The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Lori Wilk has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0349551. The last license issued was as a broker in care of Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0253076. At all times material hereto, Respondent Wilk has been licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert, as owner, had listed for sale certain real property with Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc./Gil Amara. Respondents obtained LPS Investments, Inc., as purchaser pursuant to a sales contract which was accepted by the seller on March 14, 1989. LPS Investments is owned by Leo and Patricia Scarola. Patricia Scarola was a former salesperson for Respondents. That Contract for Sale And Purchase of Real Property provided that a total of $500 as deposit monies was to be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract which acknowledged receipt of the first $100 of the deposit monies. Respondents' escrow account deposit slips reveal the first $100 was deposited into Respondents' escrow account. No proof of receipt of the additional $400 exists among the escrow account deposit slips admitted in evidence; however, Respondent Wilk's testimony is accepted that Respondents received in trust a total earnest money deposit in the sum of $500. Thereafter, LPS Investments, Inc., refused to close, alleging misrepresentation by the seller of the property. Although the property had been advertised as a "handyman special" and the Contract provided that the property was accepted in an "as is" condition, the Scarolas who never saw the property before they entered into the Contract to purchase it discovered that it would cost more to improve the property than they had guessed. They decided not to close. Rather, Pat Scarola instructed Respondents to transfer the $500 earnest money deposit to another piece of property not involving Gwendolyn Taylor- Herbert. Without the prior knowledge or consent of the seller or of the listing broker, Respondents transferred the Scarolas' earnest money deposit to another transaction for the benefit of the purchaser (LPS Investments, Inc.) and not involving the same seller. This was done without even considering whether the seller or the seller's agent might have an interest in the deposit. At no time prior to the time that the Respondents' transferred the deposit to a different property did the Respondents give the listing broker or the seller an opportunity or notice to make a demand upon the Respondents for the deposit. After the transfer, and after the contract failed to close, the seller and the seller's agent made a demand that the $500 deposit be accounted for and delivered. It was not. On June 1, 1989, Respondents obtained an offer from Herb Sider, as purchaser, for the property owned by Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert. That offer was accepted by the seller. The Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property provided that a total deposit of $1,000 was to be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty. Respondent Wilk executed that portion of the Contract acknowledging that the first $100 of the earnest money deposit had been received by Respondents. That representation was false. Sider never gave Respondents the earnest money deposit specified in the Contract, and Respondents failed to advise anyone that the representation in the Contract was false. Although Respondent Wilk testified that she would "normally" keep $100 of Sider's money in her escrow account to be applied to the various contracts that he entered into through her, there is no evidence that there was $100 in Respondents' escrow account at the time or that it was available to be applied to this Contract. Rather, Respondent Wilk's testimony is accepted that she never received either the initial $100 or the additional $900 deposit monies from Sider for this property. Herb Sider refused to close. The seller, Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert, agreed to lower the sales price, and a modified contract was executed between Taylor-Herbert and Sider. Thereafter, Sider again refused to close. At no time did Respondents notify anyone that they did not have an earnest money deposit in escrow for the Taylor-Herbert/Sider transaction. Diane Quigley, branch manager of Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., sent a letter dated July 11, 1989, to the Respondents transmitting release of deposit receipt forms and instructing Respondents to release the $500 earnest money deposit of LPS Investments, Inc., and the $1,000 earnest money deposit of Herb Sider to the seller Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert. Respondents ignored that demand letter. By letter dated August 25, 1989, Quigley again wrote to Respondents demanding the release of the Sider and the LPS Investments, Inc., deposits to the seller. That letter referred to the July 11th letter which Respondents had ignored and the numerous phone calls placed by Quigley to Respondents which had not been returned. On September 13, 1989, Respondents for the first time notified Petitioner of possible conflicting demands. That letter misrepresented the facts of the situation and suggested that the seller and buyer might still be able to strike a deal. On October 3, 1989, Respondents again wrote to the Florida Real Estate Commission advising that "there is now a conflicting demand" on the deposits relative to the Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert property. Respondents' letters reveal a lack of understanding of the basics of a real estate contract. Neither letter advised the Commission that Respondents did not have any of the monies in escrow at any rate. On December 27, 1988, Respondent Wilk made an offer to purchase real property from Bel-Properties, Inc., which offer provided that $100 earnest money deposit would be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., and an additional $2,050 earnest money deposit would be placed in the Stars and Stripes escrow account within 72 hours of acceptance. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property acknowledging that the initial $100 deposit had been received. That representation was false. The Contract which she prepared listed as the buyer "Lori Wilk, a lisenced [sic] real estate broker, and/or assigns." The offer was accepted by the seller on December 30, 1988. In connection with that offer, Respondent Wilk represented that she was the purchaser when, in fact, she was acting on behalf of the actual purchaser HBS Investments, Inc., a corporation owned, controlled, and operated by Herb Sider. Immediately upon the acceptance of Respondent Wilk's offer, she assigned the sales contract to HBS Investments, Inc. At no time did Respondent Wilk or HBS Investments, Inc., place the $2,150 earnest money deposit in the escrow account of Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., as represented by Respondent Wilk to the seller and as required by the Contract. Further, at no time did Respondents advise the seller that they did not have an earnest money deposit in the Stars and Stripes escrow account. On November 28, 1988, Respondent "Wilk, a lisenced [sic] real estate broker, and/or assigns" made an offer to purchase real property from Darlene Farris. Farris accepted that offer on December 6, 1988. That Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property provided that an initial deposit of $100 had been placed in the escrow account of Stars and Stripes Realty and that an additional earnest money deposit of $1,900 would be placed in escrow within 72 hours of acceptance. