The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, is eligible to sit for the Florida Real Estate Commission's licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and exhibits, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On or about July 26, 1981, Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. By letter dated September 28, 1981, Randy Schwartz, Respondent's counsel, advised Petitioner that the Respondent, at its duly noticed meeting of September 23, 1981, denied Petitioner's application for licensure. That letter recited that the specific reason for the Respondent's actions was baked on Petitioner's answer to question six (6) on the licensing application and her criminal record. In this regard, evidence reveals and Petitioner's application reflects that Petitioner was convicted in the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach), on September 8, 1978, of embezzlement of monies from a bank, in violation of Title XVIII, United States Code, 656. Petitioner was sentenced by the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins on that date, pursuant to the split-sentence provision of Title XVIII, United States Code, 3651, in that she was to be confined in a jail-type institution for a period of one (1) month, and thereafter, the remainder of the sentence of confinement [one (1) year] was suspended. Upon discharge from incarceration, Petitioner was to be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years under the special condition that she make restitution for the monies embezzled. Jurisdiction of that case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, and on March 29, 1982, Petitioner was terminated from probation supervision. Robert E. Lee, a chief U.S. probation officer, who supervised petitioner while she was under the supervision of the subject office as a probationer, indicates that Petitioner reflected a favorable attitude toward her probation officer, remained gainfully employed and abided by all the rules of probation. Petitioner has never been arrested since her conviction in 1978, and has received only one (1) traffic citation during December of 1981. Petitioner has been continuously employed since her conviction and is presently a secretary/receptionist where she is in charge of and controls office business for Mobile Craft Wood Products in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner has been in charge of processing cash sales for the past four (4) years. Petitioner is presently making restitution to the savings and loan association that she embezzled. Charles Demenzes, a realtor/broker who owns Demenzes Realty Inc., has known Petitioner approximately one (1) year. Mr. Demenzes spoke highly of Petitioner and was favorably impressed with her desire to become licensed as a real estate salesperson. Mr. Demenzes is hopeful that Petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to sit for the licensure examination such that she can join his sales force, if she successfully passes the examination. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner, having been convicted of the crime of embezzlement, which involves moral turpitude and therefore is ineligible to sit for the Respondent's licensure examination. In this regard, counsel for Respondent admits that the Board, when acting upon Petitioner's application for licensure, did not consider the fact that Petitioner has been released from probation supervision inasmuch as that factor did not exist at the time Petitioner made application for licensure. Character letters offered by Petitioner were highly complimentary of Petitioner's reputation and abilities as an employee. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure and the regulation of the practice of real estate brokers and salesmen in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a licensee regulated by the Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, albeit, holding an inactive license at the present time. Such an inactive licensure status is a sufficient basis for Petitioner's jurisdiction. Boedy v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 433 So.2d 544, (1st DCA 1983). On or about March 7, 1986, the Respondent was convicted in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, of the crime of manslaughter and "DUI/manslaughter," for each of which two counts she was sentenced to a six year prison term which sentences were to run concurrently, with a five year probationary period after the sentences of incarceration were served. In March 1986, the Respondent was duly remitted to the custody of the Department of Corrections and incarcerated at the Women's Prison at Lowell, Florida, the hearing site. The Respondent was in a work release status and was about to transfer to a less restrictive custodial situation in Fort Lauderdale in the Department's work release program at the time of the hearing. She will work in this program in the community for a few months before her ultimate release. Her release will come much sooner than the original length of her sentence imposed by the Court because she has earned the maximum amount of "gain-time" and has been a model prisoner, thus not losing any gain time since the first day she was incarcerated. This incident arose on May 23, 1983, in Pinellas County when the Respondent was proceeding down a public roadway in her own motor vehicle after having ingested an indeterminate amount of alcoholic beverages. While she was driving, a deputy sheriff in a Sheriff's Department vehicle approached her from the rear, activated his siren and indicated that he intended apprehending her or at least stopping her car. The deputy's siren startled and distracted the Respondent and in the process of pulling over to the side of the road, which necessitated a lane change, she became involved in the auto accident which ultimately caused the death of Mr. Walter Heuston. She was charged with unlawfully causing the death of Mr. Heuston by the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor to an extent as to deprive her of full possession of her normal faculties and, in Count II of the criminal information, by her own act or culpable negligence, in driving a motor vehicle, without intent to murder, inflicting mortal wounds upon Walter Heuston, of which he died. The Respondent, at the hearing and repeatedly in the past, has displayed extreme remorse over this unfortunate turn of events and freely acknowledges her fault in so conducting herself as to cause the death of another. As established by other witnesses, as well as by those, whose letters attesting to her good character were stipulated into evidence, she has used this experience and her time in prison to better herself. She has become quite active in a Christian organization for women and has enrolled in a theological seminary. In her course work with the seminary, she has earned the highest possible grades. Her