The Issue The central issue is whether Bennett committed the violations as alleged and, if so, what discipline is appropriate. More specifically, did he violate Section 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud, culpable negligence or the like, by failing to account for and deliver trust funds, and by failing to properly maintain trust funds?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Fred M. Bennett was, at all times relevant, licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0161968 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Harold E. McNally is a self-employed businessman from Chillicothe, Ohio. He met Fred Bennett in 1976 or 1977 when he bought some property in Orlando. Thereafter, the relationship continued with McNally buying and selling property as an investment, and Bennett acting as agent or purchaser. Four of McNally's properties in Orlando, Florida were held as rentals: 3939 Spoonbill Avenue 4525 Salvia Drive 7806 Toledo Street 1308 Forester Avenue Bennett collected the rents and sent them to McNally, after deducting his management fee. There was no written management agreement, but rather McNally leased the properties back to Bennett. Later, those leases expired and since the market was not good for sales, Bennett and McNally continued their relationships with Bennett sending the rents and deducting his fees. The rents were $450.00 and $485.00 per month and his fee was $93.00 per month in 1986. The rents remained the same in 1987, but the management fee was raised to $103.00 per month. Beginning in May 1986, the rents were not sent to McNally on a regular basis. McNally attempted to contact Bennett but was unsuccessful. By July 1987, Bennett owed McNally $11,169.00 for back rents and a $400.00 deposit on one of the houses. After McNally retained counsel and sent a letter informing Bennett that he was terminating the management arrangement, Bennett eventually returned the keys and (with the exception of one which he had applied to rent) transferred the tenants' deposits to McNally's new agent. Bennett attempted to account for the back rents with promissory notes. McNally never acknowledged the notes and filed them. The $11,169.00 was never paid. James D. Stayton is another real estate investor who dealt with Bennett. He had two properties which Bennett handled for him. Between September 20, 1984, when he acquired the property, and October 1986, when he removed the property from Bennett's control, Stayton was owed $7,447.44 in back rents. Again, Bennett signed a promissory note in this amount, but never paid on the note. Bennett admits that he owes the funds but denies fraud or dishonesty and claims that his failure to pay the rents was the result of a business deal that went bad. Bennett Does not claim that the rents were not collected. One tenant, Patricia Sulter established that she lived in the 4525 Salvia Drive unit and paid her deposit and rents regularly to Bennett during the months when Bennett failed to forward the funds as agreed, to Harold E. McNally.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Fred M. Bennett guilty of violations of Section 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes, imposing a $4,000.00 fine and suspending his license for four years. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4903 The following constitute specific rulings on each of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: Adopted in paragraph :1. Adopted in paragraph #3. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. & 5. Adopted in paragraph #5. Adopted in paragraph 6, except for the finding that the funds were converted to Bennett's own use, which finding was not proven. Adopted in paragraph #6. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Bennett Post Office Box 3102 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Certificate of Registration of the Respondent as a real estate broker should be suspended or revoked For alleged violation of Sections 475.25(1)(a), 475.25(1)(c), 475.25(1)(i), and 475.25(3), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed February 11, 1976. A final hearing was scheduled to be held on June 29, 1976, but pursuant to Motion of Respondent was continued until July 6, 1976 and, pursuant to a further Motion of Respondent For continuance, the hearing was continued until November 15, 16, 1976. A prehearing Motion of Respondent to strike Counts I, II, III, V, VII, VIII, IX & X of the Administrative Complaint was denied at the commencement of the hearing. At the hearing, Petitioner moved to amend Count X of its Complaint to correct a typographical error as to the statutory provision alleged to have been violated. The Motion was granted and the said Count was amended to reflect an alleged violation of Section 475.25(3), F.S. rather than Section 475.25(1), F.S. Pursuant to further Motion of Petitioner, a typographical error appearing in Count VII of the Administrative Complaint relating to the address of the property in question shown in paragraph 1 thereof was corrected to read "1558". Pursuant to further Motion of petitioner, Count Seven was also amended to include an alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(i), F.S. No objections to any of the above amendments were made by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered real estate broker, Certificate No. Q056337. During the year in which the alleged statutory violations occurred, i.e., 1974, she was also registered under the trade name "Watson Real Estate". Also, effective November 4, 1974, she was additionally registered in the name of Connie B. Martin. Her place of business was listed at 17031 North Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2) On