The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida. Respondent's license number is 0199374. Respondent was licensed as a salesman in limbo with a home address of 1850 Palm City Road, CC 102, Stuart, Florida 34994-7205. From late 1987 until early 1990, Respondent was employed as a real estate salesperson for Soukup Realty, Inc. ("Soukup"). While so employed, Respondent procured a contract for sale and purchase of Lot 4, Lake Harbor Estates, Martin County, Florida. The buyer was Mr. Sanford Drayer ("Drayer"), and the seller was Mr. Leif Grazi ("Grazi"). The original contract was dated May 1, 1988. Respondent mailed a copy of the signed original contract to Soukup together with a deposit check from Drayer dated May 1, 1988, in the amount of $500. The $500 deposit check was payable to Soukup. The original contract provided that Soukup was to receive a commission of $10,000. Pursuant to a separate agreement between Respondent and Soukup, Soukup was to receive $1,000 of the commission and Respondent was to be paid $9,000. After agreeing to the provisions in the original contract regarding payment of a real estate commission and the separate agreement with Respondent, Soukup deposited the check in its escrow account on or about May 4, 1988. Further discussions between Drayer and Grazi led to the execution of an amended contract for the same property, dated May 18, 1988. The amended contract superseded the original contract and is the contract upon which the parties closed their transaction on or about June 16, 1988. Upon Respondent's instruction, Grazi wrote in the space at the bottom of page 4 of the amended contract the name "Soukup Realty, Inc." The addition indicated that Soukup was to receive the real estate commission of $10,000 provided for in both the original and amended contracts. The amended contract changed the time and manner in which the $10,000 commission was to be paid to Soukup. The original contract provided that Grazi was to pay the entire commission at the time of closing. The amended contract provided for, "$5,000 to be paid at closing and $400 per month from the proceeds of the mortgage note, until paid in full." Prior to the closing, Soukup approved the terms of the amended contract based upon the following two conditions. First, Soukup and Respondent would share the $10,000 commission using the same percentage split which they had used previously in sharing commissions from other transactions, i.e., 90 percent ($9,000) to Respondent and 10 percent ($1,000) to Soukup. Second, Soukup would collect all of its 10 percent share ($1,000) "up front,"-i.e., from the $5,000 commission payment to be made by Grazi at closing. At closing, Grazi gave Respondent a check in the amount of $5,000 payable to Soukup as partial payment of the commission in accordance with the amended contract. Respondent placed the check in an envelope and wrote a note on the outside of the envelope which read, "Susan, please note you have $500 in escrow therefore please write me a check for $4,500. Is there a chance you might have it here tomorrow morning. If so call me and I will pick it up. Ron." Later on the day of the closing, Soukup found the envelope with the check inside on the door of her house. 3/ Soukup deposited the $5,000 check. On June 20, 1988, Soukup wrote a check for $4,500 to Respondent and delivered the check to Respondent. Not yet having seen the closing statement, however, Soukup did not disburse the $500 deposit out of its escrow account to the operating account. Some time later, Soukup received a copy of the closing statement and, even though it did not specifically refer to the $500 deposit, Soukup disbursed the $500 to Soukup in reliance upon Respondent's statement in his note on the envelope. Soukup had never received any other instructions or requests concerning the $500 from Drayer, Grazi, the closing agent, or anyone else. On June 20, 1988, Respondent requested Soukup's permission to collect Soukup's remaining unpaid real estate commission directly from Grazi, i.e., in his own name instead of in the name of Soukup. Soukup refused Respondent's request. Respondent had never made such a request before, and such a procedure would have been contrary to Soukup's custom and practice. Soukup also believed that such a request was contrary to Florida law governing real estate transactions. Soukup stated that any real estate commission payments which Respondent collected would have to be delivered to Soukup and an equal amount paid to Respondent from Soukup. Soukup made a contemporaneous note of the conversation and placed the note in the file folder. Soukup closed its file. Since Soukup had received payment in full of its 10 percent share of the commission, Soukup expected to have nothing further to do with the transaction except to receive commission payment checks collected by the Respondent and to exchange those checks for Soukup checks in equal amounts to Respondent. Soukup received no further real estate commission payments from Respondent or Grazi. Without the knowledge or consent of Soukup, Respondent collected the remaining unpaid real estate commissions directly from Grazi. Respondent collected two checks totalling $5,000. The checks were dated September 21, 1988, and December 16, 1988, and were in the respective amounts of $1,000 and $4,000. The check for $1,000 was made payable to Respondent. At Respondent's request, Grazi wrote "Ron Warren/Soukup Realty" on the line for the name of the payee of the $4,000 check. Both checks were paid by Grazi's bank. Both checks were endorsed by Respondent alone. Respondent never presented or disclosed the checks to Soukup. Two years after the closing, Soukup reviewed all files relative to Respondent (as a result of civil litigation filed by Respondent against Soukup). Soukup's records for the Drayer/Grazi transaction reflected that Soukup had received only $5,500 of the total $10,000 real estate commission. On June 13, 1990, Soukup wrote a letter to Grazi inquiring about the matter. Correspondence between Soukup and Grazi ensued. In a letter dated July 3, 1990, from Grazi to Soukup the checks for $1,000 and $4,000 were disclosed. The disclosure caused Soukup to believe that $500 had been paid in excess of the $10,000 real estate commission amount provided for in the amended contract. The $500, together with the other payments of $5,000, $1,000, and $4,000, totalled $10,500. Drayer did not receive credit in the Drayer/Grazi transaction for the $500 deposit he had paid in connection with the original contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b)(k), Florida Statutes, and fined $3,000.00 to be paid within 30 days of the date of the final order. In order to enhance Respondent's regard for the entitlement of others to funds in business transactions and in order to facilitate due care in future transactions, it is recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period not to exceed one year from the date of the final order in this proceeding. The conditions of probation may include any of those prescribed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21V-24.001(2)(a) except those that would require the Respondent to submit to reexamination and to be placed on a lesser license status. In the event that Respondent fails to timely pay any fines imposed or to complete the terms of any probation imposed, it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for two years. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May 1992.
Findings Of Fact After Respondent Kout was unsuccessful in his judicial review of the Board's Order suspending his real estate salesman's license, the Board confirmed his sixty-day suspension commencing November 20, 1978. The license that was suspended had expired on September 30, 1978, and had not been renewed. During November, 1978, Kout submitted an incomplete application which was returned, corrected and resubmitted; the Hoard received this on January 10, 1978, and subsequently issued a license with an effective date of November 20, 1978. The Board's computer, records notwithstanding, did not know of the suspension until March, 1978, and did not know of the issuance of the license until August, 1978, when the Keyes Company forwarded Kout's affidavit that his Registration Certificate had been stolen. Keyes was informed that the license was suspended as no renewal had been received. Application was made and Kout's license reissued. Until his license was stolen, along with his wallet, Kout carried the license issued in January, 1979, and assumed he had been reinstated on January 19, 1979, at the end of the sixty-day suspension. Conclusions The Board contends that under the above facts, Kout operated without a valid current real estate license between November 20, 1978, and August 21, 1979, and specifically during June, 1979, regarding the Bentkowski sale, discussed under Count I, as required by Section 474.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977 and 1979)(misdemeanor), and therefore contrary to Sections 457.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), and 474.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes (1979)(revocation/suspension for violating the real estate law). There is no doubt that confusion existed between the Board's records and computer as to what the current status of Kout's license was during the period in question. However, absent rebutting evidence by the Board of the testimony of Kout, the allegations of the Board are not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation It is , therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Count I and Count II of the Petition of the Board of Real Estate be dismissed with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. HAROLD E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed this 28th day of August with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Nancy Kelley Wittenberg Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. C.B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David M. Rogerio, Esquire Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick and Hoehl 2400 AmeriFirst Building One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Pasquale A. Verona (Verona), is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0389728 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). He is the qualifying broker and an officer of respondent, P. A. Verona and Associates, Inc., which holds broker's license number 0251674. The real estate firm is located at 3828 Seago Lane, Fort Myers, Florida. In May 1988 Donna Jean and Barry C. Minnich were