The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent, by and through his employees: (a) sold unregistered securities in the secondary market which were marked up in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market price and which were not exempt from registration; (b) permitted an agent to service accounts prior to the agent's effective date of registration in the State and concealed such action; and (c) failed to maintain minimum net capital requirements for his corporation; and (d) failed to properly supervise the activities of his employees and agents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owned the stock of a holding company and was an officer in a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company. Respondent and another individual owned the stock of Dean, Johnson and Burke Holding Company ("Holding"). Holding owned the stock of Dean, Johnson and Burke Securities, Inc. ("Securities"). Respondent was the Secretary of Securities. Respondent had ultimate responsibility for disbursements and profits for Holding and Securities. Respondent monitored the checkbooks and daily expenses for Securities. Respondent's accountant provided financial information to Respondent concerning the daily operations of both companies. The information was provided on forms supplied by Respondent. Respondent kept a daily record of how much each company made or lost, how much was owed, and other accounting information. Respondent made sure that the bills were paid and that the credit of each company remained good. Respondent also controlled the hiring of key personnel. Brent A. Peterson was a manager and principal for Securities. 2/ Mr. Peterson set prices for the firm. Mr. Peterson engaged in transactions in which prices were set for securities to be sold to customers in excess of 10 percent above and below the prevailing market price. Out of 457 trades, approximately 38 were sold at prices that exceeded a 10 percent markup (the "marked up securities"). The marked up securities were sold at prices in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market rate. The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., ("NASD") determined that the securities were marked up in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market price based upon Securities' contemporaneous costs. When a dealer is simultaneously making a market in a security (a "market maker"), the NASD looks to the prevailing market price for the purpose of determining if a markup exceeds 10 percent. The prevailing market price is the price at which dealers trade with one another, i.e., the "current inter-dealer market." 3/ When a dealer is not simultaneously making a market in a security (a "non-market maker"), the contemporaneous costs of the dealer are used for the purpose of determining if the securities have been marked up in excess of 10 percent. The contemporaneous costs reflect the prices paid for a security by a dealer in actual transactions closely related in time to the dealer's retail sales of that security. Such a standard is normally a reliable indication of prevailing market price in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Securities was not a market maker in the marked up securities. Even though securities may be sold at the same market price by one firm that is a market maker and one that is not a market maker, the latter may be deemed by the NASD to have marked up the security by more than 10 percent depending on the firm's contemporaneous costs. Many of the marked up securities were sold to customers at the same market price as that the customers would have paid other brokerage houses. 4/ Since Securities was not a market maker in the marked up securities, the standard used by the NASD to determine the amount of markup was the contemporaneous costs paid by Securities. The securities involved in the 38 trades were marked up more than 10 percent over Securities' contemporaneous costs. Respondent sold unregistered securities that were not exempt from registration. Unregistered securities may be sold if they are reasonably related to the current market price. The marked up securities were not reasonably related to the prevailing market price because they were marked up more than 10 percent over Securities' contemporaneous costs. Robert M. Long sold securities to customers as an employee of Securities prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner. Mr. Long was registered with Petitioner as a registered representative on May 18, 1988. Mr. Long was employed by Securities, from April 19, 1988, through September 20, 1989. Mr. Peterson advised Mr. Long that Mr. Long was authorized to trade securities. Pursuant to Mr. Paterson's advice, Mr. Long sold securities in Tel-optics prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner on May 18, 1988. Respondent concealed the sale of securities by Mr. Long prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner. Mr. Long's registered representative number was 34. Relevant order tickets showed Mr. Long as the person engaged in the sale of securities prior to May 18, 1988. Registered representative number 30 had been used on the order tickets at the time of the trades. After Mr. Long was registered with Petitioner, Mr. Long's number 34 was added to the order tickets and number 30 was crossed out. Securities operated with a net capital deficiency of approximately $30,000. The net capital deficiency resulted from the failure to accrue liabilities. The net capital deficiency was discovered by Mr. Long and Jeff Clark, an examiner for the NASD. The invoices for bills for the unaccrued liabilities were not filed where bills and invoices were normally filed and were found by Mr. Long concealed in drawers and other remote locations in the office. The net capital deficiency was discovered by Mr. Long on August 28, 1989, but not reported to Petitioner until September 19, 1989. Mr. Long did not notify Petitioner of the net capital deficiency at Securities until the deficiency could be verified by Mr. Clark.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, requiring Respondent to cease and desist from all violations of Florida statutes and rules, and imposing a fine in the aggregate amount of $9,000. The fine should be imposed in the amount of $2,000 for selling securities in excess of a 10 percent markup and $3,500 for each of the other two acts that constituted violations of applicable statutes and rules. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of July, 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2- 14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate sales associate having been issued license number 3101946. During the time relevant to this case, Respondent was a sales associate affiliated with Bahia Real Estate ("Bahia"), a brokerage company owned by Raul and Ricardo Aleman, with offices located in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, Florida. Respondent was employed in Bahia's Miami location. In 2010, Respondent acted as a sales associate on behalf of Michael Perricone for a real estate transaction involving the purchase of a condominium in the Blue Lagoon Towers ("Blue Lagoon") in Miami which was purchased as an investment. Mr. Perricone's sister, Francesca Palmeri, and her husband, Santo Palmeri, were present at the closing where they met Respondent for the first and only time. During the closing, which lasted approximately one hour, the Palmeris indicated to Respondent that they would be interested in making a similar purchase of investment property if another comparable condominium