April 16, 1974, Respondent, in the name of "Connie Martin and/or Nominees" entered into an Agreement of Sale and Deposit Receipt with Richard Infante and Susan Infante, his wife, whereby Respondent agreed to purchase real estate located at 1558 N.W. 102nd Street, Miami, Florida, For the price of $24,607.50. The contract provided For a $1,000.00 security deposit by the purchaser in the Form of a check payable to "Watson Real Estate Trust Account" and the Agreement recited an acknowledgement of receipt of these escrow funds by Constance B. Mastellone For Watson Real Estate. The Agreement further provided that closing of the transaction would be on June 23, 1974 and that, in the event of failure or refusal of the purchaser to comply with the obligations thereunder, without fault on the sellers' part, all monies paid under the contract could be retained by the sellers as liquidated damages. Respondent did not place the $1,000.00 deposit in the Watson Real Estate Trust Account that was maintained in the City National Bank of Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Florida. Instead, she wrote a letter to the Infantes on the same day that the contract was executed advising them that the money was in an interest-bearing account at Chase Federal Savings, North Miami Beach, Florida. The letter stated that she preferred to handle the matter in that manner because there was a possibility she would not be able to obtain financing and close the purchase. Although Respondent testified that Mr. Infante called and told her that he had received the letter and had expressed no objection to this disposition of the funds, no written instrument or addendum to the contract in this respect was ever executed by the parties. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14; Respondent's Exhibit 16). The transaction with the Infantes did not close on the scheduled date because Respondent was unable to obtain mortgage financing. On July 1, 1974, Respondent, in the name of "Connie B. Martin, broker" as seller, entered into a deposit receipt agreement with Carrie Clark, as purchaser to sell the Infante property For the sum of $25,000.00. The deposit receipt reflected that the sum of $1,450.00 was acknowledged to be held in escrow by Watson Real Estate as a deposit on the property. There was no showing in this Agreement that Respondent did not hold title to the property at the time. The contract was contingent upon the delivery by the seller of an FHA appraisal of not less than $25,000.00. The Agreement reflected that "Watson Real Estate, Connie B. Martin, Broker" had received the aForesaid deposit. Under the same date of July 1, 1974, another deposit receipt was executed by Carrie Clark as buyer, whereby "Watson Real Estate Trust Account, Connie B. Martin", acknowledged receipt of $1,450.00 from Carrie Mae Clark on the same property as a deposit to be held in escrow by Watson Real Estate. This document showed the purchase price to be $24,607.50. It did not reflect the name of the proposed seller of the property. At the time she executed these documents, Clark did not know who owned the property in question. Respondent viewed Clark as her "Nominee, as referred to in the original contract with the Infantes, and had contracted with Clark on the assumption that she could deliver clear title to her when she had received the same from the Infantes. Respondent considered this transaction to be what she termed a "double closing". Her original contract with the Infantes provided that she would receive as "Watson Real Estate, Connie B. Martin, Broker", 40 percent of the real estate commission on the sale with 60 percent to be paid to the listing broker, Edwin C. Bagby. (Testimony of Respondent, Clark, Petitioner's Exhibit 8; Respondent's Exhibit 6). During the next several months after June, 1974, Respondent advised Infante and his attorney Benjamin Agronow, that she was endeavoring to sell the house to Clark. Infante was desirous of selling the property and did not press to close the transaction. He hereby tacitly agreed to an extension of the time For closing. However, when the Clark deposit receipt was submitted to Agronow in early November, 1974, he advised Infante that the changed method of financing therein would result in higher costs to him. By this time Infante wanted no further dealings with the Respondent and declined to consider the offer by Clark. Thereafter, on November 12, 1974, Agronow advised the Respondent that she had breached the contract of April 16, 1974 For, failure to close the transaction, and demanded delivery of the $1,000.00 deposit under the terms of the contract. It provided that upon default of the purchaser all monies paid thereunder could be retained by the seller as liquidated damages and the contract terminated. Respondent did not pay over the deposit funds to Infante. (Testimony of Respondent, Agronow, Infante (Deposition), Respondent's Exhibit 6, Petitioner's Exhibit 14). On May 25, 1974, Respondent, in the name of "Connie B. Martin and/or Nominees" as purchaser, entered into an Agreement Of Sale And Deposit Receipt with Ruth E. Higgins, as seller, to purchase property located at 1065 N.W. 127th Street, Miami, Florida, For the sum of $31,000.00. The contract provided For the payment of $1,000.00 in the Form of a check to "Watson Real Estate trust account", escrow agent, as a security deposit, and receipt was acknowledged of this amount on the same date by Constance B. Mastellone For Watson Real Estate Trust Account. The contract further provided that it was a "back-up" contract and would not become effective until the date that Higgins was notified that a previous contract with one Hyde was known to be void. Respondent was advised