The Issue Whether Respondent's License No. 0003558 as a real estate salesman should be suspended, revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined for violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner served a copy of its Administrative Complaint, Explanation of Rights, and Election of Rights upon the Respondent at the last address he had registered with the Commission, i.e., 6800 W. 16th Avenue, Hialeah, Florida 33014, by registered mail on July 31, 1975. Respondent executed the "Election of Rights" form in which he requested a hearing, on August 19, 1975, and returned it to Petitioner. On December 5, 1975, Petitioner mailed a copy of Notice of Hearing to the Respondent by registered mail to the same address. It was returned by the U. S. Post Office to Petitioner with the notation "Moved, Left No Address" (Exhibit 1). Accordingly, it was considered that Petitioner had complied with applicable requirements concerning notice and, the Respondent not being present at the time of hearing, the hearing was conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent received his registration as a real estate salesman on June 18, 1973, and has been continuously registered with Petitioner since that date (Exhibit 2). An Information filed by the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Number 73-3060, charged Respondent with nine counts of violating Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes, by nine worthless checks in the amount of $50.00 each which were unlawfully drawn, made, uttered, issued or delivered to Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., during the period December 27, 1972 to January 8, 1973. A similar Information, Number 73-2663, was filed with respect to four checks to the Grand Union Company during the period October 18, 1972 through October 24, 1972 in the same amounts (Exhibits 3, 5). On September 13, 1973, Respondent pleaded guilty to the charges filed against him in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, and an Order Withholding Adjudication was issued in Case No. 73-3060, finding the Respondent guilty based upon the entry of a guilty plea to the charge of unlawfully obtaining services, goods, wares, or other things of value by means of a worthless check or draft in the amount of $50.00 (nine counts) and withholding adjudication of guilt. On the same date, the same court issued another Order Withholding Adjudication of guilt in Case No. 73-2663 for the four fifty dollar checks involved therein (ExhibitS 4, 6).
Recommendation That the registration of Leonard H. Balkan as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard H. Balkan Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire 6800 West 16th Avenue 2699 Lee Road Hialeah, Florida 33014 Winter Park, Florida
The Issue Whether Hellender violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Hellender is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0038269 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Hellender had a listing for the sale of real property owned by Horace E. and Margaret C. Young. An offer to lease with option to purchase was made by Richard W. and Diane B. Milligan through their realtor, Susan Seligman, who was in contact with Seligman several times November 26 concerning the availability of the property and terms of the lease-purchase agreement. Both the Youngs and the Milligans did not live in the Orlando area where the two realtors and property were located. Susan Seligman, a broker-salesperson, presented Ralph E. Hellender with a Contract for Sale and Purchase when she met with Hellender between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on the evening of November 26, 1976. This offer, which was received into evidence as Exhibit 1, expired at 12:00 noon on November 27. Hellender took the contract and indicated that he would communicate the offer to the Youngs. Susan Seligman did not accompany Hellender to communicate the offer as is the general custom, because she needed to pick up her children from a football game that evening. Mrs. Ingrid Hellender, a broker salesperson, received a call later on the evening of November 26, 1976, from Susan Seligman. The general topic of the call was the fact that the contract which Seligman had given Mr. Hellender earlier that evening provided for conventional financing of the purchase, and Seligman had second thoughts about the Milligans' desires on financing. She requested that she be given the opportunity to check with the Milligans to determine whether they intended to use conventional or FHA financing. At this point a conflict developed in the testimony of Mrs. Seligman and Mrs. Hellender regarding whether Mrs. Seligman requested that Mr. Hellender hold the contract or whether Mrs. Seligman requested that he present the offer with reservations concerning the nature of the financing. In any event, Mrs. Hellender advised her husband to hold the contract. Similarly, a conflict exists in Mr. Hellender's and Mrs. Seligman's testimony concerning whether Hellender said that the offer has been