The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, is eligible to sit for the Florida Real Estate Commission's licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and exhibits, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On or about July 26, 1981, Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. By letter dated September 28, 1981, Randy Schwartz, Respondent's counsel, advised Petitioner that the Respondent, at its duly noticed meeting of September 23, 1981, denied Petitioner's application for licensure. That letter recited that the specific reason for the Respondent's actions was baked on Petitioner's answer to question six (6) on the licensing application and her criminal record. In this regard, evidence reveals and Petitioner's application reflects that Petitioner was convicted in the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach), on September 8, 1978, of embezzlement of monies from a bank, in violation of Title XVIII, United States Code, 656. Petitioner was sentenced by the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins on that date, pursuant to the split-sentence provision of Title XVIII, United States Code, 3651, in that she was to be confined in a jail-type institution for a period of one (1) month, and thereafter, the remainder of the sentence of confinement [one (1) year] was suspended. Upon discharge from incarceration, Petitioner was to be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years under the special condition that she make restitution for the monies embezzled. Jurisdiction of that case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, and on March 29, 1982, Petitioner was terminated from probation supervision. Robert E. Lee, a chief U.S. probation officer, who supervised petitioner while she was under the supervision of the subject office as a probationer, indicates that Petitioner reflected a favorable attitude toward her probation officer, remained gainfully employed and abided by all the rules of probation. Petitioner has never been arrested since her conviction in 1978, and has received only one (1) traffic citation during December of 1981. Petitioner has been continuously employed since her conviction and is presently a secretary/receptionist where she is in charge of and controls office business for Mobile Craft Wood Products in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner has been in charge of processing cash sales for the past four (4) years. Petitioner is presently making restitution to the savings and loan association that she embezzled. Charles Demenzes, a realtor/broker who owns Demenzes Realty Inc., has known Petitioner approximately one (1) year. Mr. Demenzes spoke highly of Petitioner and was favorably impressed with her desire to become licensed as a real estate salesperson. Mr. Demenzes is hopeful that Petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to sit for the licensure examination such that she can join his sales force, if she successfully passes the examination. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner, having been convicted of the crime of embezzlement, which involves moral turpitude and therefore is ineligible to sit for the Respondent's licensure examination. In this regard, counsel for Respondent admits that the Board, when acting upon Petitioner's application for licensure, did not consider the fact that Petitioner has been released from probation supervision inasmuch as that factor did not exist at the time Petitioner made application for licensure. Character letters offered by Petitioner were highly complimentary of Petitioner's reputation and abilities as an employee. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 13th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, the Respondent Tremone Rudman was an active real estate salesman having been issued license number, 0201202. The Respondent Rudman was employed by Fantastic Properties, Inc., as a salesman from February 6, 1979 until September 6, 1979. The broker and owner of Fantastic Properties, Inc., from February 6, 1979 through September 6, 1979, was Elaine Mueller. In July 1979, the Respondent Rudman negotiated a contract between Barbara Medema, seller, and Eugene and LaLita Mascarenhas, buyers, for two separate parcels of property described as Lot 14, Block Y, Coral Springs Subdivision Number 1 (parcel number 1) and Lot 13, Block Y, Coral Springs Subdivision Number 1 (parcel number 2). The transaction involving the properties was scheduled to close on November 12, 1979, at Taylor Title and Abstract in Sunrise, Florida. At the time of the closing, the Respondent Rudman and Elaine Mueller had terminated their business relationship due to personal differences. The Respondent was concerned that he would not receive his share of the Mascarenhas commission because of difficulties he was having collecting his share of other commissions from Mueller. In response to his actual or perceived difficulties in obtaining pending commissions, the Respondent Rudman made demands upon Mueller, his broker, and Pat Taylor, the title agent handling the closing, to disburse the Respondent's portion of the Mascarenhas commission directly to him rather than through the broker at closing. The closing, which occurred on November 12, 1979, was difficult and lasted long into the afternoon. During the course of the closing the Respondent placed calls to Taylor Title Company to ascertain when he could pick up his commission check. Elaine Mueller indicated to Taylor that the proper procedure should be that the check would be made payable to Fantastic Properties, Inc., as the broker, and that Fantastic Properties would then write a check to the Respondent, as the salesman. The procedure suggested to Taylor was not