Findings Of Fact Prestige Realty, Inc. and Anthony C. Cappello were at all times here relevant registered with the FREC as alleged. Mrs. Cappello, wife of Respondent, is a salesperson with Prestige Realty, Inc. Prestige Realty, Inc. is an Electronics Realty Associates (ERA) franchisee and actively promotes the ERA Homeowners warranty Plan which will, for a fee, warrant to pay for repairs to structure and equipment within the first year of purchase all costs over the minimum for which the policy is written. While showing prospective purchasers William and Dora Keys various properties, Mrs. Cappello told them about the ERA Buyers Protection Plan (BPP) and the Keys expressed an interest in having same, particularly if the seller would pay for it. Mrs.. Cappello has worked with the Keys for several months showing them various properties for sale. Thomas Hanrahan listed his home for sale with B & M Real Estate as listing agent at a price of $52,000 on 31 January 1977. On April 28, 1977 Mrs. Cappello obtained an offer from William and Dora Keys to purchase Hanrahan's house for $49,000. Keys had inherited some money, and after seeing the Hanrahan house which they liked, made an offer to purchase the property for $49,000 including the drapes and BPP. Inclusion of the BPP in the offer was suggested by Respondent Cappello and/or Mrs. Cappello. The fact that an offer had been received was communicated to the listing salesperson and the listing agent met the Cappellos to present the offer to Hanrahan. Respondent Cappello, who had accompanied his wife to present the offer, first discussed the contract conditions, including drapes and BPP, before revealing the offering price to Hanrahan and the listing broker's agent. When Respondent revealed the $240 premium for BPP Hanrahan remarked it was a "rip- off"; however, Respondent Cappello emphasized that the seller shouldn't mind paying this premium if the selling price of the home is right. After obtaining Hanrahan's agreement to the BPP "if the price is right', Respondent disclosed the offering price of $49,000. Hanrahan refused this offer and made a counter offer of $51,000, which was communicated to the buyers who re-countered with a $50,000 offer. At no time during these negotiations did Respondents advise Hanrahan that Prestige Realty would receive 25 percent of the premium the contract provided the seller would pay for the ERA BPP. Of the $240 premium paid for the BPP, $C0 was retained by Respondent, Prestige Realty, and the remaining $180 was forwarded to ERA. When the offer of $50,000 was presented to Hanrahan by Respondent Cappello, it was represented to be the buyers' final offer, that the ERA BPP was an essential element of the offer, and if not accepted by the seller they would find the buyers another house. The Keys never insisted to Cappello that the BPP be included in their offer, and both William and Dora Keys testified they would have paid $50,000 for the Hanrahan home without the BPP. Attempts by Hanrahan to share the cost of BPP with the buyers or discourage their insistence upon having this policy provided were rebuffed by Respondents. Following the closing the Keys were offered the option of taking a lower deductible on the BPP than $100, but after being advised the additional cost to them for a lower deductible, it was declined. Respondents and other ERA franchisees consider the BPP to be a good selling tool in the conduct of their business. In addition to the BPP, ERA offers a sellers protection plan which, if the seller lists his house with an ERA franchisee and agrees to pay for a BPP when the house is sold, will insure the seller from failure of certain equipment (less a deductible) during the period the house is listed before sale.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission and was employed by Hernando County Realty as a broker-salesman. The active broker for Hernando County Realty was Doris M. Wysong. Prior to the contract hereafter discussed, Respondent had only sold three or four properties since she was first licensed as a real estate salesman in 1984. Respondent obtained a listing for several houses being built by a developer and placed a Hernando County Realty sign on one of these properties. The developer, Carl L. Lawson, advertised this house for sale in the newspaper with his telephone number listed to contact. In response to that advertisement, Frank and Josephine Mello called Lawson to see the house. Lawson made an appointment and called Respondent who showed up while Lawson was showing the house to the Mellos. The Mellos liked the house. After leaving the premises, the Mellos decided to buy the property and called Lawson to tell him. Lawson arranged for them to return to sign a contract, and so advised Respondent. At this meeting the following day, on April 7, 1986, Respondent arrived with a contract which she completed. The buyers and seller negotiated a few additional items the buyers wanted and, although Respondent offered to put these items in the contract, both buyers and seller demurred. Buyers and seller agreed that seller could use the down payment to cover the cost of the additional work. Mello made the earnest money deposit payable to Lawson even though the check was clearly marked for deposit, and after making a copy of the check for the office records, Respondent returned the check to Lawson who cashed it. When the contract was