several months later that the Hyde transaction had failed. Neither the listing broker, Associates Real Estate, nor Higgins saw the $1,000.00 at the time the aForesaid agreement of May 25 was entered into by the parties. A letter of Respondent to Higgins on the same date as the contract was executed stated that Respondent held the deposit of $1,000.00 in her account with Chase Federal Savings, North Miami Beach, Florida, in an interest-bearing account. It further stated that Respondent did not want to lose the interest during the time spent waiting For a mortgage commitment. Respondent testified that Higgins called her on the phone and told her she had received the letter and accepted the provisions thereof. Respondent encountered difficulties in obtaining financing For the purchase due to a tight money market and there was also a title problem to be resolved. In any event, the deal did not go through and Respondent obtained a release of the deposit receipt to herself which was executed by Higgins on December 19, 1974. Respondent admitted at the hearing that at no time was the $1,000.00 deposit ever placed in the Watson Real Estate trust account. (Testimony of Respondent, Higgins, Shaeffer; Petitioner's Exhibit 15; Respondent's Exhibits 8, 10, 11, 12, 13). On December 10, 1974, Respondent's daughter, Pamela A. Mastellone entered into an Agreement Of Sale And Deposit Receipt as purchaser of the Higgins property For the sum of $34,000.00. This agreement provided For a security deposit in the sum of $3,000.00 in the Form of a check payable to Ruth E. Higgins. The check was issued by Connnie Mastellone" on December 10, 1974 and was drawn on the City National Bank of Miami Beach. The contract further provided that if it did not close by December 24, 1974, the contract would be null and void and the parties relieved of all obligations. The agreement provided For an even split of a 7.5 percent commission between Associates Realty and Watson Realty. Respondent testified that at the time she gave the check to Higgins, she asked her to hold it until a firm commitment from a mortgage company had been received. Higgins, on the other hand, testified that Respondent had asked her to hold it For two weeks. Respondent was unable to get mortgage financing For her daughter and the contract expired by its terms on December 24, 1974. On December 27, 1974, Higgins deposited the check For payment and it was returned For insufficient funds. (Testimony of Respondent, Shaeffer; Petitioner's Exhibits 16, 17, 18; Respondent's Exhibit 14). On June 18, 1974, Respondent in the name of "Connie B. Martin" as purchaser entered into an Agreement Of Sale And Deposit Receipt with Rose Gilbert, represented by Jean Fielding, Attorney in fact, to purchase real estate located at 16150 N.E. 12th Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida, For the price of $26,000.00. The Agreement provided that upon signing of the contract, the purchaser would place $2,00.00 in escrow with Watson Real Estate Trust Account and receipt was acknowledged of this sum by Constance B. Mastellone For Watson Real Estate. The contract provided For a 50-50 commission split between Watson Real Estate and Pete Lipinsky, listing broker. At the time the contract was executed, Lipinsky told Respondent that if she did not place the money in escrow, he would "nail her hide to the wall". Respondent testified that she instructed her daughter, Pamela Mastellone, to go to the Chase National Bank and withdraw $2,100.00 and send the same to the Watson Realty Trust Account at City National Bank of Miami Beach. She further testified that it was not until she was investigated by petitioner that she learned her daughter had neglected to follow her instructions in this regard. The contract did not close on the agreed date and thereafter, on September 20, 1974, Respondent, in the name of "Constance B. Mastellone, Broker" entered into another Agreement Of Sale And Deposit Receipt with Gilbert on the same property For a price of $29,000.00. Although this Agreement provided For a security deposit of $2,600.00 to be placed in the Watson Real Estate Account, the parties understood that these were the same funds deposited under the Former contract. This deal closed on October 14, 1974. (Testimony of Respondent, Fielding, Lipinsky; Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 7; Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2). On May 28, 1974, Peter A. Mastellone and Respondent, in the name of "Constance B. Mastellone, Broker, and/or Nominees" was purchaser entered into an Agreement Of Sale And Deposit Receipt with Roy M. Hall and Kitty H. Hall, his wife, to purchase property located at 1517 N.W. 101st Street, Miami, Florida, For the price of $17,000.00. The contract provided For a $1,000.00 check payable to Watson Real Estate Trust Account as escrow agent as a security deposit, and receipt of the said deposit was acknowledged by Constance B. Mastellone on behalf of Watson Real Estate. The contract further specified that the property was being purchased For the purpose of resale and provided For a closing within 30 days. The contract provided that there would be no real estate commission paid on the transaction. Also, on May 28, 1974, Respondent directed letters to the Halls advising them that the $1,000.00 security deposit was in her account at Chase Federal Savings, North Miami Beach, an interest- bearing account, and that she did not want to place it in an escrow account where it would earn no interest. Respondent testified that the Halls orally agreed the deposit money could stay in the savings account of Respondent. This contract did not close, but on August 9, 1974, Respondent executed an FHA deposit receipt