shopping for a residential lot in Carillon Woods, a subdivision in Fort Myers, Florida. After seeing a lot advertised by Verona s firm, Donna Jean telephoned Verona's office and made an appointment to inspect the lot on May 13, 1988. After inspecting the lot, Donna Jean decided to purchase the same and, on the same date, she and Verona orally agreed upon a purchase price of $49,000 with a closing date of May 25, 1988. Verona desired to close on that date since he had a previously planned trip to California with his family beginning on May 26, 1988. The oral agreement was reduced to a written contract and executed by the parties on May 13, 1988. At Verona's request, and at the same time the contract was executed, an addendum was prepared by the Minnichs' attorney which provided, in part, that a $54,000 sales price would be used but that at closing Verona would refund $5,000 to the Minnichs. This refund was to be taken out of Verona's real estate commission and rebated to the buyers. Thus, the net sales price was still $49,000 as originally agreed to by the parties. As earnest money, the Minnichs gave Verona $5,000 which was deposited into Verona' s trust account. The Minnichs immediately made application for a loan with John E. Smith, a vice-president of a local C & S bank. On May 18, 1988 they placed an order for a title commitment with Southwest Title, Inc., a Fort Myers title company designated by the parties to prepare the title insurance and handle the closing. The title company was placed on notice that the contract called for a May 25 closing date. According to Mary Jane Kalpin, a Southwest Title, Inc. employee who worked on this transaction, there were unsatisfied water and sewer assessments on the lot owed by Verona to the City of Fort Myers. However, she said this was not unusual and happened quite frequently in subdivisions such as Carillon Woods. As it turned out, however, the city employee who oversaw these assessments was on vacation the week prior to the May 25 closing date, and Kalpin could not obtain payoff figures from any other city employee. In addition, Kalpin needed Verona to furnish her with a certificate of good standing on the property. 1/ He did not do so by May 25. Therefore, she was unable to prepare a closing package by the contract closing date. On May 23, 1988, C & S issued a loan commitment to the Minnichs. In the meantime, Kalpin had completed her title search and on May 23 she spoke with Verona who advised her the deal must close by May 25. When she responded she could not get payoff figures from the City by that date, Verona told her it was a "dead deal". On or about May 24, Donna Jean spoke with Verona and, after being told of the problems encountered by the title company, reiterated her desire to buy the lot. She requested that Verona extend the time for closing so that the missing items could be obtained. Although Verona denies that he gave such an extension, and nothing was reduced to writing, it is found that Verona orally agreed to an extension of time prior to leaving for California. This is supported by the fact that, after returning from California, Verona's wife delivered a certificate of good standing to the title company on June 9, and the title company representative was under the impression a closing would be held at 1:00 p.m. the same date. However, at Verona's insistence, the closing did not take place. On June 15, Verona sent the Minnichs a letter with a check in the amount of $5,000 which represented the deposit on the property. In his letter, Verona stated that he "realize(d) that the delay in the closing on Lot #6, Carillon Woods is not being caused by anything you have done" and that those things occurred whenever "we place a transaction in the hands of another". He added that he had received another offer in the amount of $58,000 from another party and if the Minnichs were willing to pay a "net figure of $56,000", he would give them the opportunity to purchase the lot. The Minnichs chose not to cash the check but instead advised Verona they intended to seek legal advice on their rights under the original contract. Donna Jean deposited the check around June 22 but learned the next day that Verona had stopped payment on the check. On June 24, 1988 Verona again wrote the Minnichs and advised them to reconsider their threat to take legal action since he had "never lost a real estate dispute". He also advised them that, pursuant to the contract, he was claiming the $5,000 as liquidated damages due to their failure to close by May Finally, he pointed out that the original contract "was terminated on June 15 by letter". On an undisclosed date, but prior to September 1988, Donna Jean spoke with Verona by telephone and requested a refund of her deposit. Her request was denied. The Minnichs then filed a complaint with the Division. On September 2, 1988 Verona advised the Division there was a dispute concerning the deposit and requested the issuance of a disbursement order. On January 11, 1989, the Division, through its counsel, wrote Verona and advised him that, because of disputed facts a disbursement order could not be issued, and he must immediately seek arbitration or file an interpleader action in circuit court. Choosing to utilize arbitration, Verona contacted the Miami office