Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulations of fact, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Jose A. (Tony) Torres was employed by the respondent Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance from approximately June of 1963 until February of 1986. For about 13 years, he held the position of Area Financial Manager in the Tampa office and was responsible for and in charge of regulating mortgage brokerage businesses and licensees in ten counties along the west coast of Florida. By letter dated February 11, 1986, petitioner was notified of the respondent's intent to dismiss him from employment on the grounds that, in spite of prior warnings, he had obtained loans from licensed individuals and institutions he was responsible for regulating. Petitioner was given the opportunity to respond to this notice, did so and the respondent thereafter affirmed its intent to dismiss him. Petitioner did not contest or appeal his dismissal. On March 6, 1986, petitioner submitted to the respondent his application for registration as a mortgage broker. By Order dated and filed on May 23, 1986, respondent denied his application, concluding that petitioner does not have the requisite experience, background, honesty, truthfulness or integrity to act as a mortgage broker in Florida. The factual bases cited for this conclusion are that petitioner was arrested in September of 1979 for gambling; that he declared bankruptcy in 1980; and that he obtained loans in 1981, 1983, and 1984 from individuals and/or financial institutions which were licensed by the Division of Finance, and also that said loans have never been repaid. The Centro Asturiano Club is a private social club where gambling (poker) regularly occurs. On Friday, August 31, 1979, at approximately 3:00 p.m., petitioner and others were arrested for gambling at the Centro Asturiano. At the time of the arrest, the police seized certain items including a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber firearm and $670. A motion to suppress evidence and a motion to dismiss were ultimately granted and the petitioner was not convicted. The gambling arrest occurred on a regular business day in the Office of the Comptroller. Petitioner states that he was on annual leave at the time. An employee in his office observed petitioner's secretary make changes in the petitioner's leave slip forms on the afternoon of August 31, 1979. It was not established that such alterations were not proper. On May 30, 1980, petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Title 11, United States Code. An order for relief was entered under Chapter 7, with a Discharge of Debtor ordered on October 8, 1980, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (Bankruptcy No. 80-00750). At least six entities listed as creditors in petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding were licensees of the Department of Banking and Finance. At the time, petitioner was charged with examining and regulating those six entities in his capacity as the Area Financial Manager for the Division of Finance. In 1979 and/or 1980, petitioner's superiors in the Department admonished him to refrain from obtaining loans from the industry he regulated, and that such activity constituted a violation of Departmental policy and the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. On March 1, 1983, petitioner obtained a signature loan of approximately $2,200 from the A. L. Machado, M.D. Pension Trust. Colonial Mortgage, Inc., which was then licensed with the Division of Finance as a mortgage broker, serviced the loan. Darrell T. DiBona, the director of Colonial, became licensed as an additional broker on June 19, 1983. The payment record on this loan, discovered during an examination by the Division of Finance in May of 1985, reflected that four interest payments had been made, but that the principal balance was still outstanding. Darrell T. DiBona made a check payable for one of the petitioner's interest payments owed to the Machado pension fund. The petitioner's version of the facts surrounding the Machado loan is not credible. He states that he had known Darrell T. DiBona for many years. DiBona handled petitioner's insurance needs, and petitioner, wishing to increase his coverage, had had a medical examination which indicated either an irregular heartbeat or fatty tissues in his blood. According to petitioner, he was having lunch with DiBona one day, and DiBona needed to stop by Dr. Machado's office on business. DiBona apparently handled pension funds for various physicians. While at Dr. Machado's office, the subject of petitioner's medical condition arose. Petitioner states that Dr. Machado offered to check his irregular heartbeat and gave him an EKG. During that examination petitioner asserts that he told Dr. Machado that he was having financial difficulties, and Dr. Machado offered to loan him $2,200. Petitioner insists that he made three or four payments on a note, and then paid it off in full in May or July of 1984. This latter payment, according to petitioner, was made in cash and handed to DiBona. Petitioner never received a receipt for the "$2,200 in cash plus the interest." Petitioner states that he subsequently asked for a receipt or the note on several occasions, but was told that it could not be found. The note and payment record were found by the respondent during an examination of Colonial Mortgage in May of 1985. As noted above, the payment record revealed that only three or four interest payments had been made. Dr. Machado