The Issue Whether the registration of Respondent Bernard C. Moskowitz should be suspended or revoked for having been guilty of state and federal crimes involving moral turpitude and fraudulent and dishonest dealing more particularly stated in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission on August 27, 1976. At the commencement of the hearing, Respondent was advised by the Hearing Officer as to his rights as a Respondent to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and testify in his own behalf if he so desired. He was also advised as to his right to have counsel represent him at his own expense. He acknowledged his understanding of rights and elected to proceed in his own behalf.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered real estate salesman, Certificate No. 36745, and was so registered at all times alleged in the Complaint. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On December 17, 1974, Respondent, in case styled United States of America v. Bernard Moskowitz, Docket No. 74-570-CR-PF, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, was found guilty on two counts of knowingly and intentionally distributing a controlled substance, to wit: dilaudid, a schedule II narcotic controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1). The two offenses were committed on or about October 13 and October 18, 1972, in Dade County, Florida. On February 28, 1975, Respondent was sentenced and thereafter was confined in the Federal Prison at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, from November 14, 1975 to March 26, 1976. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2). On July 11, 1975, after entering a plea of nolo contendere, Respondent was adjudged guilty of the criminal offense of extortion in Case No. 73-8508, State of Florida vs. Bernard Carl Moskowitz, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, and was sentenced to be imprisoned by confinement at hard labor in the Dade County Jail for a term of twelve (12) months, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed by the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida in Case No. 74-570-CR-PF, provided that after having served six months of that sentence, the remaining six months to be stayed and withheld and Respondent to be placed on probation and released into the custody of the Florida Probation and Parole Commission for a period of two years. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent testified as a witness at the hearing and presented various documents bearing upon the merits of his criminal trials. Respondent is currently on both federal and state probation. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 1 through 8).
Recommendation That the registration of Respondent Bernard C. Moskowitz as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of one year under the authority of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1976.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert C. Beers holds teacher's certificate No. 448007. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. He is qualified to teach in elementary education and specific learning disabilities programs. The teacher's certificate expires on June 30, 1982. Since 1979, respondent has taught specifically learning disabled students at John Gorrie Junior High School in Jacksonville. By all accounts, he is an enthusiastic and highly effective teacher. On or about November 12, 1979, respondent went to a K-Mart store with a pair of boots. His fiancee (on whose account he had moved to Jacksonville) had given him the boots, before their affiance ended. Perhaps brooding over this turn of events, respondent entered the store, put his still-new boots down on a counter, and picked up a pair of track shoes. He told a clerk that the boots had been purchased at K-Mart, when, in fact, they had not been. He was arrested on the spot. An information charging respondent with petit theft of the track shoes, in violation of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1979), was filed on November 21, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 (Case No. 78-48015MM). On a plea of nolo contendere to this second-degree misdemeanor, respondent was adjudicated guilty and a $50 fine was imposed on December 18, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. After his arrest on charges of stealing the track shoes, two outstanding capiases were discovered. In each instance, the underlying charge against respondent was that he had obtained property with worthless checks. In both cases, respondent has made restitution and in both cases, the checks were for "small amounts." An information charging him criminally in connection with one of the checks was filed on August 28, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 (Case No. 79-35645MM). On a plea of nolo contendere, respondent was adjudicated guilty of violating Section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1979), a second-degree misdemeanor, and fined $25, on December 18, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. There was no indication in the evidence that any student had knowledge of respondent's legal difficulties, or that the partial disclosures made by respondent himself to fellow teachers had in any way diminished his effectiveness as a teacher. Since his misdemeanor convictions, he has served as sponsor for the school annual, in the course of which he was responsible for several thousand dollars. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, the hearing officer has had the benefit of petitioner's proposed recommended order, and the proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 14th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 1902 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Harris Brown, Esquire 1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The parties stipulated on the record that the issues for determination in this proceeding are: Whether the crime of manslaughter for which Ms. Antel was convicted is a crime of moral turpitude, and Whether sufficient rehabilitation has taken place since the crime was committed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Donna Antel, submitted her application for license as a real estate salesperson on August 1, 1966. In that application she revealed information regarding conviction of a crime. In December 1982, Donna Antel moved to Florida with her husband, to start a new life after a series of business, financial and personal problems in New York State. Shortly afterwards, it became obvious that the problems also moved with them--the ex-wife began harassing them and the husband's children came to stay, causing severe financial and emotional stress on the relationship. In August 1983, Ms. Antel sat in the bedroom with a rifle, contemplating suicide. He husband walked in, and she shot him. She was tried for 1st degree murder. On December 14, 1984, she was convicted of manslaughter in a jury trial, in Brevard County, Florida. Ms. Antel was sentenced to ten years in prison; she served eleven months in prison and six months on a work release program. On May 6, 1986, she was released on parole. After release from prison, Ms. Antel received psychological counseling and has completed her course of therapy. She has committed no parole violations and is due to be fully released sometime in 1993. For the six months proceeding the final hearing Ms. Antel was employed as an assistant property manager.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 20th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent. Adopted in Paragraph #1. Adopted in Paragraph #1. Adopted in Paragraph #3 Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #2. Adopted in paragraph #2 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #3. Petitioner's post-hearing submittals were filed on July 15, 1987, well after the established deadline. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Vincent W. Howard, Jr., Esquire Howard & Reyes, Charter 210 North Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0073256 authorizing his practice in such a capacity in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, for realtors in the State of Florida. From approximately April 16, 1977, through November 17, 1977, the Respondent, acting in the capacity of a real estate salesman, was employed by a broker by the name of Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation of Miami, Florida. That entity with Broker Kane was involved in the advertisement, promotion and sale of parcels of unimproved land in west Texas. The Respondent's duties involved making long-distance telephone calls to prospective purchasers of that land (in Cochran County, Texas), attempting to induce them to buy one or more parcels. In the course of this telephone sales campaign, in which the Respondent participated with approximately 20 salesmen making such phone calls, the Respondent used a script prepared for him by Irwin Kane, his employing broker. The script, in general, extolled the attributes of the unimproved property in an arid region of west Texas, representing that the land possessed favorable climatic conditions, water supply and soil conditions for agricultural purposes and was near property in which oil companies were interested. The Respondent contacted a potential buyer by phone who lived in Wisconsin and attempted to persuade the buyer to purchase a parcel of the property through use of the prepared "script" given him by his broker. That potential customer apparently became suspicious of the sales method, manner or assurances given by phone and ultimately was instrumental, along with the United State Attorney, in the filing of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, charging the Respondent (along with his broker, principals of the corporation and other salesmen) with the use of wire communication in furtherance of a scheme to defraud potential purchasers of real estate in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. In that proceeding, the Respondent initially professed his lack of knowledge of the truth or falsity of the representations made in the prepared script his broker gave him and required him to use concerning the attributes of the west Texas land involved. Due in part to a dearth of financial resources to devote to litigation, the Respondent ultimately pled nolo contendere on November 7, 1978, to the charge involving using wire communication in a scheme to defraud. He was ultimately found guilty and was placed on probation for three years, with imposition of a sentence of imprisonment being suspended by the court. The Respondent had no part in the preparation of any written materials or "script" which he employed in making the telephone conversation and representations describing the supposed attributes of the property he was attempting to market on behalf of his employer, Broker Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation. That script was prepared by his broker or others and the Respondent read or consulted from it as he was communicating with prospective purchasers, but had no actual knowledge of its truthfulness or falsity with regard to the representations contained therein. He was shown to have made no representation or verbal communication which he knew to be false when he made it. The Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding involving the same factual transaction in the past which culminated in a final order dismissing that administrative complaint. 1/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Ed Rich, be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(i)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a two (2) year suspension of licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel S. Fass, Esquire 626 Northeast 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Mr. Ed Rich 1950 South Ocean Drive Hallendale, Florida 33009 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is duly registered as a real estate salesman and as a broker by Florida Real Estate Commission. On his application for registration as a salesman, in answer to question 9 on the application as to whether he had ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, he answered "yes" and completed the "If yes, state details in full" part of the question with "traffic citation (speeding) 1970." On his application for registration as a broker some 16 months later he answered Question 9 "no". Exhibit 2, a certified copy of the court of record of Broward County, shows that on April 28, 1970, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of