acceptable to the Respondent due to his belief that Mueller might delay his check. The Respondent contacted his attorney, David Hoines, and instructed him to demand that the commission check be issued directly to the Respondent. On November 12, 1979, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Hoines called Taylor Title Company, and in conversation with Mueller and Taylor, demanded that the commission check in question be paid directly to the Respondent per his client's request. Both Mueller and Taylor expressed apprehension concerning such a procedure and advised Hoines that in their opinion, they could not legally issue a commission check directly to the Respondent, a salesman. Hoines reiterated his demand on behalf of his client and threatened to institute legal proceedings which could stop the closing and/or create problems for both the buyer and the seller. Hoines indicated to Taylor that he had the means at his disposal to bring the closing to a halt if the commission check was not distributed to his client as he demanded. When Taylor inquired concerning what those means were, Hoines refused to elaborate. Hoines acknowledged that he had specifically made reference to a declaratory judgment action and in that sense, threatened legal action. He also stated that he ignored the statements made to him by Mueller and Taylor that the procedure he demanded that they follow was illegal. As a consequence of the actions taken by the Respondent Rudman and his attorney at his initiation, Mueller was placed in an untenable position. On one hand, Mueller was threatened with legal action if she did not pay the commission to the Respondent and on the other, she knew that if the closing did not take place that day, it would probably never occur since the outstanding mortgages on the two parcels were months in arrears. Mueller's problems with the mortgages on the property were also known to the Respondent when he and his attorney demanded the commission check. Mueller objected to issuing a check to the Respondent but was concerned that withholding the check could result in stopping the closing as a result of the threatened legal proceedings. Under such circumstances, Mueller did not voluntarily consent to the issuance of the check to the Respondent. As characterized by counsel for Petitioner, Mueller "acquiesced" rather than risk the possibility that the Respondent or his attorney would initiate action which could have affected the sale. Thus, the "consent" given by Mueller was under protest, the result of coercion and was not free and voluntary. As a result of Respondent's demands, Pat Taylor contacted her attorney, Mr. Finn, who instructed her to type the document dated November 13, 1979, Petitioner's Exhibit 10. Mueller did not see this document nor did she assist in its preparation. On November 13, 1979, Taylor presented the document, together with a check for the Respondent's share of the commission to Respondent at his office. The Respondent accepted the check which was made payable to "Tremone Rudman". The Respondent then signed the document and added, "I do not agree to the foregoing." The Respondent subsequently negotiated the check. The Respondent Rudman acknowledged that he was not collecting on behalf of the broker with whom he was employed when he received this commission, nor did he collect the funds on behalf of Fantastic Properties, Inc., for whom he was no longer employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the Respondent Rudman guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.42(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes (1979), and suspending his real estate salesman's license for ninety (90) days. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 2nd day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John G. DeLancett, Esquire 801 North Magnolia Avenue Suite 402 Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32803 Richard H. Adams, Jr., Esquire Carlos B. Stafford, Executive PLEUS ADAMS FASSETT & DIVINE Director 220 North Palmetto Avenue Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 2747 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Regulation 400 West Robinson Street 130 North Monroe Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0000925 DOAH NO. 81-2152 TREMONE RUDMAN, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact George A. Heyen is a duly registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission, and was so registered and has been so registered continuously since October 1, 1972, as evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit number 1. While serving in the capacity as a real estate salesman, the Respondent entered into a listing agreement with one Thomas S. Bowers and Brenda L. Bowers, his wife. This agreement was drawn on December 11, 1973 and is Petitioner's Exhibit number 4. On February 6, 1974, a purchase and sell agreement was drawn up by the Respondent and entered into between Maria A. Hindes and the Bowers. This purchase and sell agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 3. This contract of February 6, 1974 was submitted to Molton, Allen and Williams, Mortgage Brokers, 5111 66th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. The contract, as drawn, was rejected as being unacceptable for mortgage financing, because it failed, to contain the mandatory FHA clause. When the Respondent discovered that the February 6, 1974 contract had been rejected, a second contract of February 8, 1974 was prepared. A copy of this contract is Petitioner's Exhibit number 5. The form of the contract, drawn on February 8, 1974, was one provided by Molton, Allen and Williams. When, the Respondent received that form he prepared it and forged the signature of Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. The explanation for forging the signatures as stated in the course of the hearing, was to the effect that it was a matter of expediency. The expediency referred to the fact that the parties were anxious to have a closing and to have the transaction completed, particularly the sellers, Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. Therefore, in the name of expediency the signatures were forged. Testimony was also given that pointed out the Bowers were very hard to contact in and around the month of February, 1974, and some testimony was given to the effect that the Bowers made frequent trips to Ohio, but it was not clear whether these trips would have been made in the first part of February, 1974. The Bowers discovered that their name had been forged when they went to a closing on April 11, 1974. They refused to close the loan at that time. On April 24, 1974, a new sales contract was followed by a closing which was held on April 26, 1974 and a copy of the closing statement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 6. The Respondent has received no fees or commissions for his services in the transaction and there have been no further complaints about the transaction. Prior to this incident, the Respondent, George A. Heyen, was not shown to have had any disciplinary involvement with the Florida Real Estate Commission and has demonstrated that he has been a trustworthy individual in his business dealings as a real estate salesman.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the registrant, George A. Heyen, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 George A. Heyen c/o Gregoire-Gibbons, Inc. 6439 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner is a real estate salesman registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. In September of 1978, petitioner submitted an application to the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate broker. By an Order dated December 4, 1978, the respondent denied the application for the reason that the applicant had not made it affirmatively appear that he possessed the necessary qualifications under F.S. 475.17. Specifically, the Commission found "That it appears to the Commission that Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Wallace W. Staff's name as a witness to Dunkum's signature on a contract offer to purchase real estate without authorization. In addition, Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Staff's name to a listing agreement without authorization." The petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing on the denial of his application and the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the proceedings. The petitioner Dunkum admits that he did sign broker Staff's name as a witness to his own signature on a contract for the sale of real estate. Mr. Dunkum has been a notary public for approximately fifteen years and was aware that he should not have signed Staff's name as a witness. Petitioner was the purchaser under the contract and did in fact purchase the real estate. Thus, neither the purchaser nor the seller was harmed by the wrongdoing. The petitioner further admits that he did sign broker Staff's name to a listing agreement. He admits that he was wrong to sign Staff's name, without adding his initials or name under the signature. Petitioner believed he had the authority to sign Staff's name to listing agreements in Staff's absence. Mr. Staff testified that he never gave petitioner authority to sign his name and that all listings were to be under his signature. Mr. Staff was aware that petitioner had signed his name on documents prior to September of 1978. Nevertheless, on September 18, 1978, Mr. Staff entered into a three year independent contractor agreement with petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for registration as a real estate broker be DENIED, but that petitioner be permitted to submit another application for registration nine (9) months after the Order of the Commission dated December 4, 1978. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Rupert E. Dunkum 5900 94th Avenue Pinellas Park, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question six in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by 475.17 and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d), F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question 15(a) in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d) , F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William J. Windsor, is now and at all times material to the complaint was a registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission and is and was so operating and registered in the employ of Watson Corporation of Jacksonville, 6206 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville Florida. The application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman was subscribed and sworn to on January 14, 1976, and filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 15, 1976. The Florida Real Estate Commission approved the application for William J. Windsor to become a real estate salesman on February 3, 1976. The application for registration as a real estate salesman contained within it a question no. 6 which provides as follows: "6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offences (but not parking, speeding, inspection or signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question no.6 in the negative by placing the word "no" in the space provided. At the time of the execution of this application, the Respondent, William J. Windsor, knew or should have known that his answer to question six was false and untrue since he had failed to disclose and explain certain charges and arrests. The first matter was an arrest on September 11, 1973, by the Sheriff's office of St. Johns County, Florida under dockets no. 73-626, 73-626A and 73- 626B, three charges of the offense of "issuing a worthless check". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, also failed to reveal an arrest of October l8, 1973, by the Sheriff's office, St. Johns County, Florida, case no. 121992, on a charge of "contempt of court". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, did not reveal an arrest on October 19, 1973, by the Sheriff's Office, Polk County, Florida, on charges of "embezzlement-misapplication of funds, making false reports and furnishing false statements". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, failed to reveal in his answer to question six, that an order was entered which withheld the adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent, William J. Windsor, on probation for a period of five (5) years', and an order of restitution after he had entered a plea of nolle contendre to the offense of misapplication of funds (five counts), case no. CF-73-2357, Circuit Court, Florida, May 1, 1974, in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County. This plea was entered as an agent, officer, an employee of Mar-Bil Enterprises, Inc. The probation that was received was modified by orders of the committing court and a copy of those orders, whose contents are admitted as fact, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits #1 & #2. In the subject application for registration as a real estate salesman, William J. Windsor, the Respondent, answered a question no. 15(a) which question provided as follows: "15(a). Has any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, procession or nation, upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law, or is any proceeding now pending?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question 15(a) with the word "no", inserted in the place provided for response. At the time the Respondent, William J. Windsor, gave the answer to question 15(a), he knew or should have known that the answer was false and untrue since he had failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain the revocation of his contractor's license (RG- 00l2898) on January 8, 1975, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Respondent-licensee, William J. Windsor, having pled guilty to eleven (11) charges of violation of 468.112, F.S., at a formal hearing held on December 20, 1974, Hillsborough County Courthouse, Tampa, Florida. A copy of the notice of revocation of the Respondents license held with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is Petitioner's Exhibit #3, admitted into evidence and accepted as fact. The date of this letter of notification is January 29, 1975. The Respondent, William J. Windsor, tried to explain his failure to answer questions 6 and 15(a) above, by stating that he had made numerous inquires of the Florida Real Estate Commission about the possibility of being granted a real estate salesman's license in view of his plea of nolle contendre and probation for the aforementioned offenses. The summary of the contact with the Florida Real Estate Commission, put concisely, would be that the Real Estate Commission did not foreclose the possibility of the Respondent being granted a real estate salesman's license; however, no one in the Florida Real Estate Commission office indicated that the Respondent would not be required to answer questions 6 and 15(a) completely. Respondent's Exhibit #1 is a copy of a letter of May 30, 1975, from the probation officer of the Respondent, addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission This letter concerns the possibility of Respondent, William J. Windsor, obtaining a real estate salesman's license, and is a part of the contact which the Respondent had with the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, as a real estate salesman, license no. 0158593, be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William J. Windsor c/o Warson Corporation of Jacksonville 6206 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida Joseph C. Black, Esquire 1106 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Mollie Lee Warrington received due and proper notice of the hearing. Mollie Lee Warrington is and was a registered real estate salesman and at the time here in question was employed by Happy Home Hunters, Inc. a real estate broker corporation. The Florida Real Estate Commission also introduced into evidence Exhibit D, a Business Information Form sent to Happy Home Hunters, Inc. by the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, signed "Mollie Lee Warrington, Treasurer," and a letter signed "Lee Warrington" to Mr. Smathers of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, both dated April 25, 1974. - John Correia, Vice President of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, testified that the business records of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, to include the Business Information Form (Exhibit D), were not available to the public, but that the information contained on the Business Information Form was provided to members of the public contacting the Better Business Bureau. Specifically, Mr. Correia indicated that members of the public who contacted the Better Business Bureau would generally be referred to the individual who had provided the information contained on the Business Information Form, which in the case of Happy Hone Hunters, Inc. would be Mollie L. Warrington. The record does not reveal any specific instance in which Mollie Warrington's corporate status was provided to the public. The records does not clearly indicate whether the