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 Whether the respondent's license as a real estate broker should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined because respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and was at all times pertinent to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker with the State of Florida, holding license number 0166810. On June 18, 1982, an information was filed in the circuit court charging that between the dates of December 10, 1980 and December 1, 1981, the respondent "did corruptly request, solicit, accept or agree to accept money not authorized by law for past, present, or future performance, to wit: by sending business to Don's Alignment Shop, which said ALBERT RONALD HURLBERT did represent as having been within his official discretion in violation of a public duty or in performance of a public duty, in violation of Section 838.016, Florida Statutes." On July 16, 1982, the respondent appeared before Judge Thomas Oakley and entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation as charged in the information. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and respondent was placed on probation for a period of four years. Respondent was given an early release from probation on August 30, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter an order finding that the respondent has been convicted or found guilty of a crime which involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing and revoking the respondent's real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Albert R. Hurlbert c/o Hurlbert Realty 8117 Lakeland Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Howard Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order directing Capitol Rental and Realty, Inc. and Lawrence D. Van Ore cease and desist from using non-registrants as real estate salesmen and further from failing to use the full name of the registrant and the term "Broker" or "Realtor" within its classified advertisements. The Hearing Officer further recommends that the registration of the registrant be suspended until the corporate broker and associate broker Lawrence D. Van Ore have complied with said order of the Commission. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Gough, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Don Scarlet, Esquire 801 Magnolia - Suite 317 Orlando, Florida 32803
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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Nelye Bunch, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0315615. The Respondent, AA Real Estate, Inc., of Kissimmee, is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having been issued license number 0214153. In December of 1980, Grace Makuch, a licensed real estate salesperson, entered into an employment agreement with the Respondents, whereby Grace Makuch became employed as a real estate salesperson in the brokerage office of the Respondents. Pursuant to this employment, Grace Makuch and the Respondents entered into an oral agreement in which Grace Makuch would be compensated by receiving 60 percent of the selling broker's commission on every real estate sale she brought into the office. On or about March 6, 1981, Grace Makuch negotiated a contract for the sale of real property on Nova Road in Osceola County, Florida, between Earl Croft and his wife, as sellers, and Larry Henninger, as buyer, for $96,200. This transaction closed in April of 1981. The Respondents received the real estate commission due, in the amount of $4,810, and paid Grace Makuch $1,154.40. Under the employment agreement, Grace Makuch should have been paid $2,886. Demand for the balance due of $1,731.60 has been made by Grace Makuch and her attorney, but nothing further has been paid by the Respondents. In February of 1981, Grace Makuch negotiated a contract for the sale of real property on Donegan Avenue in Kissimmee, Florida, between Michael F. Sweeney, Trustee, as seller, and Dominick Tattoli and his wife, as buyers, for $115,000. This transaction closed in May of 1981. The Respondents received the real estate commission due, in the amount of $5,000 and tendered to Grace Makuch a check for $250. Under the employment agreement, Grace Makuch should have been paid $3,000; thus, she refused to accept the check for $250. Demand for the full amount of her share of the commission on this transaction in the amount of $3,000 has been made by Grace Makuch and her attorney, but nothing has been paid by the Respondents.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0315615 held by Nelye Bunch, be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that license number 0214153 held by AA Real Estate, Inc., of Kissimmee, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8 day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 8 day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida Richard H. Hyatt, Esquire 918 North Main Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent Kenneth Kasha was licensed by the Petitioner as a registered real estate broker. During that time period he was licensed to trade as Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At present he is the holder of certificate number 0046189, in the position of registered real estate broker. The particulars of his license may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence. In the years 1975 and 1976, one of the enterprises that Kenneth Kasha was involved in was the solicitation of real estate listings from out-of-state land owners who owned land in the State of Florida. This solicitation led to an agreement with some of those owners to list their property through various publications which Kasha contracted for, with the expectation that his company would make a bona fide effort to sell the property. The general description of the arrangement between Kasha, operating as Florida Landowners Services Bureau, and his owner/clients, was to have the owner pay a fee of $250 to $300 to have their property listed by Kenneth Kasha, trading as Florida Landowners Services Bureau. Kenneth Kasha solicited the owners by phone personally and through real estate salesmen who were involved in the solicitation. Kenneth Kasha's statement of his participation may be found in the deposition which is part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 8, the deposition being admitted into evidence. This