Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1991.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(a), 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Phillip F. Niles, is and was, at times material to this matter, a licensed real estate broker. His license number is 0173298. Respondent's license was inactive from August 2, 1996, through March 31, 1997. It was invalid due to non-renewal from March 31, 1997 through May 28, 1997. From May 29, 1997 through August 20, 1997, Respondent was an active broker. From August 21, 1997 through June 10, 1998, Respondent was an inactive broker. From June 11, 1998, through the date of the formal hearing, Respondent was an active individual broker. The address of his last license was 1700 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. Sam L. Berry owned a condominium located at 840 Center Street, Unit 101, Holly Hill, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the property). Sometime prior to April 27, 1997, Mr. Berry asked Respondent to sell the property. Mr. Berry wanted to receive $20,000 for the property. Mr. Berry told Respondent that he could keep any amount of the sales price in excess of $20,000. Respondent placed an advertisement for the sale of the property in the newspaper. Thereafter, he prepared a Contract for Sale and Purchase (the contract) for the sale of the property with $20,000 as the sales price. The buyer's name was John Richards. Meanwhile, Peggy Holloway became interested in the property after seeing Respondent's advertisement. Ms. Holloway contacted Respondent at the number referenced in the advertisement. Subsequently, she met Respondent at the property. At that time Respondent's broker's license was inactive. Ms. Holloway made an offer on the property. In order to make a commission or profit on the sale, Respondent decided to sell the property to her. He changed the existing contract by marking through Mr. Richard's name and adding Ms. Holloway's name as the buyer. Respondent changed the sales price on the contract to $23,000. On April 27, 1997, Ms. Holloway signed the contract as the buyer. That same day, Mr. Berry signed the contract as seller. As part of the contract, and pursuant to Respondent's instructions, Ms. Holloway made a check out to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $500. Respondent assured Ms. Holloway that he would place the money in an escrow account. The contract stated that the $500 deposit would be held in escrow. Respondent did not place Ms. Holloway's money in escrow. He cashed her check and kept the $500. At all times material to the transaction Ms. Holloway believed that Respondent was a licensed real estate broker. Additionally, the contract contained language stating that Respondent was a real estate broker. During subsequent conversations with Ms. Holloway about financing arrangements for the purchase of the property, Respondent appeared drunk. As a result of those conversations, Ms. Holloway became suspicious about Respondent's intentions and his competence to handle the real estate transaction. Ms. Holloway contacted Petitioner and learned that Respondent's license was inactive. On or about May 6, 1997, Ms. Holloway telephoned Respondent. She told him that she did not want to go through with the contract. She demanded that Respondent return her $500 deposit. Respondent failed to return Ms. Holloway's $500 deposit. Ms. Holloway then began to deal with Respondent's brother, Peter Niles, who is an attorney. Respondent's brother prepared a document for Mr. Berry to sign acknowledging receipt of the $500 deposit. Mr. Berry signed the document prepared by Respondent's brother even though Respondent never gave the $500 deposit to Mr. Berry. Ms. Holloway eventually decided to deal directly with Mr. Berry. They agreed on a sale price and closed the transaction with no assistance from Respondent, his brother, or any other individual. Ms. Holloway sued Respondent in the County Court of Volusia County, Florida. In Case No. 97-31586, the County Judge entered a judgment against Respondent in favor of Ms. Holloway. Respondent had not satisfied the judgment as of the date of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for a period of ten years and requiring him to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000 within one year of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip F. Niles 5747 Sweetwater Boulevard Port Orange, Florida 32127 Phillip F. Niles Apartment 503 100 Seabreeze Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of issuing checks from his escrow account without sufficient funds so as to constitute culpable negligence, breach of trust, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; failing to reconcile escrow accounts, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J2-14.012, Florida Administrative Code; employing an unlicensed person, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(c), Florida Statutes; failing to maintain business records, in violation of Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes; and violating a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission by failing to pay a citation within the required time, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is guilty of any of these allegations, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent became a licensed real estate salesperson in 1987. The following year, he became a licensed real estate broker, and he has remained a broker continuously since that time. From September 30, 1996, through January 30, 2000, Respondent was the qualifying broker of Express Realty and Investments, Inc. (Express Realty). At no time relevant to this case was Novellete Faye Hanse a Florida-licensed real estate broker or real estate salesperson. At all relevant times, Ms. Hanse was the office manager of Express Realty. Respondent formed Express Realty in 1995. Respondent was the sole director and president. Ms. Hanse's son was an officer of Express Realty from the time of its formation. Respondent met Ms. Hanse in 1991. She informed Respondent that she was a licensed mortgage broker. Respondent and Ms. Hanse agreed in late 1991 to form a joint real estate/mortgage broker operation in a single office. However, when Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992, Respondent, who has been a licensed general contractor since 1978, engaged exclusively in construction until 1995. Respondent formed Express Realty to pursue the prior plan of a joint real estate/mortgage broker operation. The two businesses occupied an office