The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment as charged in the Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Division of Real Estate in the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida under Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, (governing the Department of Business and Professional Regulation) and Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, (governing the practice or real estate brokerage in the State of Florida). Petitioner is also charged with the duty of prosecuting administrative complaints that allege violations of Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code, which constitute the rules and regulations promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission to regulate the practice of brokering real estate transactions. Respondent, Edward Gensen, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida under license number 0595539. Mr. Gensen has been licensed in such a capacity at all times material to the Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding. Mr. Gensen has also been licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Illinois since 1983 and is an enrolled agent with the Internal Revenue Service. Battery in 1984 On September 18, 1984, Timothy G. Vojak swore out a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois, (the "criminal court"). The complaint accused Mr. Gensen of criminal battery in that "said defendant [Mr. Gensen] without legal justification, intentionally cause[d] bodily harm to Timothy G. Vojak, in that he struck . . . Vojak on the side of his head with his fist." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. A certified copy of the criminal complaint shows that a copy of the complaint was delivered to Mr. Gensen the same day that it was executed by the complainant. Mr. Gensen's explanation of the battery charge offered in this license discipline proceeding was that the facts leading to the charge were nothing more than a "traffic argument." (Tr. 13). Mr. Vojak pulled me over and got out of the car . . . I was in the car and got out . . . and he come out of his car and he come up to me and took a swing at me and hit me. * * * I hit him back. (Id.) Apparently, at least the fact that Mr. Gensen hit Mr. Vojak was agreed to by the parties at Mr. Gensen's criminal trial. (See the next paragraph, below.) On October 5, 1984, a criminal sentence form was filed with the Illinois criminal court in Mr. Gensen's case. It indicates that the criminal case of Mr. Gensen had been initiated not by indictment or information (that is, a charging document filed in court by the local prosecuting attorney for the state), as would be expected in the typical criminal case, but by "complaint." (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, page 1 of 3.) "[C]omplaint" obviously refers to the complaint filed by Mr. Vojak several weeks earlier. The sentence form also indicates that Mr. Gensen pled "not guilty." Written in the same handwriting as the name "Edward Gensen" in the blank on the form for "Defendant" are the words "STIP TO FACTS." These words are taken to mean that Mr. Gensen reached an agreement with the complainant and the prosecuting attorney as to what the facts were in the case. The sentencing form provides other information about the outcome of the case. It indicates that after the stipulation to the facts, Mr. Gensen was found guilty by the court (as opposed to by a jury). On the form, under the heading "TYPE OF SENTENCE" are a number of blocks to be checked. Among these blocks are: "Periodic Imprisonment," "County Jail," "No credit for good time," "Custody of U.S. Attorney General," and "Illinois Department of Corrections." None of the blocks associated with these "types of sentences," all of which are types of outcomes one would normally associate with a criminal sentence, are checked. Instead, two blocks are checked: "Fined," and "Probation." The "Fined" block shows that Mr. Gensen was fined $55 and assessed $35 in court costs. The "Probation" block is checked as well. But the word "[p]robation" is scratched through. In its place is written the word, "supervision." The criminal sentence form indicates that Mr. Gensen had a defense attorney named "McGrath." The initials of the State's Attorney are shown as "SPW." The sentence form is signed by a judge, whose name appears to be "R.A. McLaren." Finally, the criminal sentence form indicates that Mr. Gensen's "sentence" was stayed until "4/12/85," approximately 6 months after the form was signed by Judge McLaren. Supervision and a Question of Expungement Mr. Gensen completed the period of supervision without incident. But supervision "didn't call for me to do anything." (Tr. 14.) At the time of his trial, Mr. Gensen was told by an attorney unidentified in the record of this license proceeding, that his case "was a minor thing and it was erased and didn't exist afterward. After the supervision they take it away or something. He said you wouldn't have any record." (Tr. 19.) Mr. Gensen also had a vague recollection of Judge McLaren telling him that any record of his guilt would be expunged if he successfully completed the period of supervision. "If I remember right, it was something like, 'You have the conviction. You go on supervision and then everything is taken away.'" (Tr. 19.) Whatever Mr. Gensen may have been told at the time of his trial and sentencing, the record of his battery conviction in 1984 was not expunged. There was, moreover, no evidence offered in this proceeding that the court's maintenance of the records of his conviction for battery and "sentence" of a fine, assessment of court costs and supervision was a clerical error or in error in any other way. Application for a Florida Real Estate Broker's License By licensure application signed by Respondent on February 5, 1996, Respondent applied to become licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. On the application for his real estate license, Respondent was asked to indicate whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld. This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violation), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled or pardoned. . . you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 2, pg. 2, question 