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract acknowledging that she had received the initial $100 earnest money deposit. That representation was false. In fact, Respondent Wilk never placed any of the $2,000 earnest money deposit in her escrow account and never advised the seller or the seller's listing broker that no earnest money deposit had been made. On or about February 2, 1989, Respondents solicited and obtained Willy Pearson as a tenant for the Farris property. Respondents represented to Pearson that the lessor was HBS Investments, Inc. Respondent Wilk prepared a Memorandum to Enter Into a Lease acknowledging the receipt of $550 as a deposit from Pearson, although Respondent Wilk only received $250 from Pearson. When Respondent Wilk received half of the rental deposit, she gave Pearson both a receipt and immediate possession of the property. Respondents obtained the tenant without the prior knowledge and consent of Darlene Farris, owner of the property. Further Respondents did not notify Farris or Farris' broker that Respondents had rented Farris' property until sometime after Respondents had received the $250 deposit from Pearson and had given him possession of Farris' property. Neither Respondent Wilk nor HBS Investments, Inc., ever closed on the Farris property. Further, Respondent Wilk never obtained authority from Darlene Farris to obtain or place a tenant in Farris' property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them and revoking the licenses of Respondents Lori Wilk and Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 8th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2468 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-21 and 23-28 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 22 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2-9, 19, and 23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 27 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24, 25, 28, and 30 have been rejected as not been supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 26, and 29 have been rejected as being irrelevant to determination of the issues involved in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section - Suite N-308 Hurston Building - North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Monte K. Rassner, Esquire Rassner, Malove, Rassner, Kramer & Gold Plaza 7000, Suite 500 7000 Southwest 62nd Avenue South Miami, FL 33143 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Scorpio, Inc. was incorporated to do business in this State on September 18, 1973 and was registered as a corporate real estate broker on 4/8/74 with certificate to expire 3/31/75. Laverne Pariso was a registered real estate broker and Active Firm Member for Scorpio, Inc. from 4/8/74 to expiration date of license 3/31/75. Michael W. Karpan was a registered real estate salesman from 10/1/74 to 9/30/76 the expiration date of his registration and was employed by Scorpio, Inc. About the time Scorpio, Inc. was registered as a corporate broker the real estate market was not conducive to the success of housing developments and, since the registration of Scorpio, Inc. was obtained to facilitate sale of the developed property and no development was started, Scorpio, Inc. did no business of the type for which it was registered. No listings were obtained, no sales were made, and no effort was put forth to do either. An escrow account was opened with an initial $50 deposit but during the time the registration was effective no deposits were made to, or withdrawals from, this escrow account. Ardina E. Karpan, the mother of Michael W. Karpan, owns all of the stock of Scorpio, Inc. Laverne Pariso, the APM, left the employ of Scorpio, Inc. in March, 1975 but did not notify the FREC or take steps to place her registration in an inactive status. Applications were made for renewal of the broker's license of neither Pariso nor Scorpio, Inc. when due, 3/31/75. By Corporate Resolution dated February 1, 1974 Scorpio, Inc. authorized the establishment of an escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Miami. An initial deposit of $50 was made to this account on February 6, 1974. The resolution authorizes Laverne Pariso and Michael W. Karpan or Ardina Karpan to sign checks on this account and notes that two signatures are required. The resolution further provided authorized signers "are both Laverne Pariso and Michael William Karpan, Jr., both signature are required". Scorpio, Inc.'s primary business was the management of shareholder's investments and real estate holdings. In May, 1975 Michael Karpan was approached by a business associate, whose daughter was a creditor of Chandelier of the Virginia Playhouse d/b/a Track and Turf Lounge, to assist in the negotiations for the sale of the business in order to pay off the creditors and salvage his daughter's loan. The purchaser was already at hand and Karpan was selected to hold funds advanced pending the closing of the deal. After the principals had agreed on the basic price to be paid for the business an earnest money deposit of $5,000 was given by the buyer to Karpan on or about May 21, 1975 and the agreement was memorialized in a letter of May 21, 1975 from Karpan, on Scorpio, Inc. letterhead to the buyer, Walker (Exhibit 25). Nowhere on this letter is reference made to either Karpan or Scorpio, Inc. being associated with real estate sales. The $5,000 received from Walker was deposited in Scorpio, Inc's escrow account on deposit slip dated May 21, 1975 and the bank statement (Exhibit 10) shows $5,000 deposited in this account 5/30/75. No other agreement between the parties was reduced to writing and signed by the buyer and seller. At no time during the negotiations did Karpan hold himself out to be a real estate salesman or broker or indicate he expected a commission for his services if the sale was consummated. On May 29, 1975 Karpan borrowed $5,000 from the Barnett Bank and used the $5,000 in the escrow account as cash collateral for the loan. The signature of Pariso was not on any paper to authorize the withdrawal of this money from the escrow account. The loan was placed in the regular account of Scorpio, Inc. c/o Michael Karpan and one check dated 5/30/75 in the amount of $3,699 was drawn on the account payable to the Intercontinental Bank of Miami and used to make interest payment owed by the Chandelier of the Virginia Playhouse. $1,301 was delivered to the manager of Track and Turf Lounge by Karpan (Exhibit 4). Karpan contends that the buyer, Walker, authorized him to make whatever payments were necessary out of the $5,000 deposit to insure that the liquor license would not be lost or the Track and Turf Lounge be placed out of business before the deal