signed on April 7, 1966, Mello asked Lawson to lock up the building to keep people from coming in and messing it up. Lawson agreed but Mello visited the property frequently between April 7 and the closing date of May 15, 1986, but never found the house locked. He complained to Lawson about this and about a settling crack that appeared in the garage wall. On Sunday, May 13, 1986, Mello again visited the house to show it to his son and daughter-in-law. They went in and Mel1o saw the crack in the garage wall appeared to be getting bigger. He again telephoned Lawson about this. Monday, May 14, was scheduled for a final inspection. Early that morning, before the time for the inspection, the Mellos went to the property and found Lawson removing some of the debris from the grounds and doing some cleaning. Respondent was also there. When Mr. and Mrs. Mello went into the house to inspect, Mello saw the crack in the garage had not been corrected and he and Lawson got into a violent argument, nearly culminating in fisticuffs. Mrs. Mello returned to her car crying, while Lawson and Mello shouted. At this time, Lawson told Respondent to get the Mellos out of his house and to forget about the contract. To settle the controversy before fisticuffs erupted, Respondent wrote void across the contract and Mello left. Respondent then returned to the real estate office and told her broker, Doris Wysong, what had transpired. Wysong reminded Respondent that she should have had the deposit made out to the realty office and placed it in escrow, but if the transaction didn't close, that she should get Lawson to refund the deposit. The parties didn't cool off sufficiently to complete the transaction, the sale didn't close, and Lawson refused to return the deposit which he had apparently used for the additions requested by Mello. Mello went to the real estate office and talked to Respondent and to Wysong. The latter called her attorney, who advised her not to refund money she never had received. Mello then went to the consumer affairs office in New Port Richey where he was advised to report the incident to the Florida Real Estate Commission. That was subsequently done and this administrative complaint and hearing resulted. Shortly after this incident, Respondent placed her license in an inactive status.
Findings Of Fact In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage Solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August 1984 and August 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the Department of Banking and Finance. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the Department of Banking and Finance concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request For Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. Christensen's Stipulation which was confirmed by the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission recites that Christensen was "served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached," charging Christensen with violating certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and admits that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. But the Administrative Complaint itself apparently is not attached to the Stipulation approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission. It is not attached to the Stipulation filed in this case and is not found anywhere in the evidentiary or official record of this case. The Stipulation filed by the parties in this case does not state whether the suspension of Christensen's real estate broker license was based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order dismissing the Amended Notice Of Intention To Suspend Or Revoke And Administrative Charges And Complaint against Respondent, Terry E. Christensen, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Root, III Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gorham Rutter, Jr., Esquire Gorham Rutter, Jr., P.A. 338 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, Petitioner vs. CASE No. 86-0328 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N The Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, by and through its undersigned counsel, and the Respondent, TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, hereby stipulate and agree as to the following facts upon which the parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer herein to render his decision: In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August, 1984 and August, 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. The parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer to render his decision in this matter based upon the foregoing stipulated facts and in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. DATED this 13th day of May, 1986. JOHN B. ROOT, III, ESQUIRE GORHAM RUTTER, JR., ESQUIRE Office of the Comptroller GORHAM RUTTER, JR., P.A. 