building owned by Ms. Hanse, who did not charge Respondent's business any rent. The address was 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. Express Realty served as an escrow agent in a contract dated May 9, 1999, for the sale and purchase of real property located at 6360 Southwest 23rd Street in Miramar. In this capacity, Express Realty, held various funds in escrow for the closing. For the closing, Express Realty issued two checks payable to the closing agent, totaling $19,169.08, and drawn on its escrow account. The checks, which are dated July 15, 1999, and signed by Ms. Hanse, bear the name, "Express Realty & Investments, Inc. Escrow Account" and bear the address 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. The bank failed to pay these checks due to insufficient funds. After receiving a complaint that Express Realty had failed to produce these escrow funds at the closing, Petitioner's investigator conducted an audit of Respondent's escrow account. At the audit, which took place the day prior to the day scheduled, the investigator found Ms. Hanse, but not Respondent, at the Express Realty office. Despite repeated requests on and after the day of the office visit, the investigator could not obtain relevant records from Ms. Hanse or Respondent concerning the real estate transaction for which Express Realty had issued escrow checks with insufficient funds. On August 23, 1999, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued a citation to Respondent at 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. The citation was served on Respondent within one week of the date of issuance. The $100-citation was for the failure to give the required disclosure or notice in a real estate transaction. The citation gave Respondent 30 days to contest the citation or 60 days to pay the citation. After the deadline, the investigator contacted Respondent and asked him about the citation. Respondent stated that he had forgotten about it. When Respondent still failed to pay the citation, the investigator called again, and Respondent stated that he had mailed the money, but it had been returned due to a faulty address. Respondent paid the citation approximately four months after it had been served on him. Shortly after Respondent belatedly paid the citation, Petitioner received another complaint concerning a contract for the sale and purchase of real property located at 850 Southwest 9th Avenue in Hallandale. In this transaction, Ms. Hanse represented herself to be a licensed real estate broker, showed the property to prospects, and accepted $5000 in escrow on behalf of Express Realty. In July 2000, Petitioner's investigator conducted an audit of Express Realty's escrow account. Again, the investigator was unable to find any documents by which he could undertake an independent reconciliation of the account or otherwise document the role of Express Realty in the subject transaction. At the hearing, Respondent claimed that he was unaware that Ms. Hanse had been conducting real estate business without his authority in the name of Express Realty. Although he admitted that she was an employee of Express Realty, he disclaimed any knowledge that she had removed him from the escrow account and otherwise taken over the management of the real estate broker company. However, Respondent could not explain why, after his claimed discovery of these misdeeds in the summer of 1999, he did nothing to prevent Ms. Hanse from continuing to use Express Realty as the means by which to conduct unlicensed real estate activities, as she did a few months later. Under the circumstances, Petitioner proved that Respondent was at all times aware that Ms. Hanse was conducting unlicensed real estate activities through Express Realty.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I-IV and VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint, imposing a $5000 administrative fine, and suspending his license for three years; provided, however, if Respondent fails to pay the fine in full within 180 days of the final order, his license shall be revoked without further notice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Hisey, Deputy Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Dean Saunders, Chairperson Florida Real Estate Commission Division of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Carstarphen Watkins Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Wayne Wagie 11900 North Bayshore Drive, Unit No. 5 Miami, Florida 33181
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated January 19, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulation filed by the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees. The Respondent, Charles P. Grimes, is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, license number 0034301. In November, 1980, a contract for sale and purchase of real estate was drafted between Dorothy Langham Scott, seller, and Phillip Crawford, buyer. The contract, which was subsequently executed by both parties, provided that a deposit in the amount of $18,500 was to be held in escrow by Respondent. A separate brokerage agreement between Respondent and the seller, executed November 30, 1980, provided that Respondent would receive a brokerage fee of ten percent of the total gross sales price. The brokerage agreement specified that "should the buyer default and not close the transaction in accordance with the Contract, the Broker shall not be entitled to any commission." The agreement further provided that Respondent would "use reasonable diligence and his best efforts to see that the transaction is closed in accordance with the executed Contract." The contract described in paragraph 3 did not close. Subsequently, the seller sued Respondent in the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Case no. 82-1974 CA (L) 01 B. On August 13, 1985, an amended final judgment was entered which provided, in part: The facts adduced at trial indicate that Crawford and Scott entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of certain real property, located in Putnam County and that for no apparent reason Crawford defaulted on the contract. The evidence is clear and convincing and unrefuted. Crawford has admitted several letters which he says were communicated to the attorney for Scott. However, the substantial weight of the evidence will not support his repudiation of the contract. Accordingly, it is clear that as between Scott and Grimes, the real estate agent who was allegedly holding the deposit under the provisions of the deposit receipt