9) (Emphasis added.)In response to this question, Respondent checked the "No" box. (Id.) Respondent swore that all answers and information contained in his application were true and complete. Respondent's signature was duly notarized. Respondent knew that his application for licensure had to be approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent did not contact the Illinois court system to determine whether the court maintained records of the judge's finding that he was guilty or the sentence (payment of a fine, assessment of court costs and supervision). Respondent did not consult a lawyer about how to answer Question 9 on his real estate application. Respondent did not consult with the Division of Real Estate to determine whether he should mention the Illinois finding of guilt, probation and payment of fine, on the application for licensure. On or about March 18, 1996, in reliance upon Respondent's application, the State of Florida issued Respondent a license as a real estate broker. Other Applications; Other Convictions In addition to his licensure as a real estate broker in Florida, Mr. Gensen is also licensed as a real estate salesman. When he applied for his real estate salesman's license, he answered no to the question about whether he had ever been convicted of a crime or had a criminal record. Mr. Gensen testified that the 1984 battery in Illinois was not the only conviction in his past. "There was [another] one thirty-five or forty years ago. I can't remember the exact date. [It was also] a traffic argument." (Tr. 14.) No Other Administrative Complaints Mr. Gensen, in his several capacities as a licensee or holder of a privilege from the states of Illinois and Florida and the federal government, has never been disciplined or had to answer to an administrative complaint with the exception of one time: this case initiated by the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint in this case seeks action against Mr. Gensen's real estate broker's license only. It does not ask the Florida Real Estate Commission or any other authority to take action against his salesman's license. Likewise, the complaint is based solely on the 1984 battery. There is no mention or allegation in the complaint relating to another conviction thirty-five or forty years ago. Consistent with the findings of fact in paragraphs 23 and 24, above, the Administrative Complaint charges Mr. Gensen with only one count: "the Respondent has obtained a license [the real estate broker's license] by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [s.] 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes." Administrative Complaint, p. 2. Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment At the close of the presentation of evidence in this case, Mr. Gensen made a lengthy statement. He admitted that he had been "guilty of making a mistake on my application. I failed to put down that I was found guilty of a charge of battery and fined . . . and given supervision . . . " . (Tr. 22.) Mr. Gensen then reviewed the numerous times in Florida, Illinois and with the federal government that he had applied for licensure or some sort of privilege in which the applications asked whether he had ever been convicted of a crime or had a criminal record. "In every instance in all these years I have put down that I had no criminal record. The battery charge never entered my mind when I filled out the application[s]." (Tr. 23.) Mr. Gensen also pointed out that revoking his license would cause him little if any financial loss because he has not been very active as a real estate broker in the last four years. Mr. Gensen closed with the following statement, So why am I here? Because I did not knowingly commit fraud, misrepresentation and concealment. I'm here because I try to be honest and I keep my word all my life and I did not cheat anybody. I make mistakes, but I'm not a dishonest person and I don't want to be found guilty of doing something dishonest." (Tr. 23.)
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Edward Gensen to have violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding. It is further recommended that his real estate broker's license be suspended for three months to be followed by nine months of probation, by the end of which he must have informed all licensing authorities of his criminal conviction for battery in 1984 and any other criminal conviction prior to the date he applied for his real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine M. Ryall, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Law Office of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 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 Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Richard T. Farrell, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondents were licensed real estate brokers at all times relevant to this proceeding. Robert M. Hall, Respondent LaRossa's nephew, gave LaRossa an $18,000 bank draft around January 1, 1982, toward purchase of an apartment building. LaRossa was to acquire the property in partnership with Hall. The deal fell through and Hall sought return of his $18,000. However, Respondents had not placed the funds in a trust or escrow account but had diverted them to other uses. As a result, LaRossa was not able to return the funds on demand by Hall. Hall then accepted LaRossa's promissory note to be discharged by June 2, 1982. However, when the debt remained unpaid, Hall filed a civil suit in Dade County and obtained a judgment for $22,145 on March 23, 1983. LaRossa finally paid this amount plus interest to the satisfaction of Hall on May 1, 1984. Hall, who was the complaining witness in this proceeding, stated that he "had no trust arrangement" with LaRossa in his letter acknowledging receipt of the funds. However, Hall had turned over the $18,000 to LaRossa with an expectation of investment or return and was distressed at LaRossa's failure to return the funds on demand. Although Hall and LaRossa are related and planned to enter a joint business venture, Hall relied on LaRossa to arrange the purchase of the commercial property in his capacity as a broker. There was no legitimate reason for Respondents to divert Hall's deposit, which was held by them in a trust capacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the real estate brokers licenses held by Respondents for a period of 90 days. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 14th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred A. Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 3202 Monroe Gelb, Esquire GELB and SPATZ 3400 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33145 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relative to the issues presented herein, Respondent, Nick A. Amorginos, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida under Florida license number 001406. On June 27, 1984, he was found guilty in the Circuit Court of Marion County, in case number 83-227-CF-B-Z, based on his plea of nolo contendere of the offense of bookmaking and was thereafter placed on probation for a period of 18 months. As part of the conditions of probation, Respondent was ordered to pay $5,000.00 as investigative costs to the Ocala Police Department Law Enforcement Trust Fund. Notwithstanding his conviction of bookmaking, Respondent has a reputation in and around his community of being fair, honest, and informed in both his personal and business dealings. Such individuals as the Mayor of Tarpon Springs, Florida, the City Manager of Tarpon Springs, the priest of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Tarpon Springs, and others who have known him for an extended period of time concur in that analysis. His business associates such as a mortgage broker, a consulting engineer, employees, and those who have retained him to represent them in real estate transactions concur indicating confidence in his professional ability and personal integrity even though they, or some of them, are aware of the charge of which he has been found guilty. Other real estate brokers and professionals in other disciplines such as pharmacy and insurance agree.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Approximately three years ago, when he was 21 years of age, Rudolpho A. Herrera ran afoul of the law. He made arrangements to have a friend obtain from another acquaintance of Herrera's between four to seven grams of cocaine. Herrera's friend received the cocaine and transported it across state lines to North Carolina where his scheme was uncovered and he was arrested. When questioned by the authorities, the friend revealed Herrera's involvement in the matter. Herrera was subsequently extradited to North Carolina and charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 846. He pled guilty to the charge and, on September 2, 1986, was convicted in federal district court of the offense. Never before had he, nor has he since, been convicted of any crime. Because of his cooperation following his apprehension, Herrera was treated leniently by the court. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, the first six months of which he was to spend in a community treatment center. The remainder of his three-year sentence of imprisonment was to be suspended and he was to be placed on five years probation after his release from the community treatment center. While confined to the community treatment center, Herrera was a model inmate. As a result of his exemplary behavior, he was released from the center and placed on probation two months early. During the time that Herrera has been on probation he has been a law abiding citizen. Moreover, he has complied with all of the terms and conditions of his probation. Herrera is now, and has been since the period of his confinement at the community treatment center, gainfully employed. For the past year and a half he has been employed by Five Stars Furniture Corporation as a manager of a furniture store. He is a trusted employee who has been given the keys to the store and the code to its alarm system. Herrera has been fair and honest in his dealings with his employer, his subordinates and his customers. Although his current employment situation is a positive one, Herrera wants to enter the real estate field to better himself. Charles W. Cadman, the Vice-President of Coconut Grove Realty Corporation, has expressed a willingness to assist Herrera in obtaining his real estate salesman license and to employ Herrera once he obtains his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application when he is able to show that his rehabilitation is sufficiently complete to entitle him to such licensure. See Karl v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 229 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(Commission may not preclude an applicant whose application has been denied because of a prior felony conviction from reapplying for licensure and showing subsequent rehabilitation. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Juan DeJesus Gonzalez, Esquire 2153 Coral Way, Suite 601 Miami, Florida 33145 Lawrence Gendzrier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent obtained his real estate license by means of misrepresentation or concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Title 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is and, at all times material hereto, was a duly licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material herein actively engaged in major real estate developments and has also operated on behalf of family owned corporations. During the relevant time period, Respondent has not engaged in the general real estate brokerage business. On August 16, 1984, Respondent was found guilty in federal court of one count of knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully participating in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894. Respondent was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $2,000. The incident which gave rise to the conviction occurred in and while the Respondent was a resident of Illinois, and prior to the Respondent's being issued his Florida real estate license. Respondent testified that in 1983 he owned a Chicago nightclub. According to Respondent, during that time period someone owed Respondent a gambling debt in the amount of $36,000. The person who owed the money to Respondent said he would pay the debt. Because the Respondent was leaving town, he asked his wife's uncle to pick up the money. The Respondent