Findings Of Fact While in Puerto Rico, in 1971, the Respondent was charged with violation of Article 29, Drug and Narcotics Law, which charges were brought in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, Court of Aguadilla. These case numbers were information numbers, G-71-54 and G-71-55. These charges were made on March 9, 1971 for alleged offenses which were committed on February 16, 1971. The information which shows these case numbers can be found in Petitioner's Exhibit "D", admitted into evidence. On March 10, 1971, the Respondent was found guilty of the offenses charged in cases G-71-54 and G-71-55. The record shows that in case no. G-71-54, the Respondent was convicted by a judgement entered on March 10, 1971. On April 14, 1971, in case number G-71-54 and case number G-71-55 the Superior Court, of Puerto Rico, Court of Aguadilla, sentenced the Respondent to a term of five to eight years in prison by confinement at hard labor, which sentences were suspended. By such suspension, the Respondent was committed to the legal custody of the court until the expiration of the maximum term of the sentence under certain general conditions for the Respondent's conduct, and was given a special condition that he contact the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, District Office, at Room 180, Courthouse, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The judgement in case number G-71-54 and the conditions of sentence may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit "F", admitted into evidence. The judgement in case number G-71-55 may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit "E" admitted into evidence. On September 16, 1973, the Respondent completed an application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission, which application was completed under oath. Within that application for registration is found a question number "9". This question reads as follows: "9. Have you ever been arrested for or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, without regard to whether sentence has been passed or served, or whether the verdict or judgement has been reversed or set aside or not, or pardon or parole granted?" to which the Respondent replied, "yes". Question nine further stated, "if yes state details in full", to which the Respondent replied, "(see attached statement)". The attachment spoken of is found in the Petitioner's Exhibit "C", and this attachment sets forth the Respondent's explanation of his answer to the initial part of question nine. Subsequent to the completion of the form the Respondent was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman, from February 21, 1974 through March 31, 1975. From May 8, 1975, up to, and including March 31, 1975, the Respondent has been accepted as a registrant, non-active real estate salesman.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent be released from accountability under the charge found in the subject administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Charles Lawrence Ross 3789 Southwest 41st Street Hollywood, Florida 33023
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carla B. Rosario, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, on September 24, 1982. Rosario had previously passed the examination with a score of 80. Question 6 on the application asks if the applicant had ever "been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses. . .without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled." Petitioner responded with the following answer: "Yes, criminal fine of $150.00, a total of $165.00 including court costs. Cannot be exact about charge since I can't specifically (sic) remember it." After receiving the application, respondent forwarded petitioner's fingerprint cards to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and requested a copy of petitioner's arrest record. That record reflected petitioner was arrested by the Wethersfield, Connecticut Police Department on October 18, 1980, for (a) second degree burglary, (b) conspiracy to commit second degree burglary, and (c) third degree larceny. The first two charges were ultimately dismissed and petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to commit third degree larceny and paid a $150 fine plus $15 in court costs on November 5, 1981. Prior to receiving the arrest report, respondent apparently requested petitioner to furnish additional information concerning her answer to question In a letter dated November 2, 1982, petitioner responded that "(she) was arrested October of 1980, in Wethersfield, Connecticut", that "the matter was taken care of in New Britian Courts," and that the only documentation she had concerning the matter was enclosed. That was a one page receipt from the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, reflecting she had paid a $150 fine plus $15 court costs for a "criminal fine" on November 5, 1981. On January 27, 1983 respondent denied petitioner's application on the basis of her incomplete answer to question 6 and because her arrest record was an indication that she was not "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character" and that she did not have a "good reputation for fair dealing." The letter of denial prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner did not deny that her initial answer had been incomplete or that she had been arrested on various charges in 1980. She blamed the arrest incident on the fact that she happened to be in the same car with her husband when he was arrested for similar charges. Petitioner is unemployed at the present time. However, if she is successful in obtaining a real estate license, she intends to work for her mother who is active in the real estate business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Carla B. Rosario for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED without prejudice to her submitting a new application at a later time. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983.
