The Issue By a four count Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), F.S.; guilty of having failed to account and deliver advance fees in violation of Section 475.452, F.S. and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), F.S.; guilty of having failed to maintain trust funds ($22,066.25) in the trust account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), F.S.; and having violated the provisions of a prior Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), F.S. BACKGROUND, PROCEDURE, AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT All of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint herein arise from Respondent's performance under a prior settlement Stipulation and resultant Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission, requiring, among other matters, restitution by Kevin S. Hawkins, Respondent herein. Although the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) initiated the instant proceeding by the above-referenced four count Administrative Complaint which had been referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., DPR then moved to relinquish jurisdiction to the Florida Real Estate Commission upon grounds that the Stipulation in the prior case covered the contingency of non-performance of the required restitution and further provided, under such circumstances, for Respondent's appearance by informal hearing before the Commission. The prior Hearing Officer on the case denied that motion by an order entered June 2, 1988. At formal hearing, DPR renewed its motion to relinquish jurisdiction which the undersigned took under advisement for resolution within this Recommended Order. The motion is here denied and the reasons there for are addressed within the Conclusions of Law, infra. At formal hearing, Respondent's responses to Petitioner's Request for Admissions were recognized without objection. In anticipation that there might be no transcript, these admissions were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, for clarity of the record. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Respondent Kevin S. Hawkins, James Mitchell, and Frederick Wilsen, and had eight exhibits admitted into evidence. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Margaret Tripp and Grant Bartells and testified on his own behalf. Respondent had four exhibits marked for identification, none of which were admitted in evidence. A transcript of the proceedings has been provided, and each party has submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law outside the 10 day period stipulated/imposed at formal hearing. Because each party's proposals were late-filed and since each party filed formal proposals prior to completion of this Recommended Order, the respective proposals have been considered by the undersigned and the findings of fact therein are ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Likewise, the undersigned has not sua sponte struck Petitioner's proposals due to their submittal on the wrong size paper, in violation of Rule 22I-6.003(8), F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate is the 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 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, F.S., and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0200419 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a nonactive broker with a home address of P.O. Box 650488, Vero Beach, Florida 32965. The Florida Real Estate Commission rendered a Final Order filed April 24, 1987 which adopted a Stipulation entered into by the Respondent and the Commission. The Stipulation was drafted by Respondent's prior attorney and Mr. Mitchell, who at that time was the attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (DPR). The Stipulation terminated prosecution of Respondent on several cases by the DPR. Mr. Mitchell acknowledged that as DPR attorney he was the prime draftsman of the Stipulation, and that the restitution contemplated therein was a pro rata return of all time share auction monies held by Respondent or Resort Condominium Resales, a company owned and controlled by the Respondent, which company had also been named as a Respondent in the previous cases resulting in the Stipulation, but that full repayment to each investor of all monies invested by him/her with Respondent or with Respondent's company was never contemplated by the terms of the Stipulation. The Stipulation, in pertinent part being paragraph 7 provided as follows: Respondents agree to make restitution to all owners entitled to restitution of those advance fees being maintained by the Respondents. The Respondents shall make restitution within six (6) months of the filing of the Final Order of the Stipulation. Should restitution not be made as agreed herein, the Respondent shall appear before the Florida Real Estate Commission at a Section 120.57(2), F.S. informal hearing for the violation of failing to abide by a lawful order of the Commission pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(e), F.S. The Stipulation contained no mention of any specific amount of restitution to be made and the DPR staff in general had no prior experience with the handling of time share auction cases of similar nature, so in order to facilitate and ensure the Respondent's compliance with the Stipulation/Final Order, DPR provided an investigator, Grant Bartells, to monitor the Respondent's efforts at compliance. DPR and its several attorneys interpreted the Stipulation/Final Order to require that a bank account of several commingled funds totalling upwards of $300,000 should be reduced to a zero balance by October 25, 1987. Contrariwise, Respondent and the DPR investigator, Bartells, interpreted it to mean that by that date all restitution checks should be mailed out to those persons who had been determined by Respondent and Bartells to be owed any restitution. Mr. Bartells and an associate travelled to Respondent's office in Vero Beach and spent several days going over his books. Respondent provided Margaret Tripp to assist them in their review of his affairs. Approximately, May 31, 1987, the sum of $211,357.81 was agreed between Bartells and his associate and Respondent to be the opening or beginning balance of funds available from auction proceeds for purposes of the agreed pro rata restitution of advance fees. In reaching this amount, Bartells subtracted the amounts owed by Respondent for the expenses attendant upon holding two time share auctions he had held previously. The Administrative Complaint herein does not address this use of the funds, and, indeed, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Wilsen conceded that it was appropriate for Bartells and the Respondent to have made such a deduction before commencing the restitution process. The Respondent issued or caused to be issued between June 22, 1987 and July 28, 1987 approximately 715 checks as pro rata restitution to investors. Before this was done, the DPR investigators