was consummated. Following the delivery of the $5,000 to Karpan the buyer brought his attorney into the proceedings. The property on which the Track and Turf Lounge is located was owned by D. Mitchell Investments, Inc. The lease arrangements (or lack thereof depending on which witness is more credible) were such that the sale could not be consummated. By letter dated June 12, 1975 the buyer, through his attorney, demanded return of the $5,000 deposit given to Karpan. No evidence was presented as to the date the $1,301 was given to Roy O'Nan, the manager at Track and Turf. The letter evidencing such payment is dated well after the transaction had fallen through and demand for return of the $5,000 had been made. A suit was subsequently filed by Walker and a default judgment was obtained against Scorpio, Inc. after a Motion to Strike Defendant's, Scorpio, Answer because Scorpio, Inc. was delinquent in paying the annual $5.00 filing fee required of Florida corporations, was granted. At the time the transactions here being contested occurred the registration of Laverne Pariso and Scorpio, Inc. had expired. Since Karpan can only work under the supervision of a broker, his license too was not operative. Ms. Pariso renewed her license as a broker-salesman with another realty office in September, 1975 but no evidence was presented that Scorpio, Inc. ever applied for registration renewal. During the period between March and September, 1975 Ms. Pariso did no real estate work. Numerous discrepancies appeared between the testimony and documents. Although the authorization for withdrawing funds from the escrow account provided that the signature of Pariso and Michael Karpan or his mother was required the bank apparently interpreted that to require any two of the signatures and then authorized one first deposit placed in the escrow account after the initial deposit to be withdrawn with only Karpan's signature. Several witnesses alluded to Track and Turf leasing the premises which they occupied but evidence was presented that no lease payments were to be made until 1978. Certainly the inability of the "tenant" to transfer the "lease" was a major factor in the failure of the sale to transpire. The sale here involved was the sale of a business as contrasted to the sale of real property.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and real estate brokerage and sales practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a licensed real estate broker, licensed under that chapter. The Respondent, Keith Ellis, while engaged in the business of real estate development, entered into a contract whereby he would purchase a parcel of land adjacent to U.S. Highway 90, the "Scenic Highway," in Pensacola, Florida. That agreement was entered into in February, 1985, with the Respondent's purpose being to commence development of the property, consisting of eight residential lots, into a single-family residential subdivision. Mr. Ellis, in embarking upon his development plan, after entering into the contract for purchase of the subject lots, found that he lacked capital necessary to finance construction of certain infrastructure for the subdivision. He sought additional funding and ultimately was referred to Robert Tegenkamp as a potential investor. He entered into discussions with Mr. Tegenkamp and ultimately the two agreed that Tegenkamp would invest $25,000 in the project. In return, as consideration, Mr. Ellis agreed to repay the $25,000 investment to Tegenkamp within six months. He also agreed to pay Tegenkamp a $25,000 profit within twelve months. He prepared a written agreement to that effect, executed March 1, 1985. The Respondent also proposed to give Mr. Tegenkamp an option on one lot, Lot Number 8, in the planned subdivision, as further consideration for Tegenkamp investing the necessary capital. This option was executed February 28, 1985. The subdivision totaled eight lots, all of equal value, as established by the opinion of the Respondent himself, who is experienced in appraising real estate, and by M. Eugene Presley, a licensed M.A.I. appraiser. It was the intent of both Ellis and Tegenkamp, at the time of the signing of the agreement, that Ellis would seek to sell all the eight lots, including the lot on which Tegenkamp held an option. Both those parties also understood that Tegenkamp could not be repaid unless the lots were sold. Tegenkamp had no desire to take title to any lot in the subdivision and understood from the outset that he would be entitled to Lot 8, (or any lot), only if Ellis was otherwise unable to repay him. The Respondent arbitrarily chose to indicate Lot 8 on the option contract, but Tegenkamp had no special desire to acquire any interest in that particular lot. The true intent of the parties was simply that Tegenkamp have an option on a lot in the subdivision to secure him, in the event the debt was not repaid by Ellis. In view of the fact that the value of each lot was identical, it did not matter to Tegenkamp on which lot he had an "option," or other form of security interest. He never expected to get title to a lot and was never told that he would, by the Respondent or any other person. The Respondent has always acknowledged that he owes the money in question to Mr. Tegenkamp and that he was obligated under the "option" to convey one of the lots to Tegenkamp, if he could not repay him. Ellis borrowed the funds for acquisition of the property, and for coverage of most development costs, from the First National Bank of Escambia County. Before the agreements between Ellis and Tegenkamp were signed, he told Mr. Tegenkamp, who also did his banking business at the same bank, of the bank's involvement in financing the project. The Respondent suggested that Tegenkamp contact the loan officers involved to reveal his interest in the project. This Tegenkamp failed to do, nor did he ever record his option agreement. Consequently, the bank acquired a first priority lien on the eight lots by the execution and recording of the mortgage from Ellis to the bank, for financing the purchase, installation of the infrastructure and payment of other development costs. When Mr. Ellis obtained the $25,000 capital from Mr. Tegenkamp, he proceeded with his development plans. He negotiated a sale of all the lots in the subdivision to Ray Lemon, a general contractor. On May 10, 1985, he entered into a written sales contract with Mr. Lemon as to all eight lots. This contract required Ellis to proceed to complete all improvements, such as paving and drainage provisions, as well as to obtain approval of the plat of the subdivision by the City of Pensacola. Mr. Ellis informed Mr. Tegenkamp of this agreement with Mr. Lemon. Thereafter, on May 28, 1985, Mr. Ellis closed the loan with First National Bank of Escambia County, giving that bank a first priority mortgage lien on the entire subdivision. Shortly thereafter, the plat of the subdivision was accepted by the City of Pensacola. Most of the improvements installed by Ellis were complete by late July, 1985. Mr. Lemon then indicated to Ellis that he was having financial difficulties and needed to delay the closing of his purchase of the eight lots. If Lemon