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 338 N. Magnolia Ave., Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Orlando, Florida 32801 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Telephone: (305) 423-5116 Telephone: (305) 841-7667 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, CASE NO. 0021931 vs. TEC REALTY, INC. AND TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N Terry E. Christensen; TEC Realty, Inc. and Terry E. Christensen, (Respondents), and Department of Professional Regulation, (Department), hereby stipulate and agree to the issuance of a Final Order by the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC), adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation in reference to the above-styled case. STIPULATED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent Terry E. Christensen is now a broker-salesman, but at times material herein was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0174505. Respondent TEC Realty, Inc. was at times material herein a licensed corporate real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0212593. Its registration is now in "limbo". Respondents admit that they are subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Department and of the FREC. Respondents admit that they have been served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached, which charges the Respondents with having violated certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, (and the rules enacted pursuant thereto). Respondents admit that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. Respondents admit that the stipulated facts contained in the Administrative Complaint support a finding of the Real Estate Practice Act. STIPULATED DISPOSITION Respondents shall not in the future violate Chapters 455 or 475, Florida Statutes, or the rules enacted pursuant thereto. The licenses of Respondents and of each of them, shall be suspended for five (5) years; and Respondents shall pay a total fine of $500 which fine shall be paid by cashier's check or money order made payable to the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. The action taken as reflected in the Final Order shall be published in the FREC News and Report Quarterly. It is expressly understood that this Stipulation is subject to the approval of the Department and of the FREC, and this Stipulation has no force and effect until a Final Order has been issued and filed. This Stipulation is executed by the Respondents for the purpose of avoiding further administrative action with respect to this cause. In this regard, Respondents authorize the FREC to review and examine all investigative file materials concerning Respondents prior to or in conjunction with the consideration of this Stipulation. Furthermore, should this Stipulation not be approved by the FREC, it is agreed that presentation to and consideration of this Stipulation and other documents and matters by the FREC shall not unfairly or unlawfully prejudice the Department, the FREC or any of its members from further participation, consideration or resolution of these proceedings. Respondents and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation and resulting Final Order adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation shall in no way preclude any other disciplinary proceedings by the Department or the FREC against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically set forth in the attached Administrative Complaint. Respondents expressly waive all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity and enforcement of this Stipulation and resulting Final Order of the FREC adopting and incorporating this Stipulation. SIGNED this day of , 1983. (filed document undated) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED Respondents before me this 9th Terry E. Christensen, individually, day of June, 1983. and as broker and officer of TEC Realty, Inc. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission Expires June 26, 1986 Bonded Thru Troy Fain Insurance, Inc. Approved this 21st day of June, 1983. John Huskins, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street, 308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 423-6134 Approved this 13th Fred Roche, Secretary day of June, 1983. Department of Professional Regulation JH/dm 6/6/83 EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 DOAH NO. 83-346 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN and TEC REALTY INC. CASE NO. 0021931 DOAH NO. 83-345 Respondents /
Findings Of Fact Prior to the commencement of hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation of fact, a copy of which is attached and constitutes the findings of fact in this hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take action to cause Holdridge's name to be placed on the list of active brokers and to have current registration papers issued. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Michael E. Crane, Esquire 521 Landmark Building Naples, Florida 33940 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Professional Regulation's Division of Real Estate and the Florida Real Estate Commission were the state agencies in Florida responsible for the licensing of real estate professionals and the regulation of the real estate profession in this state. Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson under license number SL 0566467. Mr. Brennan was licensed in Florida as a salesperson in 1990, and his initial license expired on March 31, 1992. It was renewed on time and due to expire a second time on March 31, 1994. Consistent with Florida Real Estate Commission requirements, a real estate salesperson is required to complete no less than 14 hours of continuing professional education in the two years prior to license renewal. Of these, 11 hours of course work can be in a specialized area, but at least 3 of the 14 hours must consist of core law, legal information designed to update the salesperson on the changes to Commission rules and policies and changes in the law as it relates to the practice of real estate in the interim since the prior renewal. Licensees periodically are put on notice of the requirement for continuing education and what it must entail, and with or before application for renewal, must certify as to the taking, testing and passing of the required courses. If a licensee certified compliance with the continuing education requirement but, in fact, was not in compliance, that individual would be in violation of the Commission rules even if the required fees were paid. On January 27, 1994, Respondent applied for renewal of his salesperson's license which was due to expire on March 31, 1994. Along with his application for renewal, Respondent submitted his check for $68.50 made payable to the Department, and affirmed he had completed the required 14 hours of continuing education for the license period beginning April 1, 1994. The license was renewed. By letter dated June 15, 1995, Respondent was notified by Barbara Rohloff, a records supervisor for the Department, that his 1994 renewal application had been selected for audit. As a result of that audit it was determined that Respondent had completed the required 11 hours of specialty education and an additional 3 hours in "Agency: Choices, Challenges and Opportunities," also a specialty course but not approved for credit toward the required "core law" portion of the continuing education requirements. Therefore, though Respondent had completed 14 hours of continuing education as required, that 14 hours did not include the required 3 hours of core law. The 11 hours of specialty education Respondent took was course number 100 of the Realtors Institute Course and was approved by the Florida Association of Realtors. The 3 hour course was taken through the Coldwell Banker School of Real Estate in Sarasota in November 1993, and was also an approved course, but it did not meet the requirements for the 3 hour core law course. As a result of this discovery, a determination was made to charge Respondent with misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent contends he took the above-described courses in the misinformed opinion that by doing so he was meeting the Commission requirements. When he was first licensed, he was advised he must take and pass 14 hours of continuing education every two years. The 11 hour course was taken in 1991, in advance of the renewal period, upon the representation of the Century 21 instructor with whom the course was taken that was acceptable. When Respondent went to take that 11 hour course, along with his wife, also licensed as a real estate salesperson, a representative of the Sarasota Board of Realtors advised them that the 11 hour course was acceptable toward the continuing education requirements and that they would need an additional 3 hours. When the real estate brokerage with which the Brennans had placed their licenses was sold to another brokerage, Coldwell Banker, they moved their licences to the new brokerage and went to work with that firm. Coldwell Banker offered the 3 hour course which Respondent took and which has been determined not to be acceptable, and Respondent claims the representative of Coldwell Banker advised him, wrongly, it would appear, that the 3 hour course in issue would meet the Commission's requirements. Though this allegation is self- serving to the Respondent, it was not contradicted and is accepted. Respondent denies any intent to mislead or misrepresent. He gained no advantage by taking the instant 3 hour course over the required course. He saved no time or money, it would appear, and there appears to be no reason for him to have intentionally taken the wrong course or to mislead the Commission. Through all his post-audit communication with the Commission, he relates, he was never advised, in a way he understood, just what he should have done in place of what he did, until the day of the hearing when it was explained to him by Petitioner's counsel. Respondent now admits that he did not have the required hours in the correct course, but adamantly asserts he did not, at the time, know or understand what was the problem. That would appear to be the case, and it is so found. The Petitioner presented no evidence to demonstrate an intent to mislead or to misrepresent by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Edward John Brennan. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32803-1900 Edward John Brennan 4114 Pro Am Avenue Bradenton, Florida 34203 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by representing to Laverne Hahn that he would rent his house to her if she sold her house, representing to Ms. Hahn that he would deliver certain papers to her attorney, and representing to Ms. Hahn that the closing on her house would not occur until after February 15, 1981? Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver survey, abstract and title insurance policy documents to Ms. Hahn or her attorney?