contract, Scott is entitled to a judgment for $18,500.00, plus its costs and attorney's fees. John L. Burns, an attorney who represented the seller, Scott, during the contract negotiations in November, 1980- January, 1981, received a letter from Respondent on December 12, 1980. That letter, dated December 5, 1980, provided: "I have enclosed the signed contract and have received the deposit check from Dr. Crawford." On or about January 29, 1981, Mr. Burns received a letter from Respondent which indicated that the contract would close in March, 1981. Respondent did not advise the seller that the deposit on the Crawford/Scott contract was not in escrow. Respondent erroneously assumed that a deposit from the buyer (which had been deposited on another contract for sale and purchase) could be applied to the contract. That deposit, in the amount of $20,000.00, was not transferred and was not used to satisfy the amended judgment entered in Scott's favor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00, suspending his license for a period of 60 days, and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years. It is recommended that the Respondent be found not guilty of the other alleged violations. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-2517 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that on or about November 30, 1980, Respondent was attempting to procure the contract described; however, the exact date the parties executed the contract is not known. The contract was ultimately executed by both parties but did not close. Consequently, the proposed fact, as written, is not supported by the record. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that the contract did not close and that a court of competent jurisdiction determined that the deposit should be awarded the seller; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as outside the scope of this record. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn M. Blake Blake & Torres, P.A. 200 South Indian River Drive Suite 101 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of violating a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate, in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(e) and 475.25(1)(e); committing 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 Section 475.25(1)(b) (two counts); failing to account for or deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1; failing to maintain trust funds in a real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement is authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k); failing to provide a written agency disclosure, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(q); being found guilty for a second time of any misconduct that warrants suspension or of a course of conduct or practices that show such incompetence, negligence, dishonesty, or untruthfulness as to indicate that Respondent may not be entrusted with the property, money, transactions, and rights of investors or others with whom Respondent may maintain a confidential relation, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(o); and failing to preserve and make available to Petitioner all books, records, and supporting documents and failing to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions together with such additional data as good accounting practice requires, in violation of Rule 61J-14.012(4) and Section 475.25(1)(e).
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license numbers 0489551 and 3000384. Respondent is the qualifying broker for Buyers Realty of Naples, Inc., of which Respondent was a principal. Respondent has been disciplined once previously. On December 8, 1994, the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a final order, pursuant to a stipulation, ordering Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $500 and complete 30 hours of professional education. In late 1993, Respondent, Armand Houle, and Svein Dynge formed DSA Development, Inc. (DSA). Respondent, Houle, and Dynge were directors of the corporation. On December 1, 1993, Respondent, Houle, and Dynge formed Gulf Southwest Developers, Ltd. (GSD). DSA served as the sole general partner of GSD, whose original limited partners included Houle and several foreign investors represented by Dynge, but not Respondent or Houle. The investors formed GSD to assemble a vast tract of land in Collier County, through numerous purchases, for purposes of mining, development, and speculation. The initial investors contributed or agreed to contribute over $4 million to GSD. Respondent's role was to find suitable parcels of land and negotiate their purchase by GSD or its agent. GSD agreed to pay Respondent $1000 weekly for these services. GSD also authorized Respondent to take a broker's commission of 10 percent of the sales price for each fully executed contract presented to the closing agent. This is the customary broker's commission in the area for transactions of this type. Respondent's claim that he was entitled to a commission of 20 percent is rejected as unsupported by the evidence. There is some dispute as to whether the seller or the buyer was to pay the commission. The contracts provide that the commission was to be deducted from the seller's proceeds. However, regardless of the source of the commission, Respondent was entitled only to 10 percent, not 20 percent. Respondent knew that he was not entitled to 20 percent when he took the additional sum from GSD funds. Thus, the act of taking the funds constituted no less than concealment (due to his failure to disclose his withdrawals), dishonest dealing, culpable negligence and breach of trust, if not actual fraud. There is some evidence that Respondent took substantial sums from GSD without authorization. Without doubt, part of these sums represented the additional ten percent commission described in the preceding paragraph. Petitioner has attempted to prove that Respondent took sums in excess of the extra ten percent commission without authorization. However, as to such sums in excess of the additional ten percent commission, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence either that Respondent took such additional sums or, if he did so, that these withdrawals were not authorized or at least ratified. As agent for GSD, Houle entered into numerous contracts in the second half of 1994 and first half of 1995. In each of these contracts, Respondent signed the contract below printed language stating that he, as broker, and Buyers Realty of Naples, Inc. had received the initial escrow deposit under the conditions set forth in the contract. At no time did Respondent or Buyers Realty of Naples, Inc. hold the escrowed funds in an escrow account under the name of Respondent or Buyers Realty. Respondent maintains that he transferred the funds to the title company to hold in escrow. The record does not permit a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that he did not do so, although there is some evidence indicating that the title company did not hold such funds. However, it is sufficient that Petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidence that neither Respondent nor Buyers Realty held these escrow funds, despite clear misrepresentations by Respondent in each contract that he or his company held these escrowed funds. Respondent's misrepresentations constitute fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust. Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not make the required agency disclosures in a timely fashion or that Respondent did not make available to Petitioner's investigator the books and records that he is required to maintain. Likewise, Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to complete the education required by the prior final order or participated in the fraudulent endorsement of Houle's signature on checks by a secretary, who later obtained Houle's consent to the act.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 James H. Gillis James H. Gillis & Associates, P.A. Law Offices of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801-2169 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, Peter C. Fischbach, should be disciplined on the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint, FDBPR Case No. 97-83729. Specifically, the charges allege that, "under the guise of an alleged real estate 'consulting fee,'" Fischbach converted $10,000 of a prospective buyer's escrow money, contrary to their agreement that Fischbach only would be paid commission on the closing of a purchase, which did not occur. The three-count Administrative Complaint charges that these allegations establish violations of: Count I, Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), for fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction fraud, misrepresentation; Count II, Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes (1997), for failure to account or deliver funds; and Count III, Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997), for failure to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement was properly authorized.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter C. Fischbach, is a licensed real estate broker in Florida. However, he has not been very active in actual real estate brokering; most of his involvement in the real estate business has been investing in and renting real estate on his own account. In 1994, Fischbach met Peter Graf, a German national who vacationed in Florida with his wife, Kaethe. The Grafs were interested in purchasing a campground on Alligator Point in Franklin County, Florida. One of Fischbach's tenants was an acquaintance of the Grafs, and the Grafs were impressed with Fischbach's property. When the Grafs became acquainted with Fischbach, they also were impressed with Fischbach's knowledge of real estate investing. In early 1995, the Grafs asked Fischbach to help him evaluate the Alligator Point property and put together an offer to purchase. Fischbach agreed; however, he attempted to explain that he did not do much real estate brokering and would prefer to be paid a fee for his services in an amount agreed to by the parties after Fischbach was finished with his work so that both would be in a better position to evaluate the fairness of his remuneration. Fischbach proposed that once they agreed to the amount of Fischbach's fee, Fischbach would return to the Grafs any sales commission paid to Fischbach on the transaction. The Grafs readily agreed to Fischbach's proposal. Fischbach made several trips to Franklin County, discussed strategy with the Grafs, negotiated with the prospective seller, and telephoned and corresponded with the Grafs in Germany. At the request of the Grafs' attorney, Fischbach assumed the responsibility of preparing a letter of intent to memorialize the agreement between seller and buyer. The attorney planned to prepare all legal documents necessary to implement the letter of intent. Fischbach first drafted an incomplete and undated Purchase and Sales Agreement for a purchase price of $1,250,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). This rough draft included a provision for a 6% sales commission payable to Fischbach "at the closing." The evidence suggested that this draft was not signed by the Grafs or presented to the seller. On or about March 10, 1995, Fischbach completed a revised letter of intent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The revised letter of intent included a provision for a 4 percent sales commission payable to Fischbach "at the closing." It also provided for a $100,000 deposit payable $25,000 initially and $75,000 by September 1, 1995, until which time the Grafs would be entitled to investigate and inspect the property. Closing was proposed for January 1, 1996. The parties were to execute the Purchase and Sales Agreement to be prepared by the Grafs' attorney as soon as possible and within 30 days. This letter of intent apparently was signed by the Grafs and presented to the seller, but the seller declined and asked for more money. On or about March 21, 1995, Fischbach again revised the letter of intent. (Respondent's Exhibit 5). This revision was for a purchase price of $1,350,000. It omitted any provision for a sales commission for Fischbach. As before, it provided for a $100,000 deposit payable $25,000 initially and $75,000 by September 1, 1995. But this revision only gave the Grafs until May 30, 1995, to investigate and inspect the property, and required the parties to execute the Purchase and Sales Agreement to be prepared by the Grafs' attorney on or before May 31, 1995. As before, closing was proposed for January 1, 1996. This second revised letter of intent apparently was signed by the Grafs and the seller, and the Grafs paid the initial deposit of $25,000 to Fischbach to be held in escrow. The day after Fischbach prepared the second revised letter of intent for signature by the parties, he met with the Grafs to discuss his fee. In Fischbach's mind, although he intended to continue to be available to answer questions and assist the Grafs through closing, his primary