had been able to complete his planned purchase of all eight lots on time, Mr. Ellis could have paid Tegenkamp the agreed upon $50,000 and still netted about $10,000 profit himself. In any event, shortly after Ellis learned of the delayed Lemon closing, he was approached by Dr. and Mrs. Tousignant, who were interested in purchasing Lots 7 and 8. Dr. Tousignant owned a neighboring parcel of property and wanted to preserve his view of Escambia Bay by acquiring ownership of Lots 7 and 8. The Respondent obtained Mr. Lemon's approval to sell Lots 7 and 8 to the Tousignants and also informed Mr. Tegenkamp of the proposed sale to the Dr. and his wife, as Mr. Tegenkamp himself admitted. Mr. Tegenkamp approved of Ellis selling the lots in question, and on August 25, 1985, Ellis entered into a written agreement to sell Lots 7 and 8 to the Tousignants. The sale was closed on September 17, 1985, but did not produce enough money for Ellis to pay off Tegenkamp. Tegenkamp had not demanded payment at this time anyway and the final time limit for repayment had not elapsed. Thereafter, Ray Lemon encountered more financial problems and for several months was unable to close the planned purchase of the remaining six lots. Eventually, Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 were sold to Ray Lemon and K. C. Hembree. These closings took place between January and March, 1986. The sales did not produce enough funds to pay off Tegenkamp because of development expenses which had to be covered, mortgage release amounts and interest attributable to each lot, which had to be paid to the bank holding the first mortgage. The Respondent thus retained ownership of only Lots 1 and 2 by the end of March, 1986. His ownership of these two lots was subject to the first mortgage to the bank, the principal balance of which remained at approximately $20,600. That mortgage was subsequently assigned to Ray Lemon who had payed off the bank. Lemon now holds that mortgage. The Respondent has attempted, without success, to sell the remaining two lots. Because of economic conditions prevailing, the value of each of the two remaining lots declined from an estimated $59,000 in March, 1985, to about $50,000 by April, 1986. Because Ellis did not timely pay the $25,000 required by the original agreement, Mr. Tegenkamp retained an attorney to represent him in seeking repayment. Attorney Miles Davis entered into various discussions with Ellis from November, 1985 through April, 1986. In December, 1985, Ellis had proposed to Davis that he deliver to Tegenkamp a quit claim deed conveying his interest in Lot 1 to Tegenkamp. Ellis could not give a warranty deed because title was then encumbered by the above-mentioned mortgage held by Lemon, as assignee of the bank, and because of a potential claim of lien by the paving contractor for $7,000 to $8,000. The contractor since failed to pursue and perfect his claim of lien. In February, 1986, Attorney Davis wrote to Ellis expressing a willingness to accept a quit claim deed on behalf of Tegenkamp. In April, 1986, Ellis delivered the quit claim deed to Davis, conveying his interest in Lot 1 to Tegenkamp. It was recorded in the public records of Escambia County. Davis then filed a civil suit against Ellis in May, 1986, on behalf of Tegenkamp. The parties since arrived at a settlement of that litigation whereby Tegenkamp is to receive approximately $25,000 and Lot 1 will be re-conveyed to Ellis. Tegenkamp's attorney, Miles Davis, testified that Ellis never denied owing the money to his client and every indication was that the Respondent was trying to sell the property as soon as possible to pay his obligation to Tegenkamp. Mr. Tegenkamp himself testified and acknowledged that the Respondent was not trying to take advantage of him, but was simply "someone who had gotten himself into a bad deal."
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0228 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of facts. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-41 Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Danny L. Kepner SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE Seventh Floor, Seville Tower Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Robert A. Sempell, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 02178232 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent, Virginia Bloise, was also a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0376974. Respondent, Home Shoppe, Inc., is a corporation registered as a broker having been issued license number 0229887. When the events herein occurred, the firm was located at 2610 North Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida. Sempell operated as qualifying broker for Home Shoppe, Inc., from November 14, 1983, until October 12, 1984, Bloise was a salesperson with the same firm from July 9, 1984, until October 18, 1984, when she assumed the position of broker of record. Ilana Frank was the firm's only licensed salesperson, and she worked for the firm from 1983 until around January, 1986. In February, 1984, Frank represented Morgan King, an individual interested in purchasing a home located at 502 Northeast Second Street, Delray Beach, Florida. The property was listed with Douglas Rill and Associates, Inc., a West Palm Beach real estate firm. The home was owned by Joseph Michell, a Pratt-Whitney employee being transferred to Texas, and he had turned it over to TransAmerica Relocation Service, Inc. (TransAmerica), a firm that handled real estate sales for Pratt-Whitney employees who were relocating to other areas of the country. Deciding to purchase the property, King executed a standard contract on February 20, 1984 to purchase the home for $125,000. The contract contained a clause providing that the purchase was contingent on King obtaining a Veterans Administration (VA) loan in the amount of $122,250 at a 12 1/2 percent interest rate. 3/ A closing date of May 20, 1984, was established by the parties. The contract provided further that King would make a $1,200 cash deposit and that, pursuant to an addendum executed on February 22, he could rent the house until closing at a rate of $628 per month. Finally, the contract required that King give an extra $3800 to be deposited in escrow before moving into house, and within 45 days after the contract was executed, to 'submits' an additional $3,000. The addendum provided, however, that the $8,000 was "nonrefundable." After King signed the original contract, he gave Frank a $1,200 deposit. Frank, who was not a signatory on the firm's escrow account, carried the money to Sempell who placed his signature on the contract as an acknowledgment of receipt of deposit. Whether the money was deposited into the firm's escrow account is not of record. In any event, King did not have the extra $3800 needed to satisfy the initial deposit requirements of the contract. To ensure that a closing could be held, Frank approached Alan D. Mentser, a real estate salesman with another firm, Bob Railey's Realty, Inc., and asked if he would loan King the money until the anticipated closing on March 30, 1984. 