The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's license to practice real estate should be revoked based on conduct set forth hereinafter.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing and the witnesses' demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Based on its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated July 28, 1981, the Florida Real Estate Commission (Petitioner) seeks to revoke Respondent's license to practice real estate based on his having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude and fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), and his (Respondent) having been confined to a state or federal prison, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979). The Respondent, Joel L. Steiner, is a registered real estate salesman and has been issued License No. 0150824 by the Petitioner. The Administrative Complaint filed herein alleges that during the period June 1, 1976, and continuing through March 23, 1977, Respondent, for the purpose of executing a scheme and artifice to defraud the public, caused mails and other matters to be sent from the New York office of Crown Colony in New York, New York 1/ , to be placed in post offices and authorized depositories for mail matter to be delivered by mail by the United States Postal Service. As a result of those actions, Respondent was indicted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and charged with a violation of Title XVIII, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1342, to wit, the use of the mails in a scheme to defraud. Following a trial, Respondent, on January 28, 1981, was found guilty as charged of the offense of the use of the mails in a scheme to defraud and was committed for imprisonment for a period of eighteen (18) months and ordered to pay a fine to the United States in the amount of $12,000.00. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3 and testimony of Postal Inspector John Muhelberg.) Respondent appeared through counsel; however, no evidence was offered by Respondent in defense of the charges after Petitioner's case in chief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's License No. 0150824 to practice real estate as a salesman be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of August, 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 18th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0223671 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, t/a Sunshine Express Realty, 300 S. Pine Road 262, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324. On or about November 22, 1983, an information was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, charging Respondent with one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes; and two counts of grand theft in the first degree, in violation of Sections 812.014(1)(a), 812.014(1)(b), and 812.014(2)(a), Florida Statutes. On March 27, 1985, a verdict was rendered which found Respondent guilty of one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim, and two counts of grand theft in the first degree. The Court adjudged Respondent guilty of one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, and two counts of grand theft in the first degree in violation of Section 812.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Court thereupon sentenced Respondent to a prison term of eighteen months in state prison to be followed by a term of five years of probation. The Respondent does not appear to be possessed of the mental skills necessary to be the master-mind behind a complex fraud scheme, nor has he demonstrated a tendency to be devious, shrewd, calculating, or cunning. To the contrary, the Respondent appears to be gullible and vulnerable to being taken advantage of, which tendencies may account for the circumstances which led to his conviction. The Respondent enjoys an excellent reputation in spite of his criminal convictions and probably would not be a danger to the real estate community if he were allowed to keep his license. The quality of the Respondent's reputation is reflected by the fact that in spite of his convictions, he is currently employed in another broker's real estate company and holds the positions of vice president and head of the commercial department. With the exception of the incident which led to his convictions, the Respondent appears to have demonstrated a high degree of honesty and integrity in his personal and business dealings. The Respondent has excellent teaching skills in the field of real estate and is probably one of the better technicians in the field of real estate.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Lydon was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. By an administrative complaint filed on February 8, 1978, the petitioner sought to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the respondent's license and right to practice thereunder. The ground for such complaint is that respondent collected money as a salesman in connection with a real estate brokerage transaction in a name not his employer's and without the express consent of his employer. The respondent admits, and the evidence demonstrates, that in December of 1973, the respondent obtained a listing agreement for the sale of real property from Mary E. Renney, brought the seller Renney and the buyer Stephen together, prepared the contract for sale and obtained a check made payable to him in the amount of $500.00 for this transaction, which check was cashed by him. Mr. Lydon testified that he did these things as a personal favor to Mrs. Renney and that his broker knew about these transactions. No evidence was presented that respondent's broker gave his express consent to the events described herein.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent Alford R. Lydon, Sr., be found guilty of the charges contained in the administrative complaint dated February 8, 1978, and that said finding constitute the written reprimand discussed above. Respectively submitted and entered this 2nd day of April, 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 32801 Alford R. Lydon, Sr. 3301 58th Avenue North Lot 146 St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application be granted based on his having satisfied all statutory criteria for licensure. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee Florida. R. L. CALEEN 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 3rd day of December, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined because the Respondent has been found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate salesman or involves moral tupitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: At all times pertinent to the charges, the Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate salesman having been issued license number 0400199 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The license issued during all times material to the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint was as salesman, % Emerson Realty Group of Volusia County, Inc., 322 Silver Beach Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32018. The Respondent, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, entered a plea of guilty to one count of filing a false tax return, a felony, whereupon on October 17, 1988, the Respondent was sentenced to a period of probation and fined $2,500. Via letter dated October 31, 1988, the Respondent's attorney timely notified the Petitioner of the felony charges, plea and disposition. In mitigation, Respondent testified and his exhibits indicate that Respondent's former wife was the office manager and book keeper until 1983. Respondent did not prepare the income tax return for which he entered his plea, his former wife did so. He relied on his former wife's competency and goodwill in preparing all documents relating to his main business, the pest control business. She reported the errors on his income tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service out of spite and greed (in hopes of collecting a 10% reward). The basis for the conviction of filing a false tax return did not involve a real estate transaction. Respondent has no prior convictions for any other crime.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of the record, including the contents of the several exhibits received into evidence, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent William Lea be found guilty of having violated Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1987) as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further: RECOMMENDED that Respondent William Lea receive a reprimand, an administrative fine of $400.00. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order: Paragraphs 1 - 3. Accepted Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order: Respondent did not submit separate findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: STEVEN W. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE SENIOR ATTORNEY DPR - DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W. ROBINSON STREET P.O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 HARRISON SLAUGHTER, ESQUIRE 56 EAST PINE STREET, SUITE A ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 DARLENE F. KELLER, DIVISION DIRECTOR DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W. ROBINSON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 KENNETH E. EASLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION NORTHWOOD CENTRE 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET SUITE 60 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Leonard Fernandez, is a licensed real estate salesman, holding license number 0145203. In July and August of 1979, the Respondent was employed as a mortgage solicitor for Southeast Mortgage Company in Broward County, Florida. Alan Edwards was the Respondent's supervisor during this time period. In July, 1979, the Respondent advised Alan Edwards that he was going to purchase property, and requested that Mr. Edwards loan him money for a short period of time. Mr. Edwards loaned the Respondent $4,000 under a verbal agreement that the Respondent would repay the loan within 60 days. When the Respondent failed to repay this loan as agreed, Mr. Edwards had the Respondent sign a promissory note in the amount of $4,000. In an attempt to repay a portion of this note, the Respondent gave Mr. Edwards a check in the amount of $1,800 on or about August 29, 1979. Mr. Edwards presented the check for payment, but it was returned unpaid because the Respondent had stopped payment on it. When Mr. Edwards contacted the Respondent about the check, the Respondent stated that he had expected some funds from a relative, and when he did not receive this money, he stopped payment on the check. The Respondent told Mr. Edwards that he would give him a cashier's check to replace the $1,800 check that had been returned unpaid, but the Respondent never provided the cashier's check. Instead, the Respondent, in September, 1979, gave Mr. Edwards several postdated checks drawn on account number 002312352 at Southeast Bank of Broward County. The purpose of these checks was to repay, the $1,800, after which the Respondent was to pay the remaining debt due under the note. In November, 1979, Mr. Edwards presented the first of the postdated checks, dated November 15, 1979, to Southeast Bank for payment, but was notified that the Respondent's account upon which all the postdated checks had been issued, was closed. When the bank failed to honor this first check, Mr. Edwards sent a notice of dishonored check to the Respondent by certified mail. The return receipt indicates that the Respondent received this notice. In December, 1979, and in January and February of 1980, Mr. Edwards presented to Southeast Bank the postdated checks that Respondent had given him for these months. On each occasion the bank informed Mr. Edwards that the Respondent's account was closed. Mr. Edwards sent the Respondent notices of dishonor of these checks, which the Respondent received. Mr. Edwards never received any payment of the debt owed by the Respondent. On January 7, 1980, in Dade County Circuit Court, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to two counts of conspiracy to sell, deliver or possess with intent to sell or deliver, cocaine, and was found guilty, placed on one year probation, and ordered to pay $2,400 in restitution. On February 29, 1980, the court withheld adjudication on this charge.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0145203 held by the Respondent, Leonard Fernandez, be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Leonard Fernandez 10024 S.W. 2nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33174 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Dir. Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
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 At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Florida Real Estate Commission, (Commission), was the state agency charged with the regulation of the profession of real estate in Florida and is the licensing agency for real estate salesmen and brokers. On or about April 20, 1988, the Petitioner, Christopher R. Murphy, prepared and submitted, along with the appropriate fee, to the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. At paragraph 6 of the application form appears the question: Have you 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, "Yes (2)" to this question and consistent with further instructions on the form, indicated: August 9, 1978, arrested Lima, Peru, Charged with Traficking [sic] in cocaine, sentenced to 24 months Oct. 4, 1985, arrested in Jacksonville Florida, Charged with conspiracy to possess & distribute, sentenced 42 mos. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that in 1978 he was arrested for trafficking in cocaine in Lima, Peru. He was in pretrial confinement for 27 months prior to his conviction, which, he claims, did not meet with the requirements of due process. The facts of the case were that he was in Peru with a friend who was in the cocaine business. It was his companion, not him, he claims, who had cocaine in his hotel room and because Petitioner was with him there, he, too, was charged. Petitioner admits that he knew his friend was in Peru to buy cocaine and that he went with him willingly, but claims that he was not a party to the purchase nor did he own or possess any of the cocaine. He also admits that in 1985 he was convicted in Jacksonville, Florida of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. He claims, however, that this conviction will be reconsidered by the court even though he admits to being guilty of the offense. There was, however, no evidence of any appeal of the conviction filed by Petitioner and his representation that his case will be reconsidered is based on his cooperation in an ongoing investigation about which he cannot speak. The fact remain that he has been convicted and the conviction still stands. Mr. Murphy was born in 1938 in Boston. In later years, his father worked as a civil engineer on the Saturn 5 project for NASA and he has lived in Florida for 30 years. He is presently a student of accounting due to graduate with a degree in education. He wants his real estate license because he is interested in real estate and in mortgage brokerage and wants to establish a family business, the prime thrust of which will be mortgage brokerage. Nonetheless, he feels a real estate license would go hand in glove with this end. Petitioner contends he disclosed everything in his application. As a result of the trial in Jacksonville, he was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. He was given credit for the 6 months pretrial confinement he spent in County Jail, served 18 months of the full term, and spent an additional 6 months in a halfway house. While in prison, he took college courses in real estate, finance, and management. By Order dated November 28, 1988, the Comptroller of the State of Florida, incorporated a Stipulation between the Department of Banking and Finance and the Petitioner which had the effect of granting Petitioner's application for a probationary mortgage broker's license, and he is currently so licensed in Florida. Mr. Murphy regrets his errors and claims he has left that part of his life behind him. He wants the license for which he has applied so that he can do something better with his life consistent with the plans mentioned previously. Kent Brink, a real estate broker in Odessa, Florida, has known Petitioner for approximately five years from the time when Petitioner first bought a piece of property through him. Since that time, he has gotten to know Petitioner socially as well and has mutual friends and business associates with him. He is aware of Petitioner's reputation for honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and his reputation for good character within the community and it is good in all respects. He is aware of Petitioner's convictions and what they are for, and in spite of that, trusts him and would hire him if he were licensed. He would have no problem trusting his own reputation and the welfare of his clients with the Petitioner. Steven G. Burgess, the sales manager for Keystone Real Estate in Holiday, Florida, met the Petitioner about a year and a half ago and is aware of Petitioner's criminal record. Since their meeting, however, he has had numerous business dealings with the Petitioner and has found him to be reliable. He has had no problem trusting Petitioner and has found him to be totally honest. Petitioner's reputation for honesty, truthfulness, and good character in the community, as he knows it, is good. Sheryl Howard, a builder in Brooksville, Florida, has known Petitioner for approximately one year, having met him through a real estate transaction Petitioner had with her father. Petitioner came to work for her and her father in the building business. He was hired to work with punch lists and to run errands and in that capacity, he had to be trusted. He was given a key to the office without problem, and always accomplished the job requested of him, going beyond that which was required. She is aware of Petitioner's criminal record because he made it known to her. Nonetheless, if he is licensed, she would be happy to have him work for her and would trust him with access to her escrow account and her funds. Petitioner demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement as well as criminality in his involvement in the two offenses of which he was convicted. Even conceding that the lack of due process during his Peruvian conviction, he admitted he was there in the company of his friend who he knew was involved in an unlawful activity. Nonetheless, for the purpose of argument, disregarding that conviction, he also admits his involvement in and guilt of the cocaine offense in Jacksonville. There is no doubt that drug offenses are egregious and nefarious and his involvement therein indicates a complete disregard not only for the laws of this state and country, but for the welfare of his fellow citizens, the same group which would serve as potential clients were he to be licensed. Nonetheless, it would appear from the evidence presented by Petitioner and unrebutted by Respondent that he has changed and has been rehabilitated. The evidence shows he has been tested in the community since his release from prison, and has passed the test. He has shown evidence of an attempt to better himself through education and employment and has satisfied those for and with whom he worked that he can be trusted. It is found, therefore, that he has been rehabilitated and no longer presents a threat or danger to the interests of the public and investors with whom he is likely to come into contact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Christopher R. Murphy, be deemed eligible to sit for examination for licensure as a real estate salesman in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 23rd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4439 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein 3. & 4. Accepted as a reflection of the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted as a comment on the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein By the Respondent: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph C. Stoddard, Esquire 132 Lithia Pinecrest Road Brandon, Florida 33511 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director DPR, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Findings Of Fact During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc. Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing. Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart. Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart. Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here. The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