as seller whereby she agreed to sell the property to Nicholas Torek and Mary McDonnell Torek For the sum of $23,000.00. The document acknowledged the receipt of a $500.00 security deposit, which was in the Form of a check issued to Watson Real Estate by M.L. McDonnell on August 11, 1974, to be placed in the Watson Real Estate Account. Respondent was unaware at the time that McDonnell and Torek were not married. Torek had authorized McDonell to use his name on the instrument because they were planning to be married. Respondent sent them to a mortgage company to qualify For a mortgage. Several days later, she learned that they were not married and Torek came back and signed a new contract, which was also dated August 9, with the Halls at the same purchase price as his contract with Respondent. The latest agreement provided For a security deposit of $1,250.00 to be held in escrow by Watson Real Estate Trust Account and also provided For a real estate commission to Watson Real Estate of $3,750.00 to be paid by the Halls. An addendum to this contract was executed by Torek and Respondent, dated August 9, 1974, whereby Torek agreed that the $1,250.00 escrow should not be deposited in the trust account, but be given to Peter A. Mastellone For the purpose of making repairs on the property. It further provided that he would hold $850.00 toward closing costs and "prepayables". The document reflects the receipt of $2,100.00 by Peter A. Mastellone. Respondent testified that since $2,100.00 was all that was necessary to close the transaction, her husband returned $500.00 cash to Torek to reimburse McDonnell For her original deposit on the other contract. The Halls were not a party to the addendum to the contract and Torek was not aware that the Halls were the owners of the property until after the transaction was closed on October 4, 1974. Torek testified that he had not signed the second August 9 contract which had been executed by the Halls. However, Torek had agreed to close in his own name when he learned that McDonnell could not qualify For FHA financing. Torek was not concerned about the name in which the transaction was consummated but later, after disputes with McDonnell, quitclaimed his interest to her. Although McDonnell was present at the closing on October 4, the deed to the property was issued in the name of Torek only. McDonnell testified that Respondent had told her to sign the original contract In the name of Torek and in that way the deed would come out in her married name. McDonnell was surprised when the deed was issued only in the name of Torek. McDonnell was aware that the Halls owned the property and that Respondent was attempting to sell it in order to get out from under her own contract with the Halls. McDonnell was not aware that Torek had signed the subsequent agreement in his name only. (Testimony of Respondent, Torek, McDonnell, Petitioner's Exhibits 10, 11, 12, 13; Respondent's Exhibits 5 & 20).
Recommendation That the registration of Constance B. Mastellone as a real estate broker be suspended For a period of six months For violation of subsections 475.25(1)(a), 475.25(1)(c), and 475.25 (1)(i), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida James, A. Baccus, Esquire Attorney For Respondent Triangle Building 595 N.W. 91st Street Miami, Florida 33150 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION ANATOL ARIAN, Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2788 vs. DADE COUNTY DOAH NO. 76-472 CONSTANCE B. MASTELLONE, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent Hood placed an instrument on record in violation of Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and should have his license suspended, or whether Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert R. Hood holds real estate broker's license Number 0041003 and is a non-active real estate broker residing in Tampa, Florida. He transferred his license to non-active broker status on March 28, 1977. An administrative complaint was filed against the Respondent alleging that he filed a false and ineffective affidavit attached to a settlement agreement and stipulation on February 24, 1977, which clouded the title to certain property, and which was filed for the purpose of coercing the payment of money to Respondent. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. William C. Mayo was the trustee, one of the beneficiaries, and part- owner of real property in Santa Rosa County, Florida, by virtue of a trust agreement executed between Mayo, Respondent Hood, and others on October 31, 1973. Part of the agreement was that the agreement would not be recorded. Disputes arose between the parties. On December 31, 1975, a settlement agreement and stipulation was entered into and the property was to have been sold. The property was not sold, and the parties continued to disagree. Thereafter, on November 2, 1976, a second settlement agreement and stipulation was entered into which was to have superseded the agreement of December 31, 1975. This second stipulation and agreement was executory and contingent, however, upon a release of Respondent Hood from a certain promissory note, and upon the payment of $5,000.00 after six (6) months or the sale of the subject property. The agreement also contained a statement that "Mayo shall transfer subject property to Jeffrey Warren, as trustee" after February 27, 1976. Respondent Hood was to have paid for the preparation of the documents and recordation, which he did not do or offer to do, and the transfer was not made. The agreement and stipulation of November 2, 1976, was intended to act as a general release by the Respondent of the subject property and a settlement of the complicated disputes between Respondent Hood and Mr. Mayo. Part of the November 2nd agreement and stipulation was completed with Respondent Hood being released from the promissory note, but the $5,000.00 had not been paid as of the date that Respondent Hood recorded the affidavit and agreement and stipulation of December 31, 1975, and the property had not been sold. A suit was filed (Case No. 77-2254) by William Charles Mayo against Respondent Hood, and a temporary injunction dated March 7, 1977, was entered. among other things, the court found that the recording by the Respondent of the affidavit and stipulation of December 31, 1975, in the county where the real property was located affected the title to the property, and that the recording was in violation of Florida Statute 475.42(1)(j). Thereafter, the temporary injunction was modified, and an order transferring the case to another division was entered. The temporary injunction granted on March 7, 1977, was superseded by the order, which did not refer to the recordation by Respondent Hood of the affidavit therein held to be in violation of Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes. On April 7, 1977, Respondent Hood was paid $5,000.00 by cashier's check pursuant to the agreement and stipulation of November 2, 1976. Based on the testimony adduced at the trial and a review of the evidence submitted, it is obvious that the business arrangements between Respondent Hood and Mr. Mayo were beset by distrust, which led to bitter disagreement and three law suits. Neither party performed all their agreements, and neither party kept the other informed as to transactions involving the original trust agreement. Money was owed by Mr. Mayo to Respondent Hood at the time Respondent Hood filed the questioned affidavit together with the agreement of December 31, 1975, in the public records of Santa Rose County, Florida. This instrument added to the clouding of the title of the real estate involved, and the recordation was contrary to the agreement contained in the original trust agreement of 1973. However, notice was already on record of the trust agreement by virtue of a memorandum of assignment of beneficial interest trust agreement filed by William Charles Mayo on July 3, 1975, in Santa Rosa County, Florida, contrary to the agreement executed between the parties on October 31, 1973. Respondent Hood was not acting as a real estate broker or salesman, although he was a licensed broker, when he recorded the affidavit and agreement and stipulation on the public records of Santa Rosa County, Florida. The Instruments did cloud the title to real property, but they were filed for the purpose of collecting money owed to him personally. Final arguments and memoranda of law were filed by both parties, and said instruments were considered in the preparation of this Order.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, Robert R. Hood, be reprimanded. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Roger E. Whigham, Esquire 2402 West Cleveland Post Office Box 438B Tampa, Florida 33677
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 Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the law of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent Gustavo Mejido is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0059653 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued said Respondent as a broker was for the address of the offices of G.M. Realty, Inc. Respondent, G.M. Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0208962 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 715 S.W. 73rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. Respondent Gustavo Mejido was at all times pertinent hereto the qualifying broker for Respondent G.M. Realty, Inc. On August 30, 1990, Hector Sehwerert, an investigator employed by Petitioner, conducted an office inspection and audit of the office account and of the escrow/trust account maintained by Respondents. The audit reflected that there was a shortage in the escrow/trust account in the amount of $1,006.68. Respondents' sales escrow/trust liability was $88,220.00 while the balance of the escrow/trust account was $87,213.32. Respondents were unable to immediately explain the cause of the shortage, but on the same day the shortage was detected, Respondent Mejido caused the shortage in the escrow/trust account to be corrected. He caused the sum of $1,006.68 to be transferred from Respondent G.M. Realty's operating account to its escrow/trust account. The undisputed testimony at the formal hearing was that the discrepancy was caused by a clerical mistake. Respondents failed to reconcile its escrow/trust account for the month of July 1990, and for subsequent months as required by the rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. While Respondents had utilized its own system of reconciling its books for 14 years without having any other difficulty, this system was defective because the reconciliation did not include a determination of the total amount of escrow liability. Respondents have agreed to use the reconciliation method recommended by the Petitioner in the future. The licenses of Respondents have not been previously disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondents have violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, and which issues a letter of reprimand to said Respondents for such violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 16th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Florida Department of Professional Regulation Real Estate - Legal Section Hurston Building - North Tower Suite N-308 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Armando E. Lacasa, Esquire 3191 Coral Way Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0376 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-6a. are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6b. are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the finding that the month audited was July 1990, not August 1990. The remaining proposed findings are rejected as being the recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondents are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.