accepted by the Youngs. Mrs. Seligman stated that Mr. Hellender advised her on November 27, 1976, that the Youngs had accepted the offer. Hellender stated that he did not present the offer and therefore there was no basis for him to communicate an acceptance to Mrs. Seligman and did not communicate an acceptance to her. It should be particularly noted that Mrs. Seligman stated that on November 27 she had Mr. Hellender agreed that the Milligans should execute a new contract on Hellender's forms when the Milligans were to be in Orlando on December 1, 1976. It is also noted that Mrs. Seligman did not request telegraphic confirmation of the acceptance by the Youngs of the offer which she initially submitted to Mr. Hellender, although telegraphic confirmation is the generally accepted practice when dealing with an out-of-city seller and was not standard practice in the real estate firm with which Mrs. Seligman worked. The Hearing Officer discounts the testimony of Mrs. Seligman that Hellender told her the Youngs had accepted the offer because she did not request written confirmation of the acceptance, and because Mrs. Seligman stated that a second written offer was to be prepared on December 1, 1976. All the realtors who testified stated that it was the custom to obtain telegraphic confirmation of an offer from an out-of-town seller. Mr. Seligman, the broker for Mrs. Seligman's company, stated this was the general procedure for his company. Although the record is unclear whether Mrs. Seligman talked with Mr. Hellender before noon or after noon, she was aware the offer expired at noon November 27 and she did not press for written confirmation of acceptance before noon. Instead, she agreed to the preparation of a second offer is totally contrary and repugnant to any theory of acceptance of the first offer. Therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that there was no acceptance of the first offer communicated by Hellender to Mrs. Seligman. Mrs. Seligman may have formed the opinion that there was an acceptance because Mr. Hellender agreed to the terms presented in the first offer, but her agreement to a second offer to be prepared is in fact and law inconsistent with any assertion that the first offer was accepted. Mrs. Seligman stated, that it is clear from the actions of Mr. Hellender, that they expected a second contract to be presented in behalf of the Milligans. This explains his call to Mrs. Seligman advising her on December 5 that there was activity of the property. It also explains why December 6 he did accept a second offer on the property which was presented by Joe Deligna which he and Delinga communicated to the Youngs together as is the general custom after no offer was presented by the Milligans on December 1. Lastly, it explains why Hellender contacted Mrs. Seligman immediately after the Youngs had accepted the offer by the Maccagnanos and confirmed it telegraphically.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Ralph E. Hellender. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1978. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mark A. Koteen, Esq. Post Office Box 3431 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered real estate broker and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. At the time of the alleged forgeries, Respondent was an officer of John F. Ring Realty, Inc., and was the manager of that firm's office at 201 North University Drive, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On June 25, 1980, Respondent wrote two checks on the account of John F. Ring Realty, Inc., payable to Phyllis Cohen in the sum of $425, and to Ann Sanders in the sum of $550. On July 10, 1980, and on the same account, Respondent wrote a second check to Phyllis Cohen in the amount of $1,000. On September 19, 1980, on the same account, Respondent wrote a check payable to Dan Dickerhoff in the sum of $1,210. Respondent wrote a fifth check on this account on September 26, 1980, payable to Rose Friedman, in the sum of $815. All of these checks were purportedly written to cover sales commissions. Each check bore an endorsement which was purportedly that of the payee, and was endorsed by Respondent. Each named payee testified that the endorsement was not his or her signature, that he or she was not entitled to the funds represented by the checks, and never received the check or the funds. Each identified the signature of Respondent as the drawer. Respondent admitted to his ex-partner, Petitioner's investigator and Phyllis Cohen that he had endorsed and cashed these checks. Respondent also apologized to Ann Sanders when she confronted him with the forgery. These were statements against interest and are therefore admissible as hearsay exceptions. 1/ Respondent's character witnesses established that he has a good reputation in the realtors community. These witnesses have found Respondent to be honest and reliable, and would continue doing business with him regardless of any adverse findings here.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 28th day of December, 1981.
