Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent stipulated at formal hearing to Paragraphs 1- 6 of the Administrative Complaint, (TR-5-6) and it is accordingly found that: Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against Respondent as licensee and against his license to practice the real estate brokerage business under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times alleged in the administrative complaint a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0191613. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Cluett Realty, Inc., 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. On about July 14, 1983, Respondent received a check in the amount of $400.00 from Mary Snodgrass, a salesman, who at the time was associated with Respondent. Snodgrass had received the money from Robert James. James had submitted four contracts which were accepted for purchase of four duplexes listed with Respondent. The $400.00 represented a deposit of $100.00 on each of the four contracts. When the check was entrusted to Respondent, Snodgrass stated that the buyer had requested the check be held a couple of days before depositing into escrow to insure it would clear. Respondent indicated this was wrong and the check should be deposited immediately. 1/ The check was not deposited into Respondent's escrow account, but, was held by Respondent until September 15, 1983, two months after initial receipt of the check. The check presented by Mr. James (buyer) to Mrs. Snodgrass (saleswoman) was drawn on the Fort Myers Barnett Bank and on its face represents it is drawn on an account in the name "Clara A. James For: Caj-Raj-Casa De Chihuahua's." There is no indicator on the check itself that Robert A. James is an appropriate signatory on this account. At hearing, Mr. James represented that he was a proper signatory on the account because Clara A. James is his wife. Mrs. Snodgrass represented that she knew Mr. James had this authority but there was no predicate laid for this knowledge on her part and there is nothing about the check itself which would convey such knowledge to someone not intimate with the James' household, nor does the check itself reveal any relationship between Mr. James and "Caj-Raj-Casa De Chihuahua' s." At the time Snodgrass submitted the check to Respondent, she informed Respondent that it was possible that the check would not clear the bank due to insufficient funds. At the time of his conversation with Mrs. Snodgrass on July 14, Respondent was aware of previous problems arising from failure of an earlier check written by Mr. James for rent to one of Respondent's other clients to clear the bank. Respondent was also aware that Mr. James had refused to vacate the premises which James, James' wife, and approximately 80 Chihuahuas occupied by rental from this other client. Respondent perceived Mr. James resented Respondent due to Respondent's involvement in getting the James entourage out of the rental properties so that Respondent's other client as seller could close sale of that property to a third party buyer. Accordingly, Respondent retained the check when it was given him by Mrs. Snodgrass for a few minutes to think about the situation. He then returned it to her and explained it was an inappropriate deposit because it did not represent cash if they knew at the time it was tendered that it might be returned for insufficient funds. He told Mrs. Snodgrass to either secure a check which would clear or to inform both potential buyer and sellers that there was no deposit placed in escrow on the four contracts. Mrs. Snodgrass denied that the check was returned to her by Respondent or that this conversation ever took place; she assumed the check would be held by Respondent until evening and in the evening she went out and got the sellers to sign the 4 contracts previously signed by James. Mrs. Snodgrass placed the signed contracts in a file drawer in Respondent's office and never again initiated any title work or any conversation with Respondent about the transaction. The testimony of Mrs. Weise and Mrs. Cluett support the material particulars of Respondent's version of this second interchange between Mrs. Snodgrass and Respondent. Mr. James testified that he did, indeed, go the following day (July 15) to the bank to transfer funds if needed, but did not then notify Mrs. Snodgrass or Respondent because the money transfer was not necessary. Upon this evidence and due to the credibility problems recited in footnote 1, supra and in Findings of Fact Paragraph 8 infra, the Respondent's version of this interchange is accepted over that of Mrs. Snodgrass and provides additional, but not contradictory, information to Finding of Fact Paragraph 1-e as stipulated by the parties. In early September, Mrs. Snodgrass secured employment with Barbara Ware Realty, a competitor of Respondent. She then turned in all of her keys, gear, and papers to Cluett Realty. Shortly thereafter, Helen Weise, secretary to Respondent, discovered the July 14, 1983, check on what had been Mrs. Snodgrass's desk. This discovery is confirmed by both Respondent and Mrs. Weise. Respondent knew Mrs. Snodgrass and Mr. James were personal friends. He telephoned Mrs. Snodgrass about the status of the James' transaction when the check was discovered. Mrs. Snodgrass admitted she thereafter called Mr. James to verify the status of the transaction and then called Respondent to tell him she thought the sale would go through, but she now denies telling Respondent that the July 14, 1983, check was good or even that Respondent mentioned the check when he called her the first time. Respondent then deposited the check into his escrow account the next day, September 15, 1983. He immediately placed the request for title search and insurance. Thereafter, two duplexes out of the four involved in the four James contracts with Cluett Realty were sold by Mrs. Snodgrass through her new employer, Barbara Ware Realty, and two were sold by Mary Cluett, Respondent's wife, through Cluett Realty. During the period from July 14, 1983, until September 15, 1983, Mr. James was apparently aware that the check submitted to Cluett Realty had never been deposited by Cluett Realty because it did not show up in monthly bank statements. After September, Mr. James clearly was further aware of what was going on because he admits to trying to get Mary Snodgrass to pursue the transaction under her new employer's auspices, despite Cluett's retaining the exclusive listing for the sellers of the properties. It was not established whether or not the sellers were misled by Respondent's failure to immediately deposit