has no recollection of examining petitioner in his office or otherwise discussing a loan with him. Had petitioner been examined by Dr. Machado, a ledger card or chart would have been prepared. No ledger card or chart for the petitioner could be discovered in Dr. Machado's office. Dr. Machado did not become aware that money from his pension fund was lent to petitioner until after DiBona's death. His office manager was then asked to write a letter stating that the petitioner's loan had been paid in full. Such a letter was written and petitioner picked up the letter from Dr. Machado's office. Although he had no knowledge concerning the loan, Dr. Machado agreed to sign the letter because he thought that petitioner could be one of DiBona's innocent victims. He, as well as other physicians, lost pension fund monies from accounts handled by Darrell DiBona. Beneficial Mortgage Company was licensed with the Division of Finance in November of 1984 as a mortgage broker. During that time, petitioner contacted the regional supervisor of Beneficial, who does not himself regularly take loan applications, regarding a home mortgage loan for his mother. On November 20, 1984, a $30,590 mortgage loan from Beneficial Mortgage was obtained, and petitioner co-signed the loan documents. The loan proceeds were utilized to pay off two prior mortgages, one of which was Colonial Mortgage. Petitioner's mother is elderly, speaks little English and petitioner often handled her financial affairs. According to the regional supervisor, petitioner was asked to co-sign the note in order to avoid any questions which might arise in the future regarding Mrs. Torres' competency to enter into such a transaction. As a co-signer, however, petitioner was guaranteeing the account. While the mortgage loan was for an amount less than the house was appraised and contained no preferential terms or rates, Beneficial required no standard credit report, income analysis or other financial documentation concerning the petitioner. Mrs. Torres' income and debt ratio were barely sufficient to make the monthly payments on the loan. Petitioner has two brothers and a sister who also live in Tampa. On December 6, 1984, petitioner obtained a $2,000 signature loan from N. D. Properties, Inc. N. D. Properties was solely owned at that time by Ben Langworthy, Jr., who also owned Diversified Mortgage Associates, Inc. At that time, both Diversified and Langworthy were licensed with the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance. The petitioner made at least two loan payments directly to Ben Langworthy, who he knew was licensed by the Department. The $2,000 check given to petitioner was signed by Ben Langworthy. According to petitioner, Mr. Langworthy told him that N. D. Properties, Inc. was owned by two private investors. Petitioner's loan payment record with N. D. Properties shows that the loan has not been timely repaid.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Jose A. (Tony) Torres for registration as a mortgage broker in Florida be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 3rd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2473 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner p.1, last paragraph: Rejected; legal conclusion as opposed to factual finding p.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial p.2, 3rd paragraph: Rejected; immaterial p.2, 5th paragraph: Rejected; argumentative p.3, 1st two paragraphs: Rejected; argumentative p.3, paragraphs 7, 8 & 9: Accepted, but not included as irrelevant to ultimate disposition p.4, last four paragraphs: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence p.5, paragraphs 3 - 5: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence p.7, paragraphs 1 and 3: Rejected; not proper factual findings p.8, paragraphs 1 through 7: Rejected; argumentative and improper factual findings Respondent #6: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence #20 & 21: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence COPIES FURNISHED: Dick Greco, Esquire Molloy, James & Greco, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 910 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sharon L. Barnett Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 713 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Charles Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol - Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard L. Hoffman (Hoffman), applied to Respondent, Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Department), for registration as an associated person with First Southern Investment Corporation. By letter dated November 25, 1986, the Department advised Hoffman that his application had been denied, and Hoffman filed a timely request for formal hearing. By "memorandum of understanding" dated June 10, 1986, Hoffman was employed by First Florida Securities Group, Inc. (First Florida) as the manager and compliance officer of its Fort Lauderdale branch office. Pertinent to this case, the memorandum of understandings provided: It is today agreed that Richard Hoffman, as manager of a branch office of First Florida Securities Group, Inc., and representing a certain "Group" in that office agrees to work for and manage the office for First Florida Securities Group, Inc., under the following conditions: 1/ * * * E. The "Group" will be allowed an inventory bank of $50,000.00 of cost -- no one item to exceed This will be reviewed periodically. It maybe exceeded only with written approval of two officers of First, Florida