Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the real estate license of Keith Allen. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Allan M. Parvey, Esquire Goldberg, Rubinstein & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Fetters has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, trading as RONTRON Realty and Investment, with offices in Largo, Florida, and Choudhury has been a licensed real estate salesperson at RONTRON Realty. Fetters was Choudhury's broker at all times material hereto. Stanley and Mary K. Jankiewicz listed their home for $189,000 with Harvey Seybold, a licensed real estate broker, and neighbor. On January 28, 1988, Choudhury contacted Seybold and asked to see the Jankiewicz house. Seybold showed the house that same day. On January 30, 1988, Choudhury presented a contract for the sale and purchase of the home to Seybold and Jankiewicz. The purchasers, John and Gail Taylor, offered $185,000, but this offer was unacceptable to Jankiewicz because it called for him to hold a $150,000 purchase money mortgage. Jankiewicz proposed a counteroffer, which still provided for a sales price of $185,000, but only required him to hold a purchase money mortgage of $25,000. It also required the Taylors to obtain a firm financing commitment within 45 days for a first mortgage in the amount of $129,000. The Taylors accepted this counteroffer, and the transaction was scheduled to close on March 30, 1988, as proposed in Jankiewicz' counteroffer. Jankiewicz and Seybold testified that Choudhury told them, on January 30, 1988, that the Taylors had a net worth of from $2 to $3 million, and that he had a copy of their financial statement in his office, which he had reviewed. They claim that he promised to provide them with a copy of this financial statement on February 1, 1988. Jankiewicz testified that Choudhury's representation about the financial condition of the Taylors was a significant inducement for him to propose his counteroffer, and he would not have gone through wish this sale had he known on January 30, 1988, what he subsequently learned about their net worth. Choudhury denies making any representation about the Taylors' net worth. He testified that he had only met the Taylors on one occasion, and had no way of knowing their net worth since he denies having a copy of their financial statement at that time. When the Taylors' financial statement was not provided on February 1, 1988, Jankiewicz and Seybold made repeated attempts to contact Choudhury, most of which were futile. He would not return their calls. Finally, on March 7, 1988, Choudhury did send Seybold a copy of the Taylors' financial statement, and Seybold immediately forwarded it to Jankiewicz. The financial statement is dated January 31, 1988, and indicates a net worth of $238,100. Choudhury testified that he forwarded this financial statement to Seybold as soon as he received it from the Taylors, but that when he looked it over he was "shocked". Choudhury offered no credible explanation of why he would be "shocked" to see the Taylors' financial statement, unless he had expected a far higher net worth. Yet, he testified that he had no knowledge of their net worth. Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the testimony of Choudhury, Seybold and Jankiewicz, as well as Choudhury's unexplained testimony about being "shocked" to see the Taylors' net worth, it is found that Choudhury did represent to Jankiewicz and Seybold on January 30, 1988, that the Taylors had a net worth of from $2 to $3 million. This statement was false, but it was a material inducement which led Jankiewicz to make his counteroffer, accepting a $25,000 purchase money mortgage. The contract for sale did not provide any contingency which addressed Jankiewicz' concerns about the Taylors' net worth. He and Seybold believed Choudhury's representations, and admitted at hearing that it was an oversight on their part not to insist on a contingency in the sales contract. They simply took Choudhury's word that he had seen their financial statement, and it showed a net worth of $2 to $3 million. When he received the Taylors' financial statement in early March, 1988, Jankiewicz tried to back out of the deal, but because there was no contingency in the sales contract, and because the Taylors threatened to sue him for breach of contract if he did not close, he went through with the sale. The sale closed, as scheduled, on March 30, 1988. The Taylors had obtained a first mortgage through bank financing in early March, and have subsequently made payments to Jankiewicz under the purchase money mortgage which he holds, although on occasion they have been late with their payments. At no time did Fetters participate in the discussions which took place with Jankiewicz and Seybold concerning this sale. Choudhury made all contacts with them, presented the sales contract, and attended the closing. The Petitioner's investigator, Leo Huddleston, visited Fetters on June 28, 1988, to examine Fetters' records concerning the Jankiewicz transaction, but Fetters brought no records with him to this meeting. He claimed that Choudhury had all of these records. Subsequently, he did provide Huddleston with escrow records showing a $20,000 deposit in his escrow account, and copies of three checks from the Taylors totaling $20,000, which he claimed he received as their deposit on the Jankiewicz house, and which he stated he then deposited in his escrow account. These checks do indicate on their face that they were for a house deposit. However, Fetters was never able to produce a copy of his deposit slips or bank records which would directly establish that the Taylors' checks were in fact deposited into his escrow account. There was no indication on the face of the checks that they were deposited into his escrow account, or that he had an escrow account established for this purpose. Fetters testified at hearing, that he had lost his bank records, and presumed that a former tenant had taken them when he moved. Fetters failed to keep adequate records of his escrow account that would allow an audit of funds deposited into, and withdrawn from, such account. He could not establish that he had an escrow account on which he was signatory. He was also negligent in failing to safeguard any such records which he may have had, and could not produce complete records of his escrow account which would establish that the Taylors' deposit checks were placed in his escrow account, and remained there until they were withdrawn by a $20,000 