checked, reviewed, and audited the amounts. Although this check, review, and audit were not of the same quality as a certified public accountant might have performed, and although Mr. Bartells relied in large part on the cooperation and candor of Respondent and Miss Tripp to show him the account these monies were from and to explain the amounts, nature, and sources of those monies, Bartells' methods were in accord with DPR standard operating procedure for analogous cases. On or about June 22, 1987, the Respondent also issued or caused to be issued and delivered check #1136 in the amount of $21,647.25 made payable to Resort Condominium Resales. On or about June 26, 1987, the Respondent also issued or caused to be issued and delivered check #1137 in the amount of $419.00 also made payable to Resort Condominium Resales. Before making these payments/withdrawals against the $211,357.81 res established by consent and cooperation between the DPR investigators and Respondent, the Respondent represented orally to Mr. Bartells that the amounts reflected in the two checks were earned commissions and asked what he should do with them. It was Respondent's position that these amounts had been inadvertently and improperly commingled in the restitution account as part of the $211,357.81 when they should not have been because they were never part of the time share auction deposit proceeds (advance monies). Mr. Bartells responded, "If you had a deal and a contract and it is completed; both parties are satisfied, I don't see how anybody can tell you you can't take your commissions but you never should have put them in there." Mr. Bartells readily admitted that he had no actual, explicit authority delegated by DPR or the Commission to render legal opinions, but every element of this case bespeaks his apparent authority to bind the agency in all matters regarding the restitution process. In reliance on Mr. Bartells' statement and apparent authority, Respondent paid to his company the two checks totalling $22,066.25. Except for the testimony of Mr. Mitchell that in drafting the original Stipulation he did not contemplate that any monies would be taken out of the escrow account or otherwise retained for Respondent's use, there is no record evidence to suggest that the total $22,066.25 was not earned commissions as represented by Respondent. At the time of entering into the Stipulation, no one totalled what was in the Respondent's existing account which started at upwards of $600,000, and in the course of drafting the Stipulation, there was never any discussion as to the amount of money remaining in the account. In the course of the restitution process, the monitor for DPR, Mr. Bartells, relied largely on Respondent's representations, and no one from DPR reviewed any underlying documentation of the amounts and accounts voluntarily offered up by Respondent. No one at DPR seems to have questioned how $600,000 became $300,000, and the further reduction to a starting figure of $211,357.81 was both contemplated by the original Stipulation and was retroactively authorized by Mitchell's and Wilsen's testimony at formal hearing. Although Mr. Mitchell conceded that the Respondent would be entitled to any commissions the Respondent had earned, Mitchell did not find the Respondent's representations to be credible. Because the prior cases against Respondent which had been settled by the Stipulation/Final Order had included counts involving failure to account for funds, Mitchell did not believe that the two check amounts Respondent paid to his company were, in fact, Respondent's earned commissions on purchase money. However, Respondent's testimony that he created the $211,357.81 reimbursement account in question after the Stipulation/Final Order was entered into and accidently commingled the funds then in his haste to comply with the Stipulation/Final Order is credible and unrefuted. The foregoing finding in no way reflects unfavorably on Mr. Mitchell's credibility, but never having audited or had hands-on experience with the specific monies, as did Bartells and Respondent, Mitchell's impressions alone cannot refute the fact evidence of the other witnesses. Mitchell merely felt that these amounts constituted advance monies which were covered by the restitution Stipulation, but there is no clear, affirmative proof that such is, in fact, the case. At some point before or after October 24, 1987 (six months after the Final Order), Respondent learned that some of the checks which he had sent to parties who had been determined to be entitled to pro rata restitution had not cleared the bank. Some checks were returned to Respondent as unclaimed mail; some were not returned but nonetheless never were cashed. As of February 23, 1988, the balance in the account established for restitution remained at $10,079.33, so Respondent, in responding to DPR inquiries, requested the assistance of the DPR by two letters of that date. The tone of these letters suggests nothing other than an effort on Respondent's part to comply with the spirit of the Stipulation and Final Order. For instance, in one letter he states: Please find my statement regarding compliance with paragraph 7e. Current balance is 10,079.33. I'll await directions as how you want me to handle these funds. Enclosed you'll find the restitution records your [sic] asked for. In the other letter, the Respondent states: All checks were mailed & some did not get delivered. I complied with the stipulation to the best of my ability. I would like to turn the remaining funds over to the state and be done with this matter, as I am know [sic] longer acting as a salesman or broker, and have found employment elsewhere. The Stipulation is silent as to what Respondent should do under the circumstances. Mr. Mitchell acknowledged that no discussions preliminary to the drafting of the Stipulation either covered or anticipated that mailed checks might be returned to the Respondent. Respondent telephoned the Commission requesting information as to what to do with the $10,079.33 and was given no definitive answer. Respondent did not request an informal hearing before the Commission because he believed he had made complete pro rata restitution under the terms of the Stipulation/Final Order (see Findings of Fact 6-8, supra), and because he feared that under the terms of the Stipulation/Final Order making a request for an informal hearing before the Commission would constitute an admission that he had "violated" the Stipulation by "failing to abide by a lawful order of the Commission." Frederick Wilsen, Senior DPR attorney, described himself as "in a quandary" over what to do when he received the Respondent's letters since an informal hearing before the Commission had not been requested and since the account was not reduced to zero. Therefore, the Administrative Complaint herein was initiated.