pre-release counselor, Reverend Randolph, established that she is interested in growing and improving her life and remains very interested in her profession and in helping her community. The Respondent presently works at a community college as a civilian secretarial worker and has an exemplary record. At the correctional institution, she works in orienting inmates and counseling them to help them adjust to prison life and also works as a chaplain's aide. Similarly, Reverend Hubert Parr, the Respondent's minister, established that she is a member of his church and that he has had frequent contact with her in his Bible study teaching at the Lowell Prison. The Respondent has proven to him that she has grown a great deal as a responsible, caring person and is very repentant concerning the incident which resulted in her incarceration. He truly feels she aspires to be a model citizen in the future. He has substantial experience working as a chaplain and counselor for a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. He is convinced that the Respondent has conquered any alcohol problem she may have had and is convinced she has, and wishes to continue to, change her life for the better. The Respondent established that she had no prior alcohol problems of record and had no traffic citations for driving under the influence or even for speeding before the incident in question. She has conscientiously worked at her studies with the Luther Rice Seminary in Jacksonville and genuinely wants to help other people who may have alcohol or drug problems. She wishes to use her own unfortunate experience to the advantage of others by counseling persons with alcohol problems to help them avoid similar disastrous consequences. She presently works at the Central Florida Community College and has an excellent work record and numerous letters of recommendation. Her work site away from the correctional institution renders drugs and alcohol easily accessible, yet she has steadfastly avoided them and has been involved in no incident involving the purchase or use of alcohol or drugs in the course of her work experience away from the Lowell facility. She is in the honor unit at the Lowell facility, could "walk away" at any time and has chosen not to do so. She is in all respects a model prisoner, is contrite and remorseful concerning the reason for her imprisonment and genuinely appears to be trying to turn that tragic experience into a positive benefit in redirecting the course of her own life and in using that bad experience to help others who may have similar problems. Concerning the charge that she failed to timely inform the Petitioner of her incarceration or her conviction, she established that she wrote the Petitioner in early April 1986 and within thirty days after her conviction but apparently sent the letter to the wrong address in Orlando instead of to the appropriate address in Tallahassee. She never got an answer and during this time was still in the reception facility for a thirty day period during which she was in close custody and confinement. It was, therefore, difficult for her to obtain information about where to write to the Petitioner to inform them of her situation and, because of the emotional stress she was under at the time, she did not immediately write another letter upon failing to get an answer to the first one after a reasonable time. In any event, later that summer, in August 1986, she wrote a second letter to the Petitioner informing it of her situation and inquiring about her licensure status. This was answered by the Board and ultimately resulted in the instant prosecution. The Respondent was sentenced on March 7 and did not arrive at the Lowell Prison with a permanent address until March 21. She wrote the first letter in the second week of April. In view of the Respondent's obvious remorse concerning the unfortunate incident which resulted in her conviction and incarceration and the fact that she obviously wishes to better herself both spiritually and professionally, and has a genuine desire to help others overcome alcohol or drug problems and avoid similar consequences, it cannot be found that the Respondent's conviction of a felony and resultant incarceration is truly representative of her innate character and individual self-worth as that relates to her competence and trustworthiness to practice her profession as a realtor. The undersigned finds no evidence which would indicate that the public in the State of Florida, requiring the services of the Respondent as a realtor in the future, would be in any danger of becoming victims of dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent or similar reprehensible modes of practice by the Respondent. In consideration of the severe penalty the Respondent has already paid and is continuing to pay for the tragedy she is accountable for, it would be unjust to remove her right to practice her chosen means of livelihood through this proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission according the Respondent the penalty of a written reprimand. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of August 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 31st day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 June E. Dupee c/o Salvation Army 14 Northwest 14th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 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 General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Richard A. Dunham, Jr., is now and was at all times material to the complaint a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 0130830 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a salesman, c/o Merrill Lynch Realty, operating partnership L.P. LTD., 1234 West Palm Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34236. Respondent was the sole stockholder of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., a corporation that was not licensed with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent formed Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., for the purpose of engaging in real estate ventures. Respondent was also the sole stockholder in other corporations established for the same purpose. On August 21, 1986, Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., entered into a lease agreement with Gail Walker whereby Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., leased a furnished townhouse for two years at $500 per month. Thereafter, respondent contacted Elizabeth Mitchell, a business associate and friend of respondent, to obtain her help in subleasing the townhouse. Respondent agreed to let Ms. Mitchell live in the townhouse in return for her maintaining the property and showing it to prospective sublessees. Respondent also agreed to pay Ms. Mitchell $200 if she subleased the property. On September 22, 1986, Kathryn E. Kelly entered into a written lease agreement with Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., to lease the townhouse for $600 per month. Ms. Kelly also agreed to pay a security deposit of $500. Ms. Kelly gave Elizabeth Mitchell a bank check, written to Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., in the amount of $500 for the security deposit. Ms. Mitchell thereafter delivered Ms. Kelly's check of $500 to respondent who deposited the check into the general corporate account of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc. Prior to signing the lease, Ms. Kelly met respondent. She was under the impression that respondent owned Guaranteed Leasing and that Ms. Mitchell worked for him. In December of 1986, Ms. Kelly vacated the townhouse premises. She had paid all appropriate rental payments. Ms. Kelly asked respondent, in person, to return her security deposit. Neither respondent nor Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., returned the security deposit. Neither respondent nor Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., gave notice of intent to impose a claim for damages upon the security deposit. After repeatedly demanding return of the security deposit, which demands were ignored by respondent, Ms. Kelly obtained counsel and filed a lawsuit against respondent, Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., and Ms. Mitchell. On July 1, 1987, a default judgment was entered against respondent, Elizabeth Mitchell and Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., jointly and severally in the amount of $544, plus costs and attorney's fees, for a total judgment of $785. The judgment has not been satisfied. Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., is no longer in existence. Respondent was the sole stockholder of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., and was an officer of the corporation. Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., had no salaried employees. The only business activity of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., was the transaction involved in this case. Respondent was in total control of the corporation's activities and was responsible for its actions. Indeed, as perceived by both Ms. Kelly and Mrs. Mitchell, Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., was, in essence, the respondent. Guaranteed Leasing, Inc., was merely the instrumentality through which respondent conducted this business transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that respondent committed those acts set forth in Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes, suspending respondent's license for a period of three months, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 17th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings: 1-2. Accepted. 3. Accepted, except as to finding that Mitchell was an "employee" of respondent; however, it is clear that Mitchell was acting as respondent's agent in her dealings with Ms. Kelly. 4-9. Accepted generally. Respondent's proposed findings: 1-8. Accepted generally except as to proposed finding that Mitchell was an "employee" of Guaranteed Leasing, Inc. Mitchell was acting as respondent's agent in her dealings with Ms. Kelly. 9. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert P. Rosin, Esquire ROSIN & DAVIS 1900 Main Street Suite 210 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not, based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, the Respondent is guilty of a course of conduct constituting fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, etc., in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979); whether or not Respondent has obtained a real estate license by means of fraud, misrepresentations or concealment, in violation of Subsection 475.25 (1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979); whether or not Respondent has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises and false pretenses, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979); and whether or not Respondent has been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state involving fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979). 2/
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Patricia C. Alters, Respondent herein, is a registered real estate salesperson and has been so registered since approximately February 18, 1980. Respondent has been issued License No. 0330568 by the Petitioner. On November 10, 1979, Respondent made an application for registration as a real estate salesperson to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Question No. 6 of that application required that Respondent report if she had ever been arrested for or charged with the commission of any offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation. Respondent filed a negative response to question No. 6. (Petitioners Exhibit No. 1.) On June 18, 1979, an arrest warrant was issued in Duval County, Florida, charging Respondent with issuing worthless checks and drafts, in violation of Chapter 832, Florida Statutes (1979). Pursuant to that warrant, Respondent was arrested on June 20, 1979, by the Clay County Sheriff's Department. Respondent was booked and released on her own recognizance. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 and Respondent's Exhibit No. 1.) On May 19, 1980, Respondent was charged with the issuance of a worthless check drawn on or about December 19, 1979, in the amount of $12.71. The check was issued to the J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) Respondent pled guilty to said charge and was adjudged guilty by the court on May 19, 1980, in criminal proceeding No. 80-9979MM in the County Court of Duval County, Florida. She was fined $50.00 plus court costs. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5.) On or about October 7, 1978, Respondent leased a residence located in Clay County, Florida, from one Lon E. Brugh. Respondent defaulted on said lease on several occasions failure to timely pay the rent and late charges, namely the rent for the months of June and July, 1979, and for late charges on the months of October, November and December, 1978, and January through July, 1979. Lon E. Brugh filed a civil suit in the County Court in and for Clay County, Florida, and charged that the Respondent had defaulted on the terms of the lease. On November 30, 1979, Respondent was adjudged to be in default of said lease and ordered to pay to Lon E. Brugh the sum of $929.05 plus his (Brugh's) costs of $34.00. Evidence reveals that Respondent issued three (3) checks to Lon E. Brugh during late April and early May of 1979, for payment of rent and late charges for the residence which she leased from Brugh. Evidence also revealed that Respondent immediately instructed her bank to place stop payments on the checks which she had issued to Brugh for rent payments. Respondent contends that she placed stop payments on these