cashier's check that was exchanged at closing. Following initial investigation of a complaint filed by Jankiewicz against Fetters and Choudhury, a probable cause panel decided not to issue an Administrative Complaint, and they were informed, in August, 1988, that this complaint file had been closed. Subsequently, however, new evidence was discovered concerning the fact that Seybold had also been present on January 30, 1988, when Choudhury met with Jankiewicz, and Seybold confirmed Jankiewicz' recollection of Choudhury's statements. Thereupon, this complaint was resubmitted to a probable cause panel, and the Administrative Complaint which is at issue in this case was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent Fetters license for a period of six months, and suspending Respondent Choudhury's license for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The Petitioner did not timely file Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent Choudhury did file a Memorandum of Law which contains unnumbered paragraphs under a section referred to as "Facts". This Memorandum has been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order, but specific rulings cannot be made on the matters contained in the section labeled "Facts" since this consists largely of argument on the evidence without any citation to the record as required by Rule 22I-6.031(3), F.A.C. Rulings on the Respondent Fetters' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. 3. Adopted in Findings 2, 8. 4-5. Adopted in Findings 3, 4. Rejected in Finding 5, and as argument on the evidence, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 10, 11. Rejected in Finding 11. Not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: ARTHUR R. SHELL, ESQUIRE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE P. O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 LESLIE M. CONKLIN, ESQUIRE 2120 U.S. 19, SOUTH SUITE 210 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34624 RONALD P. TEEVAN, ESQUIRE 200 NORTH GARDEN AVENUE SUITE A CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34615 DARLENE F. KELLER DIVISION DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 KENNETH EASLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL NORTHWOOD CENTRE 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET SUITE 60 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Leonard M. Wojnar, is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0372634. The Respondent was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Michigan from approximately 1975 until his license was revoked on or about July 2, 1982. In the fall of 1980, a Complaint was filed in Michigan against the Respondent. The Respondent appeared at a hearing in Michigan, after which this case was dismissed. On or about February 3, 1981, the Department of Licensing and Regulation in Michigan contacted the Respondent by letter, notifying him of the Department's involvement with the complaint against him. This letter was received by the Respondent. By letter dated February 9, 1981, to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation, the Respondent replied to the February 3, 1981 letter. On or about May 12, 1981, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation issued a formal Complaint against the Respondent, and served it on him on approximately May 13, 1981. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent received service of this Complaint, but based upon the earlier correspondence between the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation and the Respondent, the Respondent was on notice of a proceeding pending against him. On May 22, 1981, the Respondent completed his application for licensure in Florida. Thereafter, with the assistance of counsel in Michigan, the Respondent attended hearings and proceedings in the Michigan action against his real estate license. The Respondent's Michigan license was revoked on or about July 2, 1982. When the Respondent applied for his Florida license, he failed to disclose that a proceeding was pending against his license in Michigan, and he answered Question 15a on the Florida application in the negative. This question asks if any proceeding is pending in any state affecting any license to practice a regulated profession. The Respondent contends that the revocation of his license by the Michigan authorities is invalid, and that legal proceedings are pending in Michigan to obtain restoration of his license there. He also contends that he was not aware of any proceeding pending against him when he answered Question 15a on the Florida application.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0372642 held by Leonard M. Wojnar be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this the 21st day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Steven Warm, Esquire 101 North Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Bldg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Dan Lee Isaacs is a real estate broker/salesman with the Petitioner, Key Realty, Inc. He seeks in this proceeding to have approved his dual licensure as a broker for Key Realty Management, Inc., as well as to retain his broker/salesman licensure with the Petitioner, Key Realty Inc. In his capacity as a broker/salesman for Key Realty Inc., he works under the supervision of Mr. Les Epperson, who is the licensed broker for that entity. Mr. Isaacs owns no stock in the corporation, Key Realty Inc. He does own stock and would be sole manager of the separate corporation known as Key Realty Management, Inc. Key Realty Management, Inc., is not affiliated in a subsidiary or other relationship with Key Realty, Inc., although there is some commonalty of ownership in that Les Epperson is a minority shareholder. The President and majority stockholder of Key Realty, Inc., Les Epperson, would have no part in the management of the operations of Key Realty Management, Inc. Mr. Isaacs desires, for personal and financial reasons, to remain active in the real estate sales field as a broker/salesman under the supervision of broker Epperson. He would, as sole manager and broker with Key Realty Management, Inc., engage in no sales activities, but rather solely in the management and supervision of various rental properties for clients of that firm. The two corporations maintain and would maintain separate accounting books and records; and, as pertinent, separate escrow and trust funds and accounts. It is to the advantage of both firms, both financially and in terms of legal liability, to maintain these escrow funds and accounts separately because of the financial and operational differences characteristic of a real estate management firm, as compared to a purely real estate sales operation as conducted by Key Realty, Inc. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for qualification as a real estate broker pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. In October, 1980, the Petitioner applied for the above described dual licensure. The Respondent denied the application on the basis that an individual cannot be a broker and a broker/ salesman simultaneously. The principals of both corporations, Mr. Epperson and Mr. Isaacs, have submitted the affidavits and agreements pursuant to Rule 2IV-6.06, Florida Administrative Code, attesting to the absence of any conflict of interest stemming from Mr. Isaacs' licensure as a broker of the separate corporation and that both of them agree and consent to the dual registration. There is no dispute between the parties that in essence a "salesman" and a "broker/salesman" perform some of the same real estate transaction functions under the supervision of a licensed broker, for instance, the depositing with the broker of any escrow or other funds involved in a given real estate transaction for appropriate disposition and disbursement by the broker and acting in all other pertinent operative capacities under the supervision of a broker, rather than independently. The parties also did not dispute that the real basis for the "broker/salesman" designation in the licensing scheme in Florida is to allow a licensee to demonstrate to the public that a broker/salesman is clothed with additional internship, educational and experience credentials and is thus possessed of a greater degree of expertise in real estate transactions and operations than one licensed as a salesman. The Respondent however, in its argument during and subsequent to the hearing, apparently takes the position that a "broker/salesman" and a salesman perform identical functions; and, therefore, are legally to be considered as the same type of license and licensee, for purposes of establishing its legal position that since a salesman's license may not be issued to a person registered as an active broker unless the active broker's license is surrendered that neither may a person be dually licensed as both a "broker/salesman" and a broker.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is; therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Dan Lee Isaacs a license as an active real estate broker for, and on behalf of, Key Realty Management, Inc., and allowing his retention of licensure as a broker/salesman with Key Realty, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Kirk Brown, Esquire Post Office Box 4075 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cluett Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0216798 and whose last known address is 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida. The Respondent, Ernest H. Cluett II, is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0191613 and at all material times was employed as a licensed real estate broker by Cluett Realty, Inc. In November, 1981, Mary Ann Knopic was shown a home in Cape Coral by the Respondents. She offered the owners $92,500 for the home with a $500.00 earnest money deposit. When the home was sold to another buyer, the Respondents and Knopic agreed that the Respondents would retain the $500.00 and attempt to find another home for the complainant. In December, 1981, the Respondents showed Knopic the Soviero home and Knopic made an offer on the home and secured the offer with an additional $1,500 security deposit. In late February, 1982, the complainant informed the Respondents that she would not close on the Soviero home. The complainant decided not to close because the cost of renovating the home exceeded the original estimate. Under these circumstances, the complainant was willing to lose her $2,000 deposit rather than spend $6,000 to renovate the Soviero home. On June 8, 1982, after the complainant agreed to the February disbursement, she sent the Respondents a letter demanding either a copy of the contract which amended the earnest money amount or a refund of her $1,500. Walter V. Horn, a Respondent, was not properly served and at final hearing the petitioner agreed that he was not a proper party to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondents, Cluett Realty, Inc., Ernest H. Cluett II and Walter V. Born. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 11th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida Herbert A. Fried, Esquire 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 103 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Mr. Walter V. Horn 4732 Dee Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes, 1/ by committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0478560. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker t/a Concord Financial Realty Co. ("CFR"), 495 E. Semoran Boulevard #115, Casselberry, Florida 32708. Respondent is the sole owner of CFR. CFR carries on regular business activities that include apartment rentals and sales of real estate. On January 31, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Charles Wallman, Respondent's husband, owned all of the stock of C.L. Wallman Associates, Inc ("CWA"). 2/ Respondent's husband owned Concord Financial Services, Inc. ("CFS"). CFS was formed to sell insurance and securities. Respondent and her husband operated CFR, CWA, and CFS out of shared office space. Respondent performed bookkeeping and secretarial duties for CWA and CFS. In January, 1992, Respondent's husband (the "seller") verbally agreed ("agreed") to sell 35 percent of the stock of CFS to Mr. John Topercer (the "purchaser") for $35,000. The seller and purchaser agreed to operate the company as "partners." The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid the $35,000 purchase price in five installments from January 31, 1992, through March 12, 1992. During that time, the seller agreed to sell an additional 14 percent of the stock of CFS for an additional $13,000. The purchaser paid the additional $13,000 in three installments from April 14, 1992, through May 13, 1992. In May, 1992, the purchaser and seller agreed to another stock acquisition for $20,000. The seller would merge CFS, CWA, and CFR into a new company to be known as Concord Financial Centre ("CFC"). All of the business activities carried out by the separate companies