the July 14, 1983, check, but Mr. James testified that when Respondent approached him about refunding his deposit or at least a portion thereof, he, (Mr. James), told the Respondent to keep it or give it to the sellers or at least not to give it back to him due to all the inconvenience. Mr. James and Mrs. Snodgrass were friends on July 14, 1983. They became friendlier thereafter. Apparently, in early September, Mrs. Snodgrass left Respondent's employ upon very unfriendly terms. The terms may be characterized as "unfriendly" even if one accepts Mrs. Snodgrass' version that her job hunt was successful before she was fired by Respondent and therefore she should be viewed as quitting upon being asked by Respondent to resign. Respondent has previously filed an unsuccessful complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation against Mrs. Snodgrass. It was she who initiated the complaint giving rise to these instant proceedings against Respondent. Mrs. Snodgrass' resentment of Respondent's filing a complaint against her was evident in her demeanor on the stand. An attempt at formal hearing to impeach Respondent's credibility upon the basis of a supposed prior admission to Petitioner's investigator that Respondent forgot to deposit the crucial check and upon the basis of Respondent's July 13, 1984, letter to the Department of Professional Regulation (P-7) left Respondent's credibility intact. When Investigator Potter's testimony as a whole is compared with Respondent's letter as a whole in light of Potter's investigation of three separate complaints over a period of many months 2/ there is no material variation of Respondent's representations. Also, what was "forgotten" and when it was forgotten is vague and immaterial in light of consistent information supplied to the investigator by Respondent that there was a request to hold the July 14, 1983, check for a couple of days due to insufficient funds.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Terry G. Jewell is the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, wherein Jewell engages in business as a real estate broker-salesman. His net worth is less than $2,000,000. In DOAH Case No. 87-2192, the Division filed an Administrative Complaint dated April 20, 1987, wherein the Division essentially alleged that Jewell was co-owner and agent for Sun Country Homes of North Florida, Inc., a corporation engaged in the business of constructing homes; that Jewell, as vice- president and agent for Sun Country Homes, entered into a contract with the Koblinskis to build their house; that Sun Country Homes received approximately $74,900.00 to build the home; that Sun Country Homes did not pay certain materialmen and contractors; and that Jewell did not pay the outstanding liens. The Division sought revocation and other penalties against Jewell's license as a real estate broker-salesman, alleging that Jewell was guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction. After hearing, a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned on September 25, 1987, recommending dismissal of the Administrative Complaint. The recommendation was based on findings that Jewell's contacts with the Koblinskis were solely as an officer, co-owner and agent for Sun Country Homes of North Florida, Inc.; that all sums paid by the Koblinskis were to Sun Country Homes and were deposited to its corporate account; that the president of Sun Country Homes mismanaged the corporate funds and did not pay some of the subcontractors on Koblinskis' home, that Jewell quit the corporation then he found out about this; that Jewell did all he could to assist the Koblinskis once he had resigned from the corporation; that the president of the corporation disappeared with the Koblinskis' money; and that Jewell did not benefit from the funds paid by the Koblinskis to Sun Country Homes of North Florida, Inc. The recommendation was based on conclusions of law that the contract was between the Koblinskis and Sun Country Homes of North Florida, Inc.; that Jewell had no intent to deceive the Koblinskis; that it is well settled law that disciplinary action cannot be taken against a real estate broker's license for conduct not connected with the licensee's business as a broker; and that Jewell did not violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged. The Final Order of the Division, through the Florida Real Estate Commission, adopted the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation in the Recommended Order and dismissed the Administrative Complaint. The affidavit which initiated this action was filed on February 5, 1988, and was later supplemented by the Petition for Small Business Party's Attorney's Fees and Costs. The affidavit, which was an application for an award of fees and costs, was timely, having been filed within 60 days after the date on which Jewell became a prevailing small business party. In this case, the 60 days is calculated from the date on the Certificate of Service showing mailing of the Final Order to the parties. See Section 57.111(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes. According to the affidavit of William C. Andrews, and the statements of account attached thereto, Jewell incurred legal fees of $3,252.50 and costs of $957.21. These fees and costs are found to be reasonable since the Division has not filed a counter affidavit or response questioning their reasonableness. According to the Petition, the disciplinary action in DOAH Case No. 87- 2192 was substantially unjustified at the time it was initiated: because the Administrative Complaint was an attempted disciplinary action taken against Petitioner's real estate broker-salesman's license for conduct not connected with the licensee's business as a broker-salesman, and there was a complete absence of evidence to show any wrong doing on the part of the Petitioner.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 475.025(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what the appropriate penalty is.