4/ Mentser agreed to do so with the understanding that the $3800 would be placed immediately in an escrow account until closing. When he loaned the money, Mentser was under the impression that the money would be held in the escrow account of Douglas Rill, the listing broker. Because Mentser did not feel comfortable loaning the money to King, a person who he did not know, he required Frank to sign a promissory note on February 24, 1984 in the amount of $3800. At the same time, King signed an identical promissory note for $3800 payable to Frank. In addition, Frank orally agreed with Mentser that, for the use of his $3800 until March 30, 1984, she would pay him $1200 interest, or a handsome thirty percent return on his money. The $1200 was to be taken out of Frank's portion of the broker commission split. However, Mentser recognized that he was not a participating broker or salesman in the transaction and had no formal claim to the escrowed money in a realtor capacity. Indeed, the loan to Frank was personal in nature, and although Mentser intended it to be used as a part of the deposit, it was not considered a part of the real estate transaction. On February 24, Mentser gave Frank $3800 in cash which she promptly gave to Bloise the same day. Bloise was a signatory on the firm's trust account and had authority to make deposits and disbursements. After Bloise prepared a deposit receipt, Frank used $300 of the $3800 to purchase renter's insurance for King and deposited the remaining $3500 in Home Shoppe, Inc.'s escrow account at the Bank of South Palm Beaches in Lantana. The $300 deduction was made pursuant to an agreement by all parties. After King took possession of the property, he failed to qualify for a VA loan. Sometime later, he moved out of the house with no notice to the realtors or seller and gave no forwarding address. His whereabouts are unknown. TransAmerica later instituted eviction proceedings in order to legally take possession of the property. A final judgment of eviction was obtained on July 6, 1984. By now March 30, 1984, had come and gone and Mentser was eager to get his money. He initially contacted Frank but learned something had gone awry with the contract. When his informal requests to Frank were unsuccessful, Mentser engaged the services of an attorney who wrote a certified letter on May 4 to Sempell demanding a refund of his money from the firm's escrow account. After the letter was returned three times, the attorney had the letter hand- delivered to the firm's address where Frank signed for it. There is no evidence that Sempell was given the letter. After Mentser contacted Frank about his money, Frank spoke to Bloise on several occasions concerning Mentser's inquiry. The dates of these conversations are not of record. In any event, Bloise told her that a "dispute" had arisen over the escrow deposit and until it was resolved by the Division, Mentser could not get his money. This was not true since Bloise never turned the matter over to the Division for resolution. On July 12, 1984, the seller made a formal claim for the full deposit on the ground King had breached the contract and forfeited the deposit. Although there is no specific evidence as to the disposition of the claim, it may be reasonably inferred that TransAmerica's claim has not been honored. On August 6, 1984, Mentser obtained a default judgment against Frank in circuit court and was awarded $3800 in damages, prejudgment interest of $160, attorney fees of $300, and fees and costs of $50, or a total of $4310. He wisely did not request that he also be awarded the $1200 interest for the use of his money. The judgment has never been satisfied. Sempell went "out of the country" sometime in 1984 and was absent for much of the year. There is no evidence he received any demands for Mentser's money before he resigned as broker of record nor is there evidence that he was a signatory on Home Shoppe, Inc.'s escrow account. Indeed, the president of the bank in which the firm's escrow account was placed knew only that Bloise was a signatory on the account. Further, copies of cancelled checks written on the account and introduced into evidence reflected only Bloise's signature. The allegation that in October, 1984, Sempell absconded with certain funds from the firm's escrow account was not addressed at hearing and has been disregarded. Partial bank records of the firm's escrow account reflect that the $3500 was properly deposited into the account on February 27, 1984. As of December 28, 1984, the balance in the account had dropped to $1,688.98, which meant at least a part of the deposit had been spent for other purposes. Whether these expenditures occurred before or after Sempell resigned as broker of record is unclear. In any event, Bloise acknowledged to a Division investigator in May, 1987, that she had written a number of checks on the account for her own use. She justified this action by explaining that Frank had told her that the $3800 was their "own" money and could be spent "to run the business." Bloise also confirmed that, when this controversy arose, she was the only signatory on the firm's account and that Sempell had no authority to write checks or make disbursements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1983), and that the broker licenses of Bloise and Home Shoppe, Inc. be suspended for five years. Sempell's broker license should be suspended for one year. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility, and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Paul F. Savich is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0077390 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Ernest M. Haefele, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0517821 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On October 1, 1984, the Respondents, purchasers in their individual capacities, entered into a contract for deed to a tract at the Tropical Acres Subdivision, with Tropical Sites, Inc., and Angie S. Crosby and Eugene T. Crosby, at a sales price of $9,046.50. Said amount to be paid at the rate of $90 per month until paid. Pursuant to the agreement, the Respondents agreed not to assign the agreement without the permission of Tropical Sites, Inc. A closing was held on May 8, 1990, and the Respondents transferred possession of the tract by assignment of contract to Leroy H. and Charlotte Beard. A mobile home on the real property was part of the purchase price for a total sales price of $39,000.00 The agreement called for a down payment of $2,000 to the Respondent Savich. The Beards also signed a mortgage note in favor of the Respondents Savich and Haffele, for $37,000. The note was payable at the rate of $373.15 per month. Upon payment in full, Respondents were obligated to deliver a good and sufficient deed to the property to the purchasers. At the closing, Respondent Haefele was not present. The Beards received two documents at closing, a contract for sale and one other document, but did not receive a copy of the original agreement for deed, a disclosure statement, or a title to the trailer on the tract. In addition, Respondent Savich did not seek permission of Tropical Sites, Inc., prior to the closing. Prior to the closing, the Beards moved onto