unit became available at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no further interaction with Respondent until he contacted them at their home in Pueblo, Colorado, in 2011 to advise them of the availability of a condominium for sale at Blue Lagoon. On or about October 6, 2011, Respondent faxed a partially completed Bahia form "'AS IS' Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase" to Mrs. Palmeri for the Palmeris to use in making an offer on a condominium unit located at 5077 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to forwarding the document to Mrs. Palmeri, Respondent wrote on the form the property description, the escrow agent name and address, the initial escrow deposit amount and additional deposit, the time for acceptance, the closing date, and listed himself as the "Cooperating Sales Associate" with "Bahia Realty Group, LLC." The Palmeris decided to offer a $125,000.00 purchase price. Respondent directed Mrs. Palmeri to complete the contract and provide a ten percent escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri entered a purchase price of $125,000.00, initialed each page, and signed the form as "Buyer." Respondent provided Mrs. Palmeri with instructions on how to wire the funds for the escrow deposit. On October 7, 2011, Mr. Palmeri wired $12,000.00 to J.P. Morgan Chase, which was then deposited in an account for Bonaventure Enterprises, LLC ("Bonaventure").1/ The Palmeris had no knowledge of Bonaventure, but, based upon the representations of Respondent, they understood the money they were asked to wire to the J.P. Morgan Chase account of Bonaventure was an escrow deposit for the property they intended to purchase at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no discussion with Respondent regarding the reason for sending the escrow deposit to Bonaventure. They assumed that Bonaventure was somehow related to the seller or its title company. The condominium unit in question was bank owned; however, the Palmeris were not informed of this. No evidence was presented that Respondent had an ownership interest in Bonaventure. However, Bonaventure is owned by Respondent's brother and sister-in-law. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the managing member of Bonaventure. Bonaventure is not a licensed real estate broker. Bahia does not maintain an escrow account, and its sales associates are authorized to use title companies of their choice for receipt of escrow deposits. Respondent was aware that he was unable to accept the escrow deposit of the Palmeris in his own name, because, as a licensed real estate sales associate, he is prohibited from receiving the money associated with a real estate transaction in the name of anyone other than his broker or employer. In fact, Respondent was disciplined in 2010 for a similar violation.2/ Respondent claims that the Palmeris entrusted him with their $12,000.00 to hold for possible investments, not necessarily related to real estate transaction, and he was doing it as a favor for them as "friends." Respondent contradicted himself by stating his intention in directing the Palmeris to deposit their money into the Bonaventure account was to help them have cash on hand in Florida in order to meet the Blue Lagoon condominium seller's requirements to make the escrow deposit with the seller's title company within 24 hours after an offer was accepted. The Palmeris had no knowledge of the seller's unique restrictions on the escrow money. Further, Respondent's asserted motive in requesting the $12,000.00 to have cash on hand in Florida is undermined by the fact that, if the Palmeris could wire $12,000.00 to Bonaventure's bank account, they could also wire the funds directly to a title company chosen by the selling bank after acceptance of their offer. Shortly after returning the contract to Respondent and sending the escrow deposit, Mrs. Palmeri discussed increasing the purchase price by $1,000.00 for a total of $126,000.00. Based upon the language of the proposed contract, the Palmeris expected a response to their offer within 24 hours. Immediately thereafter, Respondent told the Palmeris that they were "in negotiations." However, almost a month passed before they heard from Respondent regarding the status of the purchase of the condominium. On or about November 4, 2011, Respondent contacted Mrs. Palmeri and stated that he had "good news." He indicated that the seller would be willing to sell the property for a price of $129,500.00. According to Respondent, the seller requested documentation from the Palmeris' bank indicating their ability to pay. Mrs. Palmeri indicated that this was not an acceptable counter-offer. Respondent suggested that he could negotiate a sales price of $129,000.00, but he needed the Palmeris to send an additional $9,000.00 to put into escrow. Mrs. Palmeri told Respondent that she was no longer interested in the property because their maximum offer was $126,000.00. During the same conversation, Mrs. Palmeri asked for the return of her deposit. Respondent expressed agitation that she was retreating from the possible purchase because he had done "so much work." Respondent clearly anticipated he would receive a commission if the deal was consummated. The Palmeris did not get an immediate return of their escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri called Respondent repeatedly and received no answer. She also sent an e-mail to J.P. Morgan Chase trying to find out the status of the deposit and received no reply. Mrs. Palmeri again attempted to contact Respondent on November 18, 2011, and left him a message that he needed to call her regarding the deposit. After receiving no response, she contacted Bahia and spoke with Ricardo Aleman. Mrs. Palmeri explained to Aleman that she had signed a real estate contract with Respondent on October 6, 2011. She no longer wanted to pursue this real estate transaction and wanted the escrow deposit returned. Aleman was unaware that Respondent was negotiating a real estate transaction for the Palmeris or had accepted their deposit money. Aleman contacted Respondent who confirmed by email that the Palmeris were no longer interested in purchasing the condominium at Blue Lagoon. Respondent wrote, "After a month of hard work . . . the client decided to drop. It was a little bit problematic. I lost time and money because the offer was already accepted and she had no reason to negotiate." Respondent assured Aleman he would return the deposit to the Palmeris. In accordance with Bahia's policies and procedures, its sales associates are required to complete a deposit form at the time of receipt of funds for escrow. No such receipt was received by Bahia from Respondent with regard to the transaction involving the Palmeris. However, it was not unusual for Bahia not to receive information regarding real estate transactions conducted by their sales associates until the time of closing. After discussing the matter with Aleman, Respondent advised the Palmeris that he could return their money within ten days. Respondent advised Mrs. Palmeri that he would send her two checks for the total amount--one check which she could cash immediately and a second check which would be postdated. In order to get a return of their deposit, Mrs. Palmeri agreed. On or about November 28, 2011, the Palmeris received two checks, each in the amount of $6,000.00, including one postdated for December 16, 2011. These checks were written on the account of Bonaventure and signed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order imposing on Alfonso Miranda an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00 and suspending the real estate sales associate license of Alfonso Miranda for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2014.