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, held real estate salesman license #0313305 Assued by the Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission). At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was registered as a salesman with Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., at 2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339. Respondent listed with his employer, Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., Laverne Hahn's offer to sell her residence and advised Ms. Hahn at that time that upon the sale of her residence she could rent his residence for a period of six months at the rate of $300 per month. In reliance on Respondent's statement, Ms. Hahn proceeded to sell her residence and made no other arrangements for a place to live, expecting to move into Respondent's house upon closing as per their agreement. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Pages 5 and 8.) Respondent testified to the events surrounding the transaction which gave rise to the Administrative Complaint. The Board presented the deposition of Ms. Hahn taken in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent admitted that he had advised Ms. Hahn it was not unusual to have closings delayed 60 days, and did offer and stood ready to rent his house to Ms. Hahn. Respondent testified that he did not recall picking up any documents from Ms. Hahn, but that had he done so it was his normal business practice to immediately deliver the documents to the attorney handling the closing. Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that she could not locate the Respondent although she attempted to contact him through his broker's office. This was the reason she could not rent his house. Respondent testified that Ms. Hahn never asked to rent his house. Respondent testified that on January 14, 1981, the day after his birthday, he was suddenly taken ill and had to have emergency surgery in the early morning hours of that day. Respondent's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Sheilah Kirk, who testified that she visited Respondent in the hospital on January 14 or 15, 1981, and that he was recovering from surgery at that time. Respondent testified that he was hospitalized for more than one week. Respondent testified that he was visited by the manager of the brokerage office for which he worked. It is hardly credible that Ms. Hahn could not find a man who was sick in a hospital for more than one week and whose whereabouts were known to his brokerage office. Wherefore, the Hearing Officer disregards the deponent's testimony and accepts the Respondent's testimony as the more credible concerning the rental of his house Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that Respondent told her she would not have to move out until February of 1981. Respondent admits he told Ms. Hahn that closings were frequently delayed 60 days or more. The contract for sale originally provided for closing on December 29, 1980, a time which was changed to January 15, 1981, by persons unknown on a date unknown. The contract was signed by Ms. Hahn, who is presumed to have known its terms. Notwithstanding Respondent's statements as to delayed closings, Ms. Hahn had no basis for using such statement as a basis for planning in light of the contract which she signed. Again, Respondent's testimony is deemed to be more credible in light of the closing date provided in the contract for sale. A further conflict exists between Ms. Hahn's deposition and Respondent's testimony regarding the allegation that Respondent picked up certain documents from her but failed to deliver them. Respondent's statement that he had no recollection of the events, but that his regular practice was to deliver such documents immediately, and that since the time in question he has not discovered any such documents in his papers, is deemed credible.
Recommendation Having found that the allegations against the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, were not proven, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allan R. Heuton 6891 Forrest Street Hollywood, Florida 33024 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined upon alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k) as set forth in the Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact Finding of Fact Paragraphs 1-3, above, are reiterated, adopted and incorporated here. Prior to July 1984, Respondents employed Sarah Sampson as a real estate sales person. Upon leaving the employ of Respondent, Mrs. Sampson had earned commissions in the LeMay to Gordon and the DiChristina to McHugh real estate transactions and on a lease agreement involving a Richard Dietz, totalling approximately $2,700.00. Prior to July, 1984, Respondents had received the proceeds from the transactions referred to in Paragraph 12 supra but failed to pay over to Mrs. Sampson her share of the commissions. Subsequent to Mrs. Sampson's departure from the Respondents' employ, Mrs. Sampson made demands upon the Respondents for the commissions. Payment was not forthcoming. On June 11, 1984, Mrs. Sampson loaned to Respondent Bostad, on a personal basis, $5,000.00. Respondent Bostad promised in writing to repay Mrs. Sampson with interest in one week's time. Respondent Bostad failed to repay in said time period. Subsequent to June 18, 1984 Mrs. Sampson made demands upon Respondent Bostad for the return of the $5,000.00 personal loan, which Respondent Bostad again promised in writing to repay by a date certain. Respondent Bostad again failed to pay the $5,000.00 personal loan. Thereafter after Respondent repeatedly failed to account for or deliver the earned commissions to Mrs. Sampson and after