Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Narcisco J. Ramirez, held land surveyor license number LS0002779 issued by petitioner, Department of professional Regulation, Board of Professional Land Surveyors. Respondent currently operates a land surveying firm known as South Atlantic Services of Florida, Inc. located at 7350 Southwest 41st Street; Miami, Florida. Respondent received a two year degree in civil engineering from City College of San Francisco in 1969 and has worked for various firms as a land surveyor in the Miami area since 1971. He has been a registered land surveyor in Florida since July, 1975. In March, 1984, respondent was contacted by a real estate salesman and requested to perform a "boundary survey" and "sketch" of a parcel of land owned by one M. P. Smith McNiely. The land in question involved various lots, including Lots 23, 25-30, 34-36 and 38 located in a subdivision known as DeSoto Heights which lies adjacent to Southwest 304th Street, Southwest 105th Terrace, and Southwest 168th Street in Dade County, Florida, just north of the City of Homestead. The property was to be sold, and the survey was intended to assist the seller in determining a sales price on the property. Ramirez interpreted the request to mean that only a "preliminary sketch" would be initially done, and if requested by the owner, a "complete survey" would be performed at a later date. He was paid $650 for the initial work, and expected an additional fee of $2,500 to $3,000 for the complete survey. According to Ramirez, a preliminary sketch is not as accurate as a complete survey, has substantially less information, may contain errors, and does not require a certification by the surveyor that it meets all required professional standards of surveying. Ramirez assigned the field work to an employee named Roberto Collado, who no longer lives in Florida. The field work consisted of determining the property corners, and providing a sketch to the real estate salesman. Ramirez did not certify that minimum technical standards had been met but did sign and seal the drawing on March 22, 1984. At the same time he provided the following certification: I HEREBY CERTIFY: that the attached sketch of survey represents a recent survey made under my direction, and is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. There are no encroachments unless shown thereon. Ramirez also added the following in bold lettering: NOTE: BOUNDARY SURVEY ONLY. No elevations secured or any other featured at the owners representative s request. A short time later, Frank Makowski, also a registered land surveyor and a former professional colleague of Ramirez some ten years earlier was contacted by an attorney (David Liebman) who was handling the sales transaction of McNiely's property. The closing was being held up because Ramirez's survey reflected a house sitting on both lots 36 and 37. Makowski was requested to verify the encroachment onto lot 36, and to ascertain the true location of the property boundaries. Makowski initially contacted Ramirez and requested a copy of his sketch and field notes. These were supplied by Ramirez, who gave no indication to him that the work was only "preliminary" in nature. Makowski then sent out a field team to survey the property. It found that the west boundary on the Ramirez survey was actually thirty-three feet off, which caused the purported encroachment on lot 36. The sketch made by Ramirez was deficient in a number of respects as established by uncontradicted expert testimony. To begin with, the parties have stipulated that the survey did not comply with the minimum technical standards for land surveying as set forth in Chapter 21HH- 6, Florida Administrative Code. These include Rules 21HH- 6.03(1), (2), (4), (6)-(8), (12), (18)-(20), and 21HH- 6.06(1), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the administrative complaint. For example, it contained no certification, did not reflect all bearings and angles, and monumentations were not set. In short, the Ramirez survey technique and procedure was not in conformance with the procedure required by generally accepted and prevailing standards of land surveying. Moreover, even though it was identified as a "boundary survey;" expert testimony established that the project was indeed a survey within the meaning of the term and it had to meet such technical standards or plainly provide a disclaimer to indicate that such standards were not met. In September, 1983, respondent was engaged by an engineering firm to "secure ground elevations along the above property (Southwest 168th Street and Southwest 192nd Avenue, Dade County) and then relate said elevations to a Dade County Bench Mark," and to "prepare a sketch of survey showing said existing ground elevations." For this he was to be paid $150. The property was owned by Alfred and Linda Wilson. Ramirez first obtained by telephone a bench mark on September 30, 1983; from the Dade County Surveying Department and then sent a field crew to complete the task. The bench mark he selected was across a canal and some three-quarters of a mile from the property in question in an area with heavy undergrowth. This made an accurate measurement more difficult to perform. The accuracy of vertical control surveys (elevations) is essential since this determines whether a parcel of land must have fill added in order to install a septic tank and well. It also affects the flood insurability of a home. Such surveys are