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, O. Dane Streets was licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker having been issued License No. 0085710-1 for an address in Lakeland, Florida. In the Spring or early Summer of 1991, Nathan Price, a minister in Orlando, Florida, contacted Respondent to solicit Respondent's participation in representing Price's daughter, Melissa Howard, in purchasing real estate in Orlando. Price and Respondent have been business and social acquaintances for more than 10 years, and Price was helping his daughter and son-in-law in purchasing a home. The Howard's found a house they liked, Respondent obtained the listing information from the listing broker and prepared a contract for sale and purchase (Exhibit 1). As modified and accepted by all parties, this contract provided for a $1000 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Respondent's real estate company. In lieu of obtaining the deposit from Price or Howard, Respondent told Howard to give the earnest money deposit to the selling broker as all of the transactions were to be conducted in Orlando. The $1000 earnest money deposit was given to neither Respondent nor the listing broker, ReMax Southwest in Orlando. The failure of Respondent to follow up to insure that the earnest money deposit had been given to the listing broker in this transaction does not reach the status of fraud or dishonest dealing as Respondent had no such intent. Shortly before the August 21, 1991 closing date, Price advised Respondent that the mortgage lender was asking about the earnest money deposit. Respondent immediately obtained a cashier's check dated August 8, 1991 (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $1000 which Price presented at the closing on August 21, 1991. In his testimony, Respondent acknowledged that he erred in not obtaining the earnest money deposit or failing to check to be sure the deposit had been made with the listing broker. Since Respondent is located in Lakeland and the property being purchased is in Orlando when the closing was held, Respondent thought everything would be simplified if the deposit was held by the listing broker. When the listing broker learned that the deposit of $1000 had never been received by Respondent and placed in escrow, a complaint was made to the Florida Real Estate Commission, and these proceedings followed. Respondent has held licenses from the Florida Real Estate Commission for some 20 years, and this is the first time any charges have been brought against his license.
Recommendation It is Recommended that a Final Order be entered finding O. Dane Streets not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged. ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 21st day of January, 1992. Copies furnished to: Steven N. Johnson, Esquire Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate Division Director 400 W. Robinson Street Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1900 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1900 O. Dane Streets Post Office Box 6852 Jack McRay, Esquire Lakeland, FL 33807 Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether a broker and active firm member for a corporate real estate broker can be held accountable for the wrongful handling of escrow funds by non-registered persons after the broker has resigned his employment and notified the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) of his resignation when another active firm member is not qualified by the corporation prior to the effective date of the broker's resignation.
Findings Of Fact Telfair is a registered real estate broker holding registration 0087817 issued by the FREC. Telfair was employed by LTP as the firm's sole broker and active firm member. LTP was a registered corporate broker. Telfair was not a corporate officer of LTP. The monies at issue in this case were deposited to the escrow account of LTP, pursuant to pending real estate contracts. These monies were maintained properly in the escrow account at all times during the period that Telfair was an active firm member. On February 14, 1975, Telfair gave notice to Frank Carcaise, President of LTP, that he was going to resign effective March 1, 1975. A copy of Telfair's letter of resignation to Carcaise as an active firm member and broker for LTP was forwarded to the FREC. On March 1, 1975, Telfair did resign, severed his relationship with LTP, removed himself from the business premises, together with his property. Prior to that date, he had advised Carcaise of the necessity to obtain a broker to serve as an active firm member for LTP, but Telfair was never replaced by Carcaise. As of the date of Telfair's resignation, there were sufficient funds on deposit in the LTP escrow account to meet all obligations against the account. On June 4, 1975, Carcaise directed the corporate bookkeeper, in writing, to issue a check transferring the escrow funds to Gateway Consultants. The bookkeeper, who had refused to issue any checks without written direction, called Telfair and asked him what she should do. Telfair suggested that she report this matter to the FREC, and Telfair volunteered to accompany her to Orlando to the FREC offices. On June 5, 1975, the bookkeeper, and Telfair met with Mr. Jones of the FREC legal staff and advised him of the removal of the escrow funds and showed him the corporate books which the bookkeeper had brought with her. Jones advised them that there was nothing which could be done because no demand had been made for the funds, and there had been no failure to deliver the funds by LTP. The funds were transferred, demand was subsequently made for the escrow funds by LTP's client, and they were not paid. Subsequently, the FREC brought the instant complaint against Telfair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against Robert M. Telfair by the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Joseph A. Scarlett, Esq. 210 East New York Avenue DeLand, FL 32720
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Frank LaRocca, Respondent, was the holder of Real Estate Broker License Nos. 0050488, 0236407 and 0170796 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On or about July 12, 1989, the Respondent, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, upon a verdict of guilty rendered by a jury, was found guilty of five counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, a felony. On or about July 12, 1989, Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for four years. On or about August 1, 1989, the United States District Court Judge ordered a stay of the judgment against Respondent pending completion of Respondent's appeal. Frank LaRocca was a vice-president of the Central Bank in Tampa, Florida, when he retired in May 1984 after working at this bank for 31 years. During this period, he enjoyed a good reputation in the community. Upon his retirement from the bank, he became an active real estate broker principally investing in real estate. The transactions which formed the bases for his conviction in federal court involved bank loans on condominiums he and three other partners purchased. These bank loans had all been repaid at the time of Respondent's trial but one, which had been refinanced by the bank.