The Issue Whether respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on the grounds: (1) that he operated as a real estate broker without holding a valid and current license, and (2) that he is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction. Background By administrative complaint dated October 30, 1981, petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission 1/ ("Department"), charged respondent William A. Canty ("respondent") with six violations of the Florida Real Estate Law, Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1979). Respondent disputed the charges and requested a Section 120.57(1) proceeding. On November 30, 1981, the Department forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Hearing was thereafter set for April 23, 1982. At hearing, the Department voluntarily dismissed Count Nos. Three through Six, inclusive, leaving only Count Nos. One and Two. Count One alleges that respondent's broker's license expired; that he then negotiated a real estate transaction in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Count Two alleges that in connection with this real estate transaction, respondent signed a sales contract incorrectly acknowledging receipt of a $5,000 earnest money deposit, when, in fact, he had received a demand note; that the seller was led to believe that he held a $5,000 earnest money deposit in escrow; that such actions constituted misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The Department called Robert S. Harrell and Alfred C. Harvey as its witnesses, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 into evidence, each of which was received. Respondent testified in his own behalf and Respondent's Exhibit 2/ No. 1 was received in evidence. The transcript of hearing was received on April 27, 1982. Neither party has filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact As to Count One Respondent is a licensed Florida real estate broker. He holds license No. 0012715 and his business address is 988 Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) Since obtaining his broker's license in the early 1970s, respondent has earned a livelihood as a real estate broker. He has been a sole practitioner, having never employed any other person in connection with his practice. (Testimony of Canty.) A real estate broker's license must be renewed every two years. Effective April 1, 1978, respondent paid the requisite fee and renewed his then existing broker's license the new expiration date was March 31, 1980. (P-1.) On March 31, 1980, respondent's broker's license expired for failure to renew. His failure to timely renew was due to simple inadvertence; he admits that it was an oversight on his part. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) As soon as he realized his omission, he filed a renewal application and paid the requisite $40 fee in addition to a $15 late fee. His license renewal became effective on July 25, 1980. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) In May, 1980, respondent negotiated, prepared, and assisted in the execution of a written contract for the sale and purchase of 1.6 acres, including a 21,000 square-foot warehouse, located at 315 West Grant Street, Orlando, Florida. The seller was Alfred Harvey, the buyer was Preferred Services, Inc., and the purchase price was $208,000. The contract called for the buyer to pay the sales commission under separate agreement with respondent. The commission agreement never materialized since the sales transaction failed to close. But, the buyer understood that he had an obligation to pay a real estate commission, and respondent fully expected to receive one. (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) As to Count Two Prior to the parties' execution of the sales agreement mentioned above, respondent and the buyer, Robert Harrell, of Preferred Services, Inc., discussed with Alfred Harvey, the seller, the acceptability of using a demand note as the $5,000 earnest money deposit required by the agreement. (The buyer wished to avoid tying up his funds in escrow during the extensive time required to obtain Small Business Administration approval for assuming the existing mortgage loan.) The seller agreed to the depositing of a $5,000 demand note. 3/ (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) When the sales contract was executed by the parties, respondent acknowledged on page 2 that he held the specified earnest money deposit in escrow. The deposit was a $5,000 demand note. He did not indicate on the face of the contract that the deposit was in the form of a demand note. But, neither did he indicate that the deposit was in cash or check form. Respondent acknowledges that he was "sloppy" in failing to indicate on the contract that the deposit was a demand note. (Testimony of Canty.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 475.42(1) and 475.25(1)(a), F.S., and reprimanded. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1982, 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 19th day of May, 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 Davis was general manager of the Florida Food Industry Credit Union from May 31, 1980 to May 30, 1985. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Credit Union from 1980 to May 31, 1985. Davis resigned as General Manager and Director of the Credit Union effective May 31, 1985. In his letter of resignation, Davis acknowledged that he had falsely reported delinquent loans in reports to the Board of Directors for the previous eight years (including three years before he became General Manager). These reports understated the status and amount of delinquent loans. A review of loan records of the Credit Union by the Department of Banking and Finance in June, 1985, confirmed that delinquency reports to the Board of Directors and the Department had been understated over $300,000 for at least six months of 1984. Other source documents of actual loan delinquency and reports thereof could not be located by the Credit Union. The amount of loans past due two months and over were significantly understated as follows: DATE REPORTED AMOUNT REPORTED ACTUAL AMOUNT AMOUNT UNDERSTATED 12/84 $90,117.02 $415,054.48 $324,937.46 9/84 $107,792.25 $446,224.48 $348,400.50 6/30/84 $86,378.35 $454,206.15 $367,827.80 5/31/84 $85,003.54 $492,721.49 $407,717.95 4/30/84 $80,538.85 $477,767.97 $397,299.12 The June 30, 1984, Report of Condition of the Credit Union to the Department understated loans delinquent over sixty days by $367,827. Loans past due two months and over as of April 30, 1985, Report of Examination, totaled $520,600. Of this amount $348,700 were classified by the examiner as loss and $57,400 doubtful of collection. The earned net worth of the Credit Union, as of the date of the examination, was 3.8 percent of total assets. Earned net worth, adjusted for loans classified loss and 50.0 percent of loans classified doubtful of collection, was 1.4 percent of total assets. Essentially, the loans classified loss and doubtful of collection are those that were not reported by Davis. By his response to Requests for Admissions and by his letter of resignation, Davis has acknowledged that he knowingly reported the false delinquent loan information. The understatement of delinquent loans as it relates to an inflation of earned net worth could seriously prejudice the interests of the depositors, members or shareholders of the Credit Union in that inflation of earned net worth impacts on future lending policies and declaration of dividends. The Complaint seeking formal removal of Respondent as a director and officer of Florida Food Industry Credit Union was dated and served on August 29, 1985. At the time the Department of Banking and Finance issued and served the Complaint instituting these proceedings, Respondent was not an officer, director, committee member or employee of Florida Food Industry Credit Union or of any other financial institution in the State of Florida, having resigned on May 31, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Thomas E. Davis, guilty of violating Sections 655.037(1)(a) and (g), Florida Statutes, and prohibiting his participation in the affairs of any financial institution for a period of three years from May 31, 1985. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 19th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney C. Wade, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas E. Davis 1775 N. Andrews Avenue, 204W Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles Stutts General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed. findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3.