of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on February 15, 1989 and requested a "package" from which an agreement to arbitrate could be prepared. After receiving a package of documents, Verona sent an agreement with a letter to the Minnichs on February 24, 1989. They did not respond to his offer to arbitrate. On March 6 he sent a follow-up letter again requesting the Minnichs to arbitrate. On March 9 Verona learned that AAA would not arbitrate the dispute. As of that date, Verona was aware of the fact that his only remaining alternative was to file an interpleader action in circuit court. On March 23, 1989 the Division, through its counsel, sent a second letter to Verona advising him that he had apparently ignored the earlier letter and that he must immediately take action to resolve the dispute. On May 5, 1989 Verona sent his attorney, George Knott, a check in the amount of $5,000 with a request that Knott "handle the interplea (sic) action as to the disposition of $5,000 previously held in my real estate firm's escrow account". The suit was eventually filed by Knott in circuit court on September 8, 1989. The suit requested that Verona be awarded the $5,000 deposit plus "damages" and attorney's fees. When asked at hearing why the suit had not been filed earlier, Verona responded that, once the matter was turned over to his attorney, he had no control over the actions of his attorney. He also acknowledged that he has never instructed his attorney to attempt to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. As of the date of hearing (June 20, 1990), the matter was still pending in circuit court. There is no evidence that Verona did not maintain the $5,000 deposit in his firm's escrow account until the money was turned over to his attorney on May 5, 1990. There is also no evidence that respondents have ever been disciplined by the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (1987) and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code (1987), and that their brokers' licenses be suspended for six months and thereafter be placed on one year's probation. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact During the times herein involved Respondent Kramer and Pankz were registered real estate brokers and Active Firm Member of Respondent, ILB, a registered corporate broker. Registered real estate salesmen were employed to obtain listings and WATS lines installed. Lists of out-of-state purchasers of Florida land were obtained and during the hours of 6 to 10 P.M. salesmen telephoned individuals from these lists provided them by ILB. Each salesman was provided with a script to follow in making his sales pitch. As one witness recalled the substance of the script was "if you felt you could make a profit on your property would you be interested in selling it?" Those indicating interest in selling at a profit were told that ILB was engaged in land sales on a large scale, that world wide investors were interested in acquiring Florida land, that they widely advertised the land that was listed with them in a catalog that went to brokers all over the world, that Florida land had greatly increased in price in recent years, that they would evaluate the owner's land and tell him what ILB thought the land would sell for. They inquired what the owner had paid for his land and obtained enough of the description to ascertain the size of the plot. For those interested in selling, a package was sent containing newspaper clippings about foreign investors being interested in Florida land, an "Important Facts" sheet containing much of the information passed to the owner on the first telephone call, a list indicating publications and newspapers in which ILB advertises, photocopies of what purports to be inquiries received from around the world as a result of ILB's advertising, and a copy of a Listing and Brokerage agreement. When the owner was again called about a week after the first call he was quoted a price for his property, nearly double what he had paid for it, and advised if he would list the property with ILB every effort would be made to quickly obtain a buyer. It was explained that because of the expense of advertising it was necessary for the owner to pay listing fee, which was fully refundable out of the 10 percent selling commission that ILB would earn when the property was sold. The advance listing fee which the owner forwarded when he executed the listing and brokerage agreement varied between $250 and $350. The listing agreement provided, inter alia, that owner "understand(s) that this agreement does guarantee the sale of my property but that it does guarantee that you will make an earnest effort pursuant to the aforementioned provisions." Out of this listing fee the salesman was paid approximately 1/3. No arrangement was made between ILB and the salesman regarding any additional commission to the salesman if the property was sold. No effort was made by the listing salesman to sell any property listed, although one witness testified that she did ask some of those she called if they wanted to purchase property. No evidence was presented that any of the property for which listing fees were received was sold by ILB. Several of the witnesses had been told by Respondents that sales had been made, but no corroboration of this hearsay was ever