The Issue The purpose of the public hearing was to review the application to consolidate New River Bank, Oakland Park, Florida, and 1st United Bank, Boca Raton, Florida, in accordance with Florida law.
Findings Of Fact 1st United Bancorp (Bancorp) is a Florida bank holding company which maintains its principal place of business at 980 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. 1st United is a Florida chartered bank and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bancorp and operates full service banking facilities at seven locations in Palm Beach and Martin Counties. New River is a Florida chartered bank which maintains its executive offices at 2901 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Oakland Park, Florida, and operates two banking facilities in Broward County, Florida. The Department is the duly designated state agency vested with the responsibility of processing and approving or disapproving a plan of any financial entity to acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of another financial entity pursuant to Section 655.414, Florida Statutes. On July 13, 1993, Bancorp and New River entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement which provides that Bancorp will cause 1st United to purchase substantially all of the assets and to assume substantially all of the liabilities of New River, after which New River will be liquidated and dissolved. The agreement noted above was duly adopted by majority vote of the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp, 1st United and New River. In addition, the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp, 1st United and New River duly adopted by majority vote a Plan of Acquisition of Assets and Assumption of Liabilities which summarized pertinent portions of the agreement and which includes all of the terms and conditions required by Section 655.414 (1), Florida Statutes. On September 7, 1993, 1st United and New River submitted an application to the Department seeking the Department's approval for the purchase of New River's assets and assumption of its liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized by the plan. Submitted with the application were the requisite filing fee and all of the required documents including copies of the agreement, the plan and certified copies of the authorizing resolutions of the respective boards of directors. On September 17, 1993, the Department caused notice of the receipt of the application to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This published notice met the requirements of Rule 3C-9.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. On September 7, 1993, Warren Orlando, in his capacity as president of 1st United, filed a petition for public hearing and notice of intention to appear on behalf of 1st United. On October 27, 1993, the Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of conducting a public hearing pursuant to Section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3C-9.004, Florida Administrative Code. Notice that a public hearing would be held on the application on December 13, 1993, was duly published in conformity with Rule 3C-9.005, Florida Administrative Code, in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, and Stuart News, newspapers of general circulation in the communities in which 1st United and New River do business. The agreement provides that New River will receive a combination of cash and Bancorp common stock equal to the net asset value, as defined in the plan, of the assets and liabilities of New River being purchased or assumed. The agreement further provides that after the closing of the asset acquisition, New River shall cease operations and commence dissolution and liquidation proceedings. Substantially all of the Bancorp common stock and available cash received by New River from Bancorp will be distributed to New River shareholders, other than dissenting shareholders. New River stockholders will receive a pro rata portion of the Bancorp common stock and cash available for distribution. After the acquisition of the assets and assumption of liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized in the plan, 1st United will have adequate capital structure in relation to its activities and its deposit liabilities. The acquisition of the assets and assumption of liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized in the plan, if consummated, are not contrary to the public interest. The respective boards of directors of Bancorp and New River requested the opinion of Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking with regard to the fairness to the respective shareholders of each corporation, from a financial point of view, of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking is regularly engaged in and is an expert authority in the valuation of bank and bank holding company securities in connection with bank mergers and acquisitions. Thomas Mecredy is an expert in the valuation of bank and bank holding companies in connection with bank mergers and acquisitions. On December 8, 1993, Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking through Thomas Mecredy issued its opinion to the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp and New River that the terms and conditions of the agreement were fair and equitable to the shareholders of each corporation. Pursuant to the agreement, New River's Board of Directors duly adopted a plan of dissolution and complete liquidation for New River. The plan of dissolution provides that after the sale of assets and assumption of liabilities the Board of Directors will reserve a sufficient amount of Bancorp stock and cash for payment of liquidation expenses and payment of liabilities not assumed by 1st United, including contingent liabilities (general reserves). In addition to the general reserves, New River will create a special reserve (special reserve) in an amount which it considers sufficient to defend and satisfy certain potential claims which may be asserted against New River by shareholders of New River in conjunction with the organization and initial offering of common stock of New River. In determining the amounts necessary to establish the general reserves and special reserve, New River's board of directors consulted with the national law firm of Proskauer Rose Goetz and Mendelsohn with respect to both reserves and the Florida law firm of Shutts & Bowen with respect to the special reserve for advice concerning the potential liability on the part of New River in connection with both known claims and potential claims and the amounts, if any, for which New River could be held liable. Shareholder E.D. Hittson noted that the book value of the New River stock is approximately $11.00 per share versus the $4.50 per share value of the 1st United stock. In response, bank officials noted that 1st United has dividend and strong growth potential not available to New River. Shareholder James Weck questioned provisions being made to satisfy outstanding lawsuit liabilities, the future location of the facility, and the effect on New River employees. In response, bank officials stated that the potential lawsuit liability is included in the reserve amounts, that no decision has been made as to the future location of the banking facility but that the needs of the service area will be met, and that it is their intention to draw talent from