Recommendation Based, upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of Lawrence R. Cole as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of August, 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: Vaughan David Hulse, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Lawrence R. Cole c/o Leslie L. White 1924 Courtland Street Orlando, Florida 32810
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, permanently revoked, or otherwise disciplined based upon alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Since 1977, the Respondent has been a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0167049. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a salesperson for Tony Bucci Realty, Inc., 2216 East Olive Road, #108, Pensacola, Florida 32514. On November 2, 1983, a criminal information was filed in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida, charging the Respondent as follows: Between February 1978 and May 1978, at and in Escambia County, Florida and Orange County, Florida: did unlawfully agree, conspire, combine, or confederate with another person or persons, to wit: Kenneth Massoud, to commit a criminal offense, to wit: counterfeiting of United States Currency. The charge constituted a criminal violation of Section 831.18, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, (conspiracy). At the time, counterfeiting was a felony and conspiracy to counterfeit was a misdemeanor. On January 12, 1984, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to commit counterfeiting, a violation of Section 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, a first degree misdemeanor, and was adjudged guilty and sentenced to six months in the county jail. The Respondent denied that he was guilty of the charges contained in the information or the charge to which he pled. On or about June 28, 1985, the Florida Bar filed a complaint against the Respondent seeking to disbar him for his conduct in the counterfeiting case. Additionally, the Respondent was charged with trust account irregularities related to his practice of law. The Respondent was found to have violated disciplinary rules relating to trust accounting procedures, the accounting of clients' interest shortages. Likewise, he was guilty of the charge of conspiracy to counterfeit. The Supreme Court of Florida found that the referee's findings of fact and recommendations of guilt were amply supported. Based on these findings, on October 2, 1996, the Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in Florida. However, the Respondent testified that he is eligible to apply for re On June 13, 1990, an information was filed charging the Respondent with one count of possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony, and one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, deliver or manufacture, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, punishable as a third degree felony. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance without a prescription and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver. The court withheld adjudication and placed the Respondent on supervised probation for two years. At no time material hereto did the Respondent notify the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing of having entered a nolo contendere plea to a felony or to a misdemeanor. Respondent did not notify the Commission because he misunderstood his obligation to do so since he had not pled guilty nor been convicted of a felony. To his credit, he has not been subject to discipline or sanction by the Florida Real Estate Commission since his initial licensure. Finally, it is likely that the loss of his real estate sales license will leave Respondent in a more destitute position than his already extremely low income status renders him since Respondent's main income is from his employment as a licensed real estate salesperson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent: Guilty of having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate salesperson or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count I; Guilty of a course of conduct or practices which shows that the Respondent is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest, or untruthful that the money, property, transactions, and rights of investors, or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not safely be entrusted to him, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count II; Guilty of not having informed the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty (30) days of having pled guilty or having been convicted of a felony and, therefore, is in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count III; and Guilty of having had another state agency suspend the license or registration of, or impose a penalty against it, as set forth in Subsection 475.455(2), Florida Statutes, and, therefore, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count IV. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Final Order should further order all of the Respondent's real estate licenses, registration, certificates, and permits be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 21st day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3843 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The facts contained in paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 9 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, except for the last sentence, which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esq. Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Eric Eggen, Esq. Suite 347, Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Defendant, Theodore Michael Lakos, was at all material times, registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On or about April 20, 1976, a Second Amended Information was filed by the State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida against Theodore Michael Lakos, and others in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida. A copy of the Second Amended Information was received in evidence at the hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. On or about August 25, 1976, Theodore Michael Lakos withdrew his previous plea of not guilty of the charges, and entered a plea of nolo contendere to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 of the Second Amended Information. On or about November 9, 1976, Theodore Michael Lakos was adjudicated guilty of the charges alleged in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 of the Second Admended Information. Sentencing was stayed for a period of ten years, during which time the Defendant will be on probation under the supervision of the Florida Parole Commission. A copy of the Judgment and Sentence was received in evidence at the hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. In accordance with the Defendant's plea of nolo contendere, and the court's judgment, it is found that the Defendant, Theodore Michael Lakos, did knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agree, conspire and confederate with others to commit the felony of breaking and entering, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 810.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 1 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, between March 1, 1975, and up to and including, on or about March 28, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired, and confederated with others to commit the felony of grand larceny, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 2 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant between, on or about March 1, 1975, ad up to and including, on or about March 28, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired and confederated with others to commit the felony of first degree larceny, in violation of Sections 833.04 and 806.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 3 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, between on or about March 29, 1975, and up to and including on or about April 18, 1975, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously agreed, conspired, and confederated with others to commit the felony of grand larceny in violation of Section 833.04, and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 4 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant, on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree the commission of a felony, to wit: breaking and entering, in that he aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured others to unlawfully break and enter a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny in violation of Sections 776.011 and 810.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 6 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree, the commission of a felony, to wit: grand larceny, in that he aided abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured others to unlawfully take, steal, and carry away certain property of the aggregate value of more than one hundred dollars, in violation of Sections 776.011 and 811.021, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 8 of the Second Amended Information. It is found that the Defendant on or about March 28, 1975, aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured as a principal in the first degree the commission of a felony, to wit: first degree arson, in that he aided, abetted, counselled, or otherwise procured another to willfully and maliciously set fire to a dwelling house in violation of Sections 776.011 and 806.01, Florida Statutes, as charged in Count 10 of the Second Amended Information.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, George N. Osburn, is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0065910 and he was so licensed on or about February 26, 1979. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission), is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and regulatory matters concerning real estate salesmen and brokers. On February 26, 1979, the Respondent went to the home formerly occupied by his former wife and himself prior to their divorce, which was final before the above date. The Respondent went to her house to obtain some records which he needed to execute his Federal Tax Return. The Respondent came on the porch of the house and walked into the house where his former wife and a Mr. Lacey were seated on the couch. The Respondent's former wife told the deputy who investigated the incident that night, and who testified at the hearing, that she had invited the Respondent in. Mr. Lacey testified at the hearing that the Respondent simply walked in uninvited. The deputy, in the deposition taken prior to the hearing, acknowledged that Mrs. Lacey, the Respondent's former wife, told him on the evening of the investigation of the incident that the Respondent came in at her invitation. Mrs. Lacey and Charles Lacey maintained at the hearing that the Respondent came in their premises uninvited. Thus, the evidence is conflicting on whether the Respondent entered the premises of his former wife without permission, but there is no preponderant evidence which establishes that he entered without invitation. There is no question, however, that he did not force entry. The former Mrs. Osburn discovered no items of property missing from her premises after the Respondent left. The Respondent was ultimately charged with burglary and upon his attorney's advice at the time, entered a "best interest" plea of nolo contendre to the charge in return for which he was promised and received a one-year probation with adjudication of guilt withheld. The acts the Respondent was charges with committing as a basis for the burglary charge occurred February 26, 1979. The Order of the Circuit Court placing the Respondent on one-year probation, with adjudication of guilt withheld, was entered on approximately May 7, 1981. The Respondent was not shown to have any previous violations assessed against his license.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George N. Osburn, be found not guilty and that the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause be DISMISSED and case number 82-175 be hereby CLOSED. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 20th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark P. Kelly, Esquire FREEMAN & LOPEZ, P.A. 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Bernt Meyer, Esquire 2072 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33579 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 C. B. "Joe" Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and their demeanor while testifying, the following; relevant facts are found. Mitchell E. Verdell is registered with the Florida Board of Real Estate as a salesman. On or about July 17, 1978, the Respondent, Mitchell E. Verdell, filed with the then Florida Real Estate Commission, now Board of Real Estate, an application for registration as a Real Estate Salesman. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) On the Respondent's application for licensure, he failed to disclose that he had been arrested in Daytona Beach, Florida, on May 7, 1974, and tried for unlawful possession of marijuana. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance over five (5) grams for which he was place on probation for a period of two (2) years and an adjudication of guilt was withheld. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) Mitchell E. Verdell appeared and testified that his only witness, his probation officer, was ill and thus could not appear at the hearing. Mr. Verdell acknowledged his failure to disclose on his application for licensure with the Board the fact that he appeared in court on a charge of possession of a controlled substance. He also acknowledged the fact that he was placed on two (2) years probation. His probation officer, Bill Gross, advised Mr. Verdell with reference to his conviction and the manner in which he should handle it that since the judge withheld adjudication, he should never disclose it for a job when questions respecting his arrest were asked. He testified that he relied on Officer Gross, who bad been a probation officer for a few decades. (TR 9-10)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Mitchell E. Verdell's license to practice real estate as a salesman be REVOKED without prejudice to filing an application that is proper. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate Post Office Pox 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn Anderson, Esquire Post Office Pox 9159 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission for approximately 12 years and currently holds a license as a broker-salesman. Respondent was arrested and charged, with three other men, with various crimes involving stolen property. The information contained 20 counts. With the advice of counsel, Respondent entered into a negotiated plea of nolo contendere of Count V alleging Respondent and Grantham (Respondent's brother-in- law) trafficked in stolen property, to wit: a Hurricane boat and motor. All other charges were dismissed, adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years. The other 19 charges in this information generally involved stealing several tractors and other heavy equipment by two of the defendants with Respondent and Grantham initiating, organizing, planning, financing, and supervising the theft and sale of such property. The negotiated plea which is part of Exhibit 2 states: The Defendant and State agree and recommend to the Court an appropriate disposition of the plea [of nolo contendere] is the withholding of adjudication of guilt and the placing of the Defendant on probation for a period of time to be determined by the Court. The remaining charges against Defendant will be dismissed. Respondent testified that he was not guilty of any offense charged against him but could not afford tie legal fees of $30,000 he was quoted to defend the charges. He pleaded nolo contendere to only one charge knowing he would be placed on probation only. Respondent has been employed by the telephone company for 27 years and was so employed as a supervisor at the time of his arrest. Respondent's Version of the events preceding his arrest is that a fellow employee of the telephone company sold his boat and was in the market for a replacement. This was generally known by the other employees at the telephone company. Respondent mentioned this fact to his brother-in-law, Grantham, who lives in Crystal River, in case he was aware of a suitable boat for sale. Grantham later told Respondent he knew of a boat for sale and Respondent referred Grantham to the fellow employee and had no further connection with the transaction which apparently resulted in the sale of a stolen boat. Respondent, as a telephone company employee, was allowed free telephone service. Grantham visited Respondent frequently during this period and used Respondent's telephone to make long distance telephone calls. Tapping of this telephone by authorities while being used by Grantham apparently led to evidence linking Grantham to the ring trafficking in stolen property. No evidence was presented regarding the disposition of the charges against the other three defendants. William Perryman, a licensed real estate broker, has known Respondent for some 12 years and holds Respondent's license. Respondent has a good reputation for truth and veracity in the community, and Perryman would trust Respondent in any business transaction. Perryman does not believe Respondent could have committed the offenses of which he was charged.