presented. The Respondent brokers Kramer and Pankz refused to answer any questions regarding the operation of the corporate broker ILB on grounds that such answers might tend to incriminate them. Accordingly no substantive evidence was presented that any sales or efforts to sell the properties listed was made prior to December, 1975. Exhibit 29, the Consent Order between the Division of Consumer Affairs and ILB, corporate officers and salesmen of ILB, was entered on July 2, 1976. The Complaint in that proceeding, was the basis for Respondent's collateral estoppel argument to dismiss the instant proceeding, was filed April 10, 1976, following extensive investigation of ILB. This is pointed out solely to accentuate the fact that practically all of the documents in Exhibit 27 and 28, which were offered into evidence by Respondents to show that they were making bona fide efforts to sell the properties listed, were prepared subsequent to the commencement of the investigation of ILB. Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 were admitted into evidence, were published by Respondent but no substantive evidence was presented that these listings are "advertisements" of the properties for which Respondent received a listing fee or that they were distributed to anyone other than those making inquiries about property. In the forwarding letter printed on the inside of the front cover of these exhibits the selling brokers were offered a 7 percent commission of any cash sales they arranged. As noted above, the total commission in the Listing and Brokerage agreement was 10 percent. The information contained in these catalogs was not legally sufficient to locate the properties therein listed. Many of the land development companies which originally sold the properties which Respondents herein were soliciting listing commissions, head many unsold lots in these developments which they were offering for sale at prices less than one-half the prices Respondent had advised the owners the property would bring. Independent brokers in some of the areas involved, i.e. Lee, Collier, and Hendry counties testified that many of the lots in these developments were for resale at one-half the prices being asked by the developers. Exhibit 22, the Federal Corporate Income Tax Return for ILB for 1974 shows Respondent Kramer owned all of the stock of ILB during that taxable year and that $12.00 was spent on advertising. Exhibit 23, the Corporate Federal Income Tax Return for ILB for 1975 shows that $348,305.68 in gross receipts and deductions of $344,976.96, but no schedule of such deductions was attached. No evidence was presented regarding advertising expenses for taxable year 1975.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0500228. Respondent’s licensing cycle ends on March 31 every two years. He duly renewed his broker’s license prior to its expiration on March 31, 1994. During the ensuing two-year licensing term, Respondent executed on January 1, 1996, a Request for License or Change of Status and submitted the form to Petitioner. The purpose of submitting the form was to notify Petitioner that Respondent had adopted a corporate form of doing business as a real estate broker. Section A of the form contains a series of options. Respondent selected “other” and wrote in “change to corp.” Section B contains identifying information, and Respondent completed this section. Section C is irrelevant to the change that Respondent was making, and he did not fill in this section. The instructions for Section A direct the person filing the form as follows: “If this is a renewal of your license, it must be accompanied by the required fee and sign this: I hereby affirm that I have met all statutory and rule requirements regarding education for license renewal.” Respondent signed this statement even though he was not seeking a renewal of his license. The instructions for Section B told the person filing the form how to complete Section B. But these instructions required no representations. The next form generated in this case was another renewal notice, as Respondent’s license neared the end of its term, which expired March 31, 1996. This form states: “By submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department . . ., a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal.” By check dated December 30, 1995, Respondent timely submitted his license renewal fee of $95 in response to the renewal notice. He was unaware at the time that he had not met the continuing education requirement for relicensing, which called for 14 hours of education. In reliance on the implied representation that Respondent had completed the required continuing education, Petitioner renewed Respondent’s license. Later, during a random audit, Petitioner discovered that Respondent had not completed the necessary courses and commenced this proceeding. Respondent was cooperative during the audit. Upon discovering that he had not complied with the continuing education requirement, he promptly undertook the necessary coursework, which he completed by August 6, 1996.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Andrea D. Perkins Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen Frederick H. Wilsen & Associates, P.A. Law Office of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