checks due to a dispute that she had with Brugh concerning her responsibilities under the lease. Evidence reveals that the checks here involved were either for past due rents or for late charges. (Tr. pp. 62-66.) RESPONDENT'S POSITION AND DEFENSE Initially, Respondent's position is that she was not licensed when the civil suit was filed by Lon E. Brugh or when she entered the lease agreement and therefore the facts surrounding the civil suit and related matters which occurred prior to her licensure should not be considered as a basis for Petitioner to take disciplinary action. Secondly, Respondent countered that she issued all checks, which were the basis for the civil action filed by Brugh while she was hospitalized during April and May of 1979. Respondent contends that Mr. Brugh deposited the three (3) checks before she could make a deposit in her bank to cover the checks inasmuch as she was in the hospital. Respecting the events surrounding Petitioner's allegation that Respondent was arrested, Respondent counters that she thought that she had never been arrested, inasmuch as she was driven to the sheriff's office in Clay County during the early morning hours on June 20, 1979, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Duval County Sheriff's Department. That arrest centered around a worthless check which Respondent issued to Sears. Respondent does not deny that the check was worthless when issued; however, she points out that restitution has been made to Sears. In support of her belief that she had not been arrested, Respondent points to the facts that she did not post bond; was not placed behind bars and was allowed to leave under her own recognizance. In response to that charge, Respondent entered a written plea of not guilty. She therefore considered that she was not arrested. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3.) As to the circumstances surrounding the worthless check which Respondent issued to Penney's during December of 1979, Respondent noted that she made restitution for said check; that Penney's returned the monies which she paid them, inasmuch as she did not obtain the merchandise which was in the form of a lay-a-way purchase. Respondent admits to her plea of guilty; however, she testified that she had been issued a $3,500.00 check which was deposited into her account and was returned for non-sufficient funds, which, in turn, caused several of her checks to be returned. Finally, Respondent generally denied all of the allegations involved herein and affirmatively stated that she made restitution for all of the checks which had been returned returned for non-sufficient funds; that she has established a good record of honesty and trustworthiness in the community and is well respected by realtors and other officials involved in the real estate business in the area. (Testimony of Respondent, Ken O'Leary, Sheldon Wardwell, John Drago and Peter Dalton.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson be revoked and that the revocation be suspended for a period of forty-five (45) days during which time Respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to re-submit her application to be licensed as a real estate salesperson. It is further RECOMMENDED: That, in the event Respondent re-submits a, new application to be licensed as a real estate salesperson, which truthfully and completely responds to Question 6 of that application, Petitioner consider the character and mitigating evidence offered by Respondent herein. In such case, if Respondent re-submits her application for licensure within the above-referred forty-five (45) day period, it is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, after completing the filing of a new application as set forth herein, which otherwise fully satisfies and comports with Petitioner's procedures, be issued a new license, which license shall be placed on a probated status for a term of two (2) years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22 day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether Weston Professional Title Group, Inc. (Respondent) committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, V, VI, and VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times, Petitioner has been the entity of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to regulate title insurance agencies. At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a title insurance agent in the State of Florida. As of the formal hearing, Respondent had ceased its operations due to the lack of business. Petitioner's investigation of Respondent was initiated by a complaint from a man named Robert Anderson. Mr. Anderson represented to Petitioner that he discovered that his name and address had been used as the buyer of the two residences discussed above. Respondent was the title and settlement agent for both transactions. The Collonade Drive transaction settled on November 14, 2006, with disbursement of the funds on November 16, 2006. The Vignon Place transaction settled and the funds were disbursed on December 15, 2006. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner his belief that his identity had been stolen by a person named Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner that he had not participated in either transaction, and asserted that he did not sign any of the documents that purport to contain his signature as the buyer. Respondent was required to comply with the provisions of RESPA in completing the HUD-1 for the Collonade Drive closing and the Vignon Place closing. RESPA required that disbursements at closing be consistent with the HUD-1 as approved by the parties to the transaction and by the lender. COLLONADE DRIVE CLOSING On September 15, 2006, Robert Anderson (or someone impersonating Mr. Anderson) signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" (Collonade contract), agreeing to buy the Collonade Drive property from Mark Mariani and Kathy Mariani, for the purchase price of $1,375,000.00. The Collonade contract reflected that a deposit had been made to "FLORIDA TITLE & ESC." in the amount of $5,000 with an additional deposit of $5,000 to be made within ten days. Two loans with separate mortgages constituted the financing for the purchase of the Collonade Drive property. The first mortgage was $962,500.00. The second mortgage, as reflected on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement with the disbursement date of November 14, 2006, was $263,430.08.3/ First Magnus Financial Corporation, an Arizona corporation, was the lender for both loans. Agents of America Mortgage Corp. served as the mortgage broker for the transaction. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, an employee of Agents of America Mortgages, signed Mr. Anderson's loan application as the "interviewer." The following was a special clause of the Collonade contract: "BUYER AGREES TO PAY FOR TITLE INSUANCE [sic] FEE ONLY (LINE 1108 OF SELLERS' SETTLEMENT STATEMENT), ONLY [SIC] IF SELLERS AGREE TO USE BUYER'S TITLE COMPANY OF CHOICE. BUYER IS A LICENSED FLORIDA REAL ESTATE AGENT." Petitioner established that Robert Anderson was not a licensed Florida real estate agent. The Collonade contract represented that there were no real estate brokers representing either party. On or about November 1, 2006, Respondent received a "Request for Title Commitment" from Claudit Casanova, a mortgage broker with Agents of America Mortgage Corp., for the Collonade Drive transaction. This was a revised request. The first request had been sent to Respondent on or about October 3, 2006. A copy of the Collonade contract had been forwarded to Respondent with the first request. In connection with the Collonade Drive transaction, Respondent prepared two HUD-1s,4/ each of which was approved by the parties and the lender.5/ The first HUD-1 had an anticipated closing date of November 14, 2006. That HUD-1 was revised in response to the lender's instruction to move the disbursement date from November 14, 2006, to November 16, 2006. The revision of the HUD-1 slightly reduced the amount of cash the buyer needed to close as a result of interest beginning to run on the loans as of November 16 instead of November 14. This was a mail-away closing, in that a packet of the documents the buyer was to sign was sent to someone named Laurie Martin at a title agency in Glendale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified she mailed the packet pursuant to instructions without specifying who gave her those instructions. The packet of documents was returned to Respondent, with signatures purporting to be Mr. Anderson's. Laurie Martin appears to have served as the notary public when the documents were signed. The transaction closed pursuant to the revised HUD-1 with the disbursement date of November 16, 2006, which, as approved by the parties and the lender, reflected that the sellers were to receive $477,884.93 upon closing. Upon closing, Respondent drafted a check in the amount of $477,884.93 made payable to the sellers. The sellers voided the check and based on instructions from the sellers, Ms. Marrero redistributed the sellers' proceeds by wire transfer as follows: $116,112.85 to sellers; $170,250.00 to Pamela Higgins; and $191,508.08 to Unlimited Advertising USA. Fourteen dollars were spent on wire transfer charges. The actual disbursement of the seller's proceeds was inconsistent with the HUD-1 and unknown to the buyer and the lender. Respondent violated the provisions of RESPA by disbursing the proceeds of the sale in a manner that was inconsistent with the HUD-1. $195,000 DEPOSIT The Collonade contract reflected that a $5,000 deposit had been made to "Fla. Title & Esc." required for the buyer to pay an additional deposit of $5,000 within ten days. There was no evidence establishing any relationship between Respondent and "Fla. Title & Esc." Both HUD-1s for the Collonade Drive transaction reflected that the buyer had provided to the sellers a deposit in the amount of $195,000. These HUD-1s, reflecting that the sellers were holding a deposit in the amount of $195,000, were approved by the parties and the lender. Ms. Marrero testified that she was instructed to include the $195,000 deposit on the HUD-1s without specifying who gave her those instructions. Ms. Marrero did not attempt to verify that the $195,000 deposit was actually being held by the sellers. FRAUD Petitioner alleged that the Collonade Drive transaction was fraudulent. Mr. Wenger's testimony, based in part on reports of mortgage fraud prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, supported that allegation. Other evidence supporting that allegation included the following facts The first mortgage quickly went into foreclosure; A mailing address given for Robert Anderson did not (as of April 19, 2011) exist. The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Claudia Rodriguez, a former Florida title agent whose license had been suspended by Petitioner for failing to disburse in accordance with HUD statements and disbursing on uncollected funds; The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Juan Carlos Rodriguez (the person who supposedly took the credit application from Robert Anderson); The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Agents of America Mortgage Corporation (the mortgage broker for the Collonade closing. Juan Carlos Rodriguez supposedly notarized the document authorizing disbursement of part of the sellers' proceeds to Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson's purported signatures on different documents are inconsistent. The address for Mr. Anderson as it appears on the HUD- 1 Settlement Statements is 14233 W. Jenan Drive, Surprise, Arizona. Prior to the closing Ms. Marrero sent by Federal Express a copy of the unexecuted closing documents to "Pam Higgins c/o Robert S. Anderson" 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Following the closing, Ms. Marrero sent a copy of the closing documents by Federal Express to Robert S. Anderson, at the address 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified that she acted on instructions in sending the two packages, without identifying who gave her those instructions. There was no evidence that anyone employed by Respondent knew anyone connected to this transaction prior to being asked to provide a title commitment. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had anything to do with the buy-sell agreement between the buyer and the sellers or the efforts by Mr. Anderson (or the person or persons impersonating Mr. Anderson) to obtain financing for the purchase. While there was significant evidence that the Colonnade Closing was a fraudulent transaction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was complicit in that fraud. VIGNON COURT CLOSING On a date prior to November 6, 2006, Maribel and Timothy Graves signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" offering to sell their Vignon Court residence to Robert Anderson for the purchase price of $1,975,000.00. Mr. and Mrs. Graves were represented by counsel during this transaction. The copy of the contract admitted into evidence had not been signed by Mr. Anderson and did not bear a legible date. The contract provided an acceptance date of November 6, 2006. The fully executed contract was not admitted into evidence. On October 4, 2006, Claudit Casanova of Agents of America Mortgage requested Respondent to provide a title commitment for the Vignon Court transaction. In that request, the sales price was stated as being $1,975,000; the loan amount was $1,481,250 and the mortgagee was American Brokers Conduit. Preferred Properties, Int., Inc., was listed as being the real estate broker for the transaction. Respondent prepared a HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction that reflected a closing and disbursement date of December 15, 2006. DEPOSIT The unexecuted (by the buyer) and undated copy Purchase Agreement required a deposit of $100,000 at the time of acceptance with an additional $50,000 being due within ten days thereafter. There was no evidence as to the terms of the completely executed Purchase Agreement. Line 201 of the HUD-1 reflected a deposit of $250,000 paid on behalf of the buyer. Respondent did not verify that deposit had been made. The HUD-1 specified that the deposit was being held by the sellers. The buyer, sellers, and lender approved the HUD-1, which reflected the existence of a deposit of $250,000, prior to closing. GASPARE VALENTINO On December 6, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Graves entered into a "Joint Venture and Property Resale Agreement" (Resale Agreement) pertaining to the sale of the Vignon Court residence with Gaspare Valentino. On February 5, 2002, Gaspare Rino Valentino was issued a license by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of the type "Real Estate Broker or Sales" and of the rank "Sales Associate." That license was valid at the times relevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 2 of the Resale Agreement provides as follows: (2) SALE EFFORTS: CONTRACT PROCEEDS. Valentino agrees to use reasonable efforts to obtain a third party purchaser (a "Purchaser") for the Property. Valentino is not required to advertise the Property or list the Property for sale, but shall have such right to do so. Valentino does not guaranty [sic] the procurement of a Purchaser. The parties agree that the intention is for Valentino to secure a Purchaser who will pay a purchase price sufficient in order to (i) satisfy the existing debt upon the Property, (ii) pay ordinary and reasonable closing costs of the transaction, (iii) generate a net proceeds [illegible] to Owner not less than ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000); and (iv) generate such further sums beyond the foregoing in order to pay Valentino a fee for services rendered as set forth in this Agreement. In accordance with such understanding, Owner agrees to enter into and fully execute a Contract for Purchase and Sale with a Purchaser procured by Valentino which is consistent with the terms set forth in this Agreement, including without limitation, a designated sales price which enables Owner to receive at closing a net proceeds sum equal to ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) (the "Owner's Sale Proceeds") after payment of the Property Sale Expenses, hereinafter defined as set forth in Paragraph 3. Owner agrees that any net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner's Sale Proceeds shall be payable to Valentino (the "Excess Proceeds Fee), as Valentino's fee for the efforts of Valentino as set forth herein. Paragraph 3 (i) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" as follows: Owner shall receive the Owner Sale Proceeds consisting of exactly ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) from the net sales proceeds . . . Paragraph 3 (ii) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" and the "Owner Sale Proceeds": Valentino shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fees, constituting all remaining net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner Sale Proceeds, as a fee for services rendered by Valentino pursuant to this Agreement. Paragraph 7 of the Resale Agreement is as follows: 7. Licensed Agent: Valentino represents and discloses that Valentino is a licensed real estate agent in the State of Florida. Notwithstanding such, Valentino is individually entering into this Agreement using his own resources to assist Owner in the improvement and sale of the Property, and as such is a principal in this transaction earning the Excess Proceeds Fee. The parties acknowledge that Valentino is an investor in this transaction and as such at closing is entitled to and shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fee as set forth in Section [Paragraph] 3(ii) of this Agreement. Under RESPA, Section 700 of a HUD-1 is appropriately used for reporting the payments for commissions to real estate salesmen and/or brokers as part of the "Settlement Charges." Such payments can also be reported under Section 1300 ("Additional Settlement Charges"), if the payments are appropriately labeled. Respondent reflected the payment of $527,656.92 as "Payoff" to Gaspare Valentino at line 1307 of Section 1300." Prior to closing the buyer, sellers, and lender had approved the HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction. The lender was aware of the Resale Agreement. Mr. Marrero is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Mr. Marrero construed the payments to Mr. Valentino to be other than a real estate commission. Although it is clear that Petitioner considers that payment to Mr. Valentino to be a real estate commission, the terms of the Resale Agreement entitled Mr. Marrero to treat that payment as being to an investor. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent erroneously stated the payment to Mr. Valentino on the HUD-1. SURETY BOND As a condition of licensure, a title agency is required to provide to Petitioner a $35,000 security deposit or a $35,000 surety bond. In connection with its application for licensure on August 29, 2002, Respondent filed the required surety bond with Petitioner. The bond was issued by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland with bond number 133046577. On July 14, 2004, Petitioner received from Respondent a surety bond issued by Western Surety Company in the amount of $35,000, effective as of August 29, 2004. The bond number was 69728435. On May 28, 2010, Petitioner received a letter from his surety dated May 24, 2010, which advised that bond number 69728435 would be voided or cancelled as of August 29, 2010. That letter of cancellation showed a copy being furnished to Respondent at the address "1820 North. Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida 33326." On June 11, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent by letter sent to "1820 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite. 105, Weston, Florida 33326" that it had received the cancellation letter. The letter stated, in part, as follows: If we do not receive a replacement bond within 30 days of the dated letter, we will forward your file to the appropriate division for disciplinary action. If you do not plan to continue transacting business and wish to terminate your license, you must submit a request to us immediately. Prior to May 24, 2010, Respondent moved its offices from 1802 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida, to Suite 304 of the same building. Mr. Marrero testified that he had no recollection of receiving the letters cancelling the surety bond or the letter from Petitioner dated June 11, 2010. Respondent was without a surety bond between August 29, 2010, and November 18, 2010. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent's failure to maintain it surety bond during that period was willful within the meaning of section 626.8437(9). No prior disciplinary action has been brought against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of subsections 626.8473(2) and (4) as alleged in Count I of the Amended AC; and guilty of failing to maintain a surety bond as required by section 626.8418(2) in violation of section 626.8437(1), as alleged in Count III of the Amended AC. It is further recommended that the final order find Respondent not guilty of all other violations alleged in the Amended AC. For the violations found as to Count I, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of six months. For the violations found in Count III, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of three months. It is further recommended that the periods of suspension run concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2012
Findings Of Fact Case No. 80-767 Count I In 1976, Ms. Kay E. Davis bought a house from Home America Realty, Inc., and Home America, Inc. at 11700 North 58 Street, Tampa, Florida, the Respondent's principal place of business. On or about May 26, 1976, the Respondent offered to Ms. Davis a color television set in exchange for sending Respondent a referral who would purchase a home. Ms. Davis was and is not registered as a real estate broker or salesman in Florida or any other state. Subsequent to the closing of the purchase by Ms. Davis, one of her friends, Brenda Kelly, purchased a home from the Respondent. Ms. Davis believed that she was responsible for the referral and contacted the Respondent's office concerning the color television. After the closing and over a period of several months, Ms. Davis called Home America to complain about problems with her house. In response to her complaints, the exterior of the house was cleaned and a check for $110.00 was sent to her in settlement of a claim concerning carpeting. During this period of time, a check for $200.00 was sent to Ms. Davis following a telephone conversation between Ms. Davis and the Respondent's secretary. Ms. Davis never received a color television from the Respondent or spoke to him directly about the $200.00 in lieu of a color television set. The $200.00 was not knowingly paid by the Respondent as a referral fee; rather, it was an attempt on the Respondent's part to settle the ongoing problems involving Ms. Davis' home. Count II Prior to the hearing, counsel for the Respondent moved that Count II be dismissed, based upon a letter he received on May 19, 1980, from counsel for the Board of Real Estate informing him that on May 19, 1980, following an investigation the Board dismissed this part of its complaint (CD 18645) against the Respondent. Ruling was reserved on this Motion and the Respondent presented testimony and evidence on this Count. Counsel for Respondent was never informed by the Board that Count II of the complaint was not in fact dismissed as represented in the May 19, 1980, letter until October 23, 1980, the day of the formal hearing. Case No. 80-1225 On November 21, 1977 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Caplano purchased a home at 4611 East Seneca Drive, Tampa, Florida, from Respondents Home America Realty, Inc. and Bekiempis through their salesman, Robert Knisley. At the time Mr. Knisley first showed the Caplanos the property, the site was under construction, unsodded and survey markers were not in place. Although a chain link fence was visible on the east side of the property, it would have been difficult to determine the legal boundary lines because of the condition of the site. The visible fence was 10 feet beyond and parallel to the actual property line. The lot purchased by the Gaplanos was 60 feet in width. The lot directly behind the Gaplanos was 70 feet wide. The Caplanos were furnished with an accurate survey of the property either five days after the contract was signed or at the closing. At the closing, the Caplanos understood that they were purchasing a sixty foot lot and never believed or were told that their lot was 70 feet wide. Prior to closing, the lot was sodded beyond the boundary lines to include easements on both sides of the street and the 10 feet up to the fence line. It was the customary practice of Home America, Inc. , to sod beyond property lines after the completion of construction of a lot to improve the appearance of a neighborhood. Such action was not intended to mislead purchasers as to the location of their property lines. The misunderstanding between the Caplanos and Mr. Knisley arose not out of any attempt by Mr. Knisley to misrepresent or mislead, but rather out of Mr. Knisley's erroneous and unintentional attempt to locate the property lines and survey markers. Case No. 80-789 On or about November 10, 1976, the Respondent contracted with Ronald Faber for the sale of a house and lot located at Lot 1, Allbright Shores Subdivision. At the time Ronald Faber worked for the Respondent as comptroller of Home America, Inc. This house was purchased using conventional financing since the specifications of the house and lot did not meet the requirements of VA financing and, thus, such financing could not be arranged. The contract for purchase of the house called for a down payment of $4,600.00 or 10 percent of the purchase price. A portion of this amount was paid in cash by Mr. Faber and the remainder was paid by way of an employee discount to Mr. Faber as evidenced by the exchange between Mr. Faber and Home America, Inc. of checks for $3,000.00. Mr. Faber received from his employment with Respondent salary income and additional income from managing apartments. Thus, his income was capable of varying during the year and was not calculated as straight salary. The evidence is inconclusive as to what Mr. Faber's actual income was for the year in question. The statement of salary made by the Respondent to the financing bank was substantially correct based upon his interpretation of Mr. Faber's salary and was not intended to mislead the bank. The testimony is contradictory concerning whether the Respondent agreed to pave the road in front of the Faber home beyond that which was already in place. However, no competent testimony or evidence was presented that the Respondent supplied any information to the bank's appraiser concerning the paving of the road. Mr. Faber executed a note and mortgage in favor of Home America, Inc., encumbering the property on November 24, 1976. There is conflicting testimony as to whether the affidavit furnished the bank which stated that no outstanding unrecorded contract for sale, deed, conveyance, or mortgage affecting title existed on the property, was executed by the Respondent on November 24 or November 29. The note and mortgage were delivered to Respondent after the affidavit was executed. The Respondent believed at the time the affidavit was executed that he held a promissory note which was not a valid lien on the property until the mortgage and note were signed and delivered to him.