the New River staff. Shareholder Amine Semaan questioned whether New River would be represented on the Board of Directors at 1st United, whether minority areas would be a priority for the future location of the facility, and whether another buyer would have paid $10.50 per share. In response, bank officials maintained that New River will have one member on the Board of Directors at 1st United, that the needs of the service area will be met, and that no other, more attractive, buyer is available. On January 11, 1994, MaryAnn Cassel, a shareholder who reportedly attended the public hearing on December 13, 1993, filed a motion for leave to become a party. Such motion alleged that the movant, a minority shareholder, will be forced to accept Bancorp common stock in exchange for her New River shares or be forced to accept appraisal rights in lieu of her shares. Further, movant claimed that the plan is not fair to all parties because the shares of New River have been undervalued. Having deemed such motion untimely, and having determined such request does not allege circumstances unknown to movant prior to the December 13, 1993 public hearing, it is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Donald E. Thompson, II Proskauer Rose Goetz and Mendelsohn One Boca Place, Suite 340 2155 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 37431 Michael W. Ford Phillip T. Ridolfo, Jr. Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole Phillips Point East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey D. Jones Department of Banking and Finance Division of Banking The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 David S. Zimble Zimble Formoso-Murias, P.A. 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 730 Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether respondents' licenses as real estate brokers and salespersons should be disciplined for alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, culpable negligence, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, violation of a duty imposed by statute and contract, and aiding and conspiring with other persons engaged in misconduct-- all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact On March 25, 1981, Elaine P. Stein, a licensed real estate salesperson, showed Mordechai and Nuti Antebi a house for sale at 1704 North 44th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida. The house was owned by Wayne L. and Gladys E. Hunter and listed with Murray Realty. The listing broker for Murray Realty was Warren Stein, and the salesperson directly involved in the listing was Alex Olson. Elaine Stein was a salesperson in the Emerald Hills office of Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.; the manager for that office was Frederick A. Lewis, a licensed real estate salesperson. (Testimony of Stein, Antebi, Olson, Lewis.) The Antebis, who were in the process of selling their present Pembroke Pines house through the Hollywood Hills office of Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., liked the house and expressed a desire to purchase it. They were told that if they assumed the existing mortgage on the Hunters' house, the interest rate would escalate on the day of closing. (Testimony of Olson, Stein.) The Antebis and Ms. Stein then returned to the Emerald Hills office where a written offer was prepared by Ms. Stein, Vilma Sardiello--a licensed real estate salesperson who frequently worked with her--and Alex Olson, the listing Murray Realty salesperson. Ms. Antebi told Ms. Stein and Ms. Sardiello that she had only $500 to place as an earnest money deposit. The purchase price was $106,000. Ms. Stein then spoke with Mr. Lewis, who advised her that the problem could be handled by executing an assignment of funds. Such an assignment would allow proceeds from the scheduled sale of the Antebis' Pembroke Pines house to be used in the Hunter-Antebi transaction. Ms. Stein, who was unfamiliar with assignments, then procured a written assignment of funds from Ms. Antebi for the sum of $19,500 and prepared a written offer. Ms. Antebi signed the offer and provided a $500 earnest money deposit. (Testimony of Stein, Olson, Sardiello, Antebi; P-1, R-1.) Immediately thereafter, Alex Olson, Murray Realty's listing agent, telephoned the offer to the Hunters in Ocala, Florida. He informed them that the Antebis were offering to purchase their house for $106,000, consisting of a $20,00 deposit, $15,000 at closing, and assumption of the current mortgage of approximately $43,000 at the prevailing interest rate. In addition, the Hunters were to take back a $28,000 purchase money mortgage at 12 percent for five years, with only interest payable monthly (He did not inform them that $19,500 of the $20,000 deposit was in the form of, an assignment of funds from the sale of the Antebis' Pembroke Pines house. He was unaware of the assignment, which Ms. Stein had inadvertently failed to disclose in the written offer.). The Hunters telegraphed their acceptance of the offer pursuant to Mr. Olson's instructions. (Testimony of Olson, W. Hunter, G. Hunter, Antebi, Stein; P-1, P- 4.) After receiving the Hunters' telegram, Ms. Stein realized that the phrase, "assignment of funds," had been mistakenly omitted from the written offer. She alerted Mr. Lewis, who, in turn, contacted Mr. Olson on March 26, 1981, and advised him that $19,500 of the deposit would come from an assignment of the proceeds from the sale of Antebis' Pembroke Pines house. Mr. Olson responded that he would not transmit another offer to the Hunters without a written letter from Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., verifying the amount of deposit held in escrow on the Hunter-Antebi transaction. (Testimony of Olson, Lewis, Stein.) Consequently, on March 26, 1981, Mr. Lewis telephoned Ann Shetter, bookkeeper and accounts supervisor at Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.`s main office. He asked her for the amount of money on deposit in the escrow account for the Antebi transaction. She replied that there was $8,000 held in escrow on the Antebi transaction; but she failed to indicate whether she was referring to the Hunter-Antebi transaction or the Antebi sale of their Pembroke Pine house which was being handled by another Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., office at that time. Mr. Lewis reasonably (although mistakenly) assumed that she was referring to the Hunter-Antebi transaction, the only Antebi transaction being handled by his office (He was unaware that the Antebis' Pembroke Pines house was being sold by another office of Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.). Instead, Ms. Shetter was referring to $8,000, which was being held in escrow, on the Antebis' sale of their Pembroke Pines house. (Testimony of Lewis, Shetter.) Mr. Lewis then in response to Mr. Olson's request, signed and delivered an escrow letter to Mr. Olson on March 26, 1981, verifying that Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., was holding $8,000 in escrow on the Hunter-Antebi transaction. (Testimony of Lewis; P-6.) Mr. Olson then telephoned the Hunters in Ocala on March 26, 1981, and told them that the deposit would be $8,000 instead of $20,000, and that $27,000 would be paid at closing instead of the agreed upon $15,000 (These changes did not affect the total purchase price.). He also told them that be felt an $8,000 deposit would be sufficient. The Hunters agreed to the changes and at Mr. Olson's request, sent a confirming telegram to the Emerald Hills office of Chinelly Real Estate, Inc. (Testimony of Olson, Hunter, Stein; P-5.) Shortly thereafter, Mr. Olson picked up the revised contract which had been prepared by Ms. Stein and signed by the Antebis; without reading it, he sent it to the Hunters for execution. This contract, fully executed by buyers and sellers, provided for a purchase price of $106,000, an initial $500 deposit, an additional deposit paid to Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.