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the four counts of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent and including an advisory paragraph, as is appropriate within its agency expertise, setting forth a method for Respondent to follow in disbursing the $10,079.33 balance of the account. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 19th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2272 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Petitioner's PFOF 1-11 Accepted, but not necessarily adopted. Where not adopted, the proposals have been modified to eliminate subordinate and unnecessary material. 12-13 Address mixed questions of law and fact as set forth in the COL of the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as conclusions of law (COL), not findings of ultimate fact. To the extent they may contain any assertion of fact over law they are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the record evidence as a whole. See all FOF and COL. Respondent's PFOF 1 Covered in the introductory material. 2-3 Accepted. 4-6 Accepted except where subordinate and unnecessary. Addresses a mixed question of law and fact as set forth in the RO's COL, and is rejected in part as a COL, not a finding of ultimate fact. To the extent it contains assertions of fact over law, it is accepted as modified within the Recommended Order (RO) so as to conform to the greater weight of the credible record as a whole. Accepted as modified in FOF 11 to reflect an ambiguity in the record. Rejected as a COL or mere argument of counsel; also cumulative Rejected as a COL; covered in the COL of the RO. 11-15, and 17-20 Except where accepted within the RO, these proposals are rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and/or cumulative. 16 Accepted. 21-22 Rejected as merely argument of counsel or recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James H. Gillis, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Joseph McHugh, Esquire 333-17th Street, Suite U Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the license of Respondents should be revoked or suspended or other discipline imposed.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence received, the testimony elicited at the hearing, argument of counsel and memoranda submitted by the parties, I find: Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc., was issued License Number 0168325 as a registered real estate broker corporation. Respondent Steven R. Myer, holds license number 0110787 as a registered real estate broker. Respondent Myer is an Active Firm Member for Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc. In general, the contention of the Petitioner Commission is that the Respondents failed to pay an employee, Sam Blumner, a real estate commission due him on two occasions contrary to certain provisions in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The contentions of the Respondents are that the dispute was contractual and not within the jurisdiction of the Petitioner, that they tried to avoid an information being filed against them, and that the alleged offense's are insufficient to justify suspension or revocation. On November 1, 1976, Florida Coast Realty, Inc., by Steven R. Myer, entered into a contract agreement with Sam Blumner whereby Mr. Blumner was to receive a fee earned as a result of service performed by Mr. Blumner as a real estate salesman with Florida Coast Realty, Inc. Subsequently, on January 13, 1977, Sam Blumner was terminated as a salesman with Florida Coast Realty, Inc., and a notice of registrant change was nailed by the corporation to the Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach Board of Realtors and received by the Board on January 18, 1977. A transaction pertinent to subject hearing was entered into on or about November 11, 1976 in which Walter Ross and Sam Blumner were the "listing" salesmen for property owned by Frank S. Holsclaw and Florence Holsclaw. It was ultimately purchased by Dennis F. and Dione Dicataldo, but subsequent to the termination of the employment of Blumner by Respondents. Mr. Blumner made a claim for $297.00 which represented one-half the listing, or twelve and one-half percent of the office profit. He testified that he was listed on the office "log" as co-lister. Nothing was paid to Mr. Blumner although Mr. Walter Ross, a broker formerly associated with Respondent Florida Coast Realty, Inc. and the co-lister was paid twelve and one-half percent of the office profit. Mr. Ross estimated that he received between $250.00 and $260.00 as "half" listing commission. Mr. Blumner's name did not appear on the listing contract in the transaction because he had not yet been listed as a member of the Board, and only the name of Walter Ross was listed as "salesperson". Mr. Ross testified that he and Sam Blumner were listed together on the transaction and that he himself received half of the listing commission. A registered realtor associate who worked for Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc. at the time, Dorothy E. Reagan, testified that Walter Ross and Sam Blumner were the listing salesmen on the Holsclaw-Dicataldo transaction. The Respondents did not dispute the fact that Walter Ross was paid but one-half the listing commission although they pointed out his was the only name on the written contract. No evidence was entered by the Respondent showing that the remaining one-half of the listing commission was paid by Respondents to anyone. A second transaction pertinent to this hearing was entered into on December 31, 1977 with Mr. and Mrs. Haarar as sellers, and Mr. and Mrs. Grimes as buyers. The closing was several months later and after Mr. Blumner had left the employment of Florida Coast Realty, Inc. Mr. Blumner was the salesman who first showed the purchaser the home later purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Grimes, and was the "procuring cause" of the sale. He made an offer to the seller and counter offer of the seller to the buyer. He related to the Grimes the offer of $27,000, which was the final purchase price of the home and showed these purchasers other property for sale. Mr. Blumner was not paid a commission for the sale of the home. Both Mr. Ross and Mrs. Reagan testified that Mr. Blumner was the salesman on the transaction. Mr. Jerome T. Myer of the Respondent Florida Coast Realty, Inc., stated that Mr. Blumner should have been paid, but not the full commission inasmuch as he had not done the follow-up work involved after the initial procurement of a purchaser for the property. The Respondent, Steven R. Myer and his brother Jerome T. Myer did the follow-up work on the sale of the property in the Haarar-Grimes transaction. Mr. Blumner contends that he made demands for his money both as a co- lister and a salesman, but that no money was paid him. He testified that he would have foregone his commission as a co-lister in the amount of some $260.00 had he received a commission as salesman in the Haarar-Grimes transaction, a sum of some $567.00. Mr. Blumner testified that he endeavored to talk to the Respondent Steven R. Myer about the commission but was interrupted by Jerome Myer, and that he told the Respondents he would have to seek redress through the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, if he did not receive a commission. A letter was sent to the Petitioner by Respondent Myer on April 7, 1977 requesting information as to the jurisdiction of Petitioner relative to "a dispute with one of my former associates regarding commission money". The Commission acknowledged the correspondence and Respondent Myer was informed that the Commission had received a complaint against him alleging he had failed to account or deliver a commission to a salesman, and that it was being assigned for investigation. The Respondents made little or no effort to settle the dispute prior to the hearing.