Findings Of Fact At all times here involved, Respondents Robert P. Powers and Allen L. Lindow were real estate brokers registered with Petitioner, Alan M. Levy was a salesman registered with Petitioner, and Quality Rentals, Inc. was registered as a corporate broker. During the summer of 1978 Respondent Levy became interested in acquiring a corporate broker and learned from Cynthia Odeneal that she had an inactive corporation that she could transfer to him. This corporation, Quality Rentals, Inc., was registered with the Secretary of State in 1977, but the authorized stock had never been issued nor had the corporation ever engaged in business. Ms. Odeneal assigned her subscription rights to the stock in the corporation to Levy by letter of 15 September 1978 which was received by him in October 1978. At the time Quality Rentals was incorporated Ms. Odeneal was doing business in Gainesville as Gates Rentals. The mailing address supplied to the Secretary of State for Quality Rentals, Inc. was Ms. Odeneal's residence address. Rose J. Vines was employed by Ms. Odeneal in Gator Rentals. In the summer of 1978 Ms. Odeneal contemplated moving Gator Rentals to a new address in Gainesville, but after she and Ms. Vines visited those offices, Ms. Odeneal decided to close Gator Rentals. On 15 September 1978 Ms. Vines leased this office space she and Ms. Odeneal had looked at and opened a lease referral service under the name of Quality Rentals. No authorization to use the name Quality Rentals was given by Ms. Odeneal and when she became aware of the use of her corporate name, she told Ms. Vines to stop. This occurred after Ms. Odeneal had transferred the subscription rights to Quality Rentals, Inc. stock to Levy. Ms. Vines paid the first month's rent in September, but no further rental payments were made. The second-month rental, due October 5, 1978, was extended until 15 October. When payment was not received then, the lease was terminated. During the period of September and October 1978, Rose Vines d/b/a Quality Rentals, advertised a lease referral service and charged fees to allow customers to look at lists of places for rent. In November 1978 Levy, holding subscription rights to the corporation, entered into discussions with Respondent Lindow for the latter to serve as broker and active firm member of Quality Rentals, Inc. Lindow, with the assistance of Levy, prepared and submitted the application for registration of Quality Rentals, Inc. (Exhibit 1) dated 15 November 1979. Lindow never performed any broker functions or received any compensation from Quality Rentals. By letter dated 8 January 1979 Lindow resigned as active firm member of Quality Rentals, Inc. By application dated 11 January 1979 Robert Powers applied for registration as active firm member of Quality Rentals, Inc. On December 5, 1978 the Secretary of State dissolved Quality Rentals, Inc. for failure to file the annual corporation report due before July 1978. This dissolution, effective 8 December 1978, was mailed to Quality Rentals at the former address of Gator Rentals, then closed. Notice of this dissolution was not received by Levy or anyone at Quality Rentals, Inc. until after the corporate report submitted January 1979 was received by the Secretary of State's office. Quality Rentals was then notified of the dissolution and the additional fees necessary to restore the corporation. Upon receipt of this information, the attorney for Quality Rentals submitted the necessary documentation and fees and Quality Rentals, Inc. was restored to good standing. At no time during this period was any Respondent aware of the activities of Ms. Vines in Gainesville under the name of Quality Rentals.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k), Florida Statutes, 1/ by: committing fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or breach of trust in a business transaction; acting as a broker; and failing to place funds with her registered employer; 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 licensed as a real estate sales person under license number 0555229. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a sales person percentage A.A. Carnes, Inc., 1399 W. Highway 434, Longwood, Florida 32750. In August, 1993, Respondent operated as a licensed real estate sales person for Mannix Realty, Inc. Respondent managed rental property located at 3551 Malona Drive in Orlando, Florida. The rental property was owned by Ramesh and Harjit Zala who lived outside the state (the "Zalas" property). On November 1, 1993, Respondent solicited and negotiated a lease agreement with Scott and Winifred Houldin at the monthly rental of $2,100 (the "tenants"). The tenants paid two months rent to Respondent as a reservation deposit. Respondent appropriated the reservation deposit and rental income for her own personal use. She failed to disclose the rental agreement, reservation deposit, or rental income to Mr. Amos W. Harris, Respondent's broker. Respondent requested the owners and the tenants to direct all correspondence to Respondent's home address. The owners and tenants complied with Respondent's request. Respondent did not disclose the transaction to Mr. Harris. Respondent neither accounted for nor returned the rental funds to her broker or to the owners. In August 1993, Respondent managed rental property located at 1346 Stearman Court in Orlando and owned by Robert and Patricia Sheetz (the "Sheetz" property). The owners lived outside the state. After Respondent assumed responsibility for the Sheetz property, the rental income declined and expenses increased. Although the Sheetz property was rented, Respondent failed to deliver the rental income from the Sheetz property. In December, 1993, the owners discovered that the rental property was in fact occupied. They informed Mr. Harris, and demanded delivery of the rental income. Mr. Harris was unaware that the property was rented or that Respondent had failed to deliver the rental income from the property. On December 29, 1993, Mr. Harris confronted Respondent. Respondent paid $475 of the rental income to the owners of the rental property. Mr. Harris subsequently terminated Respondent's employment.
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 Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), (k), and 475.42(1)(b); and revoking Respondent's real estate sales license. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. 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 27th day of March 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in relocating and reestablishment of his small business pursuant to section 421.55, Florida Statutes (2009),1/ as implemented by Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-66.007, which, in turn, incorporates by reference the provisions of 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 24, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally-Assisted Programs (effective October 1, 2006),2/ and the Florida Department of Transportation Right of Way Manual 9.3.15, and, if Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement, the amount owed to him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and witnesses' testimony, the undersigned found the following facts: The Department is the state agency that has responsibility for paying certain relocation and reestablishment expenses of businesses that have been displaced because of a public transportation project. See § 421.55, Fla. Stat. Sometime in 1999 to 2000, Mr. Carey purchased eight rental units in Hillsborough County, Florida, as an investment property. Mr. Carey managed the rental property and testified that he would advertise vacancies through "word of mouth." The record shows that these rental units were rented weekly and included written and verbal leases. In 2005, the Department informed Mr. Carey that his rental property would be subject of an eminent domain taking and informed Mr. Carey about the law authorizing the Department to pay certain expenses in relocating and reestablishing a small business. On December 6, 2005, Mr. Carey filled out a Business Survey Questionnaire for the Department, stating his desire to relocate his rental business. The Department acquired Mr. Carey's property on April 18, 2009. By mid July 2009, Mr. Carey contacted Mr. Nappi to determine whether or not he was still eligible to receive relocation and reestablishment reimbursement for his small business. Mr. Nappi determined that Mr. Carey remained eligible to apply for reimbursement and informed him of that fact. On August 28, 2009, Mr. Carey purchased a replacement property located at 19002 Apian Way, Lutz, Florida, for $300,000.00. The replacement property contained a house that had been the homestead property of the prior owner. Mr. Carey credibly testified that the purpose of purchasing this replacement property was "to get back into the rental business" and that he advertised the replacement property for rent by "word of mouth." Receipts introduced into evidence show that Mr. Carey began making repairs and purchasing materials as early as the first week in