`s trust account on or before March 26, 1981, in the amount of $7,500, an assumption by buyers of an existing first mortgage held by American Savings and Loan at prevailing interest rate in the principle amount of $43,000, a $28,000 purchase money mortgage bearing interest at 12 percent for five years, interest only, payable monthly, balloon in five years, and approximately $27,000 due at closing, including $12,000 provided by assignment of funds from the sale of the Antebis' current house. (Testimony of Stein, Olson, W. Hunter, G. Hunter; P-2.) On April 9, 1981, Nancy Gooch, vice-president in charge of processing transactions for Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., discovered the discrepancy in the Hunter-Antebi transaction, that the contract indicated that $8,000 would be deposited in the firm's escrow account while, in fact, only $500 had been deposited. She alerted her boss, John Chinelly, Jr., a licensed real estate broker, who, upon further investigation, found the Lewis letter which mistakenly represented that $8,000 was held in escrow on the Hunter-Antebi transaction. (Testimony of Chinelly; P-9.) Mr. Chinelly, who was about to depart on a four-day religious retreat, called in Reginald D. Lucas, general sales manager and a licensed real estate broker, and instructed him to find out the facts surrounding the discrepancy and solve the problem. On April 9-10, 1981, Mr. Lucas called Mr. Lewis and obtained his explanation of the escrow discrepancy; after discussing alternative courses of action, Mr. Lucas told him to meet with Ms. Stein and Ms. Sardiello and decide how they would solve the problem. Various options discussed included: (1) canceling the transaction, (2) persuading the Antebis to place an additional $7,500 into escrow, and (3) depositing the personal funds of Mr. Lewis, Ms. Stein, and Ms. Sardiello to cover the escrow shortage. On Friday, April 10, 1981, and during the ensuing weekend, they discussed among themselves possible penalties, such as loss of their jobs and licenses, and what course of action would be ethical and proper. After Ms. Stein failed to persuade Ms. Antebi to place an additional $7,500 into escrow, the three real estate salespersons--Mr. Lewis, Ms. Stein, and Ms. Sardiello--reluctantly agreed to each loan the Antebis $2,500 to make up for the Hunter-Antebi escrow shortage (They obtained a promissory note dated April 10, 1981, from the Antebis requiring repayment when the Pembroke Pines house was sold.). (Testimony of Lucas, Stein, Lewis; R-5.) Mr. Lewis, Ms. Stein, and Ms. Sardiello acted on their belief that Murray Realty and the Hunters had been told of the escrow discrepancy and consented to their loaning money to the Antebis to make up for the difference. Mr. Lucas led them to believe that such was the case. Between April 10 and 13, 1981, he had telephoned Mr. Olson to tell him about the escrow shortage. Because Mr. Olson was out of town, he spoke with Warren Stein (unrelated to Elaine Stein), the listing broker for Murray Realty. He and Mr. Stein agreed that they should promptly notify the Hunters of the situation. (Testimony of Lewis, Stein, Sardiello, Lucas.) Shortly thereafter, on April 13, 1981, Mr. Lucas went to Mr. Stein's Murray Realty office for the purpose of jointly notifying the Hunters. In the ensuing telephone call, the Hunters were told of a problem with the escrow account, that the three sales persons--Ms. Stein, Ms. Sardiello, and Mr. Lewis- -had agreed to make up for the shortage by depositing $7,500 of their own money into escrow, and that the closing would be unaffected. The Hunters knew of and consented to the three salespersons contributing $7,500 into escrow (There is conflicting testimony on whether the Hunters were told of this $7,500 contribution. The Hunters deny it while Mr. Lucas insists they were told of and consented to the arrangement. Mr. Lucas's testimony on this question is accepted as persuasive. The Hunters' testimony conflicts with the statements contained in their complaint filed with the Department.). (Testimony of Lucas; R-7.) When Mr. Olson returned to Murray Realty on April 14, 1981, and learned of the events which had transpired in his absence, he requested written verification from John C. Chinelly, Jr., that the three real estate salespersons had placed the $7,500 in escrow. Mr. Chinelly verified that the money had been placed into escrow and wrote a letter to Murray Realty confirming that fact. At that time, Mr. Chinelly--based on his conversations with Mr. Lucas and Mr. Stein--also believed that the Hunters had consented to the salespersons depositing the additional $7,500 into escrow. (Testimony of Chinelly, Olson, Lucas; P-7.) Closing of the Hunter-Antebi transaction was scheduled for April 28, 1981. At closing, the Antebis complained about the condition of the roof, pool, and air conditioner. The Antebis also did not have sufficient funds to close the transaction. The transaction failed to close. (Testimony of Stein, Antebis, Olson.) Subsequently, the Antebis closed on the scheduled sale of their Pembroke Pines house. As a condition to this closing, $7,500 was placed into escrow pending a court decision on a complaint for interpleader filed in Broward County Circuit Court by Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., concerning the Hunter-Antebi transaction. At all times material to the proceeding, respondents John C. Chinelly, Sr., Richard M. Chinelly, Paul James Fleck, Nancy J. Gooch, Mary E. Hulsey, James A. Chinelly, John C. Chinelly, Jr., Shana Munden, Joseph Tresser, Reginald D. Lucas, Harold E. Whitter, Asa F. Brand, Josephine B. Shanefelt, Brett A. Slabe, William F. Kuemerle, Jr., and Marshall Feinsilber were the qualifying brokers for Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the two administrative complaints and all charges against respondents be dismissed, with prejudice. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR., 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 14th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36 Court Miami, Florida 33135 Howard Todd Jaffe, Esquire 1915 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Rodger L. Spink, Esquire 6600 Taft Street, Suite 404 Hollywood, Florida 33024 Michael J. Garavaglia, Esquire 3111 Cardinal Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Vilma Sardiello 5207 Hayes Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Thomas Carter, Jr., holds a real estate license in Florida, No. 0469236, and held this license at the times relevant to the charges in this case. His last license was as a broker at Palatka Realty, Inc., in Palatka, Florida. From sometime in October or November 1988, until January 31, 1989, Carter was affiliated with Palatka Realty, Inc. The financial arrangements between Carter and Palatka Realty are unclear. Walter C. Messer, Jr., president of and qualifying broker for Palatka Realty, testified that Carter was to pay one-half of the office overhead and keep all of the commissions he generated or pay no overhead and get one-half of the commissions he generated. However, Messer told a DPR investigator that Carter was to pay Palatka Realty $500 for rent, utilities