Respondent Bostad repeatedly failed to repay the personal loan of $5,000.00, Mrs. Sampson filed suit. A November 27, 1984 Amended Judgment in that cause was entered against Respondents Realty One of Broward Inc. and Robert G. Bostad for the commissions owed and against Respondent Bostad personally for the personal loan. This judgment has not been satisfied as of the date of formal DOAH hearing held April 10, 1985. Respondent Bostad admits to owing Mrs. Sampson the commissions as to LeMay and DeChristina and as to the $5,000.00 personal loan. Respondent Bostad testified to extraordinary attempts to collect the liquid capital to pay these debts but to date of hearing had not done so. He emphasized that all his troubles stem from being a good salesman but a poor bookkeeper and from financial problems arising from his divorce. Each of the agency investigators involved in the Petitioner's audit of Respondents' accounts noted that Respondents' failure to carry balances forward in the escrow account checkbook could be misleading as to the amount of monies actually in the escrow account at any given time. Respondent emphasized that he has not tried to leave the community but wishes to make good his debts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, recommended that: Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondents' licenses for two years and ordering Respondents to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00. However, if Respondents establish that the nine transactions pending on June 21, 1984 have successfully closed without loss and pay Mrs. Sampson the commissions owed her then Respondents' licenses should not be suspended but in addition to payment of the $2500.00 fine, Respondents' licenses should not be suspended but should be monitored in a probationary status for five years. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 July, 1985.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a real estate salesman's license should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Victor Kevin Koellner. By application, he sought licensure as a real estate salesman. Petitioner was a unsuccessful candidate for the December 1988 real estate salesman's licensure examination. Petitioner received a score of 74. A score of 75 is required for licensure. Each correct answer has a grade value of one (1) point. Candidates are instructed to choose the most correct answer from among the multiple choice answers given. Petitioner challenges the answers selected by the Florida Real Estate Commission as correct as to questions numbered 15 and 52, on the test administered on December 5, 1988. Question 15 is confidential under the provisions of Section 119.07(3)(c), Florida Statutes, but appears in Respondent's Exhibit 1. The commission holds that the correct answer to question 15 is D. (Do any of the above). The Petitioner alleges that the better answer is A. (Request an Escrow disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission). Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, supports the Respondent's conclusion. Seventy-three (73%) percent of the candidates taking the examination on December 5, 1988 answered the question correctly. Question 52 is confidential under the provisions of Section 119.07(3)(c), Florida Statutes, but appears in Respondent's Exhibit 1 (page 2). The commission holds that the correct answer is C. (Pay it at the closing). The Petitioner alleges that the correct answer is D. (Not pay it). The question asked what should the seller do concerning the sales commission at the closing. Based on the facts given in the Florida Real Estate Handbook, 1987 Edition, page 272, the seller would have no option but to pay the commission at closing. Sixty and 3/10 (60.3%) percent of the candidates taking the examination on December 5, 1988 answered question 52 correctly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Respondent's Proposed Findings: 1-8. Adopted in substance. Petitioner's Proposed Findings: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5 (in substance), 7, and 10 are accepted. Paragraphs 6,8 and 9 are rejected as not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Victor Kevin Koellner, pro se 1385 Taurus Court, Merritt Island, Florida 32953 E. Harper Field, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Real Estate Legal Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0312860. The last license issued was as a broker. Respondent Super Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate corporation in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0231630. The last license issued was as a broker located in Hollywood, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Super Realty, Inc. Respondents advertised for sale by newspaper advertisement a VA repossessed property being a four unit apartment building in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In April, 1985, Warren and Judith Fieldhouse responded to Respondents' ad, and Respondent Agarwal arranged to meet the Fieldhouses at the property. At the property, the Fieldhouses informed Respondents that they wished to purchase a property as an investment and required that any property purchased by them result in income to them as opposed to resulting in a loss for them. Respondent Agarwal specifically represented to the Fieldhouses that the rental character of the neighborhood had been assessed