deposition is a part of the record of the proceedings of the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums v. Kenneth Kasha d/b/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The deposition was taken on March 26, 1976. In that deposition Kasha was asked if he solicited for the type of listing which is the subject of this case and if he made this solicitation via the telephone. At page 39 of that deposition he states that he did and indicates that the principal place of business of Florida Landowners Service Bureau at the time of the deposition was at 561 NE 79th Street and was the place solicitations were made from. A more complete description of the techniques involved in a solicitation is given by the witness, Alfred Landin. Alfred Landin testified in the proceedings by the Petitioner against Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Mr. Landin correctly stated that he worked for the General American Realty Corporation as a real estate salesman from January, 1975 through February, 1976. His testimony established that he began to make the form of solicitation in behalf of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in August, 1975. His participation was by agreement between the General American Realty Corporation and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau to have certain salesmen employed by General American Realty Corporation make phone solicitations for Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Those employees of General American Realty Corporation were then paid by their corporation, who had been paid by Florida Landowners Service Bureau under an agreement between that business and the General American Realty Corporation. Alfred Landin took approximately 75 to 100 listings for the Florida Landowners Service Bureau for which he charged the owner $250 to $300 for each listing. He in turn received 30 percent to 40 percent of the listing amount as his payment. He did not receive real estate commissions following any sale of the property which was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. In fact, no commissions have been received, because no property has been sold under the listing agreements, at least as of the date of the Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976. In that deposition he states that none of the property listed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau had been sold. Moreover, Alfred Landin's testimony established that the salesmen who were the contact people for the solicitation for the listings were paid on the basis of obtaining the listings, in opposition to being paid commissions for selling' the property. When Landin would call a prospective owner to solicit the listing, which will now be referred to as "advance fee" listings, he did it based upon a list of prospective clients made available in the office of General American Realty Corporation. He would tell the potential "advance fee" client that the property that they listed with the Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be advertised within and without the United States. He did not indicate which form of media advertising would be utilized. Landin was unaware of the steps which Florida Landowners Service Bureau would specifically take to bring about the sale of the listed properties, because the arrangement with General American Realty Corporation was not to consummate the sale of the property through General American Realty Corporation's salesman. Landin did tell the owners that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be responsible for advertising the properties for the purpose of sale. Furthermore, the indication was that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property. The contact which Landin had with the out-of-state owners, in terms of the dialogue, was not by any particular script. It would be designed according to the nature of the property of the person being solicited. In the course of the conversation the property owner would submit his price and that information and other information would be forwarded to Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At all times when a prospective customer was called Landin introduced himself by name and his connection with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The usual technique was to make an original contact call and then a follow-up call. Although a second individual working for Florida Landowners Service Bureau normally made the follow-up, call, Landin at times would make those calls. On those occasions, between the time of the initial call and the follow-up call, certain materials would be mailed to the prospective purchaser of a listing agreement. Landin identified three forms which are numbered 1, 2, and 3 and are part of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. They are the mailouts. (The Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence is constituted of certain information pertaining to the listing of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau's "advance fee" property through the media National Multiple Listing, Inc.) In a follow-up call there would be discussion about the meaning of the listing and brokerage agreement which is number 3 in the group of documents. Landin established that in these follow-up conversations the purpose of the listing fee was brought out and the owner was told that the listing fee would be used to compensate for the costs involved of the listing; for example advertising. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the crux of the contractual agreement between Florida Landowners Service Bureau, the company of Kenneth Kasha, and his "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the same in their form as those documents appended to the Kenneth Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976, which has been mentioned before. In that deposition Kasha admits that those three documents were mailed out to the "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents are available for review either in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 or the attachments to the admitted portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, which is the Kasha deposition. The significant portions of those exhibits, in terms of the factual allegations against the Respondent, begin with Paragraph 3 of the document number 1 which states, "your property legals are checked thoroughly." In his deposition of March 26, 1976 Kasha indicated that what actually occurred was that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would receive a copy of the client's deed or agreement for deed and verify this with the developer to see if it indicates on the developer's books or records that the individual actually owned a specific piece of property in question. Kasha stated that his company did not check with the title company, but did check the tax records of various counties to see whether or not the individuals owned the particular piece of property set forth in their deeds. Continuing the examination of document 1, the next sentence in Paragraph 3 states, "an ad is constructed for your property(s) and published in our brochures and catalog which is distributed to several thousand brokers and investors NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY." The advertising that was done by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau, which was established in the course of the hearing is constituted of several media approaches. One of those approaches was found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence which is a copy of a magazine February, 1976, the magazine being a publication of the International Federation of Real Estate Brokers which has membership in 39 countries. It can be seen, the advertisement is an ad which allows the purchase of a catalog for the price of $4.00 or free to the members of the International Real Estate Federation. A copy of this form of catalog is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence. This catalog lists multiple properties by the owner's name, the owner's asking price, and a rough description of the location in terms of the municipality if any, county, and state, subdivision or development if applicable and a rough description of the size of the parcel. The catalog would not allow the prospective purchaser to specifically locate the property. At best it would allow the location of the development or sub-division. A second form of advertising which the Respondent utilized in the time period in question was listing with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. Those listings were also multiple listings on a single page of the type previously discussed in describing the catalog. Access to those listings was based upon Kasha's purchase of circulation and it reached as many as 2,500 plus distributees in various areas of the United States. (The number assigned to the individual properties advertised by National Multiple Listing, Inc. corresponds to some of the invoices found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11, which invoices were paid by Kenneth Kasha to have the listings published. There is a further correlation between those numbers and the numbers affixed to the certificates issued by National Multiple Listing, Inc. to the Respondent verifying the circulation of the listings. Those certificates are found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence.) A compilation of those payments from Kenneth Kasha, as the owner of Florida Landowners Service Bureau, to the National Multiple Listing, Inc. for the period of June, 1975 through June, 1976 may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. The total cost for advertising in that time period was $3,583.82. Kasha also advertised his catalog in the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune and one German paper, entitled, Blick. This advertising was in the period of late 1975 and early 1976. The advertising is established through the Respondent's Exhibit No. 12A and a portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 which is the deposition and attachments of Kenneth Kasha taken March 26, 1976. 14 The fourth paragraph of document 1 states in its initial sentence. "In order for us to successfully merchandize and receive the highest offer for your property(s) considerable expense is involved because a great deal of time is put forth on your behalf and many of the property(s) are being offered for sale sight unseen. Therefore, we must constantly furnish prospective purchasers with factual updated information re: your listing(s). Your fee helps to defray expenses of estimating value, merchandizing, advertising, brochuring and cataloging this information here and abroad." The extent of advertising and brochuring has previously been discussed. The estimate of value is based upon the individual's price and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau does not concern itself with zoning and development in trying to get the price established. This conclusion is premised on Mr. Kasha's testimony of March 26, 1976 before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums. Therefore, by Mr. Kasha's opinion there was no expense to be defrayed in estimating value. The only other merchandizing that was done other than that discussed in the advertising techniques may be found in the description by Robert Wandler who worked for Kenneth Kasha and was involved with Florida Landowners Service Bureau as a real estate salesman. The period of his employment is not established through Mr. Wandler's testimony, but it appears to be within the time frame of the Administrative Complaint and the other testimony given. Mr. Wandler stated that he tried to sell the property listed through the "advance fee" process by contacting hotels and hotel clerks who had connection with Columbian businessmen. This area of contact was in South Florida. His reasons for contacting the Columbians was due to the fact that he speaks Spanish fluently. He occasionally showed the brochures to the persons contacted, but none of those persons were interested in purchasing the property. He specifically made reference to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 as being the type of brochure or catalog that he showed. He also testified that on several occasions Arabian and Lebanese people in the South Florida area were contacted and seminars were held to discuss the catalog. The Arabian and Lebanese business persons did not purchase any property and did not negotiate with any of the owners for the right to purchase the property. Document No. 2, which is a document entitled, Important Facts, is found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. In that document is a question which asks "(Q) Will you help me establish a