The Issue Should Respondent's license as a real estate broker be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, issued license number 0152815 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Robert L. Purlee and Doris A. Purlee (Purlees) conveyed certain real property located at Unit 1303-A, Jamestown Condominiums, within Pinellas County, Florida, to Ralph F. Marotte and Eve K. Marotte (Marottes), on June 18, 1993, for an agreed upon sum of $15,000, with installments due over a period of 120 months, at the rate of $181,99 per month, beginning July 15, 1993. Since there was no express language in the deed to express a contrary intent, the conveyance to the Marottes created an estate by the entirety which was not available to answer for the individual debts of either of the tenants. The Marottes executed a mortgage and ad promissory note creating a lien against the property in favor of the Purlees, to secure the timely payment of the sum owed by the Marottes. At the time the Marottes purchased the property in question from the Purlees, there were no other liens or encumbrances against the property. At the time the deed was recorded, there was two personal judgments filed of record against Ralph F. Marotte, individually, but no personal judgments filed of record against Ralph F. Marotte and Eve K. Marotte, jointly or as husband and wife, or Eve K. Marotte, individually. Since no copies of these judgments, certified or otherwise, were introduced as evidence, and David Eaton appeared to be confused about these judgments, this finding is based on the testimony of Eve K. Marotte which I find credible. On November 10, 1993, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: We are unable to financially own this unit, therefore, we wish to deed it back to you and your wife, and record it in the courthouse. Rather than go thru foreclosure proceedings and lawyer’s fees etc., thought the simplest best way for both of us is to just return the property back to you both, and have the tenant send her rent payment directly to you. We have prepared the deed - and after it is recorded - have the courthouse send it to you directly. (Emphasis Supplied) * * * On December 8, 1993, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: Attached is a copy of the Quit Claim Deed - which is being recorded and will be mailed to you directly. (Emphasis Supplied) * * * On January 6, 1994, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: We went to the courthouse to record the deed, and realized that we did not take the mortgage off, so we are enclosing a satisfaction of mortgage, so that we can turn the property back to you- and you will then own it free and clear as you did before. As soon as we received this paper from you, will turn over everything, to you, that is, keys, etc. (Inventory remains the same). (Emphasis Supplied) * * * From the notation on the quit claim deed it appears that the Marottes attempted to record the deed at the courthouse but changed their mind as indicated in the letter. The Purlees executed the satisfaction of mortgage and posted it with the United States Postal Service for delivery to the Marottes. Subsequently, the Purlees discussed the matter with their attorney, David A. Eaton, who advised the Purlees to have the satisfaction of mortgage retrieved from the postal service. This was accomplished, and the Marottes did not receive the satisfaction of mortgage. Therefore, the Marottes did not record the quit claim deed transferring title back to the Purlees. Based on the testimony of Eve K. Marotte which I find credible, Eve K. Marotte continued in her effort to deed the property back to the Purlees, and even discussed the possibility of satisfying the personal judgments against Ralph F. Marotte in the process. In fact, Respondent even arranged for the sale of the property but that did not prove fruitful either. At the time the Marottes attempted to deed the property back to the Purlees, the Marottes did not advise the Purlees of the personal judgments against Ralph F. Marotte, individually. Since the conveyance of the property to the Marottes created an estate by the entirety, the property would not have been subject to any judgments against Ralph F. Marotte, individually upon the Marottes deeding the property back to the Purlees. There was no intent on the part of the Respondent to “saddle” the Purlees with Ralph F. Marotte’s personal judgments. Likewise, there was no intent on the part of Respondent to mislead or misrepresent the circumstances surrounding the attempt to “deed back” the property or to induce the Purlees to execute a satisfaction of mortgage so that the Marottes could record such satisfaction or mortgage without recording the quit claim deed and thereby have the property free and clear of the mortgage. Although the Marottes did make some of the mortgage payments, they did not make all of the payments as contemplated by the mortgage and promissory note. Their failure to make mortgage payments was due to their financial condition and not that the Marottes were intentionally attempting to deprive the Purlees of the property without paying for the property. The Marottes collected some rent from the property but apparently did not apply this money toward the mortgage payment. However, there was no evidence, other than the requirement of making the mortgage payments, that the Marottes were required to pay the rent over to the Purlees. On or about November 6. 