would be consolidated into CFC. The purchaser would receive 49 percent of the stock of CFC in exchange for his 49 percent stock ownership in CFS. The seller and purchaser would operate CFC as "partners" in the same manner as originally contemplated for CFS. The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid $20,000 in five installments from June 2 through June 22, 1992, and tendered his stock in CFS. However, the purchaser never received any stock in CFC. CFC was never formed. The seller never tendered any stock in CFC to the purchaser. The seller used some of the sale proceeds to operate CFS. However, approximately $30,000 of the sale proceeds were misappropriated and used by Respondent and her husband for personal purposes including a down payment on a house and a car. On January 6, 1993, the purchaser filed a civil complaint against Respondent and her husband alleging fraud, recision, and mismanagement of corporate funds. On August 8, 1994, the purchaser received judgment against Respondent and her husband in the amount of $30,000. Respondent and her husband have not satisfied the judgment. Neither has paid any money toward the judgment, and the purchaser has been unable to satisfy the judgment. Respondent knew of the negotiations and business transactions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent performed the duties of bookkeeper and documented all of the payments made by Mr. Topercer. Respondent was present during some of the discussions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent agreed to the merger of CFR into CFC. Respondent participated in the misappropriation of the purchase proceeds for her own personal use. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Those acts were repeated and continued for more than six months. The amount misappropriated by Respondent is significant. During the three and a half years since June, 1992, Respondent has made no attempt at restitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and revoking Respondent's real estate license. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, 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 9th day of January 1996.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 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
Findings Of Fact In February of 1988, Petitioner took the real estate broker's examination compiled by Respondent, and otherwise complied with all applicable licensure requirements. The Petitioner received a grade of 74 on the written examination. A grade of 75 or higher is required to pass the test. Had Petitioner answered question number 62 with the answer deemed by Respondent to be correct, Petitioner's score would have been 75 and, as such, would have entitled him to licensure. Question number 62 reads as follows: The Department of Professional Regulation may withhold notification to a licensee that the licensee is being investigated IF: NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INVESTIGATION. NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE LICENSEE. THE ACT UNDER INVESTIGATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Possible answers to question number 62 were as follows: I only. II only. I and III only. I, II and III. The answer to question number 62 chosen by Petitioner was D. The Respondent determined the correct answer should have been C. The Respondent's examining board followed a standard procedure for conducting and grading the examination. Statistically, 58 per cent of candidates taking the examination and placing in percentile rankings 50 through 99, answered the question correctly. Of those candidates taking the examination and placing in the lower half (0-50 percentile), 33 per cent answered the question correctly. The results obtained to question number 62 from all applicants taking the examination revealed the question exceeded effective testing standards. Question number 62 and the appropriate answer to that question are taken directly from section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the question is to determine if an applicant is knowledgeable of the law governing real estate broker licensees. The Respondent adopts the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, mandates that Respondent shall notify a licensee of any investigation of which the licensee is the subject and authorizes withholding notification to that licensee only where such notification would be detrimental to the investigation, or where the act under investigation is a criminal offense. The Petitioner takes the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, does not prohibit withholding notification of an investigation from a licensee when such notification would be detrimental to the licensee. The Petitioner bases this contention on the broad power provided the Real Estate Commission by section 475.05, Florida Statutes. The Commission has not, however, adopted any rule, regulation or bylaw supportive of Petitioner's position and the statutory mandate is clear. Further, the statute referenced by Petitioner specifically does not support an exercise of this power of the Commission if the result is a conflict with another law of the State of Florida. Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, states Respondent "shall" notify "any person" of an investigation of that person. Under that section, discretionary authority to refrain from such notification is allowed only where there is a potential for harm to the investigation, or the matter under investigation is a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming the grade of the Petitioner as previously determined. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2442 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings The Petitioner submitted a document entitled summary of hearing and consisting of seven numbered paragraphs. They are treated as follows: Rejected as unnecessary. Included in findings 5, and 7. Rejected, contrary to the weight of the evidence. 4.- 6. Rejected, contrary to evidence adduced. 7. Rejected as argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Respondent submitted a three page document entitled "argument" and consisting of eight unnumbered paragraphs. Numbers 1-8 have been applied to those paragraphs. They are treated as follows: 1.-5. Rejected as conclusions of law. 6. Included in findings 8, 9, and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip I. Salerno 11812 Timbers Way Boca Raton, Florida 33428 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