subject to the minimum technical standards of the profession, as adopted by agency rules, unless the survey is a "specific purpose survey." In that event the same must be clearly stated on the face of the survey. In this case Ramirez, merely noted on the face of the sketch: "preliminary sketch, only elevations are included in this sketch of survey, no horizontal distances were measured nor controls set and distances shown along the sketch are for location purposes only." He also certified that "the elevations shown refer to a National Vertical Geodetic Datum of 1929, Bench Mark, were secured by us under my direction and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." Ramirez considered the project to be a "special purpose sketch" and therefore did not believe he had to certify that minimum technical standards had been met. Indeed, he conceded that such standards had not been met in preparing the documents. Makowski was requested to perform a survey on the Wilson property on June 12, 1984 to verify the accuracy of Ramirez s survey. He found the actual elevations to be approximately two feet lower than those reflected on Ramirez's sketch. 2/ The accuracy of Makowski's findings was corroborated by a survey previously performed by another surveyor in 1979. That survey, which is a public record on file with the Dade County Subdivision Control Department, indicated that because of the property's low elevation, fill was required to meet flood criteria. Through the testimony of Makowski and another expert land surveyor, James E. Beadman, it was established without contradiction that Ramirez's work failed to comport with minimum technical standards of the land surveying profession. For example, Ramirez had insufficient field notes, he used too few turning points, and did not perform a loop closure. Further, there is no bench mark description or certification by Ramirez on the survey, and Ramirez used a Linker rod to transfer elevations from one bench mark to another in contravention of accepted standards. Had Ramirez desired to qualify his elevation survey in accordance with agency rules, he should have identified his survey as a topographic survey and indicated that improvements were not located. By calling it an elevation survey, Ramirez did not change its true character of being a topographic survey. Rule 21HH-6.06, Florida Administrative Code, requires that when a survey is not performed, a surveyor should "state that such sketch is not a survey" on the face of the sketch. All other surveys must meet minimum technical standards, and by signing and sealing the drawings, a surveyor certifies as such. Ramirez justified his work in the McNiely project as being simply preliminary in nature. If he conducted a complete survey at a later time, he would then obtain more information, and correct any errors present on the initial drawings. Similarly, he viewed the Wilson survey as a special purpose sketch," and one not requiring compliance with minimum technical standards. Ramirez has performed hundreds of surveys in the past fifteen years; and there is no evidence of any formal disciplinary action having been instituted against him for negligence or misconduct. Both surveys were eventually performed in an accurate manner by Makowski. There were no complaints filed against Ramirez by either client. The complaint herein stems from Makowski who reported the alleged violations to petitioner after reviewing Ramirez's work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the conclusions of law portion of this orders and that he be fined $1000 and placed on two years probation. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 7th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a civil engineer and registered land surveyor in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. He took and passed the examination for land surveyor in Massachusetts in 1957 and was subsequently licensed by endorsement in New York and Pennsylvania based on having passed the Massachusetts examination. He has been a practicing land surveyor for some 28 years and is an experienced and well-qualified practitioner. Petitioner was unable to produce a copy of the 1957 examination he took in Massachusetts since no copy could be located in the files of the Massachusetts agency which licenses land surveyors. Similarly, no copy of the 1957 Florida examination is contained in the files of the Florida Board of Land Surveyors. By reason of Petitioner's experience he was exempted from taking the Fundamentals portion of the Florida examination but was required to take the Principles and Practices section. After recomputation Petitioner was awarded a final grade of 68 on this examination, two points below a passing grade of 70. Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony that retention of the workbook he was issued at the examination would not have changed any of the wrong answers he put on the answer sheet. He also acknowledged that to a question asking for the size of the survey marker used in Florida surveying he guessed 2" instead of the correct answer of 3". Had Petitioner correctly answered two questions regarding size of survey markers, he would have passed the examination. He also acknowledged that the answer to several of the questions he missed would have been known by a Florida land surveyor and had he familiarized himself with Florida law regarding land surveying he would have passed the examination. He also acknowledged it was customary to take a refresher course before sitting for an examination. Petitioner lost eight points on one question, the answer to which was premised on changing a filed plat plan as the question directed. In Massachusetts a filed plat plan may not be changed and, since Petitioner considered the question to require the examinee to perform an unlawful act, viz., change the filed plat plan, he declined to do so and received a zero grade on this eight-point question.