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the Respondents until the commission has been paid to Sam Blumner as co-lister in the Holsclaw-Dicataldo transaction and a settlement has been made in regard to the Haarar-Grimes transaction. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven L. Josias, Esquire P. 0. Box 23536 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, an agency of the State of Florida, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-812 Progress Docket No. 3321 FLORIDA COAST REALTY, INC., and Broward County STEVEN R. MYER, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pinkerton has been a registered real estate broker since May 19, 1976, before which he was a real estate salesman registered with Strout Realty, Inc. On October 29, 1975, respondent entered into an agreement with Transamerica Homes Company (Transamerica) to sell at auction five mobile homes belonging to Transamerica. On November 15, 1975, respondent acted as auctioneer at an auction at which all five mobile homes were sold. After receiving some of the proceeds of the sale, Transamerica's agents asked respondent to remit an additional seven thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($7,680.00). Respondent told Robert P. Wold, Transamerica's authorized representative in Florida, that he did not have that much money because he had borne expenses in connection with the auction that Transamerica should have paid. After telling Transamerica's agents that he did not have sufficient funds to cover such a check, respondent nonetheless drew and mailed a check in the amount of seven thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($7,680.00), in the belief that Mr. Wold wanted him to write the check even though the funds to cover it were not on deposit. When the check was presented to the American Bank of Lakeland, on which it was drawn, petitioner had four thousand nine hundred fifty-three dollars and fifty-three cents ($4,953.53) on deposit, and the bank dishonored the check. After the check was returned for insufficient funds, Mr. William S. Hagar telephoned respondent on behalf of Transamerica to discuss the matter. Respondent said he would send another check in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) within a week, which he did. Another week passed; another telephone call transpired between Mr. Hagar and respondent; and respondent sent a second check in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00). Both of the checks respondent had drawn for two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) were paid upon presentment. On March 13, 1976, respondent wrote Mr. Hagar a letter in which he stated: At this point, due to the many problems involved in the Auction of the Mobile Homes on the 15th of November, 1975 at Skyview Waters in Lakeland, I feel I am entitled to additional compensation. First of all, it is almost unheard of in an auction of this kind for less than 20 percent commission. I was assured [sic] by Mr. Robert Wold of his assistance in preparing the sale. He and Mr. Paul Harris were supposed to provide the arrangements for financing. They did absolutely nothing. They were supposed to assist prospects in locating lots and people to handle moving, setups, driveways and other improvements. By our agreement my only obligation was to be to supervise and provide auctioneer voice. I think you are quite aware that the entire operation was left for me to do at about 1/4 the commission I should have been paid plus the fact that I was forced to split the meager commission I earned with two other people. So, I ended up with less than $1000 gross commission on a sale that should have netted me at least $10,000. On March 16, 1976, Mr. Hagar replied, sending a copy of his letter to the Florida Real Estate Commission: This letter acknowledges receipt of your truly [sic] amazing letter of March 12, 1976. I have reviewed the Auction Agreement which you executed, a copy attached for your information and edification. The language is clear, unambiguous and the obligations of both parties are stated plainly. We have honored our obligations completely and we expect you to honor yours. Paragraph 2) stated you will be ". . . solely responsible in setting up and conducting the auction sale without interference from anyone. . ." Paragraph 3) states you ". . . shall retain Four percent of the bid price received, as commission . . ." for your services. Lastly, Paragraph 6) states there are ". . . no oral representations, agreements or understandings between either of the parties. . . ". * * * We have been patient and forbearing in allowing you the opportunity to make restitution without resorting to the full remedies available under the law to us . . . I assure you that unless we receive your certified check in the amount of $2,680 by March 24, 1976, we shall exercise each and every remedy so available. On March 26, 1976, Mr. Hagar, not having heard from respondent, engaged Florida counsel who eventually succeeded in obtaining a default judgment against respondent in the amount of two thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($2,680.00) plus costs. This judgment had not been satisfied at the time of the hearing in the present proceeding. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not establish when respondent became associated with Strout Realty, Inc. Respondent's letter of March 12, 1976, to Mr. Hagar was written on Strout Realty, Inc. stationery, however. Paragraph two of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the check was for only a part of Transamerica's claimed share of the sale proceeds. Respondent did in fact know that he had insufficient funds to cover the check, a fact of which he made no secret. Paragraph three of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph four of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. George W. Pinkerton 2833 East Highway 92 Lakeland, Florida 33801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-2292 GEORGE W. PINKERTON, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated December 4, 1981. This proceeding involves allegations by the Florida Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission) that Respondent, James R. Siebert, violated Subsection 475.25(1)(h) Florida Statutes, by sharing a commission with a person not properly licensed under the real estate law, and that he employed a person as a salesman who is not the holder of a valid license, in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(c) , Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The incident which prompted the Administrative Complaint involved an auction sale of a restaurant in Brooksville, Florida which was conducted by an auctioneer who did not have a license to practice real estate in Florida. Respondent requested an administrative hearing and filed an answer to the Administrative Complaint admitting the occurrence of the auction, but denying that it involved the sale of real estate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James L. Siebert, is a licensed real estate broker at Orange Lake, Florida, and was so licensed at all times relevant in this proceeding. (Stipulation) On several occasions prior to February 21, 1981, Respondent had gratuitously assisted Albert W. (Billy) Mitchell, an auctioneer, in conducting auctions by serving as a "ring man" and clerk. A "ring man" normally is one of several such individuals at an auction who assists the auctioneer by encouraging bidding and identifying bidders. Mitchell is not licensed under real estate laws of Florida, but operates under a local occupation license. None of the prior auctions in which Respondent assisted Mitchell involved the sale of real estate. (Testimony of Respondent, Mitchell) On January 28, 1981, Mitchell entered into an "auction sale contract" with Welberta Pruitt whereby Mitchell agreed to sell at auction to the highest and best bidder: . . . the following described business and personal property owned by the Party of the First Part: Pruitts Golden Wagon Steak House Restaurant and Contents on attached inventory list and located 1702 Howell Avenue, Brooksville, in Hernando County, State of Florida. The terms of this sale shall be 10 percent of the amount of the purchase price to be paid on day of sale and the balance to be paid as follows: On delivery of title - There is a mortgage on the business of $67,838.20 with interest at 8 3/4 percent on the unpaid balance. The attachment to the contract listed various items of food supplies and restaurant furniture and equipment, plus decorative items of personal property. Pruitt and her husband had purchased the real property on which the restaurant building was located under an agreement for deed in 1979 which provided that the Pruitts would make the payments on a mortgage of about $67,000 from the sellers to the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Citrus County and, when such mortgage was paid in full, the sellers would convey title to the property by warranty deed. The contract reflected that the total purchase price of the property was $75,000, and that a down payment had been made in the sum of $7,000. Mrs. Pruitt owned furniture, fixtures and equipment which she transported from Tennessee to operate a restaurant on the premises. (Testimony of W. Pruit Kelly, Mitchell, Johnston, Respondent's Exhibits 1,2) It was the understanding of the parties to the auction agreement that only the personal property in and around the restaurant building would be sold to the highest bidder, and it was anticipated that the successful bidder would take up the mortgage payments on the real property. The equity which the Pruitts had acquired by prior mortgage payments was to be "given" to whoever purchased the "business" at the auction. Accordingly, on February 20, 1981, the day preceding the auction, Mrs. Pruitt issued a "notice" that she would sell her "entire Restaurant, business, furnishings, equipment, and Inventory at Public Auction". The notice further stated that she would give her equity in the real estate to the purchaser on which there was an existing mortgage of $67,821.36 "that you may assume". The noticewas placed on the door of the restaurant. In addition, Mitchell issued a brochure advertising the auction wherein it was stated that the "entire business, furnishings, equipment, and stock" would he sold at absolute auction and that the purchaser would have the "privilege of assuming the payments on the existing mortgage." Mitchell had Respondent's name placed at the bottom of the brochure without Respondent's knowledge because he thought it would be a good advertisement for him. (Testimony of Mitchell, W. Pruitt, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Mitchell asked Respondent to assist at the Pruitt auction and told him that since Mrs. Pruitt and her attorney were having a disagreement, it might be necessary for Respondent to write the contract resulting from the auction. No fee for Respondent's services was discussed prior to the auction. (Testimony of Mitchell, Respondent) On February 21, 1981, the auction was conducted at the restaurant in Brooksville, and Respondent was present to act as a "ring man". There were only about 3 individuals who entered bids at the auction. Prior to receiving bids, Mitchell announced that he was auctioning the contents of the business and that whoever bought the property would take over the payments on the mortgage. The successful bidder was Robert Shrader, who bid $9,600. He made a 20 percent down payment at the time in the amount of $1,920 which Mitchell retained as a commission on the sale. Mitchell had not described the real estate at the auction, but merely stated that he was auctioning the business and that Mrs. Pruitt would give the successful bidder her equity in the property. After accepting Schrader's bid, Mitchell gave the figures on the sale to Respondent who prepared a standard contract for sale and purchase of the real estate in the total amount of $77,421.36. The contract reflected a deposit of $1,920 to be held in escrow by Billy Mitchell and Associates, that the contract was subject to assumption of a mortgage of $67,821.36, and that there would be a balance of $7,680. Shrader and Mrs. Pruitt signed the agreement on February 21, 1981, which was witnessed by Mitchell and Respondent. Although no brokerage fee was listed, Respondent signed as broker on the contract. He testified at the hearing that he had done this out of habit. A real estate contract was prepared rather than merely a bill of sale of the personal property in order that the parties would have the figures they needed to close which they could take to the closing attorneys. After the auction, Mitchell gave Respondent $200 as a gift for his gasoline and other expenses on the Pruitt and prior auctions. Respondent testified, and Mitchell confirmed, that the latter insisted that he accept that amount as reimbursement for expenses. (Testimony of Mitchell, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On April 6, 1981, Joseph P. Johnston, an attorney in Brooksville, closed the transaction by means of a bill of sale for the furnishings and equipment in Pruitts restaurant, and assignment of the Pruitt interest in the mortgaged real property. The closing statement reflected that a "broker's commission" in the amount of $1,920 was held by the "broker" to apply on commission, In actuality, the sum retained by Mitchell as a commission was based solely upon a percentage of the personal property sold at auction. (Testimony of Johnston, Mitchell, Petitioner's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the Florida Real Estate Commission dismiss the charges against Respondent, James R. Siebert. DONE and ENTERED this 3d day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 3d day of June, 1982 COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harvey R. Klein, Esquire Klein & Klein 333 North West 3rd Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint filed March 1, 1982, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against Donna Migone and Pedro Realty, Inc., as licensed real estate salesperson/corporation, respectively, who have been issued License No. 0304648. 