work was done, and he and the Grafs were in a position to come to an agreement on what Fischbach should be paid for his work. The Grafs were accompanied by Martin Lehner, a German friend and financial advisor to the Grafs, who Fischbach thought would be able to translate for them as necessary to assure that all parties fully understood the discussion. Fischbach opened the discussion by telling the Grafs that 6% was a normal real estate commission. However, it was Fischbach's opinion that 6% of the $1,350,000 purchase price in the letter of intent was too much for what Fischbach had done for the Grafs. Fischbach suggested that they instead consider a fee in the amount of 2% of the purchase price, or $27,000. The Grafs agreed. The parties then agreed that the fee would be payable $10,000 in September 1995, $10,000 in September 1996, and $7,000 in September 1997. The agreement was reduced to writing in the form of a note stating: "Peter's commission (2%), 3/22/95, $10,000 Sept 95, $10,000 Sept 96, $7,000 Sept 97." (Respondent's Exhibit 5). Peter Graf signed the note in the presence of his friend and financial advisor, signifying the agreement of him and his wife. Fischbach intended to communicate to the Grafs that he was entitled to his $27,000 fee regardless whether the transaction closed. However, Fischbach's use of the term "2% commission" both in the discussion about his fee and in the note intended to memorialize the agreement may have contributed to a misunderstanding as to what would happen if the transaction did not close. In order to facilitate the eventual transfer of funds from the Grafs to the seller at closing, and to enable Fischbach to attend other matters on the Grafs' behalf while they were in Germany, Fischbach had the Grafs execute a power of attorney, in favor of Fischbach, on or about May 31, 1995. During the summer of 1995, Fischbach participated in continued negotiations designed to achieve tax benefits for both seller and buyer. The Grafs also consulted immigration attorneys to acquire the visa necessary for him to purchase and operate the campground. By letter dated July 13, 1995, Fischbach apprised the Grafs of the status and reminded them both that a second deposit installment of $75,000 was due in escrow by September 1, 1995, and that the first $10,000 of Fischbach's fee was also due in September 1995. The Grafs received the letter but never questioned what it said about Fischbach's fee. On or about July 17, 1995, the Grafs' attorney completed a proposed Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Real Estate and Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Business Assets. However, before it was executed the Grafs insisted on the addition of a provision that would suspend purchase money mortgage payments for one year in the event of a catastrophic hurricane. By letter dated September 15, 1995, Fischbach notified the Grafs that the seller refused to include the hurricane catastrophe provision in the Purchase and Sales Agreement and that the seller was giving the Grafs until October 2, 1995, to sign the proposed Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Real Estate and Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Business Assets. Fischbach also advised the Grafs: "If we are done for now, I would like to close up your escrow account, pay myself the first $10,000 payment as agreed, and return the remaining money to Martin [Lehner] for him to invest for you." The Grafs received the letter but never questioned what it said about Fischbach's fee. When Fischbach did not hear from the Grafs by the seller's deadline, Fischbach assumed the deal was off and wrote to the Grafs on October 3, 1995: "I now need to close your $100,000 plus interest escrow account. I also would like to pay myself the first $10,000 real estate consulting payment that was due in September. Deborah and I are getting married and we could use the money." In fact, Fischbach did not get married, and he did not need the money; the second quoted sentence was Fischbach's way of trying to ask for the overdue payment in a light-hearted manner. The Grafs received Fischbach's October 3, 1995, letter and again did not question what it said about Fischbach's fee. However, by this time it was occurring to the Grafs that they were going to be out $10,000 and not have anything to show for it. Notwithstanding the agreement regarding Fischbach's fee, the Grafs now thought $10,000 was too much to pay Fischbach in light of the failure of the deal to close. They decided to take it up with Fischbach when they returned to Florida from Germany. The Grafs never communicated to Fischbach at any time that they had any questions whatsoever about Fischbach's fee, or Fischbach's intention to deduct it from the escrow money. On October 18, 1995, Fischbach paid himself $10,000 and refunded the balance of the Grafs' deposit plus interest. Peter Graf testified at one point that he and his wife were back in the United States when the escrow account was closed, but he also testified that he did not return until November 1995. It is found both that the Grafs had not yet returned and that the Grafs still had not contacted Fischbach to object to his fee or to his intention to deduct $10,000 from escrow when Fischbach closed the escrow account. Peter Graf testified that he contacted Fischbach shortly after the Grafs returned to Florida to complain about Fischbach's fee and the deduction of $10,000 from the escrow refund. Fischbach testified that he heard nothing from the Grafs until approximately the middle of February 1996. Due to irreconcilable direct conflict in the testimony, it was not proven that the conversation occurred earlier than the end of January or early February 1996. Whenever their first conversation on the subject occurred, Graf told Fischbach there should not have been any fee since there was no closing, and Fischbach's response was that the Grafs had agreed to the fee. Fischbach thought that he was able to remind the Grafs of their fee agreement, again explain it to them, and thereby resolve their complaint. Fischbach wrote to the Grafs' attorney on February 26, 1996, in response to a telephone call from the attorney, in which the fairness of Fischbach's fee was questioned. In the letter Fischbach again explained in detail the agreement for the fee under which the Grafs actually still owed Fischbach another $17,000. Fischbach wrote that he saw no reason why he should have to give the Grafs any money back. Fischbach's letter also confirmed that the Grafs had approached Fischbach