Findings Of Fact By application originally executed on March 6, 1987, petitioner, Paul Elden, sought licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). The application reflects it was received by the Division on July 27, 1987. Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: March 1986 for bookmaking was given two years probation. Upon further investigation by the Division, it learned that on March 17, 1986 in the Broward County Circuit Court, Elden was adjudicated guilty of two counts of bookmaking. In addition, adjudication of guilt was withheld for a third count of possession of gambling paraphernalia. All counts were felony charges. For these charges, Elden was placed on two years' probation. The probation was successfully completed in March, 1988. Based upon this information, but without citing relevant statutory grounds, the Division denied the application by letter dated January 21, 1988. Elden freely acknowledged his mishap with the law. It occurred in December, 1985 when a Hallandale undercover police officer entered his book store in Hallandale and asked Elden to place two bets on football games. Elden took the bets and placed them with a bookie who frequented the store for the purpose of taking bets from Elden and other customers. Elden was later charged with two felony counts of bookmaking and, after a notebook with names of betting customers was found on the premises, he was also charged with possession of gambling paraphernalia. Elden no longer owns the book store in which the gambling occurred. At the time of hearing, Elden was a sales representative for a local health maintenance organization. If his application is granted, he intends to place his license with a North Miami Beach broker who has offered him a position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Paul Elden for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0350 Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Paul Elden 2049 South Ocean Drive Hallandale, Florida 33009 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman and should be allowed to sit for the examination for licensure which is administered by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a natural person over eighteen years of age and is a bona fide resident of the State of Florida. Except for issues raised with respect to Petitioner's being convicted of a crime in 1972, there is no issue as to Petitioner's eligibility to take the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman. During July, 1972, Petitioner was convicted in Federal Court in Virginia of mail fraud. The conviction was based upon a guilty plea. A three- year prison sentence was imposed with all but sixty days of the sentence suspended. Petitioner served sixty days in a maximum security federal penitentiary. Petitioner's civil rights in the State of Virginia were restored in 1976. Petitioner has not been convicted of any other crimes. Prior to his conviction, Petitioner was an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Virginia. The Petitioner's conviction related to the trust account that the Petitioner maintained in connection with his law practice. Petitioner resigned from the Bar in Virginia after his conviction. Petitioner has been licensed to practice as a real estate salesman in the State of Virginia for the past thirty years. Officials in Virginia made an effort to suspend or revoke his license, but the Petitioner was successful in pursuing judicial remedies until sufficient time had lapsed after his conviction, and under Virginia law he was eligible for licensure. The Petitioner has practiced real estate in Virginia since his conviction. The Petitioner enjoys a very good reputation for honesty, truthfulness, and trustworthiness in business communities in Virginia and Orlando, Florida. He has the reputation amongst business and personal associates of being of good character, and he enjoys a good reputation for fair dealing. It appears that the interests of the public and of investors would not be likely to be endangered if the Petitioner is licensed as a real estate salesman in Florida. A licensed broker is prepared to hire the Petitioner as a salesman if the Petitioner is licensed, and it appears that the Petitioner would faithfully and honestly represent clients. The Petitioner neither denies nor minimizes the significance of his criminal conviction. He forthrightly advised the Real Estate Commission of the conviction in his application for licensure. He was candid in discussing details about it at the hearing. The Petitioner realizes the magnitude of the offense and is remorseful. The Petitioner has fully rehabilitated himself, as evidenced by the passage of a long period of time and the fact that he now enjoys a very good reputation in business and professional communities in Virginia and Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was the holder of Florida real estate license number 0201688. The last license issued was as a nonactive broker with a home address of 2281 Euclid Avenues Fort Myers, Florida. On December 10, 1986, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud in Case No. 861034CF in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida. The crime did not involve any business dealings in which the Respondent was acting as a real estate salesman or broker. The Respondent did not notify the Petitioner in writing of his plea within the thirty-day period because he believed he had entered a plea to a misdemeanor, which was exempt from the reporting requirement of 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes. A letter from his attorney before the plea was entered reflected an intent to enter a plea to a misdemeanor, subject to acceptance by the court. On July 15, 1987, in Case No. 86-1790CF in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida, the Respondent entered nolo contendere pleas to uttering a forged instrument in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, XI, and XIII and grand theft in Counts II, VI, VIII, X, XII, and XIV. These charges involved personal business affairs and did not involve misconduct by the Respondent as a real estate salesman or broker. The Respondent notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of his adjudication of guilt for the grand thefts and the utterings of forged instruments in Case No. 86-1790CF by letter dated August 7, 1987. There are no specific findings of mitigating or aggravating circumstances as none were presented during the hearing of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges against Respondent, Linda N. Phillips, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of October, 1981.