and advertising, or $750 per month for total office expenses, and that the commissions were to be split in half between Palatka Realty and Carter. Carter testified that there was to be no sharing of commissions and that Carter and Messer were to share expenses with Messer presenting copies of office bills to Carter for payment. Carter said he was to pay $350 per month for office expenses. However, Carter told the DPR investigator that he was to pay $350 per month plus half of additional advertising expenses and that the commissions were to be split in half. It is clear that Messer and Carter had no written agreement and no clearly delineated verbal agreement regarding spliting of expenses and commissions. Both now remember the "terms" of their agreement in the manner which best benefits their respective positions. Neither's version is reliable or credible. Additionally, Carter never paid Messer anything for office expenses. Carter claims that he never paid because Messer demanded more money than they had agreed on and never showed him the bills to support the demands. Messer claims Carter never saw the bills because Carter failed to show up every time they had arranged to look at the bills. On January 26, 1989, Carter negotiated a sales contract between buyers Platt and seller Phillips. Carter received a $1000 earnest money deposit check from the Platts payable to Palatka Realty to secure the sales contract. The contract was signed by Carter and stated that the realtor was Palatka Realty, Inc., and that Palatka Realty represented the seller. On January 31, 1989, Carter submitted a resignation from Palatka Realty, Inc. Prior to the closing of the Platt-Phillips transaction, Messer gave Carter a $1000 Palatka Realty check, which represented the deposit, for presentation to the closing agent. At the time of the Platt-Phillips closing, Messer believed the commission should be remitted to Palatka Realty for distribution to Palatka Realty and Carter. On March 23, 1989, the Platt-Phillips transaction was closed by Sharri B. Hunter, closing agent for Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation. Ms. Hunter reviewed the settlement statement and determined that the sales commission should be paid to Palatka Realty. Carter, who attended the closing, instructed Ms. Hunter to make the sales commission check payable to him personally. Ms. Hunter told Carter that she would need a letter from Palatka Realty, Inc., authorizing disbursement of the commission to Carter personally. When Ms. Hunter requested an authorization letter, Carter told her he was "Palatka Realty." Ms. Hunter typed a statement dated March 23, 1989, which stated: "I, Thomas C. Carter, Jr., Vice president of Palatka Realty, Inc., authorize Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation to disburse the real estate commission check to Thomas C. Carter, Jr." Carter read and signed the statement as vice president of Palatka Realty, Inc. Ms. Hunter signed and notarized the statement. Based on this sworn statement, Ms. Hunter disbursed the entire sales commission of $4490 to Carter personally. On March 23, 1989, Carter was not employed by or affiliated in any way with Palatka Realty, Inc., having resigned on January 31, 1989. Subsequent to the closing of the Platt-Phillips transaction, Messer discovered the sales commission had been paid to Carter personally. On March 29 or 30, 1989, Messer sent a letter to Carter by certified United States Mail demanding the return of the Platt-Phillips commission and the document file relating to the transaction. On April 11, 1989, Messer sent a letter to F. Linton Stone of Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation advising that the Platt-Phillips commission was wrongfully paid to Carter and demanding that one-half of the commission be paid to Palatka Realty, Inc. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation ultimately admitted liability for the commission and remitted one-half of the commission to Palatka Realty, Inc. Carter never paid one-half of the commission to Palatka Realty or Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, and he never returned the document file to Palatka Realty.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order and therein: Find Thomas Carter, Jr., guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes. Impose an administrative fine of $500 per count for a total administrative fine of $1000. Suspend Carter's real estate license for a period not to exceed one (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5415 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(1-3); 5-19(5-19); 21(3); 22(3); 23(4); 24(3); and 30-32(20-22). Proposed findings of fact 1, 29, and 33 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 25-28 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James A. Bazley Attorney at Law 418 Kingsley Avenue Post Office Box 815 Orange Park, Florida 32067-0815 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc. should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Glenn D. Whaley submitted a Form U-4, Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration, seeking registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc. One of the states in which Petitioner sought registration was the State of Florida. The Department of Banking and Finance (Department) is the Florida agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (the Act), and its implementing rules. The Department denied Mr. Whaley's application for registration as an associated person in a letter dated August 27, 1990, based upon its determination that he had violated the Act, that he had filed an application for registration which contained a material false statement; and that his disciplinary history within the securities industry constituted prima facie evidence of his unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person. Mr. Whaley has been employed in the securities industry since approximately 1984, and has been employed with several different securities dealers, including Rothschild Equity Management Group, Inc. (Rothschild), Fitzgerald Talman, Inc., and H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc. The effective date for Mr. Whaley's registration as an associated person of Rothschild in the State of Florida was April 18, 1985. In October 1985, Department examiner Michael Blaker, conducted an examination of the books and records of Rothschild. The examination revealed violations of the provisions of the Act, including the sale of securities by unlicensed representatives. The commission reports and sales journals prepared by Rothschild revealed that Mr. Whaley, while unregistered with the Department, had effectuated approximately sixteen (16) sales of securities during the period of April 1 through 17, 1985. On May 15, 1989, the State of Missouri Commissioner of Securities issued a cease and desist order against Fitzgerald Talman, Inc. and Glenn D. Whaley. The order found that Mr. Whaley had offered for sale and sold securities on behalf of Fitzgerald Talman, Inc. in the State of Missouri without benefit of registration for himself or the securities. On or about November 8, 1989, the Department issued an Administrative Charges and Complaint against Mr. Whaley seeking revocation of his registration as an associated person of H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc. based on his failed to timely notify the Department of the Missouri Cease and Desist Order, as required by Rule 3E-600.