Findings Of Fact John M. Stroud is a registered real estate saleman holding registration number 0172065 issued the Florida Real Estate Commission. On December 17, 1976, John M. Stroud was arrested for burglary and committed to the custody of the sheriff of Brevard County for the offense of burglary. On December 15, 1976, Stroud had his completed application notarized by R. Jack Simpson. Stroud's application was initially received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 5, 1977, and was returned to Stroud because he had not enclosed the fee required. It was resubmitted with the fee and received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 14, 1977.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS: That the registration of John M. Stroud be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: David T. Young, Esquire 1197 So. U.S. Highway 1 P.O. Box 563 Rockledge, Florida 32955 Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact By an application dated February 19, 1979, Petitioner, Barbara Ann Bisque, applied for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate. Question number 6 on the application asked: "Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned, or paroled?" To that question Petitioner answered "Yes." If a "Yes" answer is provided the applicant was asked to state the details including the outcome in full. She wrote, "forgery-not convicted- probation" and attached an explanation. Her explanation on a separate sheet of paper stated: "To Whom It May Concern, The actual charge was uttering a forged or false instrument. The incident occurred in August of seventy- seven. It involved my sister and I. We were shopping at Burdines and found a credit card in the cosmetic department and attempted to purchase clothes with it. We were observed by security, approached, and later arrested. I went to court and was not convicted but placed on two years probation. I served for eighteen months and was released for good behavior." (Signed) Barbara Ann Bisque Her application failed to disclose that on October 30, 1973, in Broward County Court in Case Numbers 73-33224MM and 73-17493MM she pled nolo contendere to two charges of disorderly conduct. These charges were reduced from initial charges of indecent exposure. She was adjudged guilty and sentenced to a fine and costs. As a result of her failure to disclose her two arrests for indecent exposure and conviction for disorderly conduct, the Respondent Board denied Petitioner's application for registration. Petitioner failed to disclose the two arrests for indecent exposure and her convictions for disorderly conduct due to her mistaken belief that Question number 6 was concerned only with arrests or charges for offenses committed while an adult. It is her recollection that in 1973, at the time of her arrest, she was legally a minor. For this reason, she chose not to disclose those incidents on her application. Her belief, while legally naive, is given credibility by the fact that she did freely disclose her arrest and subsequent probation for forgery.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application as submitted by Barbara Ann Bisque be denied, but without prejudice to her filing a new application to demonstrate that she meets the requisite qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman and that the Board take such further action on the new application as appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 4th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward F. O'Connor, Esquire 125 Worth Avenue, Suite 308 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Board of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's license to practice real estate should be revoked based on conduct set forth hereinafter.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing and the witnesses' demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Based on its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated July 28, 1981, the Florida Real Estate Commission (Petitioner) seeks to revoke Respondent's license to practice real estate based on his having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude and fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), and his (Respondent) having been confined to a state or federal prison, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979). The Respondent, Joel L. Steiner, is a registered real estate salesman and has been issued License No. 0150824 by the Petitioner. The Administrative Complaint filed herein alleges that during the period June 1, 1976, and continuing through March 23, 1977, Respondent, for the purpose of executing a scheme and artifice to defraud the public, caused mails and other matters to be sent from the New York office of Crown Colony in New York, New York 1/ , to be placed in post offices and authorized depositories for mail matter to be delivered by mail by the United States Postal Service. As a result of those actions, Respondent was indicted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and charged with a violation of Title XVIII, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1342, to wit, the use of the mails in a scheme to defraud. Following a trial, Respondent, on January 28, 1981, was found guilty as charged of the offense of the use of the mails in a scheme to defraud and was committed for imprisonment for a period of eighteen (18) months and ordered to pay a fine to the United States in the amount of $12,000.00. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3 and testimony of Postal Inspector John Muhelberg.) Respondent appeared through counsel; however, no evidence was offered by Respondent in defense of the charges after Petitioner's case in chief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's License No. 0150824 to practice real estate as a salesman be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission for approximately 12 years and currently holds a license as a broker-salesman. Respondent was arrested and charged, with three other men, with various crimes involving stolen property. The information contained 20 counts. With the advice of counsel, Respondent entered into a negotiated plea of nolo contendere of Count V alleging Respondent and Grantham (Respondent's brother-in- law) trafficked in stolen property, to wit: a Hurricane boat and motor. All other charges were dismissed, adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years. The other 19 charges in this information generally involved stealing several tractors and other heavy equipment by two of the defendants with Respondent and Grantham initiating, organizing, planning, financing, and supervising the theft and sale of such property. The negotiated plea which is part of Exhibit 2 states: The Defendant and State agree and recommend