Recommendation Taking all these factors into consideration, it is recommended that the licenses of Frank LaRocca as a real estate broker be revoked, but the revocation be stayed pending completion of his appeal to the court of appeals or two years whichever first occurs. At that time, depending upon the action of the court of appeals, his license be revoked or these proceedings dismissed. ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley Division of Real Estate General Counsel 400 W. Robinson Street Department of Professional Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Frank LaRocca Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 4814 River Boulevard Tampa, FL 33603 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0198128, issued by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, on October 25, 1979. In May and June of 1979, the Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman, and was registered as an associate of United Farm Agency of Florida, Inc., a corporate broker with offices in Ocala. On May 8, 1979, the Respondent showed real property located at 4045 S.E. Fort King Street in Ocala, to John and Misty Pace who were interested in purchasing it. This property was owned by George Starnes, and it had been listed for sale with Ann Martin, a broker with offices in Ocala. The prospective purchasers asked the Respondent to prepare a written offer to purchase the subject property for $47,500, on terms as specified therein. This offer was prepared and dated May 8, 1979. As an earnest money deposit, a check for $500, payable to United Farm Agency, was delivered to the Respondent in accordance with the terms of the offer. On the evening of May 8 the Respondent also delivered to the listing broker his own personal offer to purchase the subject property for $48,500, together with his own check for $1,000. Subsequently, both the Paces' offer and the Respondent's offer were presented to the seller, who accepted the offer of the Respondent, and the contract was signed. The Paces' check for $500 was returned to them without having been negotiated. The Respondent explained to the Paces that their offer was rejected because the seller had accepted a higher offer. However, the Respondent did not inform the Paces that the higher offer was his own. The transaction was closed on June 26, 1979. The Respondent's association with United Farm Agency of Florida, Inc., had been terminated on June 1, 1979, and on the closing date he was no longer a salesman for this broker. However, the attorney who closed the transaction issued to the Respondent a check for $1,455 made payable to United Farm Agency, for one-half of the brokerage commission on the sale. This check was never delivered to United Farm Agency. Instead it was deposited into the joint account held by the Respondent and his wife, after being endorsed "Deposit only, Judi L. Leamy." The Respondent did not inform United Farm Agency that he had received the commission check; United Farm Agency never consented to the negotiation of this check by the Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0198128 held by the Respondent, Darrell J. Leamy, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 8th day of July, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 8th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Darrell J. Leamy c/o Norman Oates RR 8, Box 452 Unit 2 L-136 Leesburg, Florida 32748
Findings Of Fact Respondent Martha M. Bustillo is a real estate broker licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0401092. At all times material hereto, she has been the qualifying broker for Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc. Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., is a real estate brokerage corporation licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0237551. At no time material hereto has Respondent Olga Venedicto been licensed in the State of Florida as either a real estate broker or as a real estate salesperson. In July of 1992 Thomas F. Sevilla contacted Virmar Investments, looking for a house to buy. Olga Venedicto took his phone call and told him that she would help him. Sevilla went to Venedicto's "office" at Virmar Investment and began working with her. Venedicto gave Sevilla her business card which represented that she is the vice president of Virmar Investments, Inc., and carries the notation "registered real estate brokers." In addition to giving him her card which carried her name, Virmar's name, and the word "brokers" in the plural form rather than the singular form, Venedicto specifically told Sevilla that she was a broker. Venedicto and Bustillo took Sevilla to see a house which he decided to buy. He gave Venedicto his check for $2,000 as a deposit and instructed her and Bustillo to make an offer on that house. Venedicto told him she would put the money in Virmar's escrow account. Instead, the money was deposited in Virmar's operating account. Sevilla did not buy that house, and Venedicto and Bustillo took him to see a second house. Sevilla decided not to make an offer on that house and asked Venedicto to refund his money. It took a month before Sevilla received a check from Venedicto. Although the check was marked "deposit return," the check was not written from Virmar's account but rather was a check from a Mega Group Corp. for only $1,675. When Sevilla attempted to cash that check, it was dishonored three times, with the notation "N. S. F." Finally, the check was honored by the bank. Sevilla had expected to receive his entire $2,000 deposit. Neither Venedicto nor Bustillo had ever told him in advance that they would keep part of his money. Although Respondents' attorney during the final hearing implied that his clients may have kept part of Sevilla's money to pay for a survey and credit report, Sevilla had not agreed in advance to pay for a credit report, and no evidence was offered as to what house Sevilla might have purchased a survey on or for what reason. Further, neither Venedicto nor Bustillo gave him a copy of any survey or credit report nor was he ever shown one or advised that either would be obtained. When Sevilla inquired as to why he was reimbursed the lesser amount, only then did Venedicto tell him that Respondents were keeping part of his money for a credit report. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar authorized and assisted Venedicto in her performance of acts and services requiring licensure as a salesperson relative to the transaction with Sevilla. Rita and Carlos Benitez listed their house for sale with Pedro Realty. Gladys Diaz was the listing agent at Pedro Realty. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto brought Carlos Martinez and his wife to look at the Benitez house. Gladys Diaz was present at the time. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto subsequently came to Diaz' office and presented to Diaz and Carlos Benitez an offer on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Martinez. Respondent Venedicto represented herself to be a realtor and Respondent Bustillo to be Venedicto's partner and broker. Respondent Venedicto discussed the contract and price with Diaz and Benitez while Respondent Bustillo observed Venedicto's presentation. The offer had previously been signed on behalf of Respondent Virmar by Respondent Venedicto who represented to Diaz that the signature on the offer was that of Respondent Venedicto. Mr. Benitez signed the document, and Diaz then took the offer to Mrs. Benitez to obtain her signature. Mrs. Benitez also signed the offer, thereby completing the contract. Thereafter, delays ensued because Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were not in a financial position to be able to purchase the home. Respondent Venedicto contacted Mrs. Benitez and attempted to re-negotiate the contract. During those negotiations which were not successful, Respondent Venedicto represented herself to Mrs. Benitez as being a licensed real estate agent. In response to Mrs. Benitez' inquiries, Respondent Venedicto gave Benitez her business card carrying the names of Venedicto and Virmar and the notation "registered real estate brokers." As to the portion of the transaction involving Mrs. Benitez, all of her contact with the three Respondents in this cause was with Respondent Venedicto. Venedicto gave Benitez advice regarding proceeding with the sale and handled the negotiations. Prior to September 24, 1992, Hector F. Sehweret, an investigator for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, requested that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar produce certain records for inspection by him. He spoke with Respondent Bustillo on a number of occasions to no avail. He offered to give her time to gather the records if necessary, but she never did. On September 24, 1992, he served Respondent Bustillo with a subpoena for those records. She still failed to produce them. Thereafter, she would not return his phone calls, and when he came to the office of Virmar Investments, Respondent Bustillo would hide from him. Neither Respondent Bustillo nor Respondent Virmar have ever produced the records subpoenaed. Further, no explanation has been given for the failure of Respondents Bustillo and Virmar to produce their records. Although the attorney for Respondents implied during the final hearing that the records may have been destroyed by Hurricane Andrew, there is no evidence to support that implication; rather, the evidence is uncontroverted that the building housing the real estate office of Respondents Virmar and Bustillo was not damaged by Hurricane Andrew. Ileana Hernandez is a realtor and a mortgage broker licensed in the State of Florida. She met Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto during a real estate transaction. In November of 1991 Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto contacted Hernandez regarding obtaining money in exchange for a second mortgage on certain real property. At the time, Respondents did not tell Hernandez the identity of the owner of the property, but Hernandez was given the address of the property and was advised that the market value of the property was approximately $79,000. Hernandez was subsequently advised that Respondent Venedicto (a/k/a Olga Bichara) was the owner of the property. It was agreed that Respondent Venedicto would execute and record the promissory note and mortgage in the amount of $15,500. Hernandez, who knew that Respondent Bustillo was the president of Terra Title, gave her a personal check payable to Terra Title in the amount of $15,000 on November 26, 1991. Respondent Venedicto, who had promised Hernandez that the promissory note and second mortgage would be recorded, never recorded those documents. Further, Respondents never delivered the original copy of the promissory note and mortgage to Hernandez despite her repeated demands. Hernandez later discovered that Respondent Venedicto was not the sole owner of the property which she had attempted to mortgage but jointly owned the property with her son. Accordingly, Respondent Venedicto's signature would not be sufficient to perfect a mortgage on the property. Hernandez also discovered that the mortgage, represented by Bustillo and Venedicto to be a second mortgage, was not. There were already two mortgages on the property. Had Hernandez known the true ownership and the true encumbrances on the property, she would not have loaned Venedicto the $15,000 because that raised the total amount of mortgages on the property to be in excess of the value of the property. Three checks which were subsequently written by Respondent Bustillo from the operating accounts of Respondent Virmar and of Mega Group Corp. were dishonored by the bank with the notation "N. S. F." As a result of those checks, Hernandez obtained default final judgments against Respondent Virmar and against Mega Group Corp., which final judgments are still unsatisfied. Prior to that time, however, Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo approached Hernandez regarding their need to borrow $35,000 to be re-paid in 30 days in conjunction with some real estate development in which Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo were involved. Respondent Venedicto and Respondent Bustillo each individually represented that Hernandez would have her money back in 30 days. Respondent Bustillo told Hernandez that Respondent Venedicto was in business with Bustillo and was selling real estate in Mexico. Bustillo asked Hernandez to make the check payable to Bustillo's company Terra Title. Hernandez went to the offices of Respondent Virmar and handed her personal check made payable to Terra Title to Respondent Venedicto. When the 30 days had passed with no payments to Hernandez, she went to Virmar Investments and made Respondent Venedicto sign a promissory note for $35,000. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Hernandez had recovered only $15,000 of the $35,000 loan made to Respondent Venedicto and had recovered only the principal amount of the money supposed to have been secured by a second mortgage on real property. Hernandez is still owed $20,000 in principal alone.