miami, Florida. His function was to produce sales of condominium units as a result of sales efforts in Latin America. Part of the informal arrangement was the petitioner occupied a rental villa at the condominium project. His success in producing sales was limited and, as a result, the association was terminated sometime in 1976. In a letter to Lands, dated January 21, 1977, petitioner sought an accounting of expenses incurred in the operation and stated that he had produced three purchasers for which commissions were payable at the rate of "10% for foreign sales and 5% on domestic sales." Although no explanation of the terms "foreign sales" and "domestic sales" was presented, Landa testified at the hearing that petitioner did not sell in Florida for Costa del Sol. (Testimony of Landa, Figueredo, Exhibits 2-3) On December 1. 1976, the receiver in bankruptcy of the estates of Grandlich Development Corporation and Fisher Development Corporation, Fred Stanton Smith, president of the Keyes Company, Miami, Florida, Wrote petitioner and offered to pay his firm a 10% commission on "all sales closed by you of all Commodore Club Condominiums sold to your prospects." The commission was to be payable to MICA through its agent in the United States, Transcontinental Properties, Inc. of Miami, Florida, a corporate broker, The Commodore Club is a condominium project located at Key Biscayn, Florida. Hemisphere Equity Investors, Inc. was the registered broker for the sales of the condominiums and kept sales agents on the premises. Smith instructed Hemisphere to cooperate with foreign brokers in the sales of the properties. Petitioner proceeded under this arrangement to obtain and refer prospective foreign purchasers to Transcontinental who arranged to show the condominium units to the clients and consummate any resulting sales. Although petitioner had desk space in the Transcontinental office from September, 1976, to August, 1977, he was not supposed to show properties to clients or be involve in any real estate sales functions. In September, 1976, the president of Transcontinental placed a telephone call to respondent's legal office at Winter Park, Florida and ascertained that commissions could be paid to a foreign broker. However, he was informed by the Commission representative that it was a "gray" area and, although the foreign representative could serve as an interpreter for foreign clients during transactions in the United States, he could not perform any of the sales functions himself in Florida. Sales were made in this manner and commission checks were paid to petitioner's firm during the period January - September, 1977. (Testimony of Smith, McIntire, Figueredo, Exhibits 4, 5, 12, 13, 15) On July 1, 1976, Alexander Sandru purchased a condominium at the Commordore Club through the Keyes Company as broker. He was a friend of petitioner's from Caracas, Venezuela, and the latter had recommended his purchase of the condominium. However, petitioner was not in the United States at the time Sandru viewed the property and purchased it. Petitioner claimed a commission on the sale and it was paid to his firm through Transcontinental's predecessor company. A dispute arose over the payment of the commission because a saleswoman of Hemisphere Equity Investors, Inc. had shown the property to Sandru and assumed that she would earn the commission on any resulting sale. (Testimony of Lundberg, Nelson, Murragy, Exhibits 8-11) On several occasions in 1976 and 1977, petitioner accompanied Latin American individuals to the Commodore Club where a representative of Hemisphere showed them various condominium units. During this time, petitioner would inquire concerning maintenance charges and the like and transmit such information to the individuals in Spanish. Several of these persons were connected with petitioner's foreign firm and were not prospective purchasers. (Testimony of Lundberg, Figueredo, Exhibit 7) On January 30, 1977, Insco S.A. entered into a purchase agreement for a Commodore Club condominium unit. Petitioner signed the agreement on behalf of his firm MICA as broker for the transaction. However, the deal was never consummated. (Testimony of Figeredo, Exhibit 14)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of March, 1978. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard J. Mandell, Esquire 748 Seybold Building Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This case involves a claim by petitioner, John E. Phillips, Jr., that he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs because of an administrative action improvidently brought against him by respondent, Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). When the complaint was filed, Phillips was registered with DBF as an associated person with Aragon Financial Services, Inc. DBF contends the claim is without merit because Phillips is not a small business party within the meaning of the law, there is substantial justification to support the agency's decision to file a complaint, and special circumstances are present which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. The action which underlies this claim involved an administrative complaint filed against Phillips on February 4, 1994, charging him with violating various provisions within Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. That complaint was assigned Case No. 94-1266. The complaint also denied an application by Phillips to register as an associated person with a new firm. In addition, the complaint named Bruce M. Walker as a co-respondent, and as to that registrant, the complaint was assigned Case No. 94-1358. Both