indicated, that unknown to him, the uncle used unlawful means in an attempt to collect the funds. It was this collection effort which eventually lead to the Respondent's arrest, not guilty plea, and guilty verdict in 1984. The Respondent moved to Florida and, subsequently, on or about January 19, 1994, he applied to become licensed as a Florida real estate salesperson. The application contained an affidavit which provided in part that "such responses are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever." Petitioner's application form contained Question 9 which requested information concerning an applicant's criminal history. In pertinent part the question is as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled or pardoned. * * * Your answer to this will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. In response to this question, Respondent answered in the negative by marking the "no" box. On April 18, 1994, the State of Florida issued Respondent license #0611142 as a real estate salesperson. On January 10, 1994, Respondent signed the application. By his duly notarized signature, the Respondent swore that all answers and information provided on his application were true, correct, and complete. On or about January 16, 1995, Respondent applied to become licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Respondent, again, checked "no" to Question 9 on his broker's application as to whether or not he had ever been convicted or found guilty of any crime. Also, Respondent again swore that all answers and information contained in his application to become a real estate broker in the State of Florida were true, correct, and complete. Again, the Respondent's signature was duly notarized. The broker's application was approved for the Petitioner. However, a broker's license was not issued because Respondent failed to pass the state examination required to be licensed as a broker. Respondent testified at the formal hearing that the reason he did not disclose his prior conviction on his real estate applications was that he had spoken to his brother who advised him that matters over 10 years old did not have to be disclosed. Respondent did not consult with an attorney, the Division of Real Estate or anyone else other than his brother about how to answer Question 9 on his real estate application. Respondent's stated justification for checking "no" on his license applications lacked credibility given the clear wording of Question 9 on the application form. The Respondent has had no other incidents of criminal problems. Similarly, there have been no civil judgments involving the Respondent and dishonest dealing. Finally, there have been no prior disciplinary matters against the Respondent. The Respondent has served in the military and was honorably discharged and earned a two-year degree in electronics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes; revoking his real estate license; and imposing a fine of $1000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this * day of February, 1998. *Filed with the Clerk undated. -ac COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 July 21, 1999 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Re: Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate vs. Frank Efstathios Touloumis DOAH Case No. 97-3722 Dear Mr. Solares: Enclosed is the Amended Recommended Order issued in the referenced case. It was issued in order to correct a scrivenners error in page 8 of the original order. Please replace page 1 and page 8 enclosing for pages 1 and 8 oriignally sent to you. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this might have caused. Sincerely, CSH/scl Enclosures cc: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge
Findings Of Fact Respondent, JAMES M. THOMAS, was at all times material to this proceeding a real estate broker licensed with the Florida Board of Real Estate and had been issued license number 0088265. Respondent, JAMES THOMAS REALTY, INC., was at all times material to this proceeding a Florida corporation licensed as a real estate broker and was issued license number 0180981. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, JAMES M. THOMAS, was the qualifying officer of the Respondent, JAMES THOMAS REALTY, INC. On May 7, 1980, Respondents, by and through their attorney, filed a civil lawsuit against Monroe Gray and Shirley Gray in which the Respondents sought the payment of a real estate brokerage commission in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. On May 7, 1980, the Respondents, by and through their attorney, filed a Notice of Lis Pendens in connection with the above referenced lawsuit. The sole purpose in the filing of the above referenced Complaint and Notice of Lis Pendens was to protect and collect a real estate brokerage commission which the Respondents believed was owed to them by the owners of the property. To the knowledge of Respondents, the Grays had no other assets located in Florida. On June 3, 1981, the Respondents, by and through their attorney, filed a Release of Lis Pendens on this property.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining Respondents $250.00 each. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Carl D. Hill, Petitioner, applied for licensure to the Florida Real Estate Commission, Respondent, on or about October 19, 1983, and subsequently received a letter of denial dated December 6, 1983. The denial was based upon Sections 475.17(1) and 475.25, F.S., and specifically cited Petitioner's prior arrest in 1980 and criminal record. By Order of the Circuit Court dated June 12, 1984, the record of Petitioner's prior arrest and plea of guilty was expunged and sealed. Petitioner had originally been placed on probation for five years, but that probation was terminated early for good behavior after three years, on or about April 16, 1984. Petitioner has not been arrested for any offense since 1980, and has at all times been employed. His reputation in the community is very good. Petitioner is currently co-owner of Interstate Mobile Homes and handles sales, service and set-up of mobile homes. His partner is a licensed real estate broker who also operates Sun American Realty in the same building. There is no evidence in the record which would indicate that Petitioner has at any time engaged in activities which would require a real estate salesman's license. All such activities are handled by his partner and co-owner who is licensed as a real estate broker. Petitioner held a real estate salesman's license from November 1981 until January 18, 1983. Petitioner's previous license was revoked pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(m), F.S., but he was not precluded from reapplying for reinstatement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson be APPROVED. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 26th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Crooks, Esquire Crooks, Vetter, Cuellar and Blau, P.A. 4202 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Ralph Armstead, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold R. Huff, Director Dept. of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent filed application for registration as a real estate salesman on June 24, 1974 and was issued a license pursuant to this application on October 25, 1974. At the time of the filing of the application and subsequent thereto, Respondent was employed by Florida Savings and Loan Services, Inc. and its predecessor company, Florida Informanagement Services, Inc. in the capacity of a real estate appraiser and head of the appraisal department for said company. On July 26, 1975 Respondent performed appraisal services on behalf of Central Development, Inc. to ascertain the fair market rental appraisal of 5 Pizza Huts. For this service his company, then Florida Informanagement Services, Inc. billed Central Development, Inc. $3,000. Respondent performed other appraisals during the period in question which were not specifically delineated at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro, has been a licensed real estate broker. She is the qualifying broker for the company known as Orange Management Corp. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees in the State of Florida. On or about July 20, 1994, the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of unlawful use of a notary. As a result, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for a period of six months, and required to make payments and serve community service as directed by the court order. The plea and conviction stemmed from Respondent's conduct in connection with a warranty deed (the deed) which was recorded in the public record for Indian River County, Florida, on October 12, 1993. The deed conveyed a condominium unit from Leon R. Leavitt to the G. Corsoro Family Trust. The deed, notarized on October 1, 1989, purportedly bore the signatures of Leon R. Leavitt, the grantor; Mamie Cellura, a witness; Marie Copley, a witness; and Joseph Cellura, the notary before whom the document was executed. In fact, the document was not signed by Marie Copley or Leon R. Leavitt. At the time of the hearing, Mamie Cellura and Joseph Cellura were deceased. They were the parents of Marie Copley and her sister, the Respondent. At the time the deed was executed, Respondent signed Mr. Leavitt's name under a power of attorney he had reportedly given to her. Respondent further claims that Mamie Cellura signed for herself as a witness, signed for Marie Copley as a witness, and signed her husband's name with him (he had Parkinson's disease) as the notary. All this was completed, according to Respondent, Marie Copley, and Leon R. Leavitt, with everyone's full consent and knowledge. Marie Copley and Leon R. Leavitt were not present when the document was executed. Since they claim Respondent was authorized to execute the document, they are not concerned as to who signed the document but believe Mamie Cellura and Respondent signed as represented by Respondent. According to Nicholas Burczyk, the Respondent signed the document for all signatories on the instrument. Even by Respondent's account, the named parties did not execute the deed as presented on the face of the document. Respondent was originally charged with uttering a forged instrument and forgery. She chose to enter the plea as to the misdemeanor charge of unlawful use of a notary because she was "financially unable to pay to go to trial."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, through the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order determining the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro violated Section 475.25(f), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand together with an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 10th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0334 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is accepted as stated in findings of fact paragraphs 6 through 14 above; otherwise rejected as incomplete statement of fact. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. Respondent's assessment of the charges against Respondent together with the argument has been considered in the preparation of the foregoing. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Michael F. Berry MICHAEL F. BERRY, P.A. 2145-15th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Edwin Costa held real estate salesman license number 0017520 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent currently uses his license at a real estate firm located in Ocala, Florida. On March 1, 1983, respondent was arrested on various charges relating to bookmaking. On June 27, 1984, respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of bookmaking (gambling), a third degree felony. Adjudication was withheld and Costa was placed on 18 months probation and fined $10,000. After successfully serving all conditions of his probation, and paying the fine, respondent's probation was terminated on March 25, 1985. Respondent has a number of successful business endeavors in Ocala, Florida. Despite his conviction, a cross-section of businessmen testified they would continue to do business with Costa, and had complete trust and confidence with him. His creditworthiness is still considered excellent by a local bank, and Costa has secured a substantial performance bond since his conviction. His reputation in the community is one of being a moral and honest person, and former clientele would not hesitate to use his services as a realtor.