September. Mr. Carey testified, on cross-examination, that he could not remember the exact date when he listed the replacement property for sale, or the exact date when he entered into a contract for the sale of the replacement property. Mr. Carey testified that he would speculate that the contract for sale of the replacement property occurred in early October 2009. On October 15, 2009, Mr. Nappi went to the replacement property with Mr. Carey to review the work that Mr. Carey had already begun on the replacement property and to discuss the expenses eligible for reimbursement. In reviewing Mr. Carey's claimed expenses, Mr. Nappi found that the following expenses would be eligible for reimbursement: (1) the drywall work detailed in Exhibit A; (2) $561.00 worth of the receipts of materials purchased from Home Depot; and (3) the painting expenses detailed in Exhibit C. Mr. Nappi also testified that in reviewing the claimed expenses that Mr. Carey would be eligible for reimbursement of a portion of the replacement property's ad valorem taxes. According to Mr. Nappi, Mr. Carey would have been eligible to receive the difference of the amount of the property taxes between the acquired property and the replacement property in the amount of $849.56. The only expenses that Mr. Nappi identified as not being reasonable were for hauling away yard waste contained in Exhibit D. According to Mr. Nappi, the Department questioned the amount of the charges and determined that an appropriate amount would be $1,200.00 as opposed to the $2,450.00 sought by Mr. Carey. Consequently, the majority of the expenses claimed by Mr. Carey were eligible items for reimbursement. On November 4, 2009, the Department sent Mr. Carey a letter denying his eligibility to receive reimbursement for expenses in relocating and reestablishing his small rental business. The Department denied Mr. Carey's eligibility because the updated TRIM notice for the property tax, that Mr. Carey provided the Department, showed the replacement property was homestead property. Because the replacement property was homestead, the Department reasoned that Mr. Carey had not reestablished a small business. Mr. Carey informed Mr. Nappi that the replacement property was not homestead property and that the TRIM notice was wrong. In response, on November 9, 2009, Mr. Nappi wrote the Hillsborough County Tax Collector to determine whether or not Mr. Carey's replacement property was homestead property. On November 23, 2009, while the Department waited for a response from the Hillsborough County Tax Collector, Mr. Carey closed on the sale of the replacement property for $332,500.00. Mr. Carey did not inform the Department that the replacement property had been sold. In February 2010, the Hillsborough County Tax Collector informed the Department that the replacement property was not homestead. Also, the Department learned for the first time that Mr. Carey had sold the replacement property. After learning that Mr. Carey had sold the replacement property, Mr. Nappi contacted his supervisor Elbert Johnson (Mr. Johnson). Mr. Nappi informed Mr. Johnson that "it did not appear that the reestablishment status of the landlord had been in fact established[,]" and the claim would be denied. Mr. Nappi testified the Department attempted to determine whether or not Mr. Carey had reestablished his rental business by examining Mr. Carey's efforts to rent the replacement property. Mr. Nappi directed a right-of-way specialist for the Department to contact realtors, who were associated with the property, to determine if Mr. Carey had listed the property for rent; to contact the local newspaper to learn if the property had been advertised for rent; and to conduct an internet search of the property. According to Mr. Nappi, the realtor indicated that she was not aware of whether or not Mr. Carey listed the property for rent and learned nothing from the newspaper or internet search. Mr. Nappi admitted that the Department did not contact Mr. Carey to ask him about his efforts to rent the property. The Department did not contact Mr. Carey or ask him to provide any information about his efforts to rent the property. Consequently, the Department did not have before it any information concerning Mr. Carey's efforts as to "word of mouth" advertising of the property. Mr. Knight, the state administrator of Relocation Assistance, testified that asking Mr. Carey about his efforts to rent the property would have been helpful information to have in considering the reimbursement. However, Mr. Knight acknowledged that Mr. Carey's selling of the home prior to determination of whether or not he was entitled to reimbursement made the issue moot. In the Department's estimation, Mr. Carey had simply "flipped a house" and had not reestablished his business. On March 25, 2010, the Department informed Mr. Carey that it was denying his application for reimbursement because he was not eligible because he had not reestablished his small rental business at the replacement property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order affirming its denial of Mr. Carey's application for reimbursement of reestablishment expenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0319604. The last license issued Respondent was as a salesman, c/o Referral Realty Center, Inc. (herein Referral) at 8974 Seminole Boulevard, Seminole, Florida. On December 1, 1988, Respondent entered into a management agreement with Madeira Beach Yacht Club Condominium Association, Inc. (herein Madeira) to serve as property manager. Respondent assumed the property manager position with Madeira in June of 1987, which was formalized by a written agreement in December 1988. While acting as property manager for Madeira, Respondent handled the rental transactions of individual units for owners. In return for her services, Respondent was compensated based on a commission of 10% to 20% of the monthly rental. On at least one occasion, Respondent rented an individual unit for owners for a term greater than one year. Respondent was aware that she was renting the one unit for a term in excess of one year. Respondent signed leases for units belonging to individual owners as the rental agent or representative. Respondent used the commissions that she received to defray operating expenses for her rental business such as cleaning fees for the units and for personal compensation. Respondent maintained a bank account at the First Federal of Largo Savings and Loan Association entitled "Dorothy K. Livingston Rental Account" for her rental business. Deposits to that account were rental monies received from tenants from which disbursements were made to unit owners and the remaining commissions went to Respondent as compensation. The rental account maintained by Respondent was neither an account with her employing real estate broker, nor was it an escrow account. Respondent placed security deposits that she received from tenants in the referenced rental account that she maintained. Respondent did not inform her employing broker of the receipt of security deposits nor did she discuss with her employing broker any of her activities involving rental of units for owners at Madeira. However, there is credible testimony evidencing that her broker was knowledgeable of Respondent's activities relative to her rental of units for owners. During May 1989, Respondent placed her real estate license with Referral Realty Center (Referral) as her employing broker. She did so in order to receive payment for referring prospects to Referral. On or about May 22, 1989, Respondent entered into an independent contractor agreement with Referral. That agreement provided in pertinent part that: Independent contractor agrees that Independent contractor will not list any real estate for sale, exchange, lease or rental... . Independent contractor agrees to refer all prospective clients, customers, buyers and sellers of which Independent contractor becomes aware to the Center... . Independent contractor agrees that so long as this Agreement is in force and effect the Independent contractor will not refer any prospective seller or buyer to another real estate broker... . 9. Independent contractor agrees to act, and to represent that he or she is acting solely as a referral associate of the Center... . While employed by Referral, Respondent also received commissions from individual unit owners at Madeira. During the time when Respondent had her license listed with Referral, she also received commissions from Referral for prospects she generated while renting units for owners and acting as property manager at Madeira. Respondent received a copy of a letter from attorney R. Michael Kennedy, addressed to J.L. Cleghorn of Building Managers International, Inc., dated September 5, 1989. In that letter, attorney Kennedy expressed his opinion that condominium or cooperative managers are exempted from the licensing provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and that receipt of a percentage of rental proceeds would not be precluded even if the manager was salaried. The Kennedy letter erroneously states support for attorney Kennedy's opinion by Alexander M. Knight, Chief of the Bureau of Condominiums, and Knight so advised attorney Kennedy of that erroneous support by a subsequent letter to him. It is unclear to what extent Respondent apprised attorney Kennedy as to the specifics of her activities and to what extent she relied on his opinion prior to engaging in her property manager's rental and referral activities. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Respondent did not seek advice from Petitioner as to whether her activities fell within the guidelines of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is familiar with the statutory definitions of a broker and salesman and what activities constitute brokerage and sales activities. During times material, Respondent's employing broker, David Hurd, was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, and the broker of record for Referral for procuring prospects and making referrals of real estate activities. Employment under an independent contractor agreement is considered employment under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,500.00, issue a written reprimand to her, place her license on probation for a period of one (1) year with the further condition that she complete 60 hours of continuing education. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 31st day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jerry Gottlieb, Esquire GOTTLIEB & GOTTLIEB, P.A. 2753 State Road 580, Suite 204 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) proved that Derek Welling (Respondent) is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and whether Petitioner proved that Respondent is guilty of failing to account and deliver funds in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; and if so, what is the appropriate discipline?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed realtor and has been at all times material hereto, having been issued license number 0582890 under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In 1989, Respondent founded UK Realty, a real estate brokerage firm, with his son-in-law, Russell Christner. From 1989 thru the summer of 1996, Respondent primarily served as UK Realty's international sales representative while Mr. Christner served as its qualified broker. Respondent traveled to various trade shows primarily in Europe and encouraged customers to purchase rental properties in the central Florida area. In 1991, Respondent and Mr. Christner formed a short- term rental property management company known as Connoisseur Homes, Inc. (Connoisseur) to manage the rental properties of UK Realty's domestic and international clients. In 1993, Respondent and Christner sold a one-third interest in Connoisseur to Mr. Graham Greene, who immediately became president of Connoisseur and served as its day-to-day operations manager. Although Respondent maintained a one-third ownership in Connoisseur, he remained the company's international sales associate. Respondent was generally not involved in the day-to-day management and operations of Connoisseur and had little personal knowledge of the factual circumstances surrounding the client complaints that form the basis of Petitioner's allegations. Each of the allegations levied against Respondent in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint involves complaints filed by property owners relating to contract services with Connoisseur. There is no evidence in the record that any of the property owners was dissatisfied with the services of Respondent or Connoisseur prior to the summer/fall of 1996. Hart Property In 1994, Michael Hart, a resident of England, engaged the services of UK Realty and purchased a rental home property in Davenport, Florida. Mr. Hart was referred to Mr. Richard Wilkes, a representative of Connoisseur, to manage his property. On May 17, 1995, Mr. Hart contracted with Connoisseur to provide rental management services. Mr. Hart placed an initial deposit with Connoisseur to purchase various items and maintained a $1000 balance in an escrow account to pay the annual taxes and monthly expenses associated with the management of the property. Pursuant to his contract with Connoisseur, Mr. Hart received periodic statements from Connoisseur detailing all moneys collected from tenants, escrow balances, and any other activity in his account. According to the statements Mr. Hart received, Connoisseur booked nine persons to stay in his property between October of 1996 and January of 1997. While Connoisseur received approximately $9,844.60 for these rentals, Mr. Hart received none of the rental proceeds. On or about January 3, 1997, Mr. Hart received notice from the Polk County tax collector indicating that the "tourist development tax" associated with his property was delinquent for the months of September, October, and November of 1996. In addition, the letter indicated that Connoisseur made a payment to Polk County for September 1996 that was returned for insufficient funds. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hart was advised that the cable and electricity to the property had been disconnected for non-payment. Glass Property In May 1993, Mr. Colin Glass purchased a rental home in Davenport, Florida, and contracted with Connoisseur to manage the property. Pursuant to the contract, Connoisseur agreed to advertise and list the property, manage the reservations and timely pay the rental property's expenses. Mr. Glass agreed to receive $500.00 for each week that the property was rented minus a cleaning fee. Pursuant to the contract, Mr. Glass placed a $1000 deposit with Connoisseur to pay the initial maintenance costs associated with the property. Thereafter, Mr. Glass received periodic statements from Connoisseur detailing the funds received, occupancy, and expenses paid to manage his property. The statement for the month ending November 30, 1996, indicates that Connoisseur collected $5,290.00 in rental proceeds from tenants who rented the property between August of 1996 and January of 1997 and paid $110 for cleaning services on November 8 and 21, 1996. In November, 1996, Mr. Glass requested a detailed accounting from Connoisseur regarding his property. On December 6, 1996, Mr. Glass received a written letter on Connoisseur stationary, signed by Kelleen Newman, a Connoisseur employee responsible for preparing accounting statements during the relevant period. The letter advised Mr. Glass that Connoisseur owed Mr. Glass approximately $1,750.00 for payments received pursuant to bookings under the names Beaumont and Tullet. To date, Mr. Glass has not received the rental proceeds. In addition, Connoisseur failed to pay the property tax bill associated with the Glass property as required by the management contract, and it became delinquent. Hamlyn Property On September 22, 1993, John Hamlyn purchased a home in Davenport, Florida. Five months later, on February 22, 1994, Mr. Hamlyn hired Connoisseur to manage his rental property. Pursuant to the contract, Connoisseur agreed to advertise and rent the property, manage the collections, and pay the operational expenses. Mr. Hamlyn placed a $500.00 deposit with Connoisseur to perform the contract and was required to maintain that balance in the account. In November of 1995, Respondent and Connoisseur increased the required escrow balance to $1000.00. In January of 1997, immediately following the demise of Connoisseur, Mr. Hamlyn maintained an escrow account with Connoisseur. Mr. Hamlyn did not receive an accounting of the escrowed funds or a refund of the balance. The evidence is undisputed that Mr. Hart, Mr. Glass, and Mr. Hamlyn each delivered funds in trust to Connoisseur which were not accounted for or returned. The evidence is undisputed that Connoisseur, in 1996, received rental proceeds as agents on behalf of Mr. Hart and Mr. Glass, which were not remitted to the owners. The evidence is undisputed that Connoisseur, in 1996, failed to pay certain utility bills and tax bills as required in its contracts with Mr. Hart and Mr. Glass. Connoisseur's Collapse Connoisseur's operational and financial failure surfaced on September 13, 1996, when Mr. Green, the company's co-owner and day-to-day operations manager, without notice, resigned as President of Connoisseur and formed a competing property management company. To make matters worse, within days, Mr. Green hired key staff away from Connoisseur including Richard Stanton, Connoisseur's office manager, accountant and licensed real estate broker, as well as Dyer Scott, the company's book-keeper. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Green's new company was operational and selectively securing new management agreements with Connoisseur's client list. In response, Respondent immediately evaluated Connoisseur's financial and operational status and attempted to manage its problems. Respondent advised all of Connoisseur's homeowners of the company's status, including the departure of the key operational owner and employees, but tried to assure them that the company was headed in the right direction. In fact, in a news update dated October 15, 1996, Respondent advised all of the clients, including Mr. Hart, Mr. Glass, and Mr. Hamlyn of the following: Upon investigation we were appalled to find that most of our homeowners are waiting on payments and upon further investigation we found that in many cases payment had never been collected from the tour operator. This situation is being corrected immediately and manual invoices are being prepared for collection . . . I'm happy to say that approximately $200,000 in back bookings will be properly allocated to our homeowners this month. Connoisseur did not recover. Within two months, 150 of Connoisseur's 270 homeowners cancelled their management contract with Connoisseur and on January 1, 1997, Respondent sold his interest in Connoisseur to Richard Wilkes and received a total of $15,000.00. Respondent experienced complete financial loss as a result of the demise of Connoisseur. His home was foreclosed and his vehicle was repossessed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this matter be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Victor L. Chapman, Esquire Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A. 18 Wall Street Post Office Box 3826 Orlando, Florida 32802-3826 Christopher J. DeCosta, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building, North Tower 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N809 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Children and Families, properly rejected all bids received on an Invitation to Bid on Proposed Lease No. 590:2622.
Findings Of Fact The Existing Lease and the Decision to Look for New Space. District 7 of the Respondent, the Department of Children and Families (at all times relevant to this proceeding, the Department of Children and Families was known as the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services)(hereinafter referred to as the “District”), leases approximately 26,955 spare feet of office space located in Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida. The space is used as a client service center. Pursuant to the District’s current lease, the lease will expire on April 30, 1997. The current lease (hereinafter referred to as the “Existing Lease”) was still in effect at the time of the formal hearing of this matter. The Existing Lease also provides for a five-year renewal. For the first two years of the renewal period, the Existing Lease provides for a rental rate of $11.50 per square foot. For the third and fourth years of the renewal the rate is $11.75 and for the last year, $12.00. In June of 1995, the District submitted a Letter of Agency Staffing (hereinafter referred to as a “LAS”) and a Request for Prior Approval of Space Need (hereinafter referred to as a “RSN”), to the Department of Management Services. Pursuant to the LAS and RSN, the District sought approval from the Department of Management Services to seek a new lease of 26,872 square feet of office space in Palm Bay. The reasons given for seeking approval of a new lease set out in the RSN were as follows: New Service Center in Brevard County(Palm Bay Area). The existing lease is up! 4/30/97. The current space does not adequately provide for : (1) Secured storage, visitation areas, and case file storage. The June of 1995, RSN was approved. The District, however, did not immediately seek the approved space. The evidence failed to prove why. In July of 1996 the District submitted another Request for Space Need (hereinafter referred to as the “Second RSN”). The same amount of space was sought and the same justification for seeking new space was described in the Second RSN. The Second RSN was approved by the Department of Management Services on or about July 8, 1996. The RSN and the Second RSN were prepared by Jim Birch. Mr. Birch is the District’s Facilities Services Manager. The reason for seeking a new lease set out in the RSN and the Second RSN was provided to Mr. Birch by Bill Rawlings and Philip Penley. Mr. Penley is the District’s Sub-District Administrator for Brevard County. Mr. Rawlings is the Program Administrator for Brevard County. The Existing Lease was first entered into in 1977. The amount of space leased has increased over the years and is located in more than one building. Mr. Penley decided to request approval to seek new space in the hopes that the client service center in Palm Bay could be moved under one roof and in the hopes that more ideal space could be obtained. The representation in the RSN and the Second RSN that the existing space “does not adequately provide for: (1) Secured storage, visitation areas, and case file storage” is misleading and incorrect. The programs located in the existing space in Palm Bay can, in fact, be carried out without relocating. The Invitation to Bid. The District released an Invitation to Bid (hereinafter referred to as the “ITB”), between July 16 and July 19, 1996. The ITB provided that the “Project Contact Person” was Mr. Birch. The ITB sought bids on proposed lease number 590:2622, for approximately 26,872 square feet of office space in an existing building. The ITB sought office space in Palm Bay. The building was to be used as the District’s client service center. The term of the lease was to be ten years with five one-year optional renewal periods. The ITB scheduled a pre-bid meeting for August 8, 1996. Attendance at the meeting was not mandatory. The ITB specified, however, that “information and explanations provided at this meeting must be complied with by the bidder ” A representative of Petitioner, Executive Ventures (hereinafter referred to as “Executive”), attended the pre-bid meeting on August 8, 1996. During that meeting, the lessor under the Existing Lease asked questions about the renewal terms of the Existing Lease. Executive’s representative informed Executive of the discussions soon after the meeting. Executive was, therefore, aware of the existence of the Existing Lease and the fact that it could be renewed prior to submitting a bid in response to the ITB. The ITB provided that bids could be submitted at any time up to 10:00 a.m., September 12, 1996. Bids were to be opened at the close of the bidding period. The ITB provided that all bids received were to be evaluated first for technical responsiveness. Nonresponsive bids were to be withdrawn from further consideration. Responsive bids were to be presented to a bid evaluation committee “for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award.” The ITB informed potential bidders that the District reserved the right to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. The first page of the ITB provides that “[t]he Florida Department of [Children and Families] reserves the right to reject any and all bids and award to the bid judged to be in the best interest of the state.” At page A1-5-8 of the ITB the following is provided concerning the rejection of bids: ITB. REJECTION OF BIDS 1. The department reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida. Such rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification which shall be communicated to each rejected bidder by certified mail. [Emphasis in original]. . . . . Bids Submitted in Response to the ITB. A total of four bids were submitted in response to the The bids were opened on September 12, 1996. A bid tabulation sheet was prepared by Mr. Birch. The annual rental rates per square foot for the ten years of the lease were included on the tabulation as required by the ITB. Pursuant to the ITB, no other information was provided at the time the bids were opened and tabulated Executive submitted one of the four bids. Executive’s bid consisted of 90 to 100 pages. Executive expended a good deal of effort and incurred expenses in the amount of approximately $17,000.00 in preparing its bid. The suggestion that Executive incurred unnecessary expenses is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The rental rates per square foot bid by Executive for the term of the proposed leased are as follows: Year Rate 1 $14.56 2 15.00 3 15.53 4 16.08 5 16.73 6 17.40 7 18.10 8 19.01 9 19.96 10 20.96 The District’s Decision to Reject All Bids. Mr. Birch had expected to receive rental rate bids in the range of $12.00 to $13.00. Mr. Birch’s expectation was based upon what he had been told to expect by John Stewart and Mr. Penley. Mr. Stewart is the District’s General Service Manager. Upon tabulating the bids, Mr. Birch discovered that the bids were higher than expected. He realized that the bids were $3.00 per square foot higher than the Existing Lease. Mr. Birch contacted Mr. Stewart and informed him of the difference in rates. Mr. Stewart informed Mr. Penley of the rates that had been bid. Mr. Penley informed Mr. Stewart that the bid rates were too high. Mr. Stewart then informed Sid McAlister, the Deputy District Administrator, and Paul Sneed. Mr. McAlister and Mr. Sneed told Mr. Stewart that the rates bid were excessive. Mr. Stewart subsequently directed Mr. Birch to notify the bidders that all bids were being rejected. Had the bids received in