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Administrative Charges and Complaint were served on November 13, 1989. On or about December 12, 1989, the Department issued a Default Final Order revoking Mr. Whaley's registration with H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc., based upon his failure to request a hearing regarding the Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Form U-4 requires the applicant to swear and affirm that the information on the application is true and complete to the best of his knowledge and that false or misleading answers will subject him to administrative penalties. The Form U-4 application contains no disclosure of the Department's December 1989, revocation of Petitioner's registration with H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc., as required by Question 22E.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a Final Order denying the application of Mr. Whaley for registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc., in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Karniewicz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Legal Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Glenn D. Whaley 5400 Northwest Fifth Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice of Cease and Desist Order dated March 13, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Timothy Gibbons, was an associated person and employed by J.B. Hanauer as a sales representative in institutional sales. Each of the subject transactions at issue in this case constituted a purchase and sale of securities. In the summer of 1988, Mr. Gibbons subscribed the City of Daytona Beach, Florida, as a client. Mr. Mike Robertson, as Deputy Finance Director for the City, was charged with investing the City's funds. The subscription was consummated by a written agreement between the City and J.B. Hanauer establishing a non-discretionary account on behalf of the City. Both Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Robertson were designated in the agreement as authorized representatives of their respective employers for the purpose of conducting transactions between the City and J.B. Hanauer. Mr. Gibbons contacted Mr. Robertson on an almost daily basis with numbers for proposed deals at different market levels. In these conversations, Mr. Robertson would give Mr. Gibbons the authority to enter the market for the City when the market reached certain, agreed market levels. The direction to initiate a trade at a certain previously approved market level was the sole "discretion" granted to Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Robertson retained and required the non-discretionary authority to approve all transactions. Mr. Gibbons did not at any time have the authority to encumber the City's funds without the prior approval of Mr. Robertson. Mr. Robertson further limited Mr. Gibbons by placing a $1,000,000 cap on the amount of the City's funds he would risk per trade. Mr. Robertson told Mr. Gibbons about the $1,000,000 trading practice and each of the approved trades was limited to the $1,000,000 amount. Their first trade was executed on August 25, 1988. Then, on August 31, 1988, without the knowledge or consent of the City, Mr. Gibbons executed several trades in the name of the City. Most of the subject trades were in excess of $1,000,000. In fact, they encumbered increments of $5,000,000 and $6,000,000. When these trades were settled, the City's account owed J.B. Hanauer in excess of $29,000. On September 1, 1988, Mr. Gibbons left the employment of J.B. Hanauer, and subsequently, J.B. Hanauer absorbed the City's loss as a result of the subject trades. By trading without the authorization of his client, the City, the respondent misrepresented his authorization to purchase and sell securities for the City and demonstrated his unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance issue a Final Order: Revoking any and all registrations of Timothy Gibbons under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes; and Assessing against Timothy Gibbons an administrative fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th of September 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2214 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraphs 2 through 4. Addressed in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5, and subordinate to paragraph 5. Subordinate to paragraphs 4 and 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Mendelshon, Esquire Office of Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Timothy Gibbons Number 5 Par Drive Maumelle, Arkansas 72118
Findings Of Fact Both Respondent, Terry A. Kilgore (Kilgore), and Respondent, Karen C. Obluck (Obluck), are duly licensed Florida real estate brokers holding license numbers 0317402 and 0387822, respectively. Starting June 1, 1983, both were registered as employees of Florida Leasing Services, along with a third friend, Karen Kolander. It was understood among the parties to the employment agreement that the three friends intended to form their own brokerage company as soon as one of them obtained a broker license. Obluck got her broker license first on or about July 26, 1983, and Kilgore placed her salesman's license with Obluck on or about August 22, 1983. Obluck then attempted to qualify the new corporation the three had formed, "National Investment Properties, Inc." (emphasis added), as a corporate real estate broker. But, due in part to unfortunate technical errors in the application process and in part to Obluck's inadequate appreciation for the significance of legal technicalities, on or about August 19, 1983, Obluck instead qualified "National Investment Properties" as the corporate broker. Starting approximately August 19, 1983, the three began operating their new real estate brokerage business, sometimes using the name "National Investment Properties," as technically officially registered, but more often using the full corporate name, "National Investment Properties, Inc." (emphasis added.) But they omitted to have Kilgore's salesman's license transferred to the corporate broker license until she got her broker's license and tried to place it under the corporate broker license on March 14, 1984. Because of the technical errors in qualifying the corporate broker, the Department placed Kilgore's broker license under Obluck, an individual broker trading as National Investment Properties. By the time Obluck was notified in March, 1986, that the corporate broker had not been registered properly, Kilgore was no longer working with Obluck's company. On or before June 23, 1983, while still employed by Florida Leasing Services but anticipating the formation of the new business under the name Obluck had reserved at the time (Investment Properties of Central Florida, Inc.), Kilgore contacted fellow licensee, Robert R. Elkin (Elkin), an employee of Sun-Tan Realty, Inc. 1/ in an effort to help a client, U.S. Homes Corporation, find real property to buy. Elkin had an exclusive listing on five acres of property owned by Manor Care, Inc., and he and Kilgore negotiated a deal between the parties on June 23. On June 24, Kilgore and Elkin signed a "Cooperation Agreement Between Brokers" on the Manor Care property, providing that the two brokers involved would divide equally any brokerage commission. But when Elkin presented U.S. Homes' signed offer to his client, Manor Care rejected it, asking for more money. U.S. Homes refused to increase its offer. Kilgore passed this information on the Elkin, and the deal fell through. Kilgore then asked Elkin if he knew of any other land available for sale that might be of interest to U.S Homes. Elkin gave