Conclusions On March 10, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File in the above captioned case.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - CALDWELL BUILDING, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS 2 Final Order No. DEO11-0006 FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this fopllriay of October 2011. : Miriam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Max Lohman, Esquire Corbett and White, P.A; 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, Florida 33462 Brian Joslyn, Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose, Casey, Cikin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O*Connell Northbridge Center, 19th Floor 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4626 By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Final Order No. DEO11-0006
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent held a license to practice land surveying in the State of Florida. In March 1984, Joseph L. Abrams a land developer, hired the respondent to perform certain professional services in connection with a proposed development known as Doug's Unit Number One. Mr. Abrams hired the respondent because he had previously performed land surveying services for Mr. Abrams and had done a good job. Doug's Unit Number One involved six acres of land which had been preliminarily subdivided by an engineer into 14 separate lots. The preliminary drawing by the engineer, showing set backs, easements, and other matters, had been approved by the City of Winter Springs, but Mr. Abrams needed a sealed drawing to record. He therefore hired the respondent as a professional surveyor, to describe the lots in surveying terms and prepare a sealed set of drawings. On March 27, 1984, the respondent prepared a bill for the services and itemized the total cost of $756 as follows: drafting of S/D on linen, $250; cost of linen $6; engineering, calculations telephone calls specifications, Winter Springs conference, etc., $500. Mr. Abrams paid the bill the same day. Mr. Abrams was informed that respondent had paid Burl (Mike) Drennen to do the drafting, and, as soon as the drafting was done, either respondent or Mr. Drennen would deliver the drawings, properly sealed, to Mr. Abrams. The drawings were to be delivered in two to three weeks. Respondent also informed Mr. Abrams that respondent was leaving for New Jersey and would be gone for a few weeks. Respondent gave Mr. Abrams his phone number in New Jersey and Mr. Drennen's phone number. After two weeks elapsed and the drawings had not been delivered, Mr. Abrams began calling the respondent and Mr. Drennen. Sometime in April or May, Mr. Abrams was able to contact respondent in New Jersey and the respondent explained that he would be unable to return to Florida for another two to three weeks due to his wife's serious illness. Mr. Abrams also contacted Mr. Drennen, who informed him that he would not deliver the drawings because he had not been fully paid for his drafting services and because he would have to receive authorization from the respondent before the drawings were released since the respondent had hired him. Mr. Drennen told Mr. Abrams that he would try to contact respondent to get the authorization to release the drawings, but Mr. Drennen was unable to contact the respondent. However after several more conversations with Mr. Abrams, Mr. Drennen agreed to deliver the drawings if Mr. Abrams paid him the remaining money he was owed. 1/ On June 6, 1984, Mr. Drennen delivered the drawings and was paid $180 by Mr. Abrams. However, when Mr. Abrams looked over the sheet, he realized that the sheet had not been sealed. He tried to contact the respondent, and when he was unable to do so, he decided to go to another surveyor. The new surveyor could not simply take the drawing and seal it; he had to do the entire project over again. Mr. Mims, the new surveyor, charged $1,250 which was paid in October or November of 1984 and the sealed drawings were delivered and recorded on December 20, 1984. By letter dated June 7, 1984, Mr. Abrams filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, and on August 15, 1984, Mr. Alvin Lewis Smith, an investigator with the Department, contacted respondent by telephone in New Jersey to inquire about the matter. The respondent admitted that he had not completed the project, but he stated that he had his seal in New Jersey and, if Mr. Abrams had sent the drawings to him, he could have signed and sealed the drawings and sent them back to Mr. Abrams. However, when asked if he had done any field work for the project, respondent said that he had not and that he couldn't seal the drawings because he hadn't done the field work. Nevertheless, on August 16, 1984, respondent wrote to Mr. Abrams stating that he had taken his seal to New Jersey and that he could sign and seal the linen and have it back to Mr. Abrams in two days if Mr. Abrams would send the drawings to him by Federal Express. At the hearing the respondent