Securities Group Inc. 2/ The branch office opened on June 15, 1986, and by June 27, 1986, Serious problems in the operation of the branch office began to surface. These problems were addressed in a meeting on Monday, June 30, 1986, between Nick Christos, chief executive officer of First Florida; Jim Palmer, compliance officer for First Florida; and, Hoffman. The results of that meeting were memorialized in a memorandum to Hoffman of July 7, 1986, which provided, inter alia: This is to summarize the results of my meeting with you on Monday, June 30, 1986. In attendance, also, was Jim Palmer, Compliance Officer. The following is intended as a summary of conclusions, without benefit of detailed conversations that led to our mutual understanding Letter to be sent to Jim Palmer from you, with respect to "as of" trades and other trades Purchased by customers at prices under the market on Jocom. (Not yet received as of this date). * * * Understanding by you that your office would henceforth adhere strictly to the $25,000 limit with respect to maximum inventory levels per corpora- tion -- with a $50,000.00 maxi- mum for your office at the end of each trading day. (Note that this limit was violated on Friday, June 27 when 41,200 International Communications was in inventory, with a value of $51,500). * * * We reviewed the fact that our Bear Stearns Margin Clerk was concerned about the Sy Schwartz account (purchases of 30,000 and 110,000 shares of Jocom) of which 110,000 shares or $96,250 still remains unpaid as of this date. Review of concern about the number and total dollars involved in over-due payments of Ft. Lauderdale customers (not materially reduced as of this date). The proof established that Hoffman failed to comply with his agreement to explain the "as of" trades and other trades purchased by customers at prices under the market in Jocom, adhere to the maximum inventory levels, and address over- due payments. Since there was no improvement in the operation of the branch office, Mr. Christos advised Hoffman on Monday, July 14, 1986, that: Your Ft. Lauderdale group, as of pre-opening this morning, will have no authority to represent the firm in trading NASDAQ stocks. * * * 3. You will have one week, effec- tive with the termination of business on Friday, July 18, 1986, for your branch to find another "home" ... (associate themselves with another deal- er). The principal of First Florida, Mr. Winkler, declined to support Mr. Christos because of his belief that the branch office had generated substantial revenues and that it would work out its problems. Accordingly, since Hoffman and the "Group" were not to be terminated, Mr. Christos and Mr. Palmer resigned as chief executive officer and compliance officer, respectively, for First Florida. On July 15, 1986, Hoffman, who held a principal's license, was elected president of First Florida, although he continued to operate as branch manager. The confidence Mr. Winkler placed in the branch office and Hoffman was short lived. Between July 19, 1986, and July 31, 1986, First Florida received complaints from over thirty customers of the branch office regarding unauthorized transactions, the failure to report or process trades, and the failure to provide confirmations or proceeds of sale. As a consequence of these complaints, Hoffman was terminated on July 31, 1986. First Florida's loss from the operation of the branch totaled approximately $657,000. Of this sum, $357,000 was expended to cover the debit balance with its correspondent Bear Stearns for unpaid securities accounts, and $300,000 for settlements with customers who alleged that purchases in their accounts were unauthorized. While First Florida's association with the "Group" may have been unprofitable, Hoffman benefited quite well. During the period of June 15-July 15, 1986, Hoffman earned over $60,000 in commissions through First Florida. While Hoffman concedes that trades he received from customers were not processed, he asserts that the blame for such failure rests on Mr. Brazel, the "trader" for the branch office. According to Hoffman, Mr. Brazel frequently traded at home, rather than at the office, and during the week of July 21- 25, 1986, traded exclusively at home. Because of Brazel's absence, Hoffman asserted that trades were not executed or they were "lost" because of some motivation of Brazel not to process them. Hoffman concludes: "I didn't have any idea what was going on" and there was "no way (I) could control the trades." Hoffman's attempt to "pass-the-buck" to Brazel is unpersuasive. While Brazel may be culpable, Hoffman also knew by mid-July 1986, if not by early July, that serious trading problems existed at the branch office, and that Brazel, if Hoffman is to be believed, was no small part of those problems. Yet Hoffman, who had been in the business for over 30 years, was the manager of the small branch office for First Florida, was president of the firm, was the firm's trader in Brazel's absence, and was a salesman for his own accounts, denies any responsibility for his failure to assure that trades were executed on behalf of his clients or the firm. Hoffman's testimony is inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Hoffman's failure to diligently exercise his responsibilities as branch manager, president, trader, and salesman resulted in losses to his clients, as well as to other clients of the firm, since he failed to assure that their requests to sell securities were properly processed. 