response to the ITB been accepted, the District would have been required to pay an additional approximately $80,000.00 in rent during the first year of the lease. The amount of rent required in the second year would be in excess of $80,000.00. The decision to reject all bids was based upon a realization of the impact the rates contained in the bids would have on the District’s budget if the lowest bid were accepted in relation to the impact on the District’s budget of the rates of the Existing Lease. The District realized that the increase in rent would have a substantial negative impact on its budget. It was also suggested that the impact on the District’s budget as a result of the newly enacted Federal “Welfare Reform Act” was also considered. In particular, the impact of the Welfare Reform Act’s “Work and Gaining Economic Self Sufficiency” or “WAGES” program was considered. The Welfare Reform Act and, consequently WAGES, was signed into law in August of 1996. WAGES was effective October 1, 1996. Among other things, WAGES establishes time limits for the District’s clients' receipt of cash benefits. It also results in the integration of programs of the District and the Department of Labor. This integration of programs will have impacts on the District’s space needs, staffing levels and the ability to pay rental rates in the future. Mr. Penley was aware of WAGES. It was suggested that at the time the ITB was issued little was known about the impact on the District that WAGES would have and that it was not until the bids were received that Mr. Penley had sufficient information concerning WAGES to be concerned about the impact of WAGES on the District’s budget. The weight of the evidence in this case failed to prove that when the decision of the District to reject all bids was made that the decision was based upon WAGES. While the impact of WAGES was of greater concern at the time of the formal hearing, the evidence failed to prove that the District’s concern about WAGES as explained at the formal hearing was taken into account at the time the bids were rejected. Notice of the District’s Decision to Reject All Bids. On September 13, 1996, the day after the bids were opened, the District sent a letter to Executive and the other bidders informing them of the decision to reject all bids: This is to give notice that in the best interest of the State of Florida and the Department of [Children and Families], that any and all bids are hereby rejected. The letter was signed by Mr. Birch. The letter informing Executive of the decision was sent by certified mail. “Strong justification” for the rejection was not “communicated to each rejected bidder by certified mail.” After receiving the September 13, 1996 rejection letter, Executive was informed during a telephone call with Mr. Birch that all bids had been rejected due to excessive rental rates and budgetary constraints. The District failed to comply with the requirement of the ITB that it inform bidders by certified mail of the reason why it rejected all bids. The appropriate remedy for this error, however, would not be to require that the District now evaluate the bids. The appropriate remedy for the error would be to require that the District send out a corrected notice by certified mail containing the explanation of the reasons for rejecting the bids required by the ITB. This remedy would only be appropriate, however, if Executive had sought such a remedy AND the evidence had proved that Executive had been prejudiced by the failure to provide the explanation of the District’s justification for rejecting all bids contemplated by the ITB. Evidence to support such a finding was not presented. In fact, the evidence proved that Executive was not prejudiced by the District’s error. Executive was given additional information concerning the bid rejection during a telephone conversation and it had an opportunity to explore the reasons for the rejection through discovery prior to the formal hearing of this case. Executive, therefore, had the opportunity to determine the specific justification for the rejection in preparation for the hearing on this matter. Zone Rates. The Department of Management Services establishes maximum rental rates which agencies can agree to pay without obtaining approval of the Department of Management Services. The rates are established for geographic zones on what is referred to as a “Zone Rate Schedule”. Zone Rate Schedules may be obtained from the Department of Management Services or other agencies by potential bidders. At all times relevant to this proceeding Executive was aware of the Zone Rate Schedule applicable to Palm Bay. Rental rates which do not exceed the zone rate by more than 10% may be accepted by an agency without further approval from the Department of Management Services. Any rate in excess of 10% over the zone rate must be approved by the Department of Management Services before an agency may accept it. The rental rates submitted by Executive in response to the ITB exceeded the zone rate but not by more than 10%. Individuals involved with the District’s decision in this matter either were not aware of the Zone Rate Schedule or gave it no consideration in deciding to reject all bids. The evidence also failed to prove that agreeing to pay a rate included on a Zone Rate Schedule for which approval from the Department of Management Services need not be obtained is necessarily in the “best interest of the state”. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that the District did not have a reasonable basis for rejecting all bids despite the fact that the rates bid by Executive were within the Zone Rate Schedule plus 10%. Executive’s Challenge. Executive filed a Protest dated September 25, 1996, challenging as arbitrary the Department’s decision to reject all bids. In its Protest Executive alleged the following “facts” in support of its argument that the District’s rejection of all bids was arbitrary: The District failed to “communicate to each rejected bidder any justification whatsoever for rejecting any and all bids.” The District had decided to “reject any and all bids if the bid rental per square foot exceeded the rental they were paying under their present Lease, since such Lease had an option to renew for an additional five years. The present Lease renewal failed to comply with the requirements and specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid.” The District, “at all times, knew that if such bids exceeded the square foot rental of the present Lease, that they intended to reject all bids and renew the existing Lease, although the existing Lease failed to meet the bid specifications.” The District “violated the competitive bidding procedure by failing to include in their Invitation to Bid a provision that any bid exceeding a specific dollar amount per square foot would be rejected in favor of the existing Lease. ” Although the evidence proved the first fact cited in finding of fact 51, that fact does not support a conclusion that the District’s decision was arbitrary. As to the other facts alleged by Executive in its Protest cited in finding of fact 53, the evidence simply failed to prove those alleged facts. At hearing, Executive presented the testimony of Mary Goodman, a consultant and former Chief of the Bureau of Property Management, Department of Management Services. Ms. Goodman was accepted as an expert witness. Ms. Goodman opined that the District’s actions in this matter were arbitrary. Ms. Goodman’s opinion was based in part on her conclusion that the submittal of the RSN and the Second RSN constituted a “determination by the Department to not renew the existing lease.” The evidence failed to support this contention. Executive has failed to cite any provision of Florida law which supports this contention. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on the assumption that the District had established a rental rate cap which it failed to inform prospective bidders of. The evidence failed to support this assumption. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on the fact that the bid submitted by Executive was within the Zone Rate Schedule for the area. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the fact that the bids were within 10% of the Zone Rate Schedule rates means that the decision to reject bids that would have cost the District approximately $80,000.00 the first year in additional rent was arbitrary because the rental bids did not require approval of the Department of Management Services. Executive has cited no provision of Florida law that requires agencies to accept bids simple because they do not require approval from the Department of Management Services. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on her conclusion that the District should have known of its budgetary constraints before issuance of the ITB. Ms. Goodman, however, acknowledged that she knew nothing specifically about the District’s budget. Finally, Ms. Goodman based her opinion on the District’s failure to provide the notice of the District’s reason for rejecting the bids required by the ITB. As discussed, supra, the evidence failed to support this conclusion. The evidence failed to prove that Executive filed the action for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Children and Families dismissing the Protest filed by Executive Ventures. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Smith, Esquire SMITH, GRIMSLEY, BAUMAN, PINKERTON, PETERMANN, SAXER, WELLS Post Office Box 2379 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Eric D. Dunlap Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Families 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard A. Doran General Counsel Department of Children & Families Building 2 Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children & Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 475, F.S. as set forth in Administrative Complaint dated December 22, 1981. This proceeding arises from the filing of an administrative complaint by the Board of Real Estate against Jack Braunstein on December 22, 1981, which alleges that he failed to refund an advance rental fee to Annette Richard on May 13, 1980, thus violating a duty imposed upon him by law or by the terms of a listing contract in a real estate transaction in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The complaint further alleges that Respondent thereby violated subsection 475.25 (1)(d), Florida Statutes, in failing to account to Ms. Richard, and violation of Section 475.453, Florida Statutes, for failing to provide repayment of any amount over 25 percent of the fee for rental information, if the prospective tenant does not obtain a rental. Respondent requested an administrative hearing, and the case was referred to this Division for assignment of a Hearing Officer on February 8, 1982. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated as to the truth of Paragraphs 2-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 19-20 of the Administrative Complaint. The parties further stipulated that Respondent was licensed by Petitioner at the time of the incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent objected to the proceeding on various grounds, as reflected in the transcript of the hearing. The Hearing Officer treated the objection as a motion to dismiss and denied the same. Petitioner moved to amend Paragraph 22 of the Complaint to correct a typographical error to allege a violation of subsection 475.25(1)(d), F.S. in lieu of the inadvertent recitation of a violation of subsection 475.25(d), F.S. The motion was granted. The post-hearing submission by the Petitioner has been fully considered, and those portions not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unwarranted in fact or law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jack Braunstein is licensed as a real estate broker and was so licensed at all times relevant to the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent operates Rent-Aid, Inc. located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a corporate real estate broker, He is the active broker for that firm. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2, Stipulation) On April 15, 1980, Annette H. Richard went to Respondent's firm to ascertain the availability of an apartment for rent in the school district where her child attended school. She had previously talked to Respondent by telephone concerning her needs, and Respondent had informed her that rentals were abundant and that she should come into the office. After she arrived, Respondent turned her over to his associate Jeannie Nemett who took down the information concerning Ms. Richard's apartment requirements. Ms. Nemett informed her that they could find her an apartment in the area, but had nothing available at that time. Although Ms. Nemett looked through the firm's book of apartment listings, she did not permit Ms. Richard to do so. Ms. Nemett told her that there was a new duplex listing not far from the desired area and Ms. Richard agreed to look at it. Ms. Nemett had explained the fact that the firm's services were available for a $50.00 "membership" fee. Since Ms. Richard did not have the money with her, she and Ms. Nemett stopped at the bank on the way to see the property and, after paying the requisite fee, Ms. Nemett gave her a copy of the "membership" agreement. She then showed the duplex and one other rental apartment to Ms. Richard. (Testimony of Richard, Nemett, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) A few days later, Ms. Nemett, having identified some existing available apartments in the school district area in her book of listings, called Ms. Richard several times but could not reach her. The messages were recorded on a telephone answering device. Ms. Richard did not return the calls immediately. About four days after having been shown the duplex by Ms. Nemett, she found an apartment which met her needs as a result of a newspaper ad. Prior to locating this apartment, Ms. Richard had also left telephone messages for Ms. Nemett which had not been returned. About a week or ten days after their initial meeting, Ms. Richard telephoned Ms. Nemett and informed her that she had secured her own apartment and did not wish Rent-Aid, Inc. to proceed any further in her behalf. (Testimony of Nemett, Richard, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The agreement signed by Ms. Richard with Rent-Aid, Inc. included the following statement: If you do not obtain a rental you are entitled to receive a return of seventy-five percent of the fee paid, if you make demand within thirty days of this contract date. All notices shall be sent by certi- fied mail. A rental has been obtained when company provides a guaranteed available rental unit upon the terms specified and requested by member. (Emphasis added) By letter dated May 10, 1980, Ms. Richard requested a refund of her $50.00 fee from Rent-Aid, Inc., but by letter dated May 13, 1980, signed by Ms. Nemett, Ms. Richard was informed that a refund could not be made, as follows: It has been construed that the obtaining of rental property is when you receive listings--available, shown by us, in your price range and area, or any other listings which you agree to see. We did, in fact, show you available rental property under the terms of the Rent-Aid policy #011061. Also at that time, I left messages on your answering machine, concerning other avail- able rentals. Under the conditions and terms of this policy--a refund cannot be made. On advice of counsel, Respondent refunded the amount of $37.50 to Ms. Richard on January 11, 1982. (Testimony of Richard, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) On March 27, 1980, Respondent's attorney wrote to Salvatore A. Carpino, Staff Attorney of the Department of Professional Regulation enclosing Rent-Aid, Inc.`s contract form and requesting review of it to determine whether or not it met the requirements of Chapter 475. The form sent to Mr. Carpino contained the same language as that used in the Richard transaction. By letter of April 1, 1980, the attorney informed Respondent that he had heard from the Department of Professional Regulation about the case and that the form would be acceptable if he deleted the word "registered" in "registered mail." Thereafter, on May 8, 1980, the attorney again wrote Mr. Carpino enclosing print sizes of the form to determine if it met the Department's print size requirements. By letter of May 15, 1980, Carpino informed the attorney that the Respondent could continue to use the existing forms "with the changes that we have previously discussed." Respondent utilized the contract form in question in reliance upon the advice given to him by his attorney in the above regards, and believed that he was operating properly in accordance with the Department's requirements. He had inserted the definition of "obtaining a rental" in the contract form in order to eliminate the vagueness of the statute pertaining to refunds. (Testimony of Braunstein, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibits 1-2)
Recommendation That the Florida Real Estate Commission (formerly Board of Real Estate) issue a private reprimand and impose a $100 administrative fine against Respondent, Jack Braunstein, pursuant to subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1982. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 20th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John P. Gaudiosi, Esquire 3801 North Federal Highway Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was properly assessed tax on the delivery fee of rental equipment as part of the "gross proceeds" of the rental operation.