testified that the $756 payment was for drawing up the plat and performing calculations and engineering work on the project, but it was not for doing the field work. However respondent acknowledged that the field work had to be done before the plat could be sealed and recorded. All the other evidence and testimony presented at the hearing indicates that the respondent agreed to deliver drawings to Mr. Abrams that were properly prepared and sealed for recording. It is therefore apparent that the $756 paid by Mr. Abrams to respondent was to cover all the work necessary, including the field work, for the plat to be recorded. Without being sealed, the drawings were useless. During the time of this incident the respondent had personal problems which required him to stay in New Jersey. His wife was quite ill and his wife's parents' estate had to be settled. Respondent has been a registered surveyor for over 30 years and, until the instant action, had never had a complaint filed against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon due consideration of respondent's personal circumstances at the time of this incident and respondent's previously unblemished record, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding respondent guilty of those acts set forth in Sections 472.033(1)(g) and 472.033(1)(h), Florida Statutes, reprimanding the respondent, and placing him on probation for a period of one year with such terms and conditions as may be deemed necessary by the Board of Professional Land Surveyors. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 23rd day of August, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to be licensed as a Professional Surveyor and Mapper, under Subsections 472.013, 472.015, or 472.041, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has provided to the Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers numerous letters and other documents, and a check for the sum of $100 dollars as an application fee for temporary registration as a professional surveyor and mapper. Petitioner has attempted to apply for licensure, under the revised Chapter 472, Florida Statutes , individually and has sought the issuance of a Certificate of Authorization for his business concern: "Mt. Dora Mapping." Petitioner failed to complete an application for licensure on a form provided by the Respondent. Petitioner has failed to provide the correct information necessary for an application to be evaluated under any of the subsections appearing in Chapter 472, Florida Statutes. Petitioner chose not to testify at the formal hearing or otherwise provide any new evidence to be considered by this tribunal, other than documents previously submitted to the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for licensure as a professional surveyor and mapper be DENIED, without prejudice to reapply. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Curtis 940 Gorham Street Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Marion Malt is guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Marion Malt is a registered real estate saleswoman. Marion Malt worked for International Land Services Chartered, Inc., as a listing representative or "closer". She was paid commissions through International Land Sales Chartered, Inc. In the course of her employment as a listing representative with International Land Services Chartered, Inc., Marion Malt contacted Joan Culpepper. Malt made representations to Mrs. Culpepper that she (Malt) had sold property and that the real estate market in Florida was good. She further represented that the Culpeppers could sell their property which they had purchased for $2,000.00 for approximately $20,000.00. Malt further represented that she could sell the Culpepper's property quickly, probably within sixty days. Similar representations were made to Genevieve Voli and David Bohrer. Mrs. Malt identified her signature on a letter which Mrs. Culpepper had identified as a letter received after her initial contact by a person identifying herself as Marion Malt. Marion Malt testified that she sent such letters to the persons whom she contacted. Marion Malt knew that International Land Services Chartered, Inc., had no sales staff, and further, Malt knew that she had not sold any property. Malt knew that the sales operation of International Land Services, Chartered, Inc. was totally dependent upon other brokers marketing the property listed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc., through advertisement in the catalogue prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Malt had no actual knowledge of any sales based upon the catalogue by International Land Services Chartered, Inc., yet she represented such sales had been consummated in her conversations with Culpepper, Voli, and Bohrer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of Marion Malt as a real estate saleswoman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Oliver, Esquire Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ronald E. Fried 2699 South Bayshore Drive Suite 400C Miami, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Bertin C. Tash, held land surveyor license number LS0002292 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Land Surveyors. Respondent currently resides at 1127 Broadway, Riviera Beach, Florida. Tash has held a license with the state since July 2, 1970, and has been in the surveying profession for some twenty-eight years. On or about November 