cases were consolidated for hearing and, after an evidentiary hearing was conducted on June 27, 1994, a Recommended Order was issued on September 13, 1994, recommending that all charges against Phillips be dismissed and that his application for registration be approved. The Recommended Order was adopted by DBF without change, and Phillips is accordingly deemed to be a prevailing party in that action. Phillips has requested fees and costs in the amount of $15,000.00, the maximum allowed by law. Respondent does not contest the reasonableness of that amount. Prima Facie Requirements for an Award of Fees and Costs In order to show entitlement to an award of fees and costs, petitioner must demonstrate that he is a "prevailing small business party" within the meaning of the law. Since he has filed the petition on his own behalf, he must show he is a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, including a professional practice, whose principal office is in this state, who is domiciled in this state, and whose business or professional practice has, at the time the action is initiated by the state agency, not more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2 million. At the time the administrative complaint was filed, Phillips was domiciled in Pensacola, Florida, and had a net worth of less than $2 million. According to an uncontroverted allegation in his petition, Phillips had no "employees relating to business that formed the basis for the Agency's charges." Petitioner was also a 50 percent shareholder in a subchapter S corporation known as Phillips, Walker & Associates, Inc. (PWA), a Pensacola firm engaged in the sale of insurance products. Although Phillips was registered with DBF as an associated person with Aragon Financial Services, Inc., that firm was not the subject of the complaint nor is it otherwise relevant to this dispute. Petitioner's principal source of income was through the sale of insurance products sold through PWA although he occasionally sold a few securities during that same period of time. The administrative complaint was not filed against PWA, which held no licenses from the state, but rather was filed against the registration of Phillips as an individual. Although he was an officer, employee and shareholder of PWA, Phillips was not a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, including a professional practice. Therefore, he does not qualify as a small business party. Was There Substantial Justification? The consumer complaint which eventually led to the filing of the charges in Case No. 94-1266 was made by Jane Hubbard, a Gulf Breeze realtor who had loaned a substantial amount of money ($50,000.00) to PWA in May 1988 and was never repaid. The loan was secured by a promissory note personally signed by Phillips and Walker, as the owners of the corporation. After PWA ceased doing business in May 1990, and both Phillips and Walker had filed for bankruptcy, Hubbard, or her attorney, contacted DBF in an effort to seek DBF's aid in collecting her money from Phillips and Walker. Since petitioner was registered with DBF as an associated person, and thus was subject to DBF's regulatory jurisdiction, Hubbard apparently assumed that Phillips may have violated the law in some respect, and the agency might be able to assist her in recovering all or a part of her money. A similar complaint filed with the Department of Insurance was not pursued by that agency. Hubbard's complaint was eventually referred to a DBF financial examiner, Robert R. Kynoch, who, among other things, interviewed Phillips, Walker, Hubbard, and three other persons who had made loans to Walker (but not Phillips). Although Kynoch did not place the persons interviewed under oath during the investigative stage, there was no requirement that he do so. Based on a representation by Hubbard that Phillips and Walker had failed to disclose to her all relevant information regarding PWA's financial status at the time the loan was made, Kynoch concluded that a reasonable basis existed to bring charges against the two if the loan was actually an investment, and thus subject to DBF's jurisdiction under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, Kynoch prepared a written investigative report, received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 3, which recommended that the report "be further reviewed for appropriate disposition." The report was first reviewed by Michael D. Blaker, a DBF area financial manager, who approved the recommendation and forwarded it to his supervisor, Richard White. It was then reviewed and approved by a bureau chief, William Reilly, and finally by the division director, Don Saxon. After Saxon signed off on the report, it was sent to the general counsel's office for a legal determination as to whether the loan was an investment. Margaret S. Karniewicz, an assistant general counsel, concluded that it was, and recommended the issuance of an administrative complaint. After an evidentiary hearing was conducted, a determination was made that the loan constituted an investment. This determination in the Recommended and Final Orders was not contested by any party, including Phillips. There was, however, insufficient evidence to establish that misrepresentations were made by Phillips during the sale of the investment. For this reason, the charges against Phillips were dismissed and his application for registration with a new firm was approved. Because DBF had statements, which it assessed to be credible, from a complaining witness (Hubbard) that misrepresentations or material omissions were made by Phillips and Walker during the transaction, and DBF properly construed the transaction as an investment, it had a reasonable basis in fact and law to file the complaint. Since there was no showing that the agency's credibility assessment was unreasonable, DBF was substantially justified in bringing the charges in Case No. 94-1266. Special Circumstances There was no evidence presented by respondent to show that special circumstances exist that would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust.