her the name of Dr. Michael Tedone as the owner of approximately 16 acres at County Road 581 and Skipper Road for sale at approximately $972,000. Trying to generate business, Elkin had located Tedone's name as owner of the 16 acres on microfiche records in his office and first spoke to Tedone by telephone in approximately October, 1982. Elkin asked if the property was for sale. Tedone said it was for sale for the right price, $972,000, but that it was not actually on the market. Elkin asked if Tedone would pay a commission if Elkin found a buyer. Tedone said he would but it would have to be negotiated. Elkin asked for some information about the property and asked for a survey. Elkin picked up a survey from Tedone's office and put together an information packet on the property for use in crying to find a buyer. Between October, 1982, and July, 1983, Elkin distributed the packet to a handful of builders and land developers he thought might be interested in the property or know a prospective buyer. Elkin spoke to Tedone about three more times by telephone before approximately April, 1983, confirming that the property was still for sale at $972,000. He never met Tedone and did not have any contact with him in May or June, 1983. He was never even aware that there was a co-owner of the property, a James Carlstedt. Because of what had happened on the Manor Care deal, Kilgore asked if the price was firm. Elkin replied that he had not verified the price in several months and would have to check. He said he would give her an information packet on the property and verify the price. Kilgore got part of the information packet on or about July 5, 1983, but Elkin told her that Tedone was out of town and that Elkin had not yet been able to verify the price. At this point, the evidence began to diverge sharply. The Department attempted to prove through Elkin's testimony that Elkin got Kilgore to agree to co-broker this property under the same terms as the "Cooperation Agreement Between Brokers" for the Manor Care property. He says he added the Tedone property to the list of properties covered on his copy of the agreement shortly after July 5, 1983. He also says he asked Kilgore not to show the information to U.S. Homes until he had a chance to verify the price. But, he says, Kilgore disregarded his request and, on the following Monday (three days later), Kilgore called back to say U.S. Homes was ready to sign a contract at $972,000. Elkin says he then was able to contact Tedone to relay the offer and was told that the price was too low and the Tedone wanted $70,000 an acre for the property. Elkin says he relayed this to Kilgore and that he never heard back. Kilgore, on the other hand, testified that she never agreed to co-broker the Tedone property and that Elkin never asked her not to show U.S. Homes the information on the property. She says she waited for Elkin to verify the price but that he kept making excuses why he had not been able to contact Tedone. Kilgore says finally she went to Tedone herself to get the information. She testified that she made an appointment to see Tedone and showed him the information Elkin had given her. She says Tedone's response was: "I don't know who this [Elkin and Sun-Tan] is but the information is wrong." Kilgore says Tedone never acknowledged that he knew Elkin or had any agreement with him to broker the property. Kilgore says she therefore negotiated the deal for U.S. Homes directly with Tedone and Carlstedt, completely independent of Elkin, and successful concluded negotiations on July 20, 1983. The sales price for the property was $1.1 million; the brokerage commission to National Investment Properties, Inc., was 2 1/2 percent or $27,500. Kilgore testified that she never heard from Elkin again until approximately March, 1984, after the January 9, 1984, closing of the deal, and that she assumed Elkin had abandoned the deal. The key to resolution of the sharp differences between the testimony of Elkin and Kilgore is Tedone. But, for reasons not explained, Tedone did not testify. Without Tedone's testimony to corroborate Elkin's testimony, the Department's case was insufficient to prove the truth of the facts to which Elkin testified. Elkin brought Tedone another prospective buyer in August, 1983. Tedone told him he already had a contract. Elkin did not ask for details. Instead, he began to try to locate Kilgore, who by this time was working for National Investment Properties, Inc., (National) under Obluck. He did not confront Kilgore and Obluck until approximately March, 1984. They confirmed that the property had been sold to U.S. Homes. Elkin demanded a share of the brokerage commission. Kilgore replied that he had abandoned the deal, leaving Kilgore to try to complete the deal herself, and that he was not entitled to any share of the brokerage commission. Obluck knew generally that Kilgore had negotiated a deal between U.S. Homes and Tedone and Carlstedt and that, after a short delay, the deal closed in January, 1984. But Obluck knew none of the details of what had transpired between Kilgore and Elkin. On the other hand, Kilgore knew generally that Obluck had taken steps to properly qualify National as a corporate broker. But she did not know or inquire into any of the details of the qualification process. She left National on or about August 23, 1985, long before the Department notified Obluck in March, 1986, that National was not properly registered. Kilgore, however, must take personal responsibility for failing to take any steps between August 19, 1983, and March 11, 1984, to have her salesman's license transferred from Obluck, individual broker, to National. See Finding Of Fact 1, above. The technical licensure errors made by Obluck and Kilgore, referred to in Findings Of Fact 1 and 12, above, should have come to the Department's attention before March, 1986. On March 11, 1984, Kilgore applied to place her new broker license under "National Investment Properties, Inc.," and the Department accepted the application and placed it under Obluck, trading as National Investment Properties. On March 1, 1985, Kilgore applied to change her personal mailing list, showing her employing broker as "National Investment Properties, Inc.," and the Department accepted the application. The Department did not take either of these opportunities to notify Obluck and Kilgore that the corporate broker had not been properly qualified and registered. On November 13, 1984, the Department received notification from Obluck, "doing business as National Investment Properties, Inc.," that she had lost her license. The Department simply struck through the "Inc." on the notification but did not give Obluck any explanation why. The technical licensing errors referred to in Findings Of Fact 1 and 12, above, were not intentional or intended to deceive. They were inadvertent oversights that Obluck and Kilgore would have cured if they were aware of them. When the Department notified Obluck of the oversights in March, 1986, she immediately had National properly qualified and registered as a corporate broker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order: (1) holding both Respondent, Karen C. Obluck, and Respondent, Terry A. Kilgore, guilty of a technical violation of Sections 475.42(1)(b) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985); (2) imposing a $500 administrative fine against Respondent, Karen C. Obluck, for her violation; (3) reprimanding Respondent, Terry A. Kilgore, for her violation; and (4) dismissing all other charges. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1987.