to the Court an appropriate disposition of the plea [of nolo contendere] is the withholding of adjudication of guilt and the placing of the Defendant on probation for a period of time to be determined by the Court. The remaining charges against Defendant will be dismissed. Respondent testified that he was not guilty of any offense charged against him but could not afford tie legal fees of $30,000 he was quoted to defend the charges. He pleaded nolo contendere to only one charge knowing he would be placed on probation only. Respondent has been employed by the telephone company for 27 years and was so employed as a supervisor at the time of his arrest. Respondent's Version of the events preceding his arrest is that a fellow employee of the telephone company sold his boat and was in the market for a replacement. This was generally known by the other employees at the telephone company. Respondent mentioned this fact to his brother-in-law, Grantham, who lives in Crystal River, in case he was aware of a suitable boat for sale. Grantham later told Respondent he knew of a boat for sale and Respondent referred Grantham to the fellow employee and had no further connection with the transaction which apparently resulted in the sale of a stolen boat. Respondent, as a telephone company employee, was allowed free telephone service. Grantham visited Respondent frequently during this period and used Respondent's telephone to make long distance telephone calls. Tapping of this telephone by authorities while being used by Grantham apparently led to evidence linking Grantham to the ring trafficking in stolen property. No evidence was presented regarding the disposition of the charges against the other three defendants. William Perryman, a licensed real estate broker, has known Respondent for some 12 years and holds Respondent's license. Respondent has a good reputation for truth and veracity in the community, and Perryman would trust Respondent in any business transaction. Perryman does not believe Respondent could have committed the offenses of which he was charged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1 hereby recommend: 1. That the Defendant, James Rosati, Jr., license to practice as a registered real estate broker be suspended for a period of one year. Recommended this 8th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James Rosati, Jr. 109 Harbor View Lane Largo, Florida 33540
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order DENYING Charles A. Pantino's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9673 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1984.
The Issue Whether the petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On July 6, 1984, the petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Department of Professional Regulations Division of Real Estate. The petitioner responded in the affirmative to question 6, which asked whether the applicant had "ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. . .", and set forth the details as follows: "Attempted Possession of Stolen Property" (New York) Bronx Date of Probation May 29, 1984 Date of Conviction November 16, 1983 Probation Officer Ms. English 212-590-3101 By letter dated September 24, 1984, and undated letter filed October 31, 1984, the petitioner was informed that the Commission had denied his application for licensure. In pertinent part the letter stated as follows. "The power of the Commission to review and deny applications is based upon Sections 475.17 and 475.25, Florida Statutes. Subsection 475.17(1) calls for the applicant to be "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing. . ." The reason for the Commission's action is based on your answer to Question(s) 6 of the licensing application and/or your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The petitioner owned a secondhand jewelry business in New York, similar to a pawn shop. He dealt with people all over the world, mainly wealthy people, and they sold him antiques and jewelry. He informed anyone coming in his store that he did not buy stolen goods and had a sign on his wall so stating. One gentleman, that had been a client for approximately three years, came into the store about every six or seven months to sell something. The last time this individual came into the store, about four weeks before the petitioner closed his business and moved to Florida, the individual implied that the gold he was selling might not belong to him. However, petitioner wasn't paying particular attention at that time to what the individual was saying since the petitioner had had previous dealings with him. After moving to Florida, in February of 1983, Petitioner was notified that he had been indicted in Bronx, New York. He flew back to New York and turned himself into the authorities. He discovered that the gentleman with whom he had been dealing for three years was a New York police officer and that their conversations had been taped. The tape revealed that during the last transaction the officer had implied that the gold he was selling did not belong to him. Petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted possession of stolen property, a felony, and was placed on probation for five years beginning in December, 1983. Petitioner has had a very good record while on probation. The petitioner held a real estate license in New York for over 10 years which has now expired. The license was never suspended or revoked and petitioner never had any other type of problem while in the real estate business. Since petitioner has been in Florida he has held responsible jobs handling large amounts of money. His employers, friends and coworkers have been impressed with his reliability, integrity and honesty. Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to show that since living in Florida he has been honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good character, and has a good reputation for fair dealing. Nevertheless, respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted possession of stolen property and is still on probation for that crime. Although an isolated unlawful act or criminal conviction in the past does not necessarily mean that an individual is presently dishonest, untrustworthy or of bad character, 1/ it must be concluded that when an individual is presently on probation for a crime involving dishonest dealing, the unlawful act or conviction is not so remote that it can be deemed an isolated incident in the past. Because Petitioner is still on probation for a crime that involves dishonesty and a lack of trustworthiness, petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of Section 474.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for licensure be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 12th day of December, 1985.