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the license of Respondent Martha M. Bustillo, revoking the license of Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., and requiring Respondent Olga Venedicto to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days from the entry of the Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 31st day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3328, 93-3329, and 93-3330 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-18, 20-29, and 31-33 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 30 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 25, 26, 28, 37, 42, 49-52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 69, 71, and 73 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 6, 11-17, 19-22, 30- 36, 43, 46-48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 67 and 68 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 10, 23, 29, 61, 64, 65, 70, 72, and 75 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 24, 27, 38-41, 44, and 45 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 59, 66, 74, and 76-78 are rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Ofer M. Amir, Esquire Amir & Associates, P.A. 8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 500 Plantation, Florida 33324 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate brokers and holds license No. 0002997. On May 7, 1979, Respondent acted in the capacity of a real estate broker in the transaction of the sale of a parcel of real property located in Polk County, Florida. The purchaser in that transaction was Margaret Rhoden, and the seller was June Davis, who was represented in the transaction by a relative, Henry Goodwin. On May 7, 1979, Margaret Rhoden entered into a Contract for Sale of Rea1 Estate for the purchase of a piece of property Frostproof, Florida, from June Davis. The full purchase price of the property was $3,500, which Ms. Rhoden paid to Respondent in cash on May 7, 1979, and obtained a receipt from Respondent for that amount. At the time the contract was entered into, Ms. Rhoden was advised that a deed should be forthcoming from the seller within two to four weeks. A date of June 20, 1979, was established to close the transaction, subject to a 120-day curative period should any cloud on the title be discovered. The contract between the parties provided that should any such cloud appear of record, the seller would have a period of 120 days after receipt of written notice prior to the date set for closing in which to attempt to cure the defect. The contract further provided that if title defects were not cleared within the l20-day period, the deposit would be returned to the buyer, or, at the buyer's option, the transaction should be closed in the same manner as if no defect had been found. A warranty deed purporting to transfer the property from the seller to the buyer was executed on June 7, 1979, and a title binder was issued on that same date. The title binder indicated an outstanding mortgage on a larger piece of property of which the parcel purchased by Ms. Rhoden was only a part. When efforts to clear this cloud on the title took longer than expected, Ms. Rhoden asked, and was granted, permission by the seller's agent to commence construction on the improvements on the property notwithstanding the fact that she knew that a cloud remained on the title to the lot, and the transaction had not been closed. Construction was not completed on the improvements because Ms. Rhoden ran out of cash during the course of construction. She moved into the dwelling while it was still in a partially completed condition and, on September 8, 1979, with the permission of the seller's agent, received a loan of $3,000 from the $3,500 deposit she had placed with Respondent, Ms. Rhoden executed a promissory note dated September 8, 1979, in which she agreed to repay the $3,000 loan when clear title to the property was issued. Ms. Rhoden used the proceeds of this loan to make additional improvements on the property. On October 26, 1979, Respondent received both the warranty deed dated June 7, 1979, and the title binder issued on that date from the attorney for the seller. When approached by Ms. Rhoden, Respondent agreed to lend her the deed and title binder to attempt to obtain additional financing to complete construction on her home. The clear inference from the record in this proceeding is that there was never any understanding between Respondent and Ms. Rhoden that this deed could be recorded at this or any other juncture in this transaction. In fact, the contract entered into between the buyer and seller clearly called for the payment of the full purchase price of the property at closing, and the note subsequently executed by Ms. Rhoden conditioned the issuance of a warranty deed to her on the payment of the $3,000 face value of the note. Ms. Rhoden was unsuccessful in obtaining additional financing to complete construction on her home, probably due to the fact that when she sought that financing the outstanding mortgage on the property had still not been satisfied. When Respondent advised the seller's attorney that he had loaned the warranty deed to Ms. Rhoden for the purposes outlined above, he was advised that there was nothing to keep Ms. Rhoden from recording the deed, at which point Respondent apparently determined that it would be prudent for him to retrieve the deed from Ms. Rhoden's possession. Ms. Rhoden had her mother return the deed to Respondent in February of 1980. According to the testimony of both Ms. Rhoden and her mother, they felt the purpose for the returning of the deed was to have it recorded. Respondent denies any such understanding. In resolving this conflict in testimony, the clear inference from the circumstances involved in this transaction, including the wording of the contract of sale and the note executed by Ms. Rhoden, supports a finding that all of the parties to this transaction either knew, or should have known, that the recording of the deed at this juncture in the transaction would have been improper. Although the outstanding mortgage had been satisfied in January of 1980, Ms. Rhoden had not Performed her obligation under the contract of sale by paying the full purchase price. When Respondent had recovered the deed from Ms. Rhoden, he was advised by the attorney for the seller not to record the deed until he had received payment from Ms. Rhoden in accordance with the contract and the promissory note. As indicated above, the outstanding mortgage on the property was satisfied in January of 1980. On February 6, 1980, Respondent Prepared a closing statement reflecting the purchase price of the property as $3,500. From this amount he deducted a total of $478 for state documentary stamps, title insurance, Preparing the deed, and amount of real estate commission leaving a the apparently forwarded the note from Ms. Rhoden for $3,000, together with the $22.00 cash balance remaining from her initial $3,500 deposit to the seller along with the deed which the seller had earlier executed. Ms. Rhoden apparently never made or tendered payment of the $3,000 note, the transaction never closed, and at the time of final hearing in this cause an eviction action was apparently pending between the seller and Ms. Rhoden. Paragraph seven of the contract of sale executed between the seller and Ms. Rhoden Provides as follows: If Buyer fails to perform this contract, the deposit this day paid by Buyer as aforesaid shall be retained by or for the account of Seller as consideration for the execution of this agreement and in full settlement of any claims for damages.