corporate officers as stated in the Business Information Form would be provided to members of the public. See Transcript, p. Mr. Correia did not identify the signature of Mollie Warrington on the documents and no testimony was received that the Respondent had in fact signed and sent to the Better Business Bureau either the letter or the form. The Commission failed to prove that the Respondent sent or signed the form. Further, assuming the Respondent did sign and transmit the document, there is no evidence that the information contained relating to her corporate status was given to the public by the Better Business Bureau of South Florida. Edgar M. Greene, Jr., investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission, testified that he had served a subpoena duces tecun upon Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and Mr. P. M. King and pursuant to such subpoena received the documents marked and received into evidence as Exhibit F, Mr., Greene had no knowledge of the source of the information contained in the records, The Hearing Officer having reviewed the records (Exhibit F) finds that they do not indicate the source of the data contained therein. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent was responsible for the representation made to the telephone company that she was a corporate officer. The Commission's position regarding the law applicable to the charges is that the Respondent held out to the public that she was a corporate officer, that corporate officers by law must be real estate brokers, therefore, the Respondent held out to the public that she was a real estate broker. See Commission Counsel's representation on p. 7 of the transcript. In reaching this interpretation of the statutes, the Commission has rea the provisions of Section 475.01(3) which defines any person who is an officer of a corporate broker as operating as a real estate broker back into the provisions of Section 475.01(2) which defines a real estate salesman or broker as anyone who advertises or holds out to the public that they are engage in the business of selling, renting, etc. real estate. Beyond the fact that these statutes involve penal sanctions and must be strictly construed, the basic premise of this interpretation is in error. Section 475.01(2) is a general definition of both salesman and broker. All the acts enumerated in Section 475.01(2) can legally be performed by either a salesman or broker except those acts enumerated in Section 475.01(3) which may only be performed by brokers. Section 475.01(3) does not concern itself with holding out to the public, but declares that corporate officers of corporate brokers operate as brokers. The record is clear that Respondent was not an officer of the corporation. See p. 85 of the transcript. Additional evidence was received at hearing that the Respondent's acts and business policies were free from direction, control or management of another person; however, violation of this specific provision of Subsection (3) of Section 475.01 is not charged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint limits itself specifically to the instances of the Respondent holding herself out as an officer of the corporation. While it may be argued that the niceties of pleadings do not apply to administrative proceedings, the case law clearly provides that facts in the Complaint shall be alleged in concise, simple language and shall be deemed to afford notice of the charge, if a person of ordinary understanding may reasonably be enabled to present his defense. Both the Information and Answer shall be aided and deemed amended by the proof if the opposite party shall be afforded full opportunity to meet and defend against or rebut such proof. See Thorn vs. Real Estate Commission, 146 So.2nd 907 at page 909. Under the facts of Thorn above, where the Respondent had been charged with conspiracy and found to be guilty of aiding and abetting, the court stated: "The variance in the charge in the Information and the guilty findings of the Commission, was not material since all of the facts surrounding the transaction were the same and the findings were that the acts were done by way of aiding and assisting, rather than in furtherance of a conspiracy." Unlike Thorn, in the instant case there is a substantial difference between alleging that a person has held herself out to the public to be the officer of a corporate broker and alleging that a person's business policies and acts were free from direction, control or management of another person. while it has been argued that alleging the Respondent was operating as a real estate broker as defined in Section 475.01(3), Florida Statutes, would constitute sufficient notice, the Hearing Officer having considered the acts alleged in the Complaint to have been committed by the Respondent and the provisions of Subsection (3) of Section 475.01, finds as a matter of law that the general allegation contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint is insufficient to put the Respondent on notice of the charges. A person of ordinary understanding would not reasonably be able to prepare a defense, and meet and defend against or rebut proof of such broad allegations, but would be led solely to defend against the charges of being a corporate officer. Because the Administrative Complaint did not adequately state the factual allegations upon which the Commission presented evidence regarding the Respondent's alleged unsupervised business activities, the Complaint fails to meet the minimum due process requirements of notice to which the Respondent is entitled under Chapter 475 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida and United States Constitutions. See Wood vs. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Aviation, etc. 325 So.2nd 24. Based on the foregoing conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer has not considered the evidence and testimony presented with regard to the Commission's contention that her unsupervised activities in behalf of Happy Home Hunters, Inc., and would recommend that the Commission also disregard said testimony and evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing conclusions of law and findings of fact, the Bearing Officer recommends that the Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman not be revoked or suspended. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mollie Lee Warrington 990 Northeast 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33138