1995, the Purlees filed a complaint with the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, against the Marottes alleging, inter alia, that Respondent committed fraud and dishonest dealing in a real estate transaction. On a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Purlees, the court entered a Final Judgment Against Licensed Real Estate Broker, Eve K. Marotte, for Monetary Damages Arising Out of Fraudulent Conduct in a Real Estate Brokerage Transaction on March 1, 1996. Additionally, the court entered a Final Judgment Against Eve K. Marotte and Ralph F. Marotte for the total sum of $95, 454.95 which included $22, 284.54 in actual damages, $66,853.62 in trouble damages pursuant to Section 772.11, Florida Statutes, $5,250.00 in attorney’s fees, and $1,066.79 in taxable costs. Because of this judgment and other financial and personal circumstances surrounding the Respondent’s life at that time, the Respondent filed for bankruptcy which eventually “wiped out” this judgment. Subsequently, the Purlees filed a separate proceeding for foreclosure of the mortgage, and obtained title to the property by foreclosure sale on or about August 1997. Between the time of the initiation of the foreclosure proceeding and gaining title to the property, the Purlees had a receiver appointed to receive the rent on the property. Although David Eaton testified that the Marottes failed to turn over rents during this period, there is insufficient evidence to show that the Marottes received any rent during this period or that the property was rented at all times during this period. Clearly, after engaging an attorney and obtaining the large judgment, the Purlees were not interested in taking the property back without the judgment being satisfied. Likewise, it is equally clear that Respondent was not financially able to pay the judgment. Respondent did not intentionally or otherwise misrepresent the facts in order to induce the Purlees to accept the deed back and release her from her obligation, or act in a fraudulent manner in order to convince the Purlees to release Respondent from her obligation, or act dishonestly in her dealings with the Purlees.
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 dismissing both Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Geofrrey T. Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Eve K. Marotte, pro se 2616 46th Terrace North St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman and broker-salesman, license number 0326235. In 1983, Dorothy Nutt and Diane Falstad were the owners of a house located at 608 Hillcrest Street, Orlando, Florida. In December of 1983, Ms. Nutt and Ms. Falstad placed this house for sale with real estate broker Frank Daley. The listing was an exclusive listing except as to the Respondent and another individual, for which no commission would be paid, if a contract submitted by the Respondent was accepted by Nutt and Falstad prior to December 26, 1983. On December 25, 1983, the Respondent, along with his parents, Barbara Okoniewski and Louis Okoniewski, Jr., submitted a written contract to Diane Falstad and Dorothy Nutt for the purchase of the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The contract was accepted by the sellers on December 26, 1983. The contract, as executed by the Respondent and his parents, specified that a $1,000 deposit was to be held in escrow by "Closing Agents." Additionally, Respondent represented to Ms. Falstad that the $1,000 deposit was being maintained in an escrow account. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Respondent applied for a V.A. mortgage loan, but was later determined to be ineligible. Subsequent thereto, on or about February 8, 1984, application was made with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC), to obtain financing to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The application was in the name of the Respondent's parents, with Respondent handling the matter on their behalf. Thereafter, the Respondent requested that the loan officer (Charlyne Becker) at RFC not submit the loan application for approval to the underwriters. Pursuant to his request, the application was not submitted for approval. The transaction did not close. Subsequent to the scheduled date of closing both Ms. Falstad and Ms. Nutt made demands of the Respondent for forfeiture of the $1,000 deposit, due to their belief that, he had breached the contract by failing to secure financing. It was not until after the scheduled closing date that the sellers learned the $1,000 was not in escro. To date, Respondent has neither deposited the $1,000 in any trust account nor paid any money to the sellers. Respondent admits through his own testimony, that he did not make the deposit, nor was the deposit placed in any escrow account by his parents. Respondent's testimony, which was not rebutted, established that he and his parents sought to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property and that adjacent to it for rental purposes. However, they were advised by the RFC loan officer (Charlyne Becker) that the applications were not likely to be approved by RFC. Respondent did not thereafter pursue any of the loan applications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent $500. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esq. Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis S. Okoniewski 730 Lake View Avenue, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Harold Huff. Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================ =