2/ On August 8, 1980, Mrs. Mary Perez, c/o Douglas Spring, Esquire, 15211 N.W. 60th Avenue, Miami Lakes, Florida 33014, entered into a listing agreement with Respondents Migone and Pedro Realty, Inc., for the sale of Mrs. Perez' property located at 414 West 67th Street, Hialeah, Florida. The asking purchase price of the subject property was $69,900. On August 18, 1980, Mrs. Perez was presented with a contract for the sale of her residential property by Donald E. Morton, a licensed real estate broker employed by International Realty Association and Investment Corp. and Respondent Donna Migone, the listing salesperson for Respondent, Pedro Realty, Inc. The contract/offer presented was for the sum of $66,000. Mrs. Perez reviewed the contract/offer presented by Respondent Migone and thereafter Respondent Migone filled out a form entitled "Approximate Seller Expenses" to explain to Mrs. Perez how the proceeds of the sale would be disbursed. During this explanation, Respondent Migone computed the commission due herself and Donald Morton both on the basis of a sales price of $56,000 and $66,000 pursuant to the contract/offer presented. In this regard, Mrs. Perez agreed to hold a $10,000 second mortgage to assist the purchasers in securing the financing to purchase the property. During that time, August 18, 1980, the purchasers gave Donald E. Morton a $4,000 purchase-money deposit for the subject property to be held in escrow until closing. On December 5, 1980, the closing occurred in a typical manner whereby the seller and the buyer separately delivered their respective documents and monies to the Amerifirst Federal Savings & Loan, 900 N.E. 125th Street, Suite 200, North Miami, Florida. There was no formal gathering of the parties and Respondent Migone and Donald E. Morton were notified on or about December 10, 1980, by Mrs. Perez' attorney, Douglas Spring, that the closing had occurred. Respondent Migone and Donald E. Morton computed the commission on the basis of six percent (6 percent) of the full purchase price of $66,000. This amounted to $3,960 as computed by Respondent Migone on one of the two net sheets presented to Mrs. Perez. On December 18, 1980, Respondent Migone and Donald E. Morton were paid $1,980 each from the escrow fund, and Donald E. Morton sent Mrs. Perez a check for $40.00 representing the balance due her from the escrow deposit fund. Petitioner contends that the commission should have been computed by Respondents Migone and Pedro Realty, Inc., on the basis of six percent (6 percent) of the amount of $56,000 or $3,360 as reflected on one of the net sheets presented to Mrs. Perez by Respondent Migone. On this point of dispute, evidence reveals that when the contract/offer was presented to Mrs. Perez, Mrs. Perez reviewed the offer and at that time was presented with two forms filled out by Respondent Migone entitled "Approximate Seller Expenses" to reflect how the proceeds of sale would be disbursed. During this discussion, Mrs. Perez agreed to the $66,000 offer and agreed to hold a $10,000 second mortgage to assist the purchasers in completing the real estate transaction. The testimony reflects that Mrs. Perez was interested in receiving a monthly income check and the income from the $10,000 mortgage was a means whereby this could be achieved. During the course of these discussions, one of the forms computed by Respondent Migone for the commissions reflected that commissions would be computed based on $56,000 whereas another form was computed reflecting the total purchase of $66,000. A careful reading of the testimony of Mrs. Perez reflects that she understood that she would be paying the commission based on the total purchase price of $66,000 and not based on the $56,00 as the Petitioner contends. Mrs. Perez indicated that she knew that she was selling the property for $66,000 and the six percent (6 percent) commission (on that basis) was no surprise to her. (TR 33, 40, 41, 57, 65, 72, and Respondent's Composite Exhibit B). Further, Respondent Migone credibly testified that there was a great deal of discussion of the $56,000 versus the $66,000 and the manner in which the $10,000 second mortgage would be written up; however, there was no evidence presented to reflect that no commission would be paid on the $10,000 second mortgage as contended by the Petitioner other than the "net sheet" computed by Migone reflecting the commission computed on six percent (6 percent) of $56,000. Further, Respondent Migone testified that Mrs. Perez never discussed paying a commission only on $56,000 versus the $66,000 as was computed and deducted by the Respondents. A review of the documentary evidence indicates that there are no variations of the six percent (6 percent) commission of the total sales price. (TR 66)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents, Pedro Realty, Inc., and Donna Migone, be DISMISSED in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1983, 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 24th day of January, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the registration of Thompson be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Calvin Dawson Thompson Route 1, Box 1075 Oviedo, Florida 32765 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to account and deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to maintain trust funds in a real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.005(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact 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, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Leslie L. White is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0095441 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a broker with an address of Les White Realty, 6313 Wynglow Lane, Orlando, Florida, 32818-1311. Respondent's license is currently under suspension for failing to pay a fine and failure to complete certain education courses. On or about September 28, 1993, Respondent