the preceding week to complain about the fee, but that Fischbach thought the matter had been discussed, explained and settled. The Grafs' attorney declined to take their case against Fischbach. He told the Grafs that as far as he was concerned, the dispute was "between you two." Later, the Grafs consulted a Louisiana attorney and requested that the attorney do "whatever was necessary." According to Peter Graf, the Louisiana attorney lodged a complaint with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Despite the evidence that the Grafs agreed to a $27,000 "consulting fee" for services rendered, they maintained that the fee should not be paid because there was no closing. Yet, the Grafs concede that Fischbach is entitled to something for his work, and they offered him $2,500 to $3,000. Fischbach, on his part, still maintains that he is owed another $17,000 but had not tried to collect it, he says, due to "embarrassment" about the dispute. He testified that it never occurred to him to return the $10,000 to escrow and have the Florida Real Estate Commission resolve the dispute and issue a disbursement order because he was not familiar with the procedure, not being very active in the brokerage of real estate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the charges against the Respondent, Peter C. Fischbach. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 23rd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Suite N-308A 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Peter C. Fischbach 405 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government 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 Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Phillip Bantu Gilbert, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0460883. Respondent's licensure status On May 13, 1992, respondent applied to the Department for licensure as a real estate broker. As part of that application, respondent was required to make an election with regard to whether, upon successful completion of the examination, he would be actively employed or preferred an inactive broker's license. Specifically, the application provided: EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION You must select one of the following options for your first license which automatically will be mailed as notice of passing the exam- ination, together with your examination score. The receipt of either license will establish your broker's status. You may immediately file a request to change employer, register as a real estate broker (sole proprietorship), or become a broker-member of a corporation or partnership, at no additional charge. [ ] I will continue my present employment as a broker-salesman. (ATTACH COPY of your current salesman's license or Validated Confirmation Slip.) [x] I wish to be issued an inactive broker's license and understand that it may be converted to a broker's or broker-sales- man's license if I file and request same when notified that I have passed the examination. Respondent elected the second option, to be issued an inactive broker's license. Respondent successfully completed the examination, and on December 21, 1992, was issued his broker license. Such licenses do not carry any legend reflecting active or inactive status; however, due to his election, which evidenced no current real estate employment or place of business, respondent's status was inactive. Following licensure, respondent began to actively operate as a broker, under the name Bantu Enterprises, at 150 Northwest 56th Street, Miami Shores, Florida. Bantu Enterprises, of which respondent is president and founder, is a Florida corporation, and has never been registered as a trade name or real estate brokerage company by the Department. Respondent's license continued in a voluntary inactive status until, following the investigation hereinafter discussed, he applied to the Department for active status. That application, filed March 1, 1994, identified the name and business address of the owner/broker as Phillip B. Gilbert, 150 Northwest 56 Street, Miami, Florida. The Morong transaction On or about June 14, 1993, Chester Morong and Lynette Morong, his wife, submitted an offer to purchase certain real property located at 700 Northwest 55 Avenue, Plantation, Florida, to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for $177,250.00. Such offer was submitted through Bantu Enterprises, with Phillip B. Gilbert noted as the principal broker and sales person, and reflected an earnest money deposit of $1,500.00 being held by the broker. On June 30, 1993, respondent was advised by the VA that the Morong offer had been accepted for processing, and respondent was accorded three business days to present the Morongs to an authorized VA lender to process their offer. Respondent apparently complied with such requirement, and on August 4, 1993, the VA advised respondent that the Morongs had been approved to purchase the property and a closing date of August 13, 1993, was established. On August 9, 1993, the VA sent by overnight express to respondent, as the broker of record, the closing package. Under established procedure, respondent was to close the transaction, and then return to the VA, within 10 days of the closing, the closing package, the proceeds due the VA, and a recording receipt for any legal instruments that were recorded. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Morong requested of respondent that the closing be postponed for fourteen days. According to Mr. Morong, a hurricane had destroyed his parents' home in Trinidad the previous weekend, and he had been required to use the closing monies, among others, to provide them assistance. Respondent assured Mr. Morong that the time for closing could be extended; and on some date between August 13 and August 16, 1993, secured the Morongs' signatures to the closing documents in anticipation of closing. Among those documents was a mortgage deed to secure the repayment of the VA financing and a mortgage note in the sum of $175,750.00. On August 16, 1993, the VA contacted respondent's office and advised that there might be a title problem, and that the closing might have to be postponed to see if the problem could be resolved. According to the VA, respondent's office manager informed them that Mr. Gilbert told her to inform the VA that the sale had closed. In fact, the sale had not closed at that time. At or about 2:30 a.m., August 17, 1993, respondent telephoned Mr. Morong and stated he had received a call from the VA and that if he didn't have the