11, 1983, respondent was contacted by a local mortgage broker and requested to perform a survey on a residence located at 2814 Saginaw Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. A survey was needed since the owner of the residence intended to refinance his property. Tash performed the survey, turned the same over to the broker, and was paid $125 for his services. The drawing was signed and sealed by Tash, and contained the following notation above the certification: "No Corner's Set-All Rights Reserved." There was no mention as to whether the minimum technical standards had been met. On at least three places on the document, Tash referred to the drawing as a "survey." On June 7, 1984, Craig L. Wallace, a land surveyor in Lake Park, Florida, sent a copy of Tash's drawing to the Board's Executive Director and asked if the notation above the certification was permissible, and whether Tash's failure to refer to minimum technical standards was correct. This inquiry prompted the instant proceeding and resulted in the issuance of an administrative complaint. It is undisputed that the document prepared by respondent is a survey and subject to the minimum technical standards set forth in Chapter 21HH-6, Florida Administrative Code. Expert testimony by witness George M. Cole, Jr. Established that the drawing did not conform with the minimum technical standards in various respects. It did not contain a certification that the minimum technical standards had been met or a description of the type of survey being depicted. It did not reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection of a street or right-of-way nor did it depict the entire lot being surveyed. Additionally, only one angle was shown on the drawing although agency rules require that all angles and bearings be shown. Finally, there was no boundary monument set as required by the standards. These are required unless monuments already exist at such corners. Although Tash pointed out that fence posts embedded in concrete were already on the corners of the property, agency rules still require that alternative monumentation be set. All of the foregoing deficiencies are violations of the minimum technical standards required for surveys. However, none were intentionally violated. Respondent readily acknowledged that he performed the survey in question. However, he considered the survey to be "minor" since two had previously been performed on the same lot, and his was only for the purpose of refinancing the property. He attributed any deficiencies to poor judgment rather than an intentional violation of the law. Tash has been a professional land surveyor for some twenty-eight years, and there is no evidence that he has been subjected to disciplinary action on any prior occasion. The complaint herein was initiated by another licensed surveyor and not by the consumer who used the survey. The survey was apparently satisfactory as far as the mortgage broker was concerned, and no problems arose at closing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the conclusions of law portion of this order. The remaining charges be DISMISSED. Respondent's license should be placed on probation for ninety days and he should be required to pay a $500 administrative fine. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1985.
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondents are subject to discipline for offering and selling lots in a subdivision. The Department contends that the Respondents were required to obtain an order of registration before selling land, and to comply with other requirements with respect to their sales practices. The Respondents contend they are exempt from the registration and other regulatory requirements.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the Florida Uniform Land Sales Practices Act, Chapter 498, Florida Statutes. Orlando East Corporation is a Florida corporation formed in 1980 by Robert J. Loughlin which engages in the business of selling unimproved real estate in the State of Florida. It is not a government agency. Robert J. Loughlin is the President and sole shareholder of Orlando East Corporation. Between 1980 and 1986 the corporation acquired title to approximately 97 lots in the Partin Park Subdivision, a plated subdivision which contains 768 lots located in Orange County, Florida. The plat is recorded in Plat Book N at page 67 in Public Records of Orange County. The subdivision was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, on February 9, 1926. On April 15, 1980, Orlando East purchased lots 1-24 and 25A in block 5 of the subdivision and lots 24-48 in block 14; on December 5, 1985, the corporation purchased lots 1-24 in block 8 of the subdivision; on June 27, 1986, the corporation purchased lots 25-48 of block 8 of the subdivision. Obviously, Orlando East Corporation is not the original subdivider of Partin Park. The Respondents have offered for sale, and sold 60 of the lots they had purchased in Partin Park by conveying 3-lot parcels in 20 sales transactions. Some of the parcels were sold by agreements for deed (nine sales), or by warranty deed or exchange agreements (11 sales). The relevant documents were executed by Mr. Loughlin on behalf of the corporation. All sales took place before February 16, 1987. One of the purchasers under an agreement for deed was Shirley Katonka. Mr. Loughlin solicited purchasers for the parcels owned by Orlando East through long distance telephone