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 The parties stipulated to facts set forth in paragraphs 1-8, below. Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Professional Regulation. As such, Petitioner acts as the licensing and regulatory agency for real estate broker licensees. The Respondent is Harriet M. Arndt, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of license number 0002216 issued by Petitioner. Her address of record is One South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 322, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. On January 28, 1987, Respondent received in trust an earnest money deposit in the amount of $39,000 from a buyer for a piece of property listed with another realtor, Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc. At closing of the sales transaction on February 25, 1987, Respondent delivered a check drawn on her trust account in the amount of $15,600 and made payable to Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc. This payment represented payment of one half of the $31,200 real estate brokerage commission. The check was subsequently returned to Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc. due to "non-sufficient funds." On March 27, 1987, Respondent delivered a cashier's check in the amount of $15,600 to Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc., to replace the February 25, 1987, check. The Respondent's real estate brokerage trust account was overdrawn from January 8, 1987 through March 4, 1987, by amounts ranging from $12,991.39 to $14,306.53 on various days during that period. The Respondent failed to maintain the $39,500 earnest money deposit in her trust account from February 2, 1987 until February 25, 1987, because the trust account's daily balance was less than that amount during that period. The Respondent subsequently failed to maintain the $15,660 due to Merrill Lynch Realty Inc., in the trust account from February 25, 1987, through March 25, 1987, because the trust account's daily balance was less than $15,600. From March 19, 1987, through October 29, 1987, Petitioner's investigator requested Respondent to produce for inspection and copying those books and papers relating to Respondent's trust account which are maintained in connection with Respondent's real estate activities. The Respondent failed to make the requested trust account books and records available at any time. Other Facts The Respondent offered mitigating testimony establishing that she was initially licensed in 1978 and has never been censured by Petitioner for any professional violations. She is 57 years of age and her real estate license is her sole source of support. Further, Respondent has borrowed money from her children to make up the deficit in her trust account. The testimony of Respondent also established that she was introduced to a gentleman named Robert H. Lajoie by another realtor in December of 1986. Subsequently, on or about December 8, 1986, Respondent entered into a nefarious arrangement with Lajoie. Under terms of the arrangement, Lajoie gave Respondent a check for $25,500 as a deposit to purchase a property listed with Respondent. In turn, Respondent gave Lajoie back a cash deposit of $10,000 from her trust fund in connection with a contract between the two of them whereby Respondent was to purchase a property of Lajoie's. The closing of the sale of Lajoie's property to Respondent would not take place until May, 1987. Lajoie returned to his native Canada shortly after receiving the $10,000 cash payment from Respondent and died. Shortly thereafter, payment on Lajoie's $25,500 check to Respondent was stopped. The Respondent is not sure whether this action was taken by Lajoie prior to his death or by his estate subsequent to that event. It is Respondent's contention that the loss of the $10,000 cash deposit to Lajoie resulted in a negative net balance in her trust account and eventually all of her financial difficulties in this case. The Respondent was sent an overdraft notice by her bank on January 8, 1987, stating that her trust account was overdrawn by $13,500 and that a check for $25,500 had been returned. Subsequent overdraft notices dated January 13, 1987 and January 21, 1987, were received by Respondent noting the rejection of two of Respondent's checks; one in the amount of $294.90 and the other in the amount of $34.35. The notice of January 13, 1987, indicated a hold on the account in the amount of $2,862.94 against the account's balance of $3,006.19. The January 21, 1987, notice continued this hold on the account's balance of $2,891.45. The Respondent related a series of personal matters at hearing that had prevented her from keeping appointments with Petitioner's investigators to inspect her records. She agreed to make access to those records immediately available.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses charged in the administrative complaint, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 and suspending her license for a period of six months. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 22nd day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1472 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2. Included in finding 1. 3-8. Included in findings 3-8 respectively. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. Included in finding 2. 2-5. Included finding 10. Included in finding 3. Included in finding 4, 5, and 10. Included in finding 8 and 12. 9-10. Rejected. 11. Included in finding 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert E. Gordon, Esquire 2601 Tenth Avenue North Suite 314 Lake Worth, Florida 33461-3197 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