3/ In addition to Hoffman's failure to properly manage the branch office and his clients accounts, several other irregularities surfaced during his tenure with First Florida. Inexplicably, while employed by First Florida, Hoffman provided a customer, Sy Schwartz, with a written guarantee against loss. That guarantee provided: Sy Schwartz: This is to inform you, I agree that if Jocom is not up by July 7, 1986 you do not have to pay for it and I will take the trade back into my trading account. /s/ Richard L. Hoffman Also unexplained by Hoffman, was his personal payment of over $119,000 to his customer, Bruce Ross, between June 19, 1986, and July 15, 1986. These monies were variously described by Ross as involving the repayment of loans or his dealings in stocks. The substance of these transactions was not, however, further explained by either Mr. Ross or Hoffman. Following his termination with First Florida, Hoffman associated himself with First Southern Investment Corporation (First Southern). During his tenure at First Southern, although not registered, Hoffman held himself out as a senior account executive, and attempted to sell securities to customers he had previously serviced at First Florida. Both Hoffman and the Department offered the testimony of various witnesses concerning their opinion of Hoffman's reputation in the business community. Not surprisingly, those who had a good experience with Hoffman found him reputable, and those who felt they had suffered adversely under his representation found him to be of bad repute. The proof of Hoffman's reputation, offered through these witnesses, was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of petitioner, Richard L. Hoffman, for registration as an associated person with First Southern Investment Corporation be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was at all times material herein registered with the Commission as a real estate broker. (See Commission's Exhibit #1). On September 13, 1974, the Respondent, as President of Eldorado Realty, Inc., drew a check in the amount of $25,000 payable to James F. Spindler, Jr., Trust Account and when said check was presented to the Deerfield Beach State Bank for payment, the Respondent corporation's escrow account had a balance of $14,000 as evidenced by its September 30, 1974 statement (see Commission's Exhibit #3). The bank honored this check creating an overdraft in the amount of $11,000. However, evidence reveals that within a few days, Respondent made a deposit sufficient to cover the overdrawn balance. During December, 1973 and January, 1974, the Respondent acted as a real estate broker in negotiating a real property transaction between the Hennemans as sellers and Francis A. and Adeline M. Sines as buyers of a duplex located at 1942 N.E. 4th Street, Deerfield Beach, Florida. The Sines made an offer to purchase the duplex for a total purchase price of $55,000 in the form of a contract to purchase which was executed by the Sines on or about January 3, 1974. (See Commission's Exhibit #5 received in evidence). Based on the undisputed testimony of Adeline M. Sines, Respondent advised the Sines that he would reimburse them for one-half of all closing costs incurred by them in the duplex transaction approximately two days after the closing. The Sines agreed to this proposition based on the fact that they were nonresidents and wanted someone on the scene to manage the duplex. Initially the Sines wanted the Respondent to enter into a joint tenancy with them but Respondent refused stating that it would be "unethical" for him to do so in view of his relationship as selling broker. On May 13, 1974, the property transaction was closed between the buyers and sellers. Shortly thereafter the parties entered into an oral management contract for the duplex between the Respondent individually and as President and the buyer thereafter used the term "S & T Associates" which represented the initials of the last name of the buyers and the Respondent i.e., Sines and Tashea. Evidence introduced during the hearing revealed that the Respondent failed to register the fictitious name "S & T Associates" as required by Subsection 865.09(3), Florida Statutes. (See Commission's Exhibit #13, received in evidence). Approximately two months later on July 17, 1974, the Respondent secured a lease for one-half of the duplex from Francis P. Giblin for a total annual rental of $3,300. The first and last months rent was payable in advance and a $100 security deposit was paid by the lessee. During the following month, Respondent was able to lease the remaining portion of the duplex to Don and T. Starr Guimares, his wife, for the same terms as set out in the Giblin lease. (See Commission's Exhibit #15). Mrs. Guimares testified that she vacated the property approximately six months later i.e., in late February, 1975, due to her dissatisfaction with the way that the Respondent managed the building. On March 5, 1975, the Sines received a letter from the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Delray Beach advising them that their mortgage loan was delinquent in the amount of $705.59. That letter advised them that they should immediately bring their account current inasmuch as they were being charged at the maximum legal rate permitted while the loan remained delinquent. Two months prior, the Sines received a letter that their flood insurance premium was delinquent and that their escrow account was being charged $88 which represented the premium for the flood insurance which amounts were paid by the Sines by money orders dated March 3 and March 13, 1975. Mrs. Sines