Findings Of Fact From September 5, 1972 to and including March 31, 1974, Barclay Realty, Inc. was a corporate real estate broker and was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Kenneth Friedman was the sole acting firm member of Barclay Realty, Inc. during said period of time and was the only real estate broker involved with said corporate broker during that period of time. During the period of time from September 5, 1972 to and including March 31, 1974, Edward D. Morris, Nikki Morris, Carl Hoy, and Dennis Morris were not registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as real estate brokers or real estate salesmen and were not holders of valid registration certificates from the Florida Real Estate Commission. Michael Anthony Morris was a salesman duly registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission and an active member of the Barclay Realty, Inc. prior to his death in January, 1973. A bank account was opened in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. at the First National Bank of Bay Harbor Island, Bay Heights, Bay Harbor Island, Florida. Respondent Friedman was not authorized to sign on the operating bank account of the corporate broker. The account was opened by one Dennis Morris and others without the knowledge of the Respondent. Respondent Friedman, although the Vice President and duly registered broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a broker for the Barclay Realty, Inc. whose business address was Eden Rock Hotel, Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, did not know of and did not supervise the activities of Dennis Morris and others who were advertising for the firm and who were working selling real estate in the name of the firm. The Barclay Realty, Inc. ceased operating from its registered address prior to March 31, 1974, and was operating from another address not properly registered with the Commission, to wit: 4525 Pinetree Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. Kenneth Friedman sent a letter on March 26, 1974, notifying the Commission that he had severed affiliation with Barclay Realty, Inc. previously thereto in August, 1973. In November of 1973, Louis Franco put up the sums of $4,000 and $3,900 for the purchase of condominiums located at 18071 Biscayne Boulevard, N. Miami Beach. The checks were made payable to Barclay Realty, Inc. and given to an individual known as Dennis Morris. These checks were deposited in an escrow account opened by Dennis and Edward Morris in the First National Bank of Bay Harbor Islands. The Franco real estate transactions in question never closed nor were the deposits totalling $7,900 refunded to Mr. Franco. The Hearing Officer further finds: That Respondent Kenneth Friedman used poor judgment in failing to sever relationship with the Barclay Realty, Inc. at the death of the only registered salesman, Michael Morris, that he had not intent to defraud members of the public and no intent to allow others to defraud members of the public. He did not receive remuneration from the activities of those who perpetrated fraud in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Friedman had no actual knowledge of the opening of the bank account in the name of the Barclay Realty, Inc. nor of the fraudulent transactions of those working in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Friedman failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission when he withdrew as a member of the firm as required by the Florida Statutes and the Rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. He failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission when the corporate place of business moved from the registered place of business to another location. That Respondent Kenneth Friedman, the Vice President and the only registered broker of Barclay Realty, Inc., negligently allowed the real estate corporation to operate in such a fashion that Mr. and Mrs. Louis Franco were defrauded of some $7,900 by non-registered salesmen of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Kenneth Friedman failed to keep himself informed as to the transactions of the corporation; failed to keep records as required by the Commission; failed to keep the interest of the public in mind in dealing with those working with the Barclay Realty, Inc., thus allowing his name and license to be so used that members of the public involved in real property transactions were or could have been mislead into believing that the Barclay Realty, Inc. was being properly operated under the Statutes of the State of Florida and the Rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Charles Shane was formerly employed by IREC, Inc. (International Real Estate Consultants). His assigned duties were administrative in nature and included the performance of research and field work pertaining to appraisals. It was not one of his assigned duties to procure appraisals and his salary was not contingent upon the appraisals performed by IREC, Inc. By application dated January 22, 1973, respondent Shane applied to the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate salesman. By certificate