correct selling price for my property? (A) Yes. While we do not appraise property, Florida Landowners Service Bureau will analyze your property comparing your property to adjacent property, to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property. The price must meet with your approval. From the testimony in Kenneth Kasha's appearance before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums it is clear that Florida Landowners Service Bureau did not analyze the property by comparing the property to adjacent property to arrive at a price. They merely relied on the owner's price. One of the other questions in Document No. 2 asks the following: "(Q) How will Florida Landowners Service Bureau sell my property? (A) Review status of development and zoning in the immediate area of your property to recommend the correct selling price for you. List your property in our directory, which is distributed by mail to real estate brokers throughout the world." Kenneth Kasha in the aforementioned deposition stated that 95 percent of the time they did not document the development and zoning to set a price as the ad indicated they would do. In Document No. 3, which is a copy of the listing and brokerage agreement, one of the statements of consideration between the parties is that Florida Landowners Service Bureau as the part of their consideration will: "(b) Contemporaneously with appearance of said listing in the directory, you agree to direct the efforts of your organization to bring about the sale of my property". This should be read in pari materia with the following provision in that Document No. 3 which states: "(c) To advertise said property as you deem advisable in newspapers, magazines, or other mediums of merit". A view of the facts that were established on the question of promoting the sale of the property through advertising or other methods, demonstrates that the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in the person of Kenneth Kasha was not living up to this agreement to bring about a sale in a bone fide fashion. This leads to a consideration of the question of whether the efforts which were taken by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau were so fraudulent or deficient that they constitute violations of the provisions of Chapter 475, F.S. that are alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The general contention of the Administrative Complaint in Count I is that the solicitation of the property owners was a scheme to fraudulently secure money through the "advance fee" for reason that no bone fide effort was made to sell the property listed with Kenneth Kasha, t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. As indicated before there was no bone fide effort made to sell the property. More particularly, in terms of stating grounds for action against the Respondent's license, the course of conduct by the Respondent personally and through his company, Florida Landowners Service Bureau, demonstrates that he is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in this state and has violated the duty imposed upon him by law or the terms of listing contract in a real estate transaction; and has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in said misconduct and has committed overt acts in furtherance of such intent, design or scheme, all in violation of 475.25(1)(a) F.S. The course of conduct by Kenneth Kasha personally and trading as Florida Landowners Service Bureau shows him to be guilty of conduct or practices which show that he is dishonest and untruthful to the extent that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not be safely entrusted to him, as set forth in 475.25(3) F.S.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts in this cause, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, revoke the real estate broker's license, certificate number 0046189, held by the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Kasha P.O. Box 611238 North Miami, Florida 33161 Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire and Louis Guttmann, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= Orlando, Florida June 15, 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Fred Langford, Staff Attorney RE: Revocation of Kenneth Kasha - PD No. 3014 004618904 DOAH Case No. 77-1299 Attached please find a copy of the Final Order, Mandate and Order from the Third DCA concerning Kenneth Kasha. The effective date of revocation is December 21, 1978. /FL:bam Attachments* Fred Langford Staff Attorney * NOTE: Attachments noted are unavailable at the division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
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 Respondent Ray T. Kline is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a registered real estate broker holding License No. 0048253. Respondent Vincent Tomasino is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0353215. Respondent Krishnalall D. Persaud is and all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0336161. At the time of the hearing the Respondent Persaud had obtained his broker's license. In December, 1980, the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud were employed as salesmen, selling time-share units at Vistana Development. During December they discussed and agreed upon a business plan for marketing time-share units. As a part of that plan-they agreed to form Intercontinental Marketing Services, Ltd. (hereafter referred to as IMS) a corporation which would be used to market time-share condominiums and other real estate. Subsequent to that time they did in fact incorporate on May 4, 1981, as a Delaware corporation and formed another Delaware corporation to handle travel and tour business. The incorporators of these corporations were the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud who were also officers and directors of both corporations. Sometime between December, 1980 and March, 1981 Persuad introduced Respondent Ray Kline to Respondent Tomasino. They discussed Ray Kline becoming the registered broker for IMS. After some discussion, Ray Kline did in fact agree to become the broker for IMS. On January 19, 1981, Respondent Tomasino and Respondent Persaud opened a general corporate account for IMS at the Atlantic Bank of Orlando. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The account required two signatures for all checks and the two persons allowed to sign were Respondents Tomasino and Persaud. This account was not set up as an escrow or trust account and was not used a's an escrow or trust account during the operating life of IMS. At no time was the Respondent Ray T. Kline a signator on this account. In early 1931 the Respondents Persaud and Tomasino began negotiating with the Highlands County Title and Guaranty Land Company (hereafter referred to as Highlands County Title) to become its representative in the Orlando area. Highlands County Title is a subsidiary of Sun-N-Lake Estates which is the owner and developer of Lakeside Villas located near Sebring, Florida. A verbal agreement was reached between Highlands County Title and IMS whereby IMS would market time-share units in Lakeside Villas in the Orlando area. This verbal agreement was later reduced to writing. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 11) On or about March 3, 1981, IMS and Respondent Ray T. Kline entered into a written agreement whereby Ray T. Kline agreed to act as the real estate broker for IMS. (See Respondent Kline's Exhibit 3) Highlands County Title and Sun-N- Lake Estates required a broker be designated for all its sales representatives. Under the written agreement Mr. Kline agreed generally to act as broker and to not interfere with any of the marketing projects of IMS. IMS was to provide Respondent Kline with an office, secretarial assistance, a phone, and real estate leads acquired through IMS advertising. The contract required Kline to maintain an escrow account for his real estate transactions and to pay twenty- five percent of all commissions earned by him on real estate transactions other than his on personal business. There was no requirement in the contract that Ray T. Kline open or maintain an escrow account for real estate transactions handled by IMS. On March 3, 1981, Ray T. Kline changed his broker address to 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, the offices of IMS. At the time Mr. Kline moved his license to the IMS office he did not register or reflect a trade name under which he was doing business as a broker. On March 5, 1981, Vincent Tomasino and Krishnalall Persaud placed their salesman licenses with Ray T. Kline as an individual broker employer at 1121 Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida. IMS was not registered or qualified with the Board of Real Estate or the Department of Professional Regulation by the Respondents. On March 16, 1981, a written agreement was entered into between IMS and Highlands County Title. The agreement showed Ray T. Kline as broker for IMS and was signed by Vincent Tomasino as director of IMS and Ray T. Kline, Jr. as broker. On March 18, 1981, a supplement to that written agreement was entered into between Ray T. Kline, IMS, and Highlands County Title whereby Highlands County Title agreed to pay advance draws against commissions to IMS. This supplement to the original agreement was signed by Ray T. Kline on behalf of IMS. Mr. Dennis Grage had met and become acquainted with Vincent Tomasino when Mr. Tomasino was selling time-share units at Vistana. In early March, 1981, Vincent Tomasino contacted Mr. Grage to see if he was interested in purchasing time-share units in Lakeside Villas. Shortly after the initial contact Mr. Tomasino took Mr. Grage's wife, Barbara, together with Richard and Benita Drapeau (Mrs. Grage's sister and her husband) on a tour of Lakeside Villas. After the tour Mr. Tomasino and Mr. Grage met regarding the purchase of a unit in Lakeside Villas. Mr. Grage explained to Mr. Tomasino that he could not afford the $600 down payment. Mr. Tomasino then told Mr. Grage that if he would get the Drapeaus and the Brownings to buy a time-share unit in Lakeside Villas, he would pay $500 of the down-payment on a time-share unit for Mr. Grage. After the tour Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau decided to buy four time-share units in Lakeside Villas. However, after returning to their home in New Hampshire they decided to buy only two time- share units and so informed Vincent Tomasino. The Drapeaus then sent two deposit checks of $400 each dated March 30, 1981 and April 11, 1981 to Vincent Tomasino. These checks were made payable to Vincent Tomasino pursuant to his instructions. These two checks were deposits on two time-share units at Lakeside Villas. The March 30, 1981 check was deposited in the IMS corporate account on April 7, 1981. The April 11, 1981 check was endorsed by Vincent Tomasino and forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates where it was deposited in the Sun-N-Lake Estates attorney's escrow account. The $400 from the March 30, 1981 deposit check was never forwarded by IMS or Vincent Tomasino to Sun-N-Lake Estates. Pursuant to the agreement with Vincent Tomasino regarding the down payment on a time-share unit, Dennis Grage forwarded a $100 deposit to Mr. Tomasino. The balance of the $600 deposit called for in the contract was to be paid by Vincent Tomasino. Mr. Grage also contacted John and Helen Browning. In March, 1981, Dennis Grage contacted John and Helen Browning at their home in Michigan. He discussed with them the possibility of purchasing a time-share unit at Lakeside Villas. During this conversation the Brownings authorized Mr. Grage to place a $100 deposit on two units for them. By letter dated March 9, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged on behalf of IMS the receipt of the deposit placed by Dennis Grage for the Brownings. The Brownings then asked for more information regarding the time- share units and inquired of Mr. Tomasino as to whom the deposit check should be made payable. They were advised by Mr. Tomasino to make the check payable to IMS. On March 20, 1981, the Brownings sent a $1,000 deposit check to Vincent Tomasino payable to IMS. By letter dated March 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged receipt of the $1,000 deposit and also forwarded two time-share purchase agreements to the Brownings for their signatures. Each of the contracts called for a $500 deposit. On April 7, 1981, the Brownings executed the two purchase agreements and returned them to Vincent Tomasino. The Brownings' $1,000 deposit check was deposited into the IMS corporate account at the Atlantic Bank on or about March 24, 1981. On May 18, 1981, Vincent Tomasino wrote a check to Sun-N-Lake Estates in the amount of $1,000 for the Brownings' deposit. The check was received and deposited for collection by Sun-N-Lake Estates but before it could be paid Vincent Tomasino placed a stop-payment order on the check. The stop-payment order was placed because there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the $1,000 check. The $1,000 deposit was never forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates by IMS for Vincent Tomasino. In May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino removed Krishnalall Persuad as a signator on the IMS account at the Atlantic Bank. This occurred primarily as a result of a disagreement over a $1,200 deposit made by Mr. Persaud to an account other than the IMS account. Also during May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino changed the locks on the doors at the IMS offices at 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, and did not give Mr. Persaud a key. Prior to May, 1981, the checking account at Atlantic Bank had been controlled by both Mr. Persaud and Mr. Tomasino. From January to May, 1981, checks written on the IMS account were signed and approved by both Tomasino and Persaud. Respondent Persaud knew or reasonably should have known that money being received from purchasers was being deposited in the corporate account. After May, 1981, only Vincent Tomasino signed checks on the IMS account. In June, 1981, the relationship between Mr. Persuad and Mr. Tomasino terminated. Also in June, 1981, the IMS account became overdrawn and in August, 1981, the Atlantic Bank closed the account. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino received approximately $7,000 in draws from IMS and Mr. Persaud received approximately $4,900 in draws from IMS. Ray T. Kline received no funds from IMS. When interviewed by a DPR investigator Mr. Persaud denied having received any funds from IMS during its operation. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino was the person in charge of the IMS finances. Ray Kline had no control over and did not participate in the finances of IMS. The bookkeeping was done by the office manager and the checkbook was kept by Mr. Tomasino. During this period salesmen were hired and supervised by Tomasino and Persaud, but were not supervised by Respondent Kline. IMS also purchased a tour bus during this period which was used by Mr. Persaud to take potential buyers on tours of Lakeside Villas. Once these tours began, Mr. Persaud was in the office less than he had been the first couple of months of operation. Once there were no more funds in the corporate account the Respondent Tomasino essentially walked away from the corporation and paid only a few small debts. By letter dated June 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino notified Sun-N-Lake Estates that IMS would no longer sell time- share units at Lakeside Villas. In November, 1981, the relationship between IMS and Sun-N-Lake Estates was formally terminated. Prior to termination, IMS had received advances of $9,000 in excess of commissions due and earned and no reimbursement of those excess funds has been made to Sun-N-Lake Estates. In approximately September, 1981, the Drapeaus as a result of financial problems sent a letter to Sun-N-Lake Estates requesting a refund of their $800 deposit. Sun-N-Lake Estates refunded the $400 which was in escrow and informed the Drapeaus that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received the other $400 deposit. Robert Wright of Sun-N-Lake Estates was contacted by the Drapeaus. He then contacted Vincent Tomasino who told him that he would speak with Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud about the Drapeau problem. Mr. Wright was never contacted again by Mr. Tomasino. Dennis Grage, after learning that the Drapeau's $400 deposit had not been placed in escrow also contacted Vincent Tomasino. He demanded the return of the $400 deposit and Mr. Tomasino stated that someone had run off with the money and that he was trying to get it back. After several unsuccessful contacts with Mr. Tomasino, Mr. Grage contacted Ray Kline. Mr. Kline said he was checking on the problem, but at the time of the formal hearing the Drapeau deposit had not been refunded. Dennis Grage also informed the Brownings of the problems the Drapeaus were encountering. The Brownings then contacted Sun-N-Lake Estates and spoke with Robert Wright who informed them that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received their $1,000 deposit. Mr. Tomasino informed him that IMS was bankrupt and had no money and that it wasn't his problem. Mr. Browning then contacted Ray Kline who denied any personal responsibility and stated that Tomasino had taken the money and was responsible for its return. Mr. Browning then made demand upon Krishnalall Persaud for the $1,000 deposit and Mr. Persaud denied being an officer or director of IMS and also stated that he had no responsibility to the Brownings. During August and September, 1981, Robert Wright repeatedly discussed the Drapeau and Browning deposits with Respondents Persaud and Kline. On each occasion they denied any responsibility for those deposits. Until contacted by the Brownings and Drapeaus, Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud had no knowledge of the deposits of these people and how they were being received. Ray Kline, after being contacted was aware that these deposits were funds that should have been placed in escrow upon receipt by IMS and Tomasino. Neither Tomasino, Kline, nor Persaud attempted to provide an accounting to the Drapeaus or Brownings and the Respondents made no attempt to return their deposits. For at least a two week period in the Spring of 1981, Ray Kline also opened and operated a branch office for IMS at a condominium development. At no time was this branch office registered as required by statute. From the beginning of the relationship between Ray Kline and IMS, by agreement, Kline's involvement was to be very limited. Kline never opened an escrow account for IMS and did not supervise the sales personnel. Ray Kline had little or no involvement in the day-to-day operation of IMS. At no time was IMS registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission or the Department of Professional Regulation. At some point in time in the Spring of 1981, the Respondents discussed opening an escrow account but decided to not open such an account until they had earned commissions. From January through May, 1981, Respondents Tomasino and Persuad hired and supervised salesmen and controlled the operations of IMS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license of Vincent Tomasino be revoked and that an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him; That the license of Ray T. Kline be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) be imposed upon him; and That the license of Krishnalall Persaud be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him. It is further RECOMMENDED that upon a showing by the Respondents to the Commission prior to entry of the final order that restitution has been made to Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau and Mr. and Mrs. Browning, the fines of Respondents Tomasino, Kline and Persaud be reduced to two hundred fifty dollars ($250), five hundred dollars ($500), and two hundred fifty dollars ($250), respectively. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charges, respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, on inactive status, holding license no. 0330793., and residing in Lake Worth, Florida. In early October, 1983, Jack Barlage entered the offices of Colony Real Estate in Lake Worth, Florida. He was a builder and looking for acreage to purchase. Joyce Adams, a real estate salesman with Colony Real Estate, met with him and, two or three days later, showed him a 5.207 acre tract of land in sunny Urban Meadows, an unrecorded subdivision located west of Loxahatchee, Florida. He expressed an interest in the property; she told him that the owner, Richard Moore, might be willing to sell it. A day or two later, Mr. Barlage called Ms. Adams and asked if she would call owner Moore and obtain a purchase price. She responded that she would not get a commission from selling the property and that he should deal with "Leon," who would be able to contact Mr. Moore, the owner. A day or two later, Ms. Adams introduced Mr. Barlage to "Leon," who was Leon Dennis, respondent's husband--the original developer of Sunny Urban Meadows. This meeting took place at a nearby coffee shop in Royal Palm Beach, called Sandy's. John Adams, Ms. Adams' husband and a real estate salesman, was also present. Respondent did not attend this meeting and there is no evidence that she was, at this point in time, involved in the transaction. This coffee shop meeting was Ms. Adams' last contact with Mr. Barlage, and she had no further involvement in this real estate transaction. A contract for "purchase and sale" of the Sunny Urban Meadows tract was prepared at this meeting and signed by Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. Leon Dennis, respondent's husband, retrieved the form "purchase and sale" contract from his car, returned to the coffee shop, and completed it in the presence of the others. He filled in the terms, including a $28,000 purchase price. He arrived at this figure based on her knowledge of current land values in the area. The form "Brokerage Fee" provision on the bottom of the contract, however, was not filled in; no sales commission was indicated and no broker identified. Mr. Dennis told purchaser Barlage that he would have the contract presented to owner Moore. At that time, Mr. Barlage had not yet had any contacts with respondent, Mr. Dennis's wife. Mr. Dennis, with the help of a relative who was a close friend of Mr. Moore's, then had the contract delivered to Mr. Moore, in Punta Gorda, Florida. Approximately a week earlier, respondent had telephoned Mr. Moore, asking if he wanted to sell the subject property. At that time, a sales commission was not discussed; neither did she represent that she was a licensed real estate salesman or broker. But when the original contract was subsequently delivered to him by Mr. Moore's relative, the "Brokerage Fee" provision had been completed, providing for payment of ten percent of the gross price or $2,800 to Pat Dennis, the respondent. Her name was hand printed above the line labeled, "Name of Broker." Upon receiving the contract and discovering the sales commission, Mr. Moore telephoned respondent and told her that he would not pay a ten percent commission--he said he would agree only to a six percent commission, to be split between her and his own real estate brokerage firm. He also told her that if those terms were not acceptable to her, he "would go ahead and do it without her and give-her her money after the deal was done." (TR-21) Mr. Moore then arranged to meet directly with Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. On October 9, 1983, Mr. Barlage drove to Punta Gorda and met Mr. Moore in a hospital parking lot to finalize the contract. Mr. Moore, noting the "Brokerage Fee" provision, said "Who are these people?" and "Well, I'll take care of them," or words to that effect, (TR-10). He then drew a line crossing out the "Brokerage Fee" provision and initialed it. He then told Mr. Barlage he wanted to do a credit check; one or two days later, he called Mr. Barlage and told him he was going to accept the contract. It was at that time, on or about October 9, 1983, that Mr. Moore executed the contract as seller. For reasons not material, the contract of sale was never carried out by the parties. Mr. Barlage unilaterally cancelled the contract. When Mr. Moore called him to inquire about the $500 earnest money deposit, which the contract had indicated was held by "Stewart Title," Mr. Moore learned that a deposit had not been received by Stewart Title; in fact, Mr. Barlage had made no deposit at all. There is conflicting testimony as to whether respondent ever communicated with Mr. Moore concerning this real estate transaction. Respondent denies any direct involvement. Her denial is rejected and the testimony of Mr. Moore, who had no discernible bias or motive to falsify, is accepted as persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license as a Florida real estate salesman be revoked for violating Section 475.25(1)(a) and (b) and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in the manner described above. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 25th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard McClain, Esquire 6167 Haddon Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Findings Of Fact Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0312860. The last license issued was as a broker. Respondent Super Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate corporation in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0231630. The last license issued was as a broker located in Hollywood, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Super Realty, Inc. Respondents advertised for sale by newspaper advertisement a VA repossessed property being a four unit apartment building in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In April, 1985, Warren and Judith Fieldhouse responded to Respondents' ad, and Respondent Agarwal arranged to meet the Fieldhouses at the property. At the property, the Fieldhouses informed Respondents that they wished to purchase a property as an investment and required that any property purchased by them result in income to them as opposed to resulting in a loss for them. Respondent Agarwal specifically represented to the Fieldhouses that the rental character of the neighborhood had been assessed by the Respondents, that Respondents were qualified to appraise the rental character, and that each unit could be rented for $300 or more per month. Respondent Agarwal further represented that the rent for the property would therefore exceed its expenses. The Fieldhouses decided that they wished to purchase the property based upon Respondents' representations. Respondent Agarwal required the Fieldhouses to give him a check for $1,000 a while still at the property before he would return with them to the office of Super Realty, Inc., to draft a purchase contract. Respondent Agarwal and the Fieldhouses went to Super Realty, Inc., where a purchase contract was drafted by Respondent Agarwal and signed by the Fieldhouses. Respondent Agarwal refused to give to the Fieldhouses a copy of that contract. Respondent Agarwal further advised the Fieldhouses that they were to obtain the required liability insurance on the property from his insurance agency and that they were not to use their own insurance agency. The Fieldhouses refused to comply with Agarwal's direction to them. Changes were subsequently made by Respondents to the Fieldhouses' purchase contract. Although those changes were approved telephonically by the Fieldhouses, Respondents never obtained the Fieldhouses signatures approving the changes in the contract. A closing was scheduled by Respondents at the office of Super Realty, Inc., on May 22, 1985. The Fieldhouses inspected the property just before the closing and found that the property's "as is" condition on the day of closing was worse than its "as is" condition on the day that they first saw it and entered into the contract for the purchase and sale of the property. Appliances were missing, and damage was done to the structure. The Fieldhouses objected to the condition of the property on the date of closing. Yet, the closing began. Respondent Agarwal began handing the Fieldhouses individual documents to sign. When he handed them a required financial disclosure statement, the Fieldhouses realized that the mortgage plus insurance and taxes payments would exceed the rental income which Respondents had represented could be projected from the units, that the amount of payments and other representations initially made by the Respondents were not incorporated into the closing documents, and the rental income for the property would not exceed the property's monthly expenses. The Fieldhouses refused to continue with the closing. They demanded copies of the documents that they had signed, but Respondents refused to give them copies of those documents. They demanded a refund from Respondents of their $1,000 deposit, but Respondents refused to refund their money to them. Although the Fieldhouses had signed a note and mortgage on the property before they refused to continue forward with the closing, they gave Respondents no monies toward the purchase of the property to increase the $1,000 earnest money deposit to the required down payment for the property. Respondents knew that the Fieldhouses did not pay the required cash to close on the property, the additional consideration required under the contracts. After the closing, the Fieldhouses made additional demands on Respondent for the return of their $1,000. Respondents refused to return that money to them and further refused to discuss the matter with them further. Respondents submitted the Fieldhouse closing documents to the Veterans Administration claiming a sales commission due to the Respondents in the amount of $5,740, even though Respondents knew that the sales transaction had never closed. Since the Veterans Administration had experienced difficulties with Respondents' complying with their rules and regulations on previous occasions, the VA took the position that the Respondents were not entitled to a commission since no sale had taken place and that the Respondents should refund to the Fieldhouses their $1,000. Respondents sued the Veterans Administration for a sales commission. At the time that Respondents sued for a commission, they knew that they were entitled to no commission since there was no sale. When the Veterans Administration filed an Answer to Respondents' Complaint indicating that it intended to fully defend Respondents' false claim, Respondents voluntarily dismissed their litigation against the Veterans Administration. The VA now has possession of the Fieldhouses' $1,000 deposit which it intends to return to the Fieldhouses. Although Mr. Fieldhouse was a licensed real estate salesman during the time period material hereto, he had not actively worked as a real estate salesman. Therefore, the Fieldhouses relied upon the Respondents as licensees to responsively perform the sales transaction and further relied upon Respondents' representations regarding the property's income and expenses. Respondents never advised the Florida Real Estate Commission that demands had been made for the return of the $1,000 which Respondents held in escrow until such time as they voluntarily forwarded the money to the Veterans Administration despite the Fieldhouses' demands for its return to them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondents guilty of the remaining allegations in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker licenses. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 21st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Super Realty, Inc. c/o Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