repeatedly demanded accountings from the Respondent for monies expended in the management of the property to no avail. Thereafter she retained the services of Attorney James H. Carroll, who by letter dated March 6, 1975, addressed to the Respondent corporation, demanded a full accounting of all matters relating to the duplex and full documentation of the agreement to repurchase. It suffices to say that the Respondent did not comply with Carroll's request or demands for an accounting. However, it is noted that the Respondent, on January 1, 1975, executed a promissory note payable to the Sines for $21,000 within 90 days of January 1, 1975. That note was never honored. Thereafter the Sines sold the property during November, 1975, for a total purchase price of $51,250. Based thereon, it appears that the Sines incurred a net loss of approximately $3,750.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Diane M. Klein, nee Diane Marie Ballantyne, has been licensed by petitioner as a real estate broker at all pertinent times, holding license No. 0314120. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. On September 22, 1983, Winfield F. Imel signed a contract for sale and purchase of Arrowhead County Club, which is in Broward County, Florida, on conditions including the following: New financing mortgage: this agreement is contingent upon the buyers being able to obtain a new first mortgage. Buyers agree to immediately apply for said mortgage and to pay mortgage loan costs in obtaining same. Broker to receive written mortgage commitment on or before 20 days after acceptance of contract or contract is null and void. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. In this transaction, Ms. Klein represented the owner of the property as a real estate broker. The total purchase price was $1,950,000.00. The seller accepted the offer and executed the contract on September 23, 1982. On September 27, 1982, Mr. Imel signed a check in favor of respondent Klein indicating "ESCROW" and "re golf-COURSE." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. He delivered the check to Ms. Klein as earnest money under the contract he had signed on September 22, 1982. Ms. Klein deposited the check to her escrow account, No. 0002502307 at Florida National Bank, on September 28, 1982. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Mr. Imel tried to obtain money, to be secured by a new first mortgage, from more than one lender. He approached "a group in Atlanta, IVA," (T.8), Mr. Frank Porter in Phoenix, and Vicars and Associates in Maryland, as well as local banks, including First Fidelity Mortgage Corporation in Palm Beach. Dexter B. Wakefield of First Fidelity Mortgage Corporation advised Mr. Imel in November of 1982 that First Fidelity's efforts to "broker a loan on his behalf for Arrowhead Country Club" (T. 9) had not succeeded. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Imel sought money from First Fidelity not only in order to purchase the property, but also for "refurbishing." Petitioned's Exhibit No. 4. Be never succeeded in obtaining financing for the acquisition and wrote respondent to that effect, requesting "a full and immediate refund of my deposit in the amount of $5,000.00," on December 7, 1982. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Respondent expressly declined to refund the deposit and has never paid Mr. Imel any of the money. On October 19, 1982, respondent had written a check for $5,000.00 against her escrow account and in favor of "D.K. Operating Acc't." The check was paid October 20, 1982. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. The record does not reveal whether the seller ever asked for or received any money in connection with this transaction. The seller had "agree[d] to pay [respondent] as a fee, the sum of Ninety-Seven thousand and five hundred dollars ($97,500.00) or one-half of the deposits in case same is forfeited by the Buyer Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for ninety (90) days. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Diane M. Klein Post Office Box 7193 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eduardo A. Cardounel (Cardounel), was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. 0013037. Cardounel was the owner and sole qualifying broker for Respondent, Alexena Realty, Inc., a Florida corporation, registered as a real estate broker, license No. 0000851. In 1981 the Hamptons Development Corporation of Dade had under construction a condominium development in North Miami Beach, Florida, to be known as the Hamptons. In August 1981 Cardounel introduced Harold and Amparo Carvajal and Ulpiano and Maria Barona to the Hamptons project, and represented that he was the broker for the development and that these condominiums could be a good investment for them. Respondents concede they acted as agents for the Carvajals and Baronas at all times material to these proceedings. The Carvajals and Baronas each decided to purchase two units at the Hamptons. To guarantee the reservation of the units they had selected, they were required to place a small deposit and by December 31, 1981, have on deposit with the Hamptons a total of 10 percent of the purchase price of each unit. Dr. Carvajal left $4,000 with Cardounel, and Mr. Barona left $7,500, for the reservations deposits. The Carvajals and Baronas are residents of Columbia, South America. American dollars are not readily available, and the transfer of funds out of that country is not an easy task. Accordingly, the Carvajals and Baronas