the property, and subsequently began making monthly payments of $373.15 to Respondent Savich. The Beards had purchased two or three pieces of property in the past, but had always gone through a bank. In relation to this agreement, they understood the nature of the transaction at the time of the closing. In early 1991, Mr. Beard made a telephone inquiry to the County property appraiser's office as to the status of the property for homestead exemption purposes. He was advised that Tropical Sites, Inc. was the current owner of the tract, and that he was not eligible for homestead exemption. The Beards did not apply for homestead exemption at the appraiser's office. In August 1991, the Beards stopped making payments to the Respondents on the advice of their attorney, but continued to reside on the premises until December 1991. In November 1991, an attorney acting on behalf of the Beards made a demand upon Respondent Paul F. Savich for the return of the $2,000.00 deposit. The Respondents did not return the $2,000.00 deposit or otherwise pay the money claimed by the Beards. In his dealings with the Beards, Respondent Savich did not withhold information, lie or mislead the purchasers. They simply were unhappy with the agreement, and decided to get out of it when they recognized that they would not receive title to the mobile home and property until the note was paid in full. In early 1992, the Beards quitclaimed their interest to the property to Respondent Savich's former wife, and they were released from their obligations under the note.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents Paul F. Savich and Earnest M. Haefele be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 November, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Adopted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7(in part),8,9(in part)10,11,12,13 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 7(in part: the $2,000 was a down payment, not an earnest money deposit), 9(in part: the Beards moved on to the property prior to closing. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent submitted a proposed order with unnumbered paragraphs which partially recounted the testimony of several of the witnesses and combined facts and conclusions of law. Therefore, a separate ruling on Respondent's proposals are not possible. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street #N-308 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 J. Stanford Lifsey, Esquire 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1465 Tampa, Florida 33602 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes, 1/ through culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction; by failing to account or deliver trust funds; and by failing to timely notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of a deposit dispute or to implement remedial action; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0037920. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker at Heath Realty, 4864 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. On May 18, 1993, Mr. Anthony Rodgers and Ms. Jill Rodgers (the "buyers") entered into a contract to purchase real property from Ms. Norma A. Cash (the "seller"). The buyers entrusted Respondent with a total earnest money deposit of $1,000. The transaction failed to close. On July 8, 1993, Respondent timely notified Petitioner in writing that there were conflicting demands for the earnest money deposit and a good faith doubt regarding the deposit. However, Respondent failed to institute one of the settlement procedures described in Section 475.25(1)(d)1. until legal proceedings between the buyer and seller were amicably settled approximately seven months later. Respondent failed to institute a prescribed settlement procedure in a timely manner even though Petitioner advised Respondent in letters dated July 26, 1993, and September 9, 1993, of the action Respondent should take. On February 9, 1994, Respondent finally requested an escrow disbursement order in accordance with Section 475.25(10(d)1. The escrow deposit was paid to the seller pursuant to the agreement of the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1., but guilty of violating Section 475.42(1)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.032. It is further recommended that the Final Order place Respondent on probation for a period of one year and, during the period of probation, require Respondent to complete courses in broker management not to exceed eight credit hours. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1995, 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 8th day of February 1995.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, committed acts of dishonest dealing or culpable negligence in a business transaction; failed to account for and deliver trust funds; failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; intermingled personal funds with trust funds; obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigator in an official investigation; or committed any of these offenses, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then an additional question will arise, namely whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Ramirez Transaction On or about September 9, 2003, Toirac, in her individual capacity, entered into a Sale and Purchase Contract (the "Contract") with Andres Ramirez ("Ramirez"), whereby Toirac agreed to sell, and Ramirez to buy, certain real estate then owned by Toirac. The Contract called for Ramirez to make several deposits toward the purchase price. Accordingly, Ramirez tendered to Toirac a total of $14,000 in pre-closing payments. Toirac accepted these payments, which were deposited in HCIC's operating account. At some point, Toirac withdrew Ramirez's deposits from HCIC's operating account, taking the money in cash. She brought the $14,000 in cash to her attorney, Alix Montes, who agreed to hold the money in escrow pending the closing of the sale to Ramirez. Mr. Montes placed the cash in a safe located in his home. The sale to Ramirez fell through after Ramirez failed to obtain acceptable financing and exercised his right to cancel the Contract in consequence thereof. Ramirez requested that his deposits be returned. Within a short time (not more than about two weeks), Toirac gave Ramirez his money back——in cash. The parties dispute whether Toirac properly handled Ramirez's deposits. Petitioner asserts that the $14,000 should have been held in an escrow account maintained at a financial institution such as a bank or title company. Toirac responds that she complied with a "Financing and Deposit Addendum" (the "Addendum") to the Contract. The Addendum, which is part of the Contract that Petitioner offered into evidence (as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), provides in pertinent part as follows: Seller acknowledges that in the event that the Buyer is not approved for a mortgage loan or the terms and conditions of said mortgage loan are not acceptable to Seller, Seller within thirty (30) days from the date Seller receives Buyer's written request for the return of its deposit, shall refund Buyer's deposit