closing costs the next day he (respondent) would quit claim the property to another person. On August 17, 1993, Mr. Morong telephoned the VA and learned that there might be a title problem with the property, associated with a bankruptcy. Acting on that advice, Mr. Morong delivered a letter to Mr. Gilbert that same day, which letter stated: Without prejudice I would like to formally withdraw my offer to close on the purchase of the above captioned property. This decision though saddening for us . . . was arrived at due to the attending problems with the property. I would like the urgent return of my $1500 earnest money. I also would like to bid on another property. On August 19, 1993, Mr. Morong was given a check, post-dated for August 21, 1993, on the account of Bantu Enterprises, in the sum of $1,500.00, for return of his escrow deposit. That check was subsequently negotiated and paid. Respondent did not advise the VA of Mr. Morong's withdrawal of the offer to purchase or his return of Mr. Morong's earnest money deposit. Had he done so, the closing on this property would not have occurred and the VA would have offered the property to the next highest bidder (offeror). Under such circumstances, respondent would have lost the six percent commission he anticipated from the transaction. Subsequent to Mr. Morong's withdrawal of his offer to purchase on August 17, 1993, respondent proceeded to close on the property, without the Morongs' consent. In so doing, respondent caused the special warranty deed from the VA to the Morongs, as well as the mortgage previously executed by the Morongs, to be recorded in the public records of Broward County, Florida. Thereafter, on August 26, 1993, respondent caused a quit claim deed, dated August 18, 1993, between Chester Morong and Lynette Morong, his wife, as grantors and Beverly A. Henry, a single woman, as grantee, to be recorded in the public records. That quit claim deed, prepared by respondent's brokerage, is a fraudulent document since the signatures affixed to the quit claim deed purporting to be those of Mr. and Mrs. Morong are forgeries, as the Morongs never executed any such document. On August 23, 1993, the VA received the closing package back from respondent, along with the settlement proceeds. Facially, the documents reflected that the sale had closed on August 13, 1993, and that Chester Morong and Lynette Morong, his wife, were the owners of the property. No reference was made to the transfer to Ms. Henry, and no request was made, at the time, for an assumption of mortgage package. The investigation of respondent's records and escrow accounts Following a complaint from Mr. Morong, after he discovered that the closing had occurred as heretofore discussed, a Department investigator commenced an audit of respondent's business practices. Among the items addressed by the investigator with respondent on his initial visit was a request to audit respondent's account to ascertain when Mr. Morong's $1,500.00 deposit was placed in escrow, and into what escrow account it was placed. To adequately conduct such an audit, the investigator would need respondent's bank deposit slips, monthly bank statements, case files and broker's monthly reconciliations. Respondent advised the investigator that he did not have the documents available at the time. Subsequently, on February 16, 1994, the investigator served a subpoena on respondent to compel production of the documents. That subpoena commanded that respondent produce on February 21, 1994, the following: For the period Jan. 1, 1993 to present, all sale/purchase agreements, contracts, leasing or rental agreements either closed, pending or null and void including monthly bank state- ments and cancelled checks plus monthly reconciliations of all escrow accounts and bank deposit slips. In response to the subpoena, respondent produced some bank statements and cancelled checks on an account for Bantu Enterprises, but no banking information for accounts in his name. As for the documents produced, they were fragmentary and not inclusive of the audit period, no contracts or case files were produced, and no written monthly reconciliations, as required by Rule 61J2-14.012, Florida Administrative Code, were produced. Consequently, a complete picture of respondent's activities was not presented, and the audit could not be completed. As of the date of hearing, respondent had still failed to produce the documentation requested by the subpoena, and the audit could not be completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which finds respondent guilty of Counts I and III through VII of the administrative complaint, and which dismisses Count II of the administrative complaint. As a penalty for such violations, respondent's broker's license should be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 30th day of May 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, Kenneth A. Norberg, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all pertinent times, Respondent, Kenneth A. Norberg, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued License Nos. 0143669 and 0243001 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued to Respondent were as a broker t/a Arden Real Estate Associates, 525 West Lantana Road, Lantana, Florida 33462. Respondent operates both an insurance business and a real estate business out of his office. There is a large sign outside the office near the street that indicates both "INSURANCE" and "REAL ESTATE" in large letters. Beneath those words in smaller print, are the words "Arden Insurance" Association and "Ken Norberg Real Estate". This sign is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit 1 and has been in place for approximately fifteen years. Sometime prior to March of 1989, Joe Ann Shoop was awarded ownership of a corporation known as Jerraang Enterprises, Inc. as part of a divorce settlement. That corporation owned certain property located at 7967 Overlook Road, Hypoluxo, Palm Beach County, Florida. There are two small cottages located on the property. Ms. Shoop's attorney is an officer of the corporation, but it is not clear whether he is a stockholder. Ms. Shoop visited Respondent's office in order to inquire about insurance for the property. While she was in Respondent's office, Ms. Shoop asked Respondent if he would be interested in listing the property for sale. She explained that she did not need the property and was anxious to sell it in order to get some cash. Respondent agreed to list the property. Sometime in March of 1989, Respondent received an