had to make arrangements to ensure that any funds which might be required to effect their purchases were available in the United States as those sums became due. The manner in which monies were delivered to Cardounel was, therefore, quite natural and necessary under the circumstances. On December 31, 1981, in Columbia, South America, Cardounel personally delivered four purchase and sale agreements for the Hamptons units to the Carvajals and Baronas for execution. The Carvajals executed agreements to purchase Units 905 and 1503, for $197,000 and $216,000, respectively. The Baronas executed agreements to purchase Units 605 and 1405 for $194,000 and $201,000, respectively. These agreements provided that the purchase price be paid as follows: Ten percent upon execution of the agreement, An additional 5 percent when the slab was poured on the floor on which the unit lies, An additional 5 percent when the slab was poured on the main roof, and The balance at time of closing. Prior to execution of the agreements, the Carvajals and Baronas had made arrangements to have those monies available in the United States. On November 9, 1981, Dr. Carvajal delivered an additional $37,300 to Cardounel for his initial 10 percent deposit. These monies, together with the $4,000 already on deposit, totaled the 10 percent deposit due for Units 905 and 1503. In September 1981 Mr. Barona delivered an additional $30,000 to Cardounel toward the initial 10 percent deposit that would be due on his units. Mr. Barona instructed Cardounel to place these funds in a "terminal deposit," a certificate of deposit, earning interest until the monies were due. 1/ On December 31, 1981, upon execution of the agreements, Mr. Barona delivered an additional $2,000 to Cardounel, which sum, together with the prior sums, totaled the 10 percent deposits due on his units. The record is unclear as to when the 10 percent deposit monies the Carvajals and Baronas had entrusted to Cardounel were paid to the Hamptons. They were paid, however. Initially the parties anticipated that the first additional 5 percent deposit would be due the latter part of 1982, and the second additional deposit in June 1983. Accordingly, in April 1982, Dr. Carvajal delivered $50,000 to Cardounel with instructions that the monies be invested in an interest-bearing account pending payment of the additional 5 percent deposits, and with the correspondent understanding that these monies would be available to pay the deposits as they came due. Mr. Barona transferred $30,000 to Cardounel, $10,000 in September 1982 and $20,000 in October 1982, to be applied toward the 5 percent additional deposits as they became due. Mr. Barona, consistent with his prior instructions, directed that these monies be held in a certificate of deposit, earning interest until the additional 5 percent deposits became due. By letters dated February 24, 1983, and March 2, 1983, to Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona, respectively, Cardounel advised them that the 5 percent deposits had not been paid in December 1982 because the Hamptons was late in construction and it had refused to pay interest on any deposits. In his letter to Mr. Barona, Cardounel advised him that the 5 percent deposit on Unit 605 would be due the end of March and on Unit 1405 the middle of April. In his letter to Dr. Carvajal, Cardounel advised him that the 5 percent deposit on Unit 905 would be due approximately April 1, and on Unit 1503 approximately the middle of April. Subsequent to Cardounel's letters, the Hamptons inquired directly of Mr. Barona concerning his failure to make the additional deposits. By letter of March 20, 1983, Mr. Barona replied that the monies for these deposits had been delivered to Cardounel and authorized the Hamptons to secure the monies from Cardounel. Mr. Barona also instructed Cardounel to immediately deliver the deposits to the Hamptons. At the end of March 1983, Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona, having been informed by friends that there might be a "problem" with the purchase of the Hamptons units, traveled to South Florida to confer with Cardounel regarding the status of their agreements and their deposit monies. Their initial meeting occurred on Sunday, at which time Cardounel informed them that he could not get them the monies because the bank was closed. They arranged to meet at his office the next day. On the following day, Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona met with Cardounel, but no monies were tendered. Instead, Cardounel exhibited to Dr. Carvajal two original promissory notes purportedly executed by a corporation known as Marfred International Investment, Inc. The first promissory note, dated April 17, 1982, in the amount of $50,000, was for a term of six months, and was represented by Cardounel to be an investment of the $50,000 Dr. Carvajal had entrusted to him. This note was purportedly secured by real property of a value of $120,000. The second promissory note exhibited to Dr. Carvajal, and payable to his order, was an unsecured note dated January 18, 1983, for a term of six months, in the sum of $36,000. This note, purportedly a reinvestment of the proceeds of the first note, did correctly reflect the balance that was due Carvajal, since $14,000 had, with his consent, been previously used for other purposes. This was, however, the first Dr. Carvajal had seen or heard of the January 1983 note. At the sane meeting, Cardounel exhibited four original unsecured promissory notes to Mr. Barona. These notes were