The Issue The Florida Real Estate Commission, herein sometimes called the Plaintiff or the Commission, seeks to revoke or suspend the license of the Defendant, Alan Leavitt, a registered broker, based on allegations that he violated Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in its administrative complaint filed on December 9, 1976. As is set forth more particularly in its two count administrative complaint, the Commission alleges that the Defendant, while employed as an active broker for Special Realty Corp., acted in his own behalf by advertising and selling several unimproved lots located in Walton County, Florida. It is further alleged that the Defendant made statements in an effort to sell said lots indicating that the lot sizes were 50 feet wide and 150 feet deep, whereas in actuality the lots were only 25 feet wide and 105 feet deep. The complaint alleges that the purchaser consummated the sale for the above referred lots based on the representations made respecting the lot sizes and upon subsequent examination found that the lot sizes were substantially less whereupon the purchaser demanded a refund from Defendant, to no avail. Based thereon, it is alleged that the Defendant is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, etc., in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In count two it is alleged that the Defendant, while registered as an active real estate broker, permitted Isaac Shelomith and Barry Shelomith, registered real estate salesmen, to unlawfully operate as real estate salesmen out of his offices and encouraged them to engage in the sale of lots in Walton County, Florida by means of unscrupulous and unlawful methods involving fraud, and other breaches of trust in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), and (b), Florida Statutes. For all of the foregoing reasons, the complaint alleges that the Defendant is guilty of a course of conduct or practices which show that he is so dishonest and untruthful that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not safely be entrusted to him, in violation of Subsection 475.25(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, the pleadings and the admissions contained therein including the arguments of counsel, I make the following: The Defendant, who holds license number 0051095, was a registered real estate broker during times material to the allegations contained in the administrative complaint filed herein. During early October, 1975, Defendant placed in the classified section of the Miami Southside Newspaper, an ad relative to real property located in Walton County, near DeFuniak Springs. On October 14, 1975, Mr. Lionel G. Rush, an unemployed marketing executive, responded to the aforesaid ad to inquire about the advertised lots. He later purchased four lots from the Defendant for the sum of $1,500. The four lots were described in a warranty deed dated October 17, 1975, from Defendant to Lionel G. Rush and Susie M. Rush, his wife. (See Commission's Exhibit #4). Mr. Rush stated that the Defendant advised him that each individual lot was 50 feet in width and 150 feet in depth and it was based on these representations that he purchased the four lots described in the above referenced warranty deed. Mr. Rush, after purchasing the lots, investigated the lot sizes, approximately three weeks later by calling the county clerk for Walton County who advised that the lot sizes were approximately 25 by 105 feet each. He thereafter contacted the Defendant who checked to determine the accuracy of the lot sizes and was able to determine that the lot sizes were 25 by 105 feet as Mr. Rush had informed. Mr. Rush indicated that but for the inaccurate lot sizes, he was pleased with the property purchased from the Defendant. Mr. Rush testified that he advised the Defendant that there were in his opinion, several options available to satisfy or otherwise cure his purchase problems. He first suggested that the Defendant refund a portion of his purchase money to reflect the actual lot sizes conveyed or alternatively Defendant deed over to him another four lots to compensate for the alleged inadequacy of the lot sizes. Alan Leavitt, the Defendant herein, acknowledged that he sold four lots to Mr. Lionel Rush and his wife in Country Club Heights in Ft. Walton Beach. He denied that the lot sizes were recorded by him or upon his direction as the description is now reflected on the warranty deed entered herein. (See Exhibit 4). Defendant testified that after selling the lots to the Rushes, he received a phone call approximately three weeks later from Mr. Rush complaining about the lot sizes. Mr. Rush expressed his desire to get a refund of the purchase money paid or to seek some other restitution. Defendant checked into the matter and was able to determine that the lot sizes were in fact 105 feet by 100 feet. When Defendant was unable to resolve the matter with the Rushes, he offered to return their money back and in fact purchased a money order for the full amount of the purchase price and agreed to absorb all incidental costs connected with the purchase of the property. He stated that the refund offer was made after Mr. Rush tried to bargain over price and in his opinion was trying to get the lots for what was in his opinion, a "ridiculously low price." He testified that when he discerned this, he had no further dealings with Mr. Rush and was only interested in refunding the purchase money price once the Rushes executed a proper deed returning the property to him. He (Defendant) denied ever misrepresenting the lot sizes. Isaac Shelomith, a registered real estate salesman during times material, was called and denied having any employment relationship with the Defendant in any manner during times material to the allegations contained in the administrative complaint filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the administrative complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David B. Javits, Esquire 3628 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33137 Alan Leavitt 7100 Fairway Drive Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Bruce I Kamelhair, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