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner attempted to introduce into evidence as an exhibit a computer printout showing respondent's license status. This document could not be identified by any witness called to testify in the proceeding and was not otherwise properly authenticated. The following colloquy between counsel for the petitioner, the Hearing Officer and the respondent occurred prior to the time respondent was placed under oath during the hearing: MR. JORDAN: Finally, Your Honor, we'd like to introduce as our next exhibit a computer printout showing Mrs. Steed's license status which reflects that her broker's license was effective 4/1/81. That would be Exhibit 23. MRS. STEED: Where are they located at? MR. JORDAN: That came out of Tallahassee, I believe. That's just a printout on your license. MRS. STEED: Do they show I'm inactive? MR. JORDAN: Let me see. This simply shows that as of 8/28/81 and you were licensed and your broker's license became effective 4/1/81 and your home address is 10164 Southwest 64th Street. MRS. STEED: None of that is true. THE HEARING OFFICER: She obviously cannot identify that document if it's something that came out of Tallahassee and she's never seen it before. MRS. STEED: It's inactive. THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Since Mrs. Steed is not represented by an attorney, I feel obliged to tell her it's the Board's responsibility to prove that she either was licensed at the time of the allegations in the complaint or something -- MRS. STEED: I am not a licensed real estate broker at the present time and I haven't been, but I just don't know the date that it changed. MR. JORDAN: The material time I think is back in `80 and `81 when this was going on. I can call your associate. MRS. STEED: I possibly was licensed then. I'm not saying I wasn't. I don't really know. I would say I was. THE HEARING OFFICER: As I said, it's the Board's responsibility to prove that up. MR. JORDAN: I think she's saying you still have it. It's just that it's inactive. MRS. STEED: I'm inactive. MR. JORDAN: You haven't given up your license; correct? MRS. STEED: No THE HEARING OFFICER: You're not offering that? MR. JORDAN: I'm not offering that. I think she agrees that she was licensed back in '80 and '81 when these transactions were going on. (TR. pp 59 and 60) No other evidence was offered during the hearing as to respondent's status as a licensed real estate broker in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the respondent filed on September 2, 1981, as amended on December 1, 1981, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 28 day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Jordan, Esquire Mr. C. B. Stafford Conrad, Scherer & James Executive Director Post Office Box 14723 Florida Real Estate Commission Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Carolyn Steed 5951 S. W. 67th Ave. Fred Wilsen, Esquire Davie, Florida 33314 Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Respondent David R. Kelly was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on August 8, 1976, and was issued a certificate, No. 0214196. On March 1O, 1986, in Pensacola, respondent Kelly entered a plea of nolo contendere to three counts charging simple misdemeanor battery in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes; and the Honorable Lacey A. Collier accepted the plea as Judge of the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. On April 9, 1986, Judge Collier entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing respondent on probation. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. At no time has respondent ever been convicted of a crime. (T.19) Having consistently maintained his innocence, Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, respondent Kelly nevertheless pleaded nolo contendere, on the advice of counsel, for fear he could "lose through the news media," (T. 16) even if acquitted. At the time the battery allegations arose, respondent Kelly worked for the Florida Highway Patrol which dismissed him on account of the allegations. In subsequent proceedings before the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), the alleged victim testified, as she had earlier testified on deposition in the criminal proceedings, that the respondent had fondled her breasts. Petitioner's Exhibits No. 1 and 2. The PERC proceedings eventuated in orders explicitly rejecting respondent's accuser's testimony and recommending his reinstatement. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. The evidence adduced in the present case does not show whether or not respondent perpetrated one or more batteries on his accuser. She did not testify.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for licensing and regulating real estate salesmen in the State of Florida. The Respondent, George Chaconas, at all times pertinent hereto, was, and still is, the holder of a Florida real estate salesman license, number 0402455. The Respondent was convicted on February 2, 1988, of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, a felony. The Respondent was convicted in United States District Court, District of Baltimore. On April 15, 1988, the Respondent was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The Respondent is presently serving his sentence in the Federal Correctional Institute located in Tallahassee, Florida. By letter dated February 29, 1988, from the Respondent's counsel, the Petitioner was informed of the Respondent's conviction. The Respondent's conviction is currently on appeal. Mitigating circumstances in this case include the following: (1) the evidence failed to prove that the Respondent's violations harmed real estate consumers or the real estate public; (2) there are two counts in the Administrative Complaint; (3) this is the first time the offense has been committed; (4) no disciplinary action has been taken against the Respondent in the past; (5) the Respondent was not on probation or under suspension at the time the violations occurred; (6) the real state business will be the Respondent's only source of income when he is released from incarceration; and (7) the Respondent has not received a letter of guidance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a real estate salesman by revoked; provided, that if the Respondent's conviction is reversed on appeal, his license as real estate sales can be reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 George Chaconas Federal Correctional Institute Capital Circle #07593-018, PMB 1000 Unit B/X Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando Florida 32802