not models of draftsmanship. They variously described the payor as Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc., and Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc., and one even named Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc., as payer but was executed by Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc. The notes exhibited to Mr. Barona were as follows: A note dated January 27, 1983, for a term of six months, in the sum of $20,500, A note dated February 2, 1983, for a term of six months, in the sum of $10,250, A note dated October 1, 1983, for a term of 90 days, in the sum of $10,000, and A note dated October 16, 1983, for a term of 9 days, in the sum of $20,000 2/ Prior to this meeting, Mr. Barona had no knowledge of the promissory notes, nor that his monies had not been invested as he had instructed. Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona voiced objection to the fact that Cardounel had "invested" their money in the fashion he had, since the monies would not be available as they became due under their agreements with the Hamptons. Further, Cardounel had violated Mr. Barona's instructions to place the sums in a certificate of deposit. In "satisfaction" of the notes, Cardounel issued four postdated checks, payable to Young, Stern and Tannenbaum-- escrow agents for the Hamptons- -and drawn on the personal account of "Eduardo Cardounel or Ena Cardounel." Check No. 4082, in the sum of $20,650, and check No. 4083, in the sum of $19,750, each dated April 7, 1983, represented the amount of monies needed to make the first 5 percent deposits on the Carvajal and Barona units. Check No. 4087, dated July 18, 1983, in the sum of $18,050, and check No. 4088, dated August 2, 1983, in the sum of $12,845, were to be applied to the respective accounts of Carvajal and Barona towards their second 5 percent deposits. Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona tendered their respective checks to Young, Stern and Tannenbaum. Each of the checks was deposited on the due dates and each was dishonored and returned for insufficient funds. To date, despite demand, Cardounel has failed to deliver the monies due Dr. Carvajal or Mr. Barona. The events which transpired after Cardounel's receipt of the Carvajals' and Baronas' additional monies are suspect. Cardounel concedes that commencing in 1982 through 1984 his real e state business had not produced any income for him. He had been compelled to sublease space in his offices just to keep his office open, and even then was losing money. Notwithstanding this downturn in the real estate market, Cardounel "invested" the monies entrusted to him with two small development companies with whom he was intimately connected. The monies which Dr. Carvajal entrusted to Cardounel, in April 1982, were purportedly lent to Marfred International Investment, Inc. (Marfred), as evidenced by a secured promissory note dated April 17, 1982, and a renewal unsecured promissory note dated January 18, 1983. Marfred is a Panamanian corporation authorized to do business in Florida. According to Cardounel, Marfred was a real estate developer to whom he had sold property. Cardounel admitted he was the registered agent for Marfred, but denied he was ever an officer of that company. Further, Cardounel could not recall the names of the corporate officers. The records in the office of the Secretary of State, State of Florida, confirm that Cardounel was the registered agent for Marfred, that he filed every Annual Report for Marfred, and that he was a vice president of Marfred in 1983 and 1984. While the first promissory note executed by Marfred, April 17, 1982, purported to be secured by real property of a value of $120,000, the property was described only by lot and block number with no city, county, or state designated. No mortgage on the real property was executed or recorded in connection with this promissory note. Cardounel concedes that absent a mortgage, the promissory note was unsecured, and further testified that he had no idea as to the real value or actual location of the property in question. Cardounel had no explanation as to why the second promissory note, January 18, 1983, was unsecured. The $30,000 which Mr. Barona entrusted to Cardounel, between September and October 1982, was purportedly evidenced by unsecured promissory notes executed by Florida Investros Const. Co., Inc., Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc., or named as payer, Florida Investros Const. Co., Inc., but executed by Florida Investors Constr. Co., Inc. These notes were unconditionally guaranteed by Cardounel. Cardounel was the registered agent for Florida Investros Const. Co., Inc. Coincidentally, Cardounel testified that contemporaneously with his meeting with Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona in March 1983, he learned that both Marfred and Florida Investros Const. Co., Inc., were in trouble and there was serious doubt that they could repay the monies. Notwithstanding this "fact," Cardounel tendered to Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona his four postdated checks in "satisfaction" of the promissory notes. It is worthy of note that the six promissory notes Cardounel exhibited to Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona were all originals, which Cardounel had retained in his possession. Additionally, Cardounel, upon tender of his checks in "satisfaction" of the promissory notes, at no time requested or obtained an assignment of those notes but, rather, had them marked "paid."