Conclusions The Office of Financial Regulation ("Office") issued a denial of Petitioner’s application to become licensed as an “associated person”. Petitioner in turn filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing, which the Office referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH"). The assigned Administrative Law Judge ("ALI") held a formal administrative hearing, and entered a Recommended Order thereon. That Recommended Order of November 17, 2604, is attached to this Final Order, and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, permanently revoked, or otherwise disciplined based upon alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Since 1977, the Respondent has been a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0167049. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a salesperson for Tony Bucci Realty, Inc., 2216 East Olive Road, #108, Pensacola, Florida 32514. On November 2, 1983, a criminal information was filed in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida, charging the Respondent as follows: Between February 1978 and May 1978, at and in Escambia County, Florida and Orange County, Florida: did unlawfully agree, conspire, combine, or confederate with another person or persons, to wit: Kenneth Massoud, to commit a criminal offense, to wit: counterfeiting of United States Currency. The charge constituted a criminal violation of Section 831.18, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, (conspiracy). At the time, counterfeiting was a felony and conspiracy to counterfeit was a misdemeanor. On January 12, 1984, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to commit counterfeiting, a violation of Section 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, a first degree misdemeanor, and was adjudged guilty and sentenced to six months in the county jail. The Respondent denied that he was guilty of the charges contained in the information or the charge to which he pled. On or about June 28, 1985, the Florida Bar filed a complaint against the Respondent seeking to disbar him for his conduct in the counterfeiting case. Additionally, the Respondent was charged with trust account irregularities related to his practice of law. The Respondent was found to have violated disciplinary rules relating to trust accounting procedures, the accounting of clients' interest shortages. Likewise, he was guilty of the charge of conspiracy to counterfeit. The Supreme Court of Florida found that the referee's findings of fact and recommendations of guilt were amply supported. Based on these findings, on October 2, 1996, the Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in Florida. However, the Respondent testified that he is eligible to apply for re On June 13, 1990, an information was filed charging the Respondent with one count of possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony, and one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, deliver or manufacture, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, punishable as a third degree felony. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance without a prescription and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver. The court withheld adjudication and placed the Respondent on supervised probation for two years. At no time material hereto did the Respondent notify the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing of having entered a nolo contendere plea to a felony or to a misdemeanor. Respondent did not notify the Commission because he misunderstood his obligation to do so since he had not pled guilty nor been convicted of a felony. To his credit, he has not been subject to discipline or sanction by the Florida Real Estate Commission since his initial licensure. Finally, it is likely that the loss of his real estate sales license will leave Respondent in a more destitute position than his already extremely low income status renders him since Respondent's main income is from his employment as a licensed real estate salesperson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent: Guilty of having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate salesperson or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count I; Guilty of a course of conduct or practices which shows that the Respondent is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest, or untruthful that the money, property, transactions, and rights of investors, or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not safely be entrusted to him, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count II; Guilty of not having informed the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty (30) days of having pled guilty or having been convicted of a felony and, therefore, is in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count III; and Guilty of having had another state agency suspend the license or registration of, or impose a penalty against it, as set forth in Subsection 475.455(2), Florida Statutes, and, therefore, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count IV. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Final Order should further order all of the Respondent's real estate licenses, registration, certificates, and permits be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 21st day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3843 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The facts contained in paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 9 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, except for the last sentence, which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esq. Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Eric Eggen, Esq. Suite 347, Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