offer to purchase the property from Bernadette Butler. Included with that offer was a $500.00 earnest money deposit. Respondent placed the $500.00 deposit into his escrow account maintained at the Bank of South Palm Beaches, Hypoluxo, Florida. Ms. Shoop accepted Ms. Butler's offer and a contract was agreed upon in March of 1989 with an anticipated closing date in May of 1989. The contract price was $30,000. The specific terms of that initial contract have not been established. Neither party offered the contract into evidence at the hearing. The parties agreed to extend the closing date of that contract and a new written contract was entered on June 23, 1989. That new contract indicated that the closing was to take place on July 26, 1989. The second contract provided that the sale was contingent upon the purchaser obtaining financing in the amount of $21,000.00. The purchaser was unable to arrange financing and the transaction failed to close by July 26, 1989. The parties verbally agreed to extend the contract, however, the evidence is inconclusive as to how long an extension was agreed to. By October of 1989, it became clear that the transaction would not close. At that time, Ms. Shoop demanded the deposit and began efforts to sell the property to someone else. Ultimately, the property was sold at auction for $15,000. Ms. Shoop claims that she was not advised and would not have agreed to a contract that was contingent upon the buyer obtaining financing. As indicated above, the terms of the first contract have not been established. However, it is clear that the second contract did provide a contingency for financing. On October 31, 1989, Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Butler indicating that Ms. Shoop had requested the release of the deposit to her. Respondent enclosed a copy of a Release of Deposit Receipt form for Ms. Butler to execute. Ms. Butler did not execute the form and/or authorize the release of the deposit to Ms. Shoop. Respondent retained the deposit in his escrow account for several more months. During this time, Ms. Butler continued her attempts to obtain financing and also began searching for additional properties. Ms. Butler indicated to Respondent her intention to apply the money held in escrow to any new purchases that may arise if the contract with Ms. Shoop did not close. On several occasions in late 1989 and early 1990, Ms. Shoop attempted to contact the Respondent and determine the status of the escrow money. Respondent did not answer her inquiries. On September 10, 1990, an investigator from the Department visited Respondent's office to conduct a random audit of Respondent's business and his escrow account. During this audit, the investigator discovered the deposit being held in escrow without a current contract. She advised Respondent that he needed to be sure to comply with the requirements of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code. In October of 1990, the Respondent sent a letter to both Ms. Butler and Ms. Shoop enclosing a Release of Deposit Receipt form pursuant to which he suggested that the parties divide the deposit equally. Respondent sent a copy of this letter to the Department to notify it of his attempt to resolve the dispute over the deposit. By letter dated October 11, 1989, Gerri E. Barnoski, an analyst for the Florida Real Estate Commission, (the "Commission") advised Respondent of his options. In this letter, Ms. Barnoski told Respondent that he had to either (1) arrange for arbitration, (2) place the matter before a civil court or (3) request an Escrow Disbursement Order from the Florida Real Estate Commission. The Respondent subsequently requested an Escrow Disbursement Order from the Florida Real Estate Commission and the matter is currently pending resolution by the Commission in Case No. E902949. The deposit remains in Respondent's escrow account. In sum, the evidence demonstrated that Respondent failed to promptly notify the Commission of the conflicting demands to the escrow deposit. Respondent claims that he never received a formal written demand from either party. However, the evidence is clear that by at least October of 1989, Respondent was aware of the conflicting demands for the deposit. After delay of approximately one year, Respondent finally attempted to resolve the matter in an appropriate manner. Respondent says he was concerned that attorney's fees would consume the entire deposit. However, this concern does not excuse the delay. There is no indication that Respondent was manipulating the transaction for his own personal gain and/or that he was trying to defraud either party. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. At the time Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's office in September of 1990, there was no sign immediately outside the entrance door to Respondent's office. The large sign alongside the roadway (which is described in Finding of Fact 2 above) was in place and there was a trademark indication of a Realtor on the entrance door. However, a sign which had previously been on the wall immediately next to the entrance door was missing. The evidence established that the sign at the entrance door was temporarily missing due to unusual circumstances. Respondent was in the middle of a hotly contested divorce. Respondent and his former wife had previously worked out of the office together. The sign next to the entrance door had both of their names on it. Respondent taped over the name of his former wife and the sign was subsequently vandalized. Respondent had delayed obtaining a new sign until the divorce proceedings were concluded. The evidence indicates the road side sign was in place approximately fifteen feet from the entrance. Visitors to the office were sufficiently alerted to the identity of the real estate broker within. In view of all the circumstances, Respondent was not in violation of the requirement that he have a sign on or about the entrance to the real estate office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts II and III, reprimanding him, placing him on probation a period of one year and imposing a fine of $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9-15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2 and 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7-15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 10-17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth A. Norberg Arden Real Estate Associates 525 West Lantana Road Lantana, Florida 33462 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