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Benny Isaiah, holds real estate broker's license number 0311124 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Greater Realty of Orlando, Ltd., Inc., is a real estate broker corporation and holds license number 0223392 also issued by petitioner. When the events herein occurred, its offices were located at 66408 International Drive, Orlando, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Isaiah operated as the qualifying broker for Greater Realty. On or about November 2, 1982, Isaiah's wife, Dalia, a real estate salesman in respondent's fir, obtained an offer from Arthur Zimand to purchase a residence located at 9227 Bay Point Drive, Orlando, Florida, for $190,000. The residence was owned by Tran Van Don, a former Vietnamese army officer. In the contract for sale and purchase, Zimand established a closing date of February 1, 1983. He also gave respondent's firm a $2500 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Greater Realty which was placed in the appropriate escrow account as required by law. The contract provided that "(i)f the offer is not executed by both of the parties on (a date specified therein), the . . . deposit(s) shall be, at the option of the Buyer, returned to him and this offer shall thereafter be null and void." The above offer was presented to the seller and rejected. Thereafter, Don prepared a counter-offer on November 9, 1982, which increased the sales price to $205,000 and changed the closing date to November 30, 1982. After reviewing the counter-offer, Zimand agreed to all changes except the closing date of November 30, 1982. He could not agree to that date since he was unable to obtain sufficient funds to close the transaction until December 10, 1982. Accordingly, Zimand crossed out the closing date suggested by the seller, wrote in December 10, 1982, in its place, and initialed the change on the contract. The later closing date was unacceptable to the seller and he did not accept Zimand's counter-offer. Therefore, no contract was executed by the parties. Respondents were so notified by the seller's attorney by letter sent on November 23, 1982. The letter advised them that the seller would not accept the closing date of December 10, and that accordingly no contract between the two parties existed. On November 24, 1982, Zimand wrote respondent's wife a letter in which he withdrew his offer and requested a prompt refund of his $2500 deposit. On December 3 and 11, 1982, respectively, Zimand and Don executed a "release of deposit receipt" wherein both parties instructed respondents to disburse the deposit held in escrow to Zimand. By signing the release form, the seller acknowledged that he had no interest in the deposit monies. The document was mailed to respondents on January 11, 1983. This was followed by a letter to Isaiah from Zimand's attorney on January 25, 1983, again requesting a refund of the deposit within ten days. Despite these requests, Isaiah did not refund the deposit. On or about December 8, 1982, Isaiah withdrew the $2500 from his escrow account. The disposition of those funds is not known. Zimand later instituted a civil action against Isaiah seeking to recover his deposit. He also filed a complaint with petitioner. On May 9, 1984, or just before the matter went to trial, Isaiah returned the deposit to Zimand. This was some seventeen months after Zimand first requested a refund of his deposit. Isaiah contends there was a valid contract between Zimand and Don, and that they used a "technicality" (a dispute over closing dates) to get out of closing the transaction. Because of this, he believes he was originally entitled to keep the $2500 as a sales commission. He also contended that his wife is the person who should be involved in this proceeding rather than him since she negotiated the contract and is more familiar with the details of the contract. Finally, he asserts the dispute has no clear-cut answer, and falls within a "gray" area. As such, he was justified in his actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of Counts I, II and III of the administrative complaint, that their licenses be suspended for six months, and each pay a $500 administrative fine within forty-five days after a final order is entered in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 8th day of November 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Defendant was registered with Plaintiff as an active broker, holding certificate NO. 0182756. On or about October 4, 1976, a Contract for Sale of Real Estate ("the contract") was entered into between Merit Properties Corporation as seller, Frances G. Williams ("the buyer") as buyer, and Defendant as "agent." The contract was for purchase and sale of certain real property and improvements located in Tampa, Florida. The contract provided that purchase of the property was contingent upon the buyer qualifying for and obtaining an FHA mortgage in the amount of $20,850. At the time the contract was signed, the Defendant obtained a $300.00 deposit from the buyer, and at some later date, accepted an additional deposit of $550.00, making a total deposit of $850.00 toward the purchase price of the property. The contract provides that the deposit shall apply as part of the purchase price of the property "...and shall be held by said Agent in escrow pending closing of [the] transaction..." In addition, the contract provides that upon closing of the transaction "[t]he Seller agrees to pay said Agent a sum equal to 7 percent of the purchase price as commission...." Finally, the contract contained a provision indicating that "[n]o agreements, unless incorporated in this contract shall be binding