number 0117007, Shane was registered as a real estate salesman effective December 20, 1973. He is presently registered as a non-active salesman. By letter dated January 9, 1973, on IREC stationary, respondent Shane, signing as Vice President, wrote a letter to John R. Vereen stating that, upon acceptance by Vereen, IREC would conduct a market value appraisal of certain property for a compensation of $2,500.00. This letter bears the handwritten notation "cancelled with no liability 3/5/73." On March 5, 1973, respondent Shane, again signing as Vice President of IREC on IREC stationary, wrote a letter to Mr. Vereen stating "I will conduct a market value appraisal. . ." of the same property as that described in the January 9th letter for a compensation of $2,500.00. The checks in payment of this amount were made payable to respondent Shane individually and not to IREC, Inc. As indicated by Exhibits 6,7,10,11,12 and 13, appraisal reports were submitted to various entities on dates ranging from December 29, 1971, through March 20, 1973. The cover letters are each signed by respondent Shane as Vice- President and by one other person as "M.A.I. Consultant." These reports contain several pages concerning the qualifications of the appraiser. Respondent Shane's qualifications are included. Mr. Edward Waronker, who co-signed five of the six reports listed above, did not write or prepare the reports. It was Waronker's duty as an independent appraiser for IREC to inspect the property and review the appraisal reports prepared. A letter on IREC stationary dated July 23, 1974, from respondent Shane makes reference to a June 19, 1973, appraisal report. In such letter, Mr. Shane states "I have reviewed the referenced appraisal, which was conducted under my direction as of June 19, 1973." As noted above, respondent Shane did not appear at the hearing and therefore no evidence was offered in his behalf. A "petition for mitigation" was filed with the Real Estate Commission stating that respondent did not sign the appraisal reports with any intention of holding himself out as an appraiser or salesman. In summary, said petition states that respondent Shane signed these documents as the person of the corporation and not as a real estate appraiser or broker and that, had he been fully informed of the Florida real estate law, "he would not have continued in the manner that he did." Respondent Richard W. King has been registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission since 1957 and, prior to the instant complaint, has never been cited for a violation of the statutes, rules or regulations governing brokers or salesmen. Respondent King was employed with IREC, Inc. in June of 1973. According to the testimony, the registration of IREC and King was not approved by the Real Estate Commission until October of 1973. From the time that respondent King went to work with IREC, he had effective control and supervision of all appraisals performed by IREC. To King's knowledge, respondent Shane was never involved in the decision-making process surrounding appraisal work, and did not sign appraisal reports after June of 1973.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recite above, it is recommended that: the registration of respondent Charles Shane be suspended for a period of three (3) months; and the charges relating to respondent Richard King be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION THOMAS M. MURRAY, Petitioner, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2709 DADE COUNTY CHARLES SHANE, IREC, INC., CASE NO. 76-844 and RICHARD W. KING, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Jack Folk, has held an active real estate brokers license. From February 9, 1978, till December 14, 1978, Mrs. Evelyn Wilhelm, the Complainant, worked for the Respondent as a real estate broker. Pursuant to an employment agreement signed by Mrs. Wilhelm and the Respondent, she was to receive 80 percent commission on sales subject to exceptions for sales made by the Bo-Jac Realty Office or Bo-Jac Realty Listings. Out of the 80 percent, Mrs. Wilhelm was expected to pay all of her expenses. Due to continuing disagreements between the Complainant and Mr. Folk, Mrs. Wilhelm listed her license with another broker on December 14, 1978, without informing the Respondent of such action within 30 days prior to such termination as required by their employment agreement. The broker that she listed her license with was not a member of the Multiple Listing Service and Mrs. Wilhelm continued to use the Respondent's Multiple Listing Service after she had severed their professional relationship. Between December 18, 1978 and January 11, 1979, the Complainant continued to take referral calls from Respondent's office. When the Respondent learned from Mr. Wilhelm, the complainant's husband, on January 11, 1979, that the Complainant was registered with another broker, he immediately notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of such dual registration. At the time Mrs. Wilhelm left the Bo-Jac office, there were five pending or completed real estate closings in which she was involved and was owed money by the Respondent. One of these was designated as "Hart-Esposito" by the parties and is referred to as "Hart" in the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent was reluctant to pay the commissions to the Complainant because of legal advice he had received from his attorney concerning Section 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes and a possible breach of the employment agreement. This information was forwarded to the Complainant on January 