by the Respondents, that Respondents were qualified to appraise the rental character, and that each unit could be rented for $300 or more per month. Respondent Agarwal further represented that the rent for the property would therefore exceed its expenses. The Fieldhouses decided that they wished to purchase the property based upon Respondents' representations. Respondent Agarwal required the Fieldhouses to give him a check for $1,000 a while still at the property before he would return with them to the office of Super Realty, Inc., to draft a purchase contract. Respondent Agarwal and the Fieldhouses went to Super Realty, Inc., where a purchase contract was drafted by Respondent Agarwal and signed by the Fieldhouses. Respondent Agarwal refused to give to the Fieldhouses a copy of that contract. Respondent Agarwal further advised the Fieldhouses that they were to obtain the required liability insurance on the property from his insurance agency and that they were not to use their own insurance agency. The Fieldhouses refused to comply with Agarwal's direction to them. Changes were subsequently made by Respondents to the Fieldhouses' purchase contract. Although those changes were approved telephonically by the Fieldhouses, Respondents never obtained the Fieldhouses signatures approving the changes in the contract. A closing was scheduled by Respondents at the office of Super Realty, Inc., on May 22, 1985. The Fieldhouses inspected the property just before the closing and found that the property's "as is" condition on the day of closing was worse than its "as is" condition on the day that they first saw it and entered into the contract for the purchase and sale of the property. Appliances were missing, and damage was done to the structure. The Fieldhouses objected to the condition of the property on the date of closing. Yet, the closing began. Respondent Agarwal began handing the Fieldhouses individual documents to sign. When he handed them a required financial disclosure statement, the Fieldhouses realized that the mortgage plus insurance and taxes payments would exceed the rental income which Respondents had represented could be projected from the units, that the amount of payments and other representations initially made by the Respondents were not incorporated into the closing documents, and the rental income for the property would not exceed the property's monthly expenses. The Fieldhouses refused to continue with the closing. They demanded copies of the documents that they had signed, but Respondents refused to give them copies of those documents. They demanded a refund from Respondents of their $1,000 deposit, but Respondents refused to refund their money to them. Although the Fieldhouses had signed a note and mortgage on the property before they refused to continue forward with the closing, they gave Respondents no monies toward the purchase of the property to increase the $1,000 earnest money deposit to the required down payment for the property. Respondents knew that the Fieldhouses did not pay the required cash to close on the property, the additional consideration required under the contracts. After the closing, the Fieldhouses made additional demands on Respondent for the return of their $1,000. Respondents refused to return that money to them and further refused to discuss the matter with them further. Respondents submitted the Fieldhouse closing documents to the Veterans Administration claiming a sales commission due to the Respondents in the amount of $5,740, even though Respondents knew that the sales transaction had never closed. Since the Veterans Administration had experienced difficulties with Respondents' complying with their rules and regulations on previous occasions, the VA took the position that the Respondents were not entitled to a commission since no sale had taken place and that the Respondents should refund to the Fieldhouses their $1,000. Respondents sued the Veterans Administration for a sales commission. At the time that Respondents sued for a commission, they knew that they were entitled to no commission since there was no sale. When the Veterans Administration filed an Answer to Respondents' Complaint indicating that it intended to fully defend Respondents' false claim, Respondents voluntarily dismissed their litigation against the Veterans Administration. The VA now has possession of the Fieldhouses' $1,000 deposit which it intends to return to the Fieldhouses. Although Mr. Fieldhouse was a licensed real estate salesman during the time period material hereto, he had not actively worked as a real estate salesman. Therefore, the Fieldhouses relied upon the Respondents as licensees to responsively perform the sales transaction and further relied upon Respondents' representations regarding the property's income and expenses. Respondents never advised the Florida Real Estate Commission that demands had been made for the return of the $1,000 which Respondents held in escrow until such time as they voluntarily forwarded the money to the Veterans Administration despite the Fieldhouses' demands for its return to them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondents guilty of the remaining allegations in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker licenses. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Super Realty, Inc. c/o Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