Findings Of Fact Florida Hi-Lift, Petitioner, is in the business of selling, leasing, repairing and transporting aerial lift equipment. Petitioner enters into rental agreements with customers who rent specific equipment F.O.B. Petitioner's location. The lease agreement sets a fixed price for the rental of the equipment and allows the customer to pick up the equipment with the customer's own conveyance, hire a carrier to pick up the equipment, or request the equipment be picked up and delivered by Petitioner's conveyance. The customer pays for the transportation of the equipment by whichever method of transportation is selected. The rental charge is unaffected by the mode of transportation selected by the lessee. Petitioner charged the customer sales tax on the rental of the equipment but not on the charges for transporting the equipment with Petitioner's conveyances. The audit here involved covers the period February 1, 1984, through January 31, 1987, and assesses a total tax, penalty and interest through September 11, 1987 of $23,727.59 with interest at $5.29 per day until paid (Exhibit 2). The major portion of this tax and the only part contested herein is assessed on Petitioner's charges to its lessees for transportation of the equipment. The equipment rental contract/invoice (Exhibit 9) under charges lists options, Damage Waiver nine per cent, Fuel, Delivery Pickup, and Other, with tax which Petitioner computed only on the rental charge for the equipment. The Damage Waiver charge of nine percent was based on the rental price but no evidence was submitted regarding the basis for this charge. Regardless, no sales tax was added to this charge and a sales tax on this charge is not an issue. Petitioner's sole witness, the auditor who initially assessed the sales tax on the transportation charge, testified that his decision to assess sales tax for this charge was influenced by the fact that charges for leasing and transportation were included on the same invoice. Petitioner has a separate liability policy to cover equipment being transported on Petitioner's vehicles apart from the coverage of the equipment while not in transit.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 457, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings before the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) and is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within FREC’s jurisdiction. At all times material, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate broker, license number 684990, under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker at Florida’s Best Buy Realty & Mortgage Lender, LLC, Post Office Box 551, Winter Park, Florida 32793. On or about February 15, 2007, Respondent entered into a contract to manage the single-family dwelling owned by Jacqueline Danzer. The property is located at 2979 Krista Key Circle, Orlando, Florida 32817 (Subject Property). The agreement was for the period February 15, 2007, until February 15, 2008. Respondent was authorized, under the management agreement, to seek a tenant for the property. Said management agreement authorized Respondent to be compensated at the rate of 10 percent of the rent due during each rental period. On or about March 27, 2007, Respondent negotiated a lease agreement with Veronica Valcarcel to rent the Subject Propery. The tenant applied through the federal Section 8 program, administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Division (Agency), for rental assistance in order to rent the Subject Property. Section 8 assists low-income families with their rent. A tenant who qualifies for Section 8 assistance is prohibited from paying more than 40 percent of his or her income for rent and utilities. On April 26, 2007, Respondent, acting on behalf of the landlord for the Subject Property, entered into and signed a “Housing Assistance Payment Contract” or “HAP” contract with the Agency as part of the Section 8 program. The HAP contract provided that for the initial lease term for the Subject Property (for the period April 1, 2007, until March 31, 2008), the initial monthly rent was $1,150 per month. This was determined to be the maximum payment the tenant could pay without exceeding 40 percent of her income. The HAP contract explicitly provides in its terms that “[d]uring the initial lease term, the owner may not raise the rent to tenant.” Respondent knew that he was prohibited from charging more than the monthly rent stated in the HAP contract. Respondent has had experience in the past with other tenants who participated in the Section 8 program. Respondent has previously signed other HAP contracts which contained the same restrictive language. Under the lease contract that the tenant Veronica Valcarcel signed with the property owner Jacqueline Danzer, the monthly rent would be $1,150 per month. The signature page in the lease contract is not the same page on which the monthly rental amount is written. The property owner Jacqueline Danzer asserts that the initials in the lease contract reflecting a monthly rental of $1,150 were not all her initials. Under the terms of the Exclusive Property Management Agreement, Respondent was being compensated at the rate of 10 percent per month after the first month. A monthly rental amount of $1,500 indicates that the property owner would receive a net of $1,350 per month. The property management agreement provided that Respondent would make payments to the property owner by direct deposit. The property management agreement lists a 12-digit bank account number, with the last four digits of “6034,” into which Respondent was to make direct deposits. At the hearing, property owner Jacqueline Danzer testified that she had received payments from Respondent for the Subject Property to her Bank of America savings account, with the account number ending in “6034.” The last four digits of the account number on the Bank of America Statement match the last four digits on the account number found on the Property Management Agreement. According to the Bank of America records, Respondent made the following payments to the property owner: a) $1,550 on May 9, 2007 b) $1,000 on May 9, 2007 c) $850 on June 12, 2007 d) $1,350 on July 11, 2007 e) $1,350 on September 10, 2007 On September 12, 2007, property owner, Jacqueline Danzer went to see Lois Henry, the manager of the Section 8 department for the Agency. During the course of that meeting, Dnazer advised that Respondent was collecting $1,500 a month rent from the tenant instead of $1,150 a month. On September 12, 2007, during the course of a telephone conference with Jacqueline Danzer and Lois Henry, Respondent admitted that he had been collecting $1,500 monthly rent for the Subject Property, retaining a commission of $150 and depositing the balance in Danzer’s account. Respondent denied making an admission during the telephone conference on September 12, 2007. He also denied that he was collecting $1,500 from the tenant, and further denied that he was violating Section 8 regulations. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. The witness Danzer’s testimony is credible. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Housing Assistance Payments Contract. The total amount of investigative costs for the Petitioner for this case, not including attorney’s time, were $874.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; Revoking Respondent’s license, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00; and Requiring Respondent pay fees and costs related to the investigation in the amount of $874.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact In accordance with Joint Exhibit 1, the parties have stipulated to the following facts: FLAME MEATS, INC. That Flame Meats, Inc., a corporation for profit was incorporated on February 28, 1973. That in May of 1973 the corporation applied for a certificate of registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue and was issued such a certificate under sales tax number 60-23-35552-02. That Flame Meats, Inc., did not hold title to the real property on which it conducted its business at 1141 U.S. Highway No. 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, during the audit period. That the corporation had exclusive occupancy of the premises described above on which it conducted its business during the audit period. That as to Flame Meats, Inc., the real property on which it conducted its business was owned by Peter G. Makris, Trustee, and encumbered by mortgages on which Peter G. Makris, Trustee, joined by Gloria Makris his wife, were mortgagors, both deed and mortgage recorded in OR Book 2137, Pages 1247 through 1251 in the records of the clerk of the circuit court, Palm Beach County, Florida. That Flame Meats, Inc., had not made itself liable for the payment of any encumbrances on said real property on which it conducted its business by either signing, co-signing, endorsement or guarantee during the audit. That Flame Meats, Inc., made payments on the mortgage set forth in (4) above, during the audit period, in monthly amounts of $2,109.19 for a total amount of $82,258.41. Flame Meats, Inc., paid the ad valorem real property tax on said real property as described in the deed in (4) above for the tax years 1973, 1974 and 1975 in the yearly amounts respectively of $42.24, $1,651.79 and $1,740.19 for a total amount during the audit period of $3,834.22. The Flame Meats, Inc., paid insurance premiums monthly to the Home Indemnity Company, P. O. Box 1856, Jacksonville, Florida 32216, Policy Number B0BB8307236, for a total amount of $5,622.63 during the audit period. That Flame Meats, Inc., received a sales tax assessment dated October 27, 1976. That Flame Meats, Inc., received the sales tax revised assessment dated January 10, 1977, after an informal conference held in the West Palm Beach Area Office on January 6, 1977. FLAME OF NORTH PALM BEACH, INC. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, inc., a corporation for profit was incorporated on November 4, 1968. That in November, 1968, the corporation applied for a certificate of registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue and was issued such a certificate under sales tax number 60-23-26281-08. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc. as a corporation did not hold title to the real property on which it conducted its business at 200 Yacht Club Drive, North Palm Beach, Florida, during the audit period. The corporation had exclusive occupancy of the premises on which it conducted its business during the audit period. That as to the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., the real property on which it conducted its business was owned by Peter G. Makris and Gloria Makris as husband and wife recorded in OR Book 1666, Page 1520 and 1521, in the records of the clerk of the circuit court of Palm Beach County. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., as a corporation had not made itself liable for the payments of any encumbrances on said real property on which it conducted its business by either signing, co-signing or endorsement or guarantee during the audit period. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., made payments on the mortgage which encumbered the real property set forth in (14) above, during the audit period, in monthly amounts of $2,920.21 until September, 1974, then in the amount of $3,300.00 for a total of $123,382.94. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., paid the ad valorem real property tax on said real property as described in the deed in (14) above for the tax years 1973, 1974 and 1975, in the yearly amounts respectively of $6,936.80, $6,342.46, and $6,101.95 for a total amount during the audit period of $19,381.21. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc. paid insurance premiums monthly to the Home Indemnity Company, P. O. Box 1685, Jacksonville, Florida 32216, Policy Number BOP8307327, for a total amount of $4,419.87 during the audit period. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, Inc., received the sales tax assessment dated October 27, 1976, represented in Composite Exhibit 6. That the Flame of North Palm Beach, inc., received the sales tax revised assessment, dated January 10, 1977, after an informal conference held in the West Palm Beach Area Office on January 6, 1977. LORD CHUMLEY'S OF JUPITER, INC. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc. a corporation for profit was incorporated on December 12, 1972. That in March of 1973 the corporation applied for a certificate of registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue and was issued such a certificate under sales tax number 60-11-17282-09. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc. did not hold title to the real property on which it conducted its business at Highway A-1-A, Ocean Drive, Jupiter, Florida, during the audit period. The corporation has exclusive occupancy of the premises described above on which it conducted its business during the audit period. That as to Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., the real property on which it conducted its business was owned by Peter G. Makris, Trustee, as recorded in OR Book 2099, Page 735 in the records of the clerk of the circuit court of Palm Beach, County, Florida. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., had not made itself liable for the payment of any encumbrances on said real property on which it conducted its business by either signing, co-signing, endorsement or guarantee during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc. made payments on the mortgage which encumbered the real property set forth in (24) above, during the audit period in monthly amounts of $3,247.24 for a total amount of $126,642.36 during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc. paid the ad valorem real property tax on said real property as described in the deed in (24) above for the tax years 1973, 1974 and 1975 in the yearly amounts respectively of $1,862.35, $1,756.01 and $1,731.46, for the total amount during the audit period of $5,349.82. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., paid insurance premiums monthly to the Home Indemnity Company, P. O. Box 1685, Jacksonville, Florida 32216, Policy Number BOP8307329, for a total amount of $17,169.75 during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., received the sales tax assessment dated October 27, 1976. That Lord Chumley's of Jupiter, Inc., received the sales tax revised assessment dated January 10, 1977, after an informal conference held in the West Palm Beach Area Office on January 6, 1977. LORD CHUMLEY'S OF STUART, INC. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., a corporation for profit, was incorporated on November 14, 1973. That in December, 1973, the corporation applied for a certificate of registration from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue and was issued such a certificate under sales tax number 53-07-034130-08. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., did not hold title to the real property on which it conducted its business at 52 U.S. No. 1, Stuart, Florida, during the audit period. The corporation had exclusive occupancy of the premises described above on which it conducted its business during the audit period. That as to Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., the real property on which it conducted its business was owned by Peter G. Makris, Trustee, recorded in OR Book 358, Pages 1283 and 1284, the records of the clerk of the circuit court of Palm Beach County, Florida. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., had not made itself liable for the payment of any encumbrances on said real property on which it conducted its business by either signing, co-signing, endorsement or guarantee during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., made payments on the mortgage which encumbered the real property as set forth in (34) above during the audit period in the monthly amounts of $4,923.70 for a total amount of $132,939.90. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., paid the ad valorem real property tax on said property as described in the deed in (34) above for the tax years 1974 and 1975 in the yearly amounts respectively of $9,680.49 and $10,519.85 for a total amount during the audit period of $20,200.34. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., paid insurance premiums monthly to Home Indemnity Company, P. O. Box 1685, Jacksonville, Florida 32216, Policy Number BOP8307328, for a total amount of $4,274.91 during the audit period. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc. received the sales tax assessment dated October 27, 1976. That Lord Chumley's of Stuart, Inc., received the sales tax revised assessment dated January 10, 1977, after an informal conference held in the West Palm Beach Area Office on January 6, 1977. The parties have further stipulated that there were no formal trust agreements between the Makrises and any of the four corporations respecting these transactions. Flame Meats, Inc. operates a retail meat market, a butcher shop, and a liquor store. The other three corporations operate restaurants. There are no formal rental or lease agreements between the Makrises and any of the corporations. Peter G. Makris purchased the properties upon which each of the corporations do business. He purchased the properties for the sole purpose of establishing the businesses. It was never his intention to undertake the business of renting or leasing the property to the corporations. Although he took legal title to the properties, and held legal title during the entire period that is the subject of the instant audits, he did not personally enjoy any of the benefits of ownership. The corporations occupied and controlled the properties. They paid no rent to Makris. They did make payments on outstanding mortgages, which were the obligation of Peter G. Makris, and they paid real property taxes and insurance premiums. These payments did not amount to rental payments, but rather reflected the fact that Makris purchased the properties for the corporations. A further reflection of this relationship is the fact that subsequent to the instant audits, Makris conveyed each of the properties to the respective corporations through quitclaim deeds. He received no consideration for the quitclaim deeds, as he had received no consideration for permitting the corporations to do business on the properties while he held legal title. Makris, either in his personal or trustee capacity, never received any compensation or consideration of any kind for owning the properties.