calls to out-of-state purchasers. The Respondents have not obtained an Order Of Registration to sell the lots under Sections 498.005(12), and 498.029, Florida Statutes. Neither do the Respondents have a current Public Offering Statement approved by the Division for the lots offered for sale or sold in the Part in Park subdivision. None of the land conveyed by Orlando East Corporation in the subdivision was sold as part of a reservation program approved by the Division under Section 498.024, Florida Statutes. None of the lots were re-platted after Respondents purchased them. The lots were not offered for sale as cemetery lots. The offer to sell parcels in Partin Park subdivision was not registered with the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, nor with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The sales of each 3 lot parcel in the subdivision were for $5,000 or less. The parcels were sold without any residential or commercial buildings located on them and without the obligation of Orlando East Corporation or Mr. Loughlin to construct residential or commercial buildings on them for the purchasers. The Division had not granted an order exempting Part in Park subdivision from the registration requirements of Chapter 498 Florida Statutes, before any of the 20 sales were made by the Respondents. None of the 20 purchasers the Respondents solicited for sales received a synopsis, which had been approved by the Division, of the sales script used in conjunction with the long distance telephone solicitations. The original plan Orlando East Corporation and Mr. Loughlin had for the distribution of the lots was to sell all lots to fewer than 45 persons. This was accomplished by grouping the lots into parcels of 3-lot units. There were no covenants, declarations, or legal restrictions on the property which prohibited Orlando East Corporation from disposing of the property as individual lots. One of the reasons lots were sold in 3-lot units was to provide a purchaser a large enough piece of property so that the owner might be able to build a house on it, after obtaining a variance from the local government. The property was not sold as a home-site subdivision, however. The individual lots as plated measured 25' x 140', but the 3-lot units meet the county requirements that building lots have 75 feet of frontage and a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Of the eleven agreements for deed, eight of the original purchasers are making payments on their lots. Ms. Shirley Katonka cancelled her purchase several years ago. The Respondents are receiving a gross income of $750 per month for the eight active agreements for deed. The monthly expenses of operation for the Respondents' business is between $300 and $350 per month, leaving the Respondents a net profit of between $400 and $450 per month for the eight active contracts, assuming the purchasers continue to pay under their agreements for deed. Orlando East Corporation currently has $450 in the bank. Respondents are not offering or selling lots now, but are awaiting the outcome of this proceeding. There is no evidence that the Respondents have been selling lots in Partin Park under a common promotional plan with any other person or entity, and the Division does not contend that they are involved in a common promotional plan with any other person or entity. The Respondents argue that their subjective plan of disposition for their 97 lots is determinative of whether they are entitled to an exemption from the registration requirements of Section 498.025(1)(d), Florida Statutes. They contend that their plan of distribution would have provided for no more than 32 sales.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents to be subject to Chapter 498, to have violated Section 498.051(1)(a) and (d), fining them $1,000 each, and requiring them to give purchasers the opportunity to rescind their purchases under Sections 498.023(2)(c) and 498.051(3)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 24th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NOS. 90-1904 and 90-2515 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Implicit in Finding 3. 4 - 7. Adopted in Finding 3. To the extent necessary, adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9, but amended to reflect the figure of $5,000. 18 and 19. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 16. Rejected as argument. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Findings 4 and 5. Rejected as unnecessary, but implicit in Finding 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Only the conduct of the Respondent is at issue here. Implicit in Finding 12. Implicit in Finding 12, although there is no legal impediment to selling individual lots. Adopted in Finding 12, except for the final sentence which is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 12. Implicit in Finding 12. Sentence one adopted in Finding 4, the remainder rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Finding 15. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 16. 28 - 30. Rejected as unnecessary, because the Division's policy is derived from the language of the act and is consistent with the decision in Associated Mortgage Investors v. Department of Business Regulation, 503 So.2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin L. Johnson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Matthew Carter, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