25, 1979, via letter from Mr. Robert Saylor, attorney fro the Respondent. Upon the advice of counsel, Mr. folk deposited the disputed commissions in an escrow account and through his attorney notified the parties of this occurrence. The Complainant retained counsel who filed suit on the commissions on March 2, 1979. The Respondent counter-claimed and presented affirmative defenses outlining his position concerning the alleged breach of the employment contract and the dispute over the percentage of commissions due. Counsel for both parties entered into settlement negotiations which led to a voluntary dismissal by the Complainant on January 15, 1980 of the pending civil action. Although the civil action was filed by the Complainant, the Respondent also contemplated filing suit over the commissions. The Complainant simply filed her action before the Respondent's counsel file his.
Recommendation Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint filed against the Respondent, is DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Professional 400 W. Robinson Street Regulation Post Office Box 1900 2009 Apalachee Parkway Orlando, Florida 32801 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert L. Saylor, Esquire 618 U.S. Highway One Post Office Box 14667 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lynde1 Gale Goodwin is a licensed real estate broker with license number 0032681 Respondent Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., is a corporation licensed as a broker having been issued license number 0233195. Goodwin's last license was issued as a broker c/o Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., at 2990 North Federal Highway, Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33306 which is the business address of Florida Appraisal Department, Inc. Respondent Goodwin was operating as a real estate broker and as sole qualifying broker and officer of Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., at all times material hereto. On or about March 21, l984 an appraisal on certain real property owned by Robert and Martha Silva, located at 633 Lime Lane, Marathon, Florida was completed and submitted to Government Employees Corporation on behalf of Respondents by Charles Stange, an associate of Respondent Goodwin. At the time Stange held a real estate salesman's license, was receiving training from Goodwin on appraising and was also investing in Florida Appraisa1 Department, Inc. Stange bad been assigned the Silva appraisal by Respondent Goodwin, who accompanied him on a trip to Marathon to inspect the property and to locate comparable properties on which to base the appraisal. When they arrived in Marathon, Stange initially dropped Goodwin off so he could take care of some other business, and Stange proceeded to the Silva property, entered the house, drew a sketch. took picture6 and also attempted to locate three comparables. After completing his business, Goodwin joined Stange and assisted with the measurement of the Silva property. When they returned to their offices at Florida Appraisal Department, Inc , Stange prepared a draft of the appraisal report on the Silva property. When Respondent Goodwin reviewed this draft, he noted a problem with two of the comparables and instructed Stange to get two more comparables since the ones he had chosen were not suitable. Stange objected to having to locate two more comparables because it meant having to make another trip to Marathon. He did not return to Marathon, but redrafted the appraisal using falsified comparables. The addresses he used included what was, in fact, a trailer park and a non-existent address. He also showed the source of these comparables as "Realtron" which is a computerized multiple listing service that does not even serve Marathon. The falsified appraisal was submitted to Government Employees Corporation on or about March 21, 1984 over Respondent Goodwin's signature, and based thereon a loan was approved. Respondent Goodwin does not remember signing the Silva appraisal and disputes the signature appearing thereon as being his. However, after weighing all the evidence and demeanor of the witnesses, it appears that Stange simply changed the information on two of the Silva comparables to satisfy Goodwin's concerns, and presented the redrafted appraisal to Goodwin who assumed, but did not check, that Stange had return d to Marathon to obtain the corrected comparable data. Goodwin thereupon signed the Silva appraisal and it was submitted to Government Employees Corporation. Stange and Goodwin split a $150 fee for this appraisal. Respondent Goodwin does not routinely follow up on appraisal he has assigned to others to perform even though some of those appraisals are sent out over his signature. He has no way of knowing if an appraisal is overdue, other than by the person who ordered it calling to ask about the status. Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., does over 1,000 appraisals a year and employs seven licensees and two clericals. The Silva appraisal report misrepresented that the subject property had been analyzed with reference to single family residential property in the area that had been sold in the last six (6) months. It further misrepresented two of the comparables, one of which was non-existent and the other of which was a trailer park. Finally, the appraisal misrepresented the source of the comparables by indicating "Realtron" which in fact does not serve the Marathon area. Government Employees Corporation required Respondent Goodwin's signature to appear on all appraisals it ordered from Florida Appraisa1 Department, Inc.