Findings Of Fact On July 3, 1985, Petitioner applied for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. On this application Petitioner responded "yes" to Question 6 of the application form which asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime. The details of the conviction supplied by Petitioner, that he had been convicted of delivery of paraphernalia, adjudication was withheld, he was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for five years, were also accurate. At the time of his arrest Petitioner and his brother were partners in a record store. For sale in this store was a milk sugar known as Mannitol. Unbeknownst to Petitioner prior to his arrest, Mannitol is a controlled substance. Drug paraphernalia, the delivery of which Petitioner was arrested and brought to trial, was this Mannitol that was in the record store for sale. At his trial on March 18, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge against him, adjudication of guilt was withheld, he was fined $1,000 which he has paid, and he was placed on probation for five years. This is the only time Petitioner has ever been arrested. He has fully complied with all terms of his parole and his probation officer will recommend an early termination of his parole in March 1987 (Exhibit 6). Subsequent to his trial Petitioner has sold his interest in the record store and disassociated himself from any business dealings with his brother. He is currently employed as a planning technician with the Lee County Zoning Department. Petitioner is 34 years old, has been married for five years, and is the father of a 2-1/2 year old son. He has owned a residence in Lee County for 10 years. References submitted by Petitioner to the effect that Petitioner was honest and trustworthy were submitted by individuals who were aware of his arrest and trial. This one arrest for delivering a substance that Petitioner was not even aware was illegal does not establish that Petitioner is not honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character. To the contrary, from the evidence presented at the hearing, Petitioner has those qualities necessary for licensure as a real estate salesman.
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by representing to Laverne Hahn that he would rent his house to her if she sold her house, representing to Ms. Hahn that he would deliver certain papers to her attorney, and representing to Ms. Hahn that the closing on her house would not occur until after February 15, 1981? Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver survey, abstract and title insurance policy documents to Ms. Hahn or her attorney?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, held real estate salesman license #0313305 Assued by the Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission). At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was registered as a salesman with Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., at 2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339. Respondent listed with his employer, Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., Laverne Hahn's offer to sell her residence and advised Ms. Hahn at that time that upon the sale of her residence she could rent his residence for a period of six months at the rate of $300 per month. In reliance on Respondent's statement, Ms. Hahn proceeded to sell her residence and made no other arrangements for a place to live, expecting to move into Respondent's house upon closing as per their agreement. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Pages 5 and 8.) Respondent testified to the events surrounding the transaction which gave rise to the Administrative Complaint. The Board presented the deposition of Ms. Hahn taken in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent admitted that he had advised Ms. Hahn it was not unusual to have closings delayed 60 days, and did offer and stood ready to rent his house to Ms. Hahn. Respondent testified that he did not recall picking up any documents from Ms. Hahn, but that had he done so it was his normal business practice to immediately deliver the documents to the attorney handling the closing. Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that she could not locate the Respondent although she attempted to contact him through his broker's office. This was the reason she could not rent his house. Respondent testified that Ms. Hahn never asked to rent his house. Respondent testified that on January 14, 1981, the day after his birthday, he was suddenly taken ill and had to have emergency surgery in the early morning hours of that day. Respondent's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Sheilah Kirk, who testified that she visited Respondent in the hospital on January 14 or 15, 1981, and that he was recovering from surgery at that time. Respondent testified that he was hospitalized for more than one week. Respondent testified that he was visited by the manager of the brokerage office for which he worked. It is hardly credible that Ms. Hahn could not find a man who was sick in a hospital for more than one week and whose whereabouts were known to his brokerage office. Wherefore, the Hearing Officer disregards the deponent's testimony and accepts the Respondent's testimony as the more credible concerning the rental of his house Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that Respondent told her she would not have to move out until February of 1981. Respondent admits he told Ms. Hahn that closings were frequently delayed 60 days or more. The contract for sale originally provided for closing on December 29, 1980, a time which was changed to January 15, 1981, by persons unknown on a date unknown. The contract was signed by Ms. Hahn, who is presumed to have known its terms. Notwithstanding Respondent's statements as to delayed closings, Ms. Hahn had no basis for using such statement as a basis for planning in light of the contract which she signed. Again, Respondent's testimony is deemed to be more credible in light of the closing date provided in the contract for sale. A further conflict exists between Ms. Hahn's deposition and Respondent's testimony regarding the allegation that Respondent picked up certain documents from her but failed to deliver them. Respondent's statement that he had no recollection of the events, but that his regular practice was to deliver such documents immediately, and that since the time in question he has not discovered any such documents in his papers, is deemed credible.
Recommendation Having found that the allegations against the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, were not proven, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allan R. Heuton 6891 Forrest Street Hollywood, Florida 33024 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Walter L. Jordan, (Jordan) is entitled to licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. Petitioner presented his own testimony. Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, (Commission) had two exhibits admitted in evidence. The transcript of the proceedings was filed on November 18, 1987. At hearing the parties agreed to file proposed orders within ten days of the filing of the transcript The Commission's proposed order was filed on December 2, 1987, and is therefore untimely. Jordan has failed to file a proposed order. Accordingly, while the Commission has filed a proposed order, it has not been considered and no rulings will be made on the Commission's proposed findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact Jordan filed an application for a real estate salesman's license on or about February 14, 1987. In that application, Jordan acknowledged an arrest and conviction for possession of marijuana on February 12, 1976; an arrest and conviction for possession of a firearm in October, 1983; an arrest for aggravated assault in October, 1983, which was allegedly withdrawn by the prosecuting authority; and an arrest and conviction for breach of peace and disorderly intoxication in April, 1984. Based upon these convictions, the Commission denied Jordan's application by letter dated August 27, 1987. Jordan acknowledges these arrests and convictions, but does not believe he should be disqualified from licensure based on "two misdemeanors and one adjudication withheld." Further Jordan testified that it [the convictions] "doesn't prove I'm the best character in the world, but that's no real mar on my character, I wouldn't assume." Jordan presented no evidence of rehabilitation except that he worked for a company named Hubbard from June, 1986, to December, 1986; he was self- employed or unemployed from December, 1986, to April, 1987; he has worked for his father doing construction work since April, 1987; and he is the father of four children that he is taking care of alone.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order denying Walter L. Jordan's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 8th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Walter L. Jordan 3225 Rosselle Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Lawrence S. Gendzier Department of Professional Regulation Fla. Real Estate Comm. 400 West Robinson, Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on January 11, 1978, in Cocoa, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Charles E. Felix, Orlando, Florida, for the Plaintiff, Florida Real Estate Commission; and Kenneth A. Studstill, Titusville, Florida, for the Defendants, Thomas L. Pittman and Pittman Real Estate, Inc. The Florida Real Estate Commission issued an Administrative Complaint against the Defendants on August 23, 1977. On September 12, 1977, the Defendants filed an election of rights form which constituted a petition for hearing. In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)(3), the Commission requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct the hearing. The final hearing was scheduled by notices dated October 19, 1977 and November 2, 1977. At the final hearing the Commission called Gary W. Brandt, a registered real estate salesman, as its only witness. The Defendants called Virginia Laver, a former employee of Defendant Pittman Real Estate, Inc., and the Defendant Thomas L. Pittman. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-3, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were offered into evidence and were received. There were conflicts in the testimony of certain of the witnesses. In resolving these conflicts due regard has been given to the credibility of the witnesses as evidenced in part by the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, and in part by the extent to which the witnesses' testimony has been corroborated by other evidence.