attempted bookmaking and was fined $50. When questioned by the investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission prior to the filing of this information, Respondent admitted that he had been arrested in California in 1960 and 1961 on charges of suspicion of assault and a traffic offense involving driving while under the influence of intoxicants. Testifying in his own behalf Respondent acknowledged that he had inadvertently failed to include those arrests on his application, and that in so doing he had no intention to conceal those arrests. The arrests for suspicion of assault involved a marital dispute with his former wife and those charges were dismissed. On the DWI charge he was fined $150. The breathalizer test he had taken was borderline and he was advised by the Public Defender that if he pleaded guilty he would be fined $150 as a first offender and if he employed the services of a lawyer to contest the charge the attorney's fee would be at least $250. He pleaded guilty to the charge. The attempted bookmaking arrest occurred while he was working in a bar in Deerfield Beach. The police suspected this bar was involved in bookmaking. Fetters had worked there only a week or two when two undercover agents, who had patronized the bar on a daily basis for several days, asked him to place a bet for them. He told them he had no information on how to place a bet, but after they insisted he took their money and made a call to someone he knew in Miami. The undercover agents then identified themselves and arrested him. Respondent holds a Cosmetology license in California, and an insurance salesman's license. He is currently working for Nichols' Realty in Boca Raton. His broker, Roy Nichols, has known Respondent for about three years and Respondent's reputation in the community is excellent. He has found Respondent's conduct exemplary both as a real estate salesman and as a family man.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Ralph B. Snyder, Jr. ("Respondent"), was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license No. 0082998. Respondent was the qualifying broker for Home Hunters V, Inc., a corporate real estate broker having been issued license No. 0221795, with a principal business address of 2829 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. In September, 1981, Respondent registered Home Hunters V, Inc., as a real estate brokerage corporation, with himself as qualifying broker. The office remained open until April, 1982. Respondent was not present in the West Palm Beach office of Home Hunters V on a full-time basis because, in addition to that business, he was involved in a construction business on Sanibel Island, Florida. In late September or early October, 1981, Respondent hired Greg Howle to manage the Home Hunters V office in West Palm Beach. At all times material hereto, Howle was not registered as either a broker or salesman. Respondent's business, insofar as here pertinent, consisted of maintaining card files of rental properties available in the West Palm Beach area, and advertising availability of those properties for the owners. When a prospective tenant came to Respondent's office in response to advertisements or otherwise, those tenants would sign an agreement with Home Hunters V, Inc., and, after payment of a $60 fee, would be furnished information concerning available properties in the area that generally conformed to the types of properties prospective tenants were seeking. The standard procedure in Respondent's office was that the prospective tenants would first meet with Greg Howle, the office manager, who would have them execute the agreement with Home Hunters V, Inc., collect the $60 fee from them, and then refer prospective tenants to other office employees. Among these other office employees were Ilana Frank, a licensed real estate salesperson who began employment with Respondent in late September or early October, 1981, and Sheryl Kimball, an unlicensed employee, who was employed by Respondent on or about October 16, 1981, and continued as an employee until about November 29, 1981. Respondent testified that Ms. Kimball was hired as a receptionist and, in addition, performed general clerical responsibilities in the office, including greeting potential customers and referring them to licensed salespersons. The record in this cause establishes that Ms. Kimball did, on at least two occasions, speak with persons on the telephone concerning sales, and on both of those occasions she was reprimanded by Respondent for acting outside the scope of her employment. Ms. Kimball was never directed by Respondent to negotiate the rental of any real property nor does this record establish that Respondent knew of Ms. Kimball's engaging in any such activity. Respondent testified that Ms. Kimball was paid $150 per week for her services, and, in addition, was compensated for any overtime work she might have performed. Ms. Kimball testified, however, that she was paid $150 per week together with $3.00 for each contract she negotiated. However, Ms. Kimball could identify only one such contract on which she worked. With regard to that contract, which involved a customer named Paul Palmero, Respondent never received any funds, and the record in this cause does not reflect that any services were ever performed for Mr. Palmero. Further, the entire Palmero transaction was conducted in the presence of another of Respondent's employees, Ilana Frank, who, as indicated above, was a licensed salesperson. Accordingly, there is insufficient credible evidence of record in this cause to establish that Sheryl Kimball ever negotiated the rental of real property or interest therein; procured lessees of the real property of others; or performed any of the acts of a broker or salesman as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Further, the record in this cause contains no evidence establishing the amounts actually paid to Ms. Kimball during the six-week period in which she was employed by Respondent. In reaching this conclusion, the Hearing Officer has taken into account the testimony and interests of both Ms. Kimball and Respondent in the outcome of this proceeding in attempting to reconcile the direct conflicts in their testimony. Ms. Kimball was discharged from Respondent's employ after having received two reprimands and having been accused of misappropriating funds. Thereafter, Ms. Kimball filed a complaint against Respondent with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Conversely, Respondent obviously has an interest in retaining his license as a broker. When viewed as a whole, it is concluded that facts of record in this cause with respect to Counts I and II are qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to establish the factual allegations contained therein. Count III of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent ". . . inserted or caused to be inserted fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading advertisements in the Post and Evening Times newspaper of West Palm Beach, Florida." The same count further alleges that those advertisements were fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading ". . . in that the content thereof stated to the public that respondents had available for lease through their firm various rental units at stated prices when in fact rental units of the advertised type were not available through their firm at the stated price." There is no evidence of record in this proceeding that would in any way establish the facts alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. In fact, the only evidence of record on this issue is the testimony of Ms. Kimball that she observed Mr. Howle, the office manager, copying listings from Fort Myers newspapers for use in the West Palm Beach area. However, Ms. Kimball conceded that she did not know if any such ads were ever placed in the West Palm Beach newspaper. No such advertisements were introduced into evidence in this proceeding from which any comparison to any of the listings available through Respondents could be made to determine whether the ads were fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading. County IV of the Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with having solicited and accepted money as advance rental fees with knowledge that rental units of the type and price desired by potential tenants were not available through Respondent's firm, and with making false representations as to the availability of rental units. Again, there is no evidence of record in this cause to establish a single, identifiable instance in which Respondent either individually or through its employees represented that rental units were available of a type and price that were not in fact so available.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ralph B. Snyder, Jr. ("Respondent"), is a licensed broker having been issued license No. 0082998. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying broker for Home Hunters V, Inc., at 2829 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent had employed Greg Howle as "office manager" at the above-mentioned location. Mr. Howle was at no time licensed as a broker or salesman by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On January 29, 1982, William Konwinski visited Respondent's office looking for an apartment to rent for the month of February, 1982. During his visit, Konwinski spoke with Ilana Frank, an office employee of Respondent who was licensed as a salesperson by the Florida Real Estate Commission. During his conference with Ms. Frank, Konwinski signed a rental agreement and gave Ms. Frank $60 as payment for rental services. That contract contained the following clause: If the rental information provided under this contract is not current or accurate in any material aspect, you may demand within 30 days of this contract date a return of your full fee paid. If you do not obtain a rental you are entitled to receive a return of 75 percent of the fee paid, if you make demand within 30 days of this contract date. The contract also contained the clause which provided that ". . . [n]o refunds are made during 30 day period when vacancies can be provided in the area and price range of tenants as indicated in above agreement." In the rental agreement, Mr. Konwinski indicated that he sought a one- bedroom furnished efficiency apartment that would accept pets. After executing the contract and paying the rental fee, Mr. Konwinski was given the names and addresses of two prospective rentals. Mr. Konwinski took the rental listings and within the next two or three days checked the listings and found that one did not accept pets. Konwinski failed to keep an appointment to meet with the landlord at the second property. Thereafter, Mr. Konwinski returned to Respondent's office and spoke again with Ilama Frank concerning available rentals. Ms. Frank apparently checked for additional listings but could locate none that met with Mr. Konwinski's specifications. However, Ms. Frank penciled in on the agreement between Home Hunters V, Inc., and Mr. Konwinski that he would be returned $30 of his $60 fee should Home Hunters V, Inc., be unable to find an apartment for him by January 31, 1982. Gregory Howle, the office manager, signed this addendum to the contract on behalf of Home Hunters V, Inc. On at least two separate occasions thereafter Mr. Konwinski returned to Respondent's office seeking a refund of his deposit, each time speaking to Mr. Howle, the office manager. Howle first told Konwinski that his refund check was in the mail, but later explained that Respondent had instructed him to make no refund. Konwinski never obtained a rental unit through Respondent, but did ultimately receive a partial refund. There is no credible evidence of record in this proceeding to establish that Respondent at any time shared real estate commissions with Gregory Howle. Although there are checks which were introduced into evidence made payable from Home Hunters V, Inc., to Mr. Howle, the record in this cause is devoid of any showing as to what the salary structure between Respondent and Mr. Howle was, or for specifically what services Mr. Howle was compensated. Further, other than speaking with Mr. Konwinski on his initial visit to Respondent's office and obtaining his signature on the rental agreement, referring him then to a licensed salesperson, and again speaking with Mr. Konwinski concerning a refund of his fee, there is no credible evidence of record to establish any other activities engaged in by Mr. Howle while employed by Respondent.