upon the Agent, Buyer, or, Seller." Sometime in late 1976, the buyer applied to Mortgage Associates, Inc. for an FHA mortgage. On or about November 5, 1976, this application was rejected. On or about November 29, 1976, the buyer again applied for an FHA mortgage, this time through Charles F. Curry and Company. This mortgage application was rejected on December 10, 1976. Defendant was aware that the buyer had applied for an FHA mortgage through Charles F. Curry and Company. Written notification of rejection of the buyer's application through this company was sent to the buyer, but a copy was not forwarded by Charles F. Curry and Company to Defendant. The record establishes, however, that Charles F. Curry and Company's general practice was to notify real estate brokers involved in financing transactions of the disposition of mortgage loan applications. Defendant denies receiving any such notification from Charles F. Curry and Company. On several occasions, after the aforesaid rejections of the buyer's mortgage loan applications, the buyer attempted to contact Defendant by telephone, but was unsuccessful in these attempts. Subsequently, on February 21, 1977, the buyer orally advised Defendant that her mortgage loan application had been rejected, and requested return of her $850.00 deposit. When Defendant did not return the deposit, the buyer retained an attorney to assist her in recovering her deposit. Finally, pursuant to a Compromise and Settlement Agreement dated September 5, 1978, Defendant returned the buyer's deposit of $850.00, together with an additional $100.00 as accrued interest. However, of this $950.00 total, the buyer received only $650.00. The remaining $300.00 constituted a fee which the buyer had to pay to her attorney for services rendered in recovering the deposit. Defendant was a substantial owner of Merit Properties Corporation, the purported seller of the real property here involved. Evidence of record in this proceeding clearly establishes that Defendant did not deposit the $850.00 earnest money deposit received from the buyer in an escrow account maintained either in his own name or in the name of Merit Properties Corporation. In fact, Defendant admits that the $850.00 deposit was used to make improvements to the real property which was the subject matter of the contract. Defendant contends that he received the earnest money deposit from the buyer as an officer of Merit Properties Corporation, and that he had an oral understanding with the buyer entered into prior to the execution of the contract that the money so received would note be held in escrow, but would be used to make improvements on the property. These contentions are not supported by the evidence and are specifically rejected. The record clearly establishes that during negotiations leading to the signing of the contract, Defendant informed the buyer that he was a real estate broker. In addition, the record also establishes that Defendant prepared the contract, and was therefore responsible for the wording of that document. The contract clearly provides that Defendant acted as "agent" for Merit Properties Corporation, and that as such, he was to receive a 7 percent commission on the purchase price at the closing of the transaction. By the very terms of the contract, therefore, Defendant was acting in the capacity of a real estate broker in this transaction. In addition, the contention that there existed an oral agreement between Defendant and the buyer prior to the signing of the contract to use the deposit money for construction purposes is not supported by the evidence of record in this proceeding, and, in fact, is directly contrary to the language contained in the contract document prepared by Defendant. Finally, Defendant contends that he never refused to return the buyer's deposit, but informed her that the deposit would be returned upon the buyer furnishing to Defendant both a copy of correspondence rejecting the buyer's mortgage loan application, and a "release." There is no provision in the contract involved in this transaction which would require the buyer to furnish Defendant any sort of "release", or to furnish notice of inability to obtain the necessary financing in any specific form. Thus, oral demand for return of the deposit was clearly permissible under the terms of the contract. Further, Defendant was aware of the fact that the buyer had applied for mortgage financing through Charles F. Curry and Company, and therefore could either have obtained a copy of the rejection of the buyer's mortgage loan application himself had he chosen to do so, or could at the least have inquired of that company as to the disposition of the buyer's application. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as either not having been supported by the evidence, or as having been irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Board of Real Estate, suspending Defendant's real estate broker's license No. 0182756 for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of final agency action in this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gwynne A. Young, Esquire Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone 904-488-6692 MEMORANDUM TO: C. B. Stafford, Executive Director, Board of Real Estate E. B. Ashley, Administrator on Investigations FROM: John Huskins, Assistant General Counsel SUBJECT: FINAL ACTION - Suspension PD 3402 (DOAH 79-744) James E. Black, Broker 182756-1 DATE: February 6, 1981 This is to advise you that by FINAL ORDER dated September 15, 1980 (copy attached) the license of James E. Black was suspended for six (6) months, effective October 16, 1980, provided no appeal was taken. Black did appeal. January 21, 1991 the Appellate Court entered its ORDER dismissal of appeal (copy attached), therefore, suspension became effective immediately. Broker Black, through his lawyer, delivered to me Black's Certificate Number: 182756, as individual broker Certificate Number: 182755, as corporate-Best Opportunity Realty Corporation. both of which are attached to this memo to C. B. Stafford. It is suggested that revocation records be updated to reflect suspension and the effective date. It is further suggested that investigation be made as necessary to determine if James E. Black is in fact refraining from real estate activities, in compliance with his suspension. JH/pkr Enclosures* cc: Mr. Michael Schwartz, General Counsel Susan Penquite, Central Files Mr. Fred Wilson, Assistant General Counsel Ms. Renata Hendrick, Supervisor of Records * NOTE: Enclosures noted are not available at the Division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