negotiated a contract between himself, doing business as Les White Enterprises, as seller, and Charles and Greta White, as buyers, (no apparent relationship to Respondent) to purchase Lot Number 18, Whisper Ridge subdivision in Orange County, Florida and build a house thereon for the total sum of $79,000. Respondent prepared the contract, using the standard Contract for Sale and Purchase form approved by the Florida Association of Realtors and The Florida Bar. Les White Enterprises was listed as the "Seller" and Charles White and Greta White, his wife, were listed as "Buyers". The Buyers agreed to purchase Lot 18 and to have a house constructed on the site by the Seller. The Buyers agreed to seek "new financing at prevailing interest rates" in the amount of $75,550; put down a $2,000 deposit and pay an additional $1,450 at closing. The contract called for the deposit to be held in escrow by Les White Realty/Builders. The $2,000 deposit was paid in cash by the Buyers and given to Respondent. The Respondent did not place the $2,000 deposit in an escrow account contrary to the express terms of the contract. Respondent did not acknowledge receipt of the deposit in his capacity as a broker. At the time the contract was signed, the Buyers knew that the Respondent did not own or have title to Lot 18, and that the purchase price of the lot exceed the amount of the deposit. The Buyers consented to the Respondent using the funds to acquire the property. Respondent was unable to purchase Lot 18, and sought the Buyers' permission to purchase Lot 2 instead and construct a house on it in accordance with the parties' prior agreement. The Buyers reluctantly agreed. On February 18, 1994, Buyers gave Respondent a cashier's check for $1,200 for the purpose of clearing the land and beginning construction of a home for them on Lot 2. The funds were not placed in escrow. The Respondent utilized the funds received from the Buyers and acquired title to Lot 2 in his name alone on or about February 25, 1994. The Respondent cleared Lot 2 in preparation for construction, obtained building plans and applied for building permits in connection with building a house on said lot. Shortly thereafter, Respondent notified the Buyers that the private investors, who approved their loan application, had discontinued financing of the Respondent's construction loan and he was unable to construct the house. The transaction failed to close and the Buyers demanded that Respondent return the earnest money deposit. Respondent was unable to return to return the $3,200 earnest money deposit to the Buyers. Respondent filed for personal reorganization under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Throughout the course of this transaction, Buyers dealt with Respondent in his capacity as a broker/builder. In 1994 and 1995, the Florida Real Estate Commission found Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(d)1., Florida Statutes on three occasions. Following the third offense, Respondent's license was suspended for six months and it is presently under suspension for failure to pay his administrative fines and complete other requirements of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue and file a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d)1., and (k), Florida Statutes; and guilty of having been found guilty for a second time (or more) of misconduct that warrants suspension, in violation of subsection 475.25.(1)(o), Florida Statutes; it is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's licensed be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis and Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereafter Department), is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute complaints concerning violations of the real estate licensure laws of the State of Florida. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker in Florida holding license number 0052222. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Faye F. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0052101. The Respondent F. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Larry B. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0052189. The Respondent L. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Registered Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Cindy L. Morales is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0123347. The Respondent Morales' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., is now and was at all material times a corporation registered as a real estate broker in Florida holding license number 0243694. The Respondent corporation last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all material times, the Respondent M. Lewis was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for the corporate broker, Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc. The Respondents M. Lewis, F. Lewis, L. Lewis and Morales, from May 4, 1977 to September 9, 1979, as sellers individually and/or in concert as owners, officers and directors of various corporations, including South Florida Property, Inc., and West Dade Acres, Inc., solicited and obtained through telephone and mail, 58 purchasers who entered into agreements for deed for one and one-fourth acre lots located within a sixty-acre parcel of land in Section 21, Range 37, Township 54, Dade County, Florida. On September 24, 1979, the Respondent Melvin M. Lewis, acting on behalf of South Florida Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, entered into a deposit receipt contract, as purchasers with InterAmerican Services, Inc., by Lester Gottlieb, as sellers, for the purchase of 60 acres, more or less, more particularly described as: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 Section 21, Township 54, Range 37E, Dade County, Florida. The total purchase price of the parcel of land was $120,000.00. The purchase price was to be paid by a down payment of $1,520.00 and a first priority purchase money mortgage and note of $118,479.80. From May 4, 1977, to September 24, 1979, the Respondents had no ownership interest in the above described 60- acre parcel of land. The purchase and sale closed on April 22, 1982, as evidenced by a warranty deed wherein title to the 60-acre parcel more particularly described as: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 Section 21, Township 54, S., Range 37 E. lying and being in Dade County, Florida. was transferred to South Florida Properties, Inc., by Lester Gottlieb, President. The subject land lies in the East Everglades moratorium area and is subject to Dade County Ordinance 81-121 which is highly restrictive to owners of parcels or lots of land less than 40 acres. It is approximately ten miles west of Krome Avenue and is underwater on the average of nine months a year. As a result of its isolated location, it is accessible only by airboat. A building moratorium was enacted for the subject land in September, 1981, and is still in effect with no significant change planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. Upon discovering the increased restrictions on the 60-acre parcel, the Respondents demanded of InterAmerican Services, Inc., a refund of their purchase price. As a result, Respondents delivered a Quit Claim Deed dated October, 1982, from South Florida Properties, Inc., executed by Melvin Lewis, President. InterAmerican Services, Inc., delivered a satisfaction of mortgage to South Florida Properties, Inc. on December 7, 1982, which was executed by Lester Gottlieb, President. Although Respondents had on December 7, 1982, no ownership interest in the real property described in Paragraph 12 supra, they continued to collect payments from purchasers of the 1 1/4 acre lots. Respondents attempted to, and were successful in, having some of the purchasers of the 1 1/4 acre lots in the area described in Paragraph 12, supra, agree to exchange their "lots" for lots in a parcel of land more particularly described as portions of Sections 32, 33, 34, of range 37, township 55, Dade County, Florida, that was owned by Respondent Cindy Morales' company, West Dade Acres, Inc. These lots which were sold for approximately $7,500 each, were accessible only by airboat, were near the Everglades National Park and were incapable of being actually surveyed because of their isolated location. Several purchasers, in particular, Chester Herringshaw and Edward Gruber, refused to exchange their original "lots" and continued making payments to South Florida Properties, Inc. Respondent Cindy Morales deposited into the bank account of West Dade Acres, Inc., one or more of the payments made by Chester Herringshaw and/or Edward Gruber without authority or consent by them to do so. Respondents Cindy Morales and Melvin M. Lewis have failed to refund to Edward Gruber the money he paid for the purchase of real property and have failed to provide Edward Gruber clear title to the real property sold to him. To induce purchasers to enter into one or more of the 58 agreements for deed, the Respondents orally represented the 1 1/4 acre lots as valuable property, that the value would greatly increase in the near future, that the property was suited for residential and other purposes and that the purchase of the property was a good investment. The subdivisions established by the Respondents through corporations they controlled existed only on paper and were formed as part of a telephone sales operation to sell essentially worthless land to unsophisticated out-of- state buyers who believed they were purchasing potentially valuable land for investment and/or retirement purposes. The various corporations which were formed and dissolved by the Respondents, including South Florida Properties, Inc., and West Dade Acres, Inc., were attempts by the Respondents to shield themselves from liability for their fraudulent land sales activities. The Respondents collected the initial deposits and monthly payments in accordance with the agreements for deed, but the Respondents failed and refused to deliver warranty deeds as promised upon the full payment of the purchase price. The Respondents attempted to obtain the exchange of property agreements without fully and truthfully advising the agreement for deed purchasers of the quality of any of the property they were buying or exchanging. The Respondents allowed South Florida Properties, Inc., to become defunct without furnishing good and marketable warranty deeds as promised, and without returning the money received, or otherwise accounting for the money received to the various and numerous agreement for deed purchasers, notwithstanding the purchasers' demands made upon Respondents for accounting and delivery of the money paid. At the request of Respondent Larry Lewis, Randy Landes agreed to sign a document as President of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. From that point on, Randy Landes did nothing else with or for the company and had no idea of what business Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., transacted. On November 15, 1982, Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., issued a warranty deed to Vernon Mead granting a parcel of real property to the grantee. Persons unknown executed the warranty deed by forging Randy Landes' name which forgery was witnessed by Respondents Faye Lewis and Cindy Morales and acknowledged by Respondent Melvin Lewis as a notary public. On September 24, 1982, the Respondent Larry B. Lewis unlawfully and feloniously committed an aggravated battery upon Carlos O'Toole by touching or striking Carlos O'Toole against his will by shooting him with a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver, in violation of Subsection 784.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On December 8, 1982, Respondent Larry B. Lewis was convicted of a felony and adjudication was withheld. He was on probation for a period of ten years beginning December 8, 1982, by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, Florida. Respondent Larry B. Lewis failed to inform the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty days after pleading guilty or nolo contendere to, or being convicted or found guilty of, any felony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the real estate license of all Respondents be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 11th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX Case No. 86-3941 Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-29, 31 - accepted as modified. Paragraph 30 - rejected; it was not established what felony the Respondent Lewis was convicted of. Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraph 8 - Rejected. The evidence established that the corporations which the Respondents established and controlled sold the various properties. Paragraphs 9-13 - Accepted. Paragraph 14 - Accepted. Although sales were made prior to 1981, the land in question was essentially worthless when purchased. Paragraph 15 - Rejected. The moratoriums, vested rights provision offers virtually no protection to owners of the property. Paragraphs 16-17 - Rejected. The Respondents merely traded one set of undevelopable property for another. Paragraphs 18-19 - Rejected. Irrelevant. Paragraphs 20-21 - Rejected. Neither Mr. Herringshaw nor Mr. Gruber agreed to exchange their property. Paragraph 22 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 24 - Accepted. Paragraph 25 - Rejected. The corporations were formed by the Respondents to receive monies for these fraudulent land schemes. Paragraph 26 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 - Rejected. See No. 25. Paragraphs 28-30 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 31-38 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 39-42 - Accepted. Paragraphs 43-46 - Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Herman T. Isis, Esquire ISIS & AHRENS, P.A. Post Office Box 144567 Coral Gables, Florida 33114-4567 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