in full. Upon Seller's refund of the deposit, this contract will terminate and all parties will be relieved from the obligations and liabilities. Buyer acknowledges that the Seller herein is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the state of Florida and That Home Center International Corp. will not be the "Escrow Agent" in this transaction nor will Home Center International Corp. or any of its affiliates, officers, directors, agents and/or employees will receive a Real Estate Brokerage fee in connection with this transaction. Buyer authorizes Home Center International Corp. to place any and all deposits herein in its operating account. Buyer further authorizes Home Center International Corp, at any time to withdraw and/or transfer Buyer's funds from the operating account. In the event a transfer of any and all funds is effected, such funds shall be held by Alix J. Montes, Esq., Attorney for the Seller. This Addendum supercedes the provisions of paragraph 2 (A)2(B)(1), 16(A)(B)(C), 17, 18, and 19 of the "As Is" Sale and Purchase Contract signed by all parties herein. (In the original, the text is written in all capital letters.) The Addendum is dated September 9, 2003, and bears the purported signatures of Ramirez and Toirac. Petitioner alleged in its Administrative Complaint that Ramirez had denied executing the Addendum. At hearing, however, Petitioner failed to offer any proof——such as Ramirez's testimony or the testimony of an expert disputing the authenticity of Ramirez's purported signature on the Addendum—— to establish this allegation. In contrast, Toirac testified that both she and Ramirez had, in fact, signed the Addendum. As a result, on this record, the undersigned is not clearly convinced that the Addendum is fraudulent. Moreover, the Addendum and Toirac's testimony, taken together, are sufficiently persuasive (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) to prevent the undersigned from being clearly convinced that Toirac mishandled Ramirez's deposits or otherwise dealt dishonestly or improperly with him. The January 2004 Audit On January 20, 2004, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt of a complaint from Ramirez.) During the audit, Toirac reported to Ms. Morales that she no longer maintained an escrow account but instead relied upon her attorney to act as escrow agent for funds entrusted to her. Toirac also told Mr. Morales that Ramirez's deposits initially had been held in HCIC's operating account, before being handed over to Mr. Montes for safekeeping. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to produce bank statements for HCIC's operating account, and apparently a listing agreement that should have been in the broker's file was not there. Toirac agreed to provide the missing documentation. By letter dated January 20, 2004, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that she would forward requested documentation within 10 days. For reasons unknown, Toirac failed to follow through with this, prompting the instant disciplinary action. The Charges In Counts I and VII, Petitioner alleges that Respondents are guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction, either of which is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents mishandled Ramirez's deposits and misled him into believing that the money would be held in trust by HCIC as an escrow agent.1 In Counts II and VIII, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Respondents returned Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after his demand therefor. In Counts III and IX, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In Counts IV and X of its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having intermingled personal funds with funds being held in escrow. Petitioner's position is that by initially depositing Ramirez's deposits in HCIC's operating account, Respondents failed to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.008(2), and hence violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts V and XI, Petitioner asserts that Respondents obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents willfully interfered with Morales's investigation by failing to provide documentation as promised.2 Ultimate Factual Determinations Toirac handled Ramirez's deposit money in accordance with the unambiguous terms of the Addendum. Petitioner failed to prove that the Addendum is fraudulent. Thus, the Addendum, when considered in conjunction with Toirac's unrebutted testimony that she and Ramirez signed the instrument, is fatal to Counts I, III, IV, VII, IX, and X of the Administrative Complaint. Respondents are not guilty of the offenses charged therein. Toirac did, in fact, return Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after he demanded a refund. Respondents therefore are not guilty of the offenses charged in Counts II and VII of the Administrative Complaint. When Ms. Morales interviewed Toirac in January 2004 in response to Ramirez's complaint, Toirac admitted most, if not all, of the material facts pertaining to the circumstances under which Ramirez's deposits had been held. Further, the documents that Toirac neglected to provide Ms. Morales, i.e. HCIC's bank records and a listing agreement that had gone missing, were claimed by Toirac to be corroborative of her statements to the investigator. Toirac's failure to produce such documents cost Toirac an opportunity to bolster her credibility——and enabled Petitioner to draw adverse inferences against Toirac, e.g. that the questioned listing agreement did not exist after all.3 Given these facts, the undersigned is not convinced that Respondents obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigation. Consequently, Respondents are not guilty of the charges set forth in Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondents not guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ezell Realty, Inc., was a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0231943 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Winfield Ezell, Sr., held real estate broker's license number 0309739 issued by petitioner and was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Ezell Realty, Inc. The firm is located at 1512 West Gore Street, Orlando, Florida. Grover Crawford was an acquaintance of Ezell who was interested in purchasing certain rental property on Coretta Way in Orlando, Florida. When he was unable to purchase the property Crawford told Ezell to let him know if anything else became available in that area. Ezell happened to own a rental house at 1121 Coretta Way which he had just purchased several months earlier in a foreclosure proceeding, and the two eventually began discussions concerning a possible sale. At all times relevant thereto, the house was rented to tenants, and Crawford intended the property to remain as investor-owned property rather than owner-occupied property. Ezell initially agreed to sell the property for $70,000 and the two entered into a contract on January 8, 1983, using this sales price. However, the lender's appraisal of the residence came in far below this figure, and the parties eventually agreed on a sales price of $55,450. A second contract for sale and purchaser was executed on June 22, 1983. Although the contract provided that Crawford would pay a cash deposit of $2,300 to be held in escrow by Ezell Realty, none was paid since Ezell was given $2,300 by the tenants of the house to make needed repairs to the property prior to the sale. This arrangement was agreeable with Crawford. The contract also required the seller (Ezell) to pay all closing coats. Therefore, Crawford was not required to pay any "up front" costs in order to buy the property. Under the terms of the second contract, Crawford was to obtain FHA financing on the property in the amount of $53,150. This type of financing is the most desirable from an investor standpoint since the mortgage can be easily transferred to another buyer for a small transfer fee without lender approval. After executing the first contract on January 8, 1983, Ezell and Crawford executed an "Addendum to Contract For Sale and Purchase" on the same date which provided in pertinent part: This contract is for the sole purpose of having the buyer obtain an assumable FHA mortgage for the seller and reconveying title to the seller. The seller hereby irrevocably assumes the said FHA mortgage from the buyer immediately after closing and the buyers hereby agree to that assumption. For this, Crawford was to receive $1,000. The parties agreed that this addendum would apply to the second contract executed on June 22, 1983. At the suggestion of Ezell, Crawford made application for a $53.150 FHA loan with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC) in Maitland, Florida, a lending institution which Ezell had done business with on a number of prior occasions. However, Ezell was not present at any meetings between Crawford and RFC. When Crawford applied for the mortgage, he indicated the property would be used for investment purposes and would not be owner-occupied. For some reason, RFC assumed the property would be owner-occupied and structured the-loan in that manner. Because of this, Crawford's down payment was slightly less than 5% of the value of the property with the remainder being financed by the institution. Had RFC treated the loan as an investor-loan, the down payment would have been increased to around 15%. Neither Crawford or Ezell advised RFC of the Addendum to the contract which required Crawford to reconvey the property to Ezell for $1,000 once the FHA mortgage was obtained. Had RFC known of this it would not have approved the loan. There was no competent evidence that such an agreement was illegal or violated any federal laws or contravened any real estate industry standard or ethical consideration. The loan was eventually approved, and a closing held on September 22, 1983. After closing, Crawford retained the property in his name with Ezell making all payments from the rent proceeds. This was consistent with an oral agreement between the two that such an arrangement would last for an indefinite period as long as the payments were current. When Crawford later received several notices from the lender stating that mortgage payments were in arrears, he hired an attorney and demanded that Ezell fulfill the terms of the Addendum. He also filed a complaint against Ezell with petitioner which precipitated the instant proceeding. After the closing, Ezell had intended for the tenants to assume the mortgage since they had expressed an interest in buying the property. However, such a sale never materialized. In July, 1984, the property was reconveyed to Ezell, and Ezell paid Crawford $1,000 as required by the Addendum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Julius L. Williams, Esq. P. O. Box 2629 Orlando, FL 32802 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, (Division), was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. At the same time, Respondent, Thomas Twitty, Jr. was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, operating under license number 0090569, and was broker for the Respondent, Twitty and Company, Ltd., which operates under license number 0211681 at 13090 B. Starkey Road, Largo, Florida. Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, was a licensed real estate salesman under license number 0442127. On March 12, 1985, while employed as a salesman with Twitty & Company, Ltd., Fitton solicited and obtained from James L. Schneider a sales listing for Schneider's house located at 1316 Kennywood, Largo, Florida. The listed sales price was $129,500.00. Mr. Schneider had purchased the property, along with another individual no longer involved, Mr. Daly, from Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association in December, 1984 for $50,000.00 in a distress sale. The property had been occupied but was abandoned, and Pioneer, which had held the mortgage on it, gained title in a foreclosure action. When Schneider purchased the house, it was in poor condition. The walls and cement slabs on which it rested were severely cracked in numerous places. The foundation, pool decking, and decorative block walls were severely cracked, and it was determined that this condition was due to an abnormal settling and subsidence of the ground on which the house had been constructed. This settling caused and continues to cause door and window frames to fall out of square resulting in a poor fit and, in many cases, large gaps and along the window and door parameters. After Mr. Schneider purchased the property, Fitton, along with Fitton's father, both of whom resided next door to the property in question, assisted Mr. Schneider in making repairs to the property. Cracks were filled in with cement, plaster and caulking, and the property was painted which covered up the filled in cracks and gaps which had existed. When the repairs were completed, the property was put on the market with Fitton securing the listing. There is little evidence as to how the repairs were made to the property other than that the cracks were filled and painted. No effort was made to correct the soil conditions which underlay the problem. No evidence was produced to indicate whether the corrective actions taken by Mr. Schneider, along with the Fittons, was appropriate to correct problem causing the cracks or if filling was the appropriate method of correction. Also, it was not clearly established how much and of what nature the work was accomplished by Respondent, Fitton. Whereas he indicates his participation was limited to only carrying away trash and debris, Ms. Renshaw indicates he was actively engaged in actual repair work. Whatever the actual work involvement, it is clear that he knew of the condition of the house and was familiar with the steps taken to correct the deficiencies. In May, 1985, Yvonne L. and Lorraine Renshaw, sisters, were shown the property by Diane Y. Palcelli (Booth), a salesperson employed by a different realty company. The Renshaws made an initial offer of $96,000.00, and Ms. Palcelli transmitted the offer, through Fitton, (and Twitty & Co.), to Mr. Schneider who resided out of state. A series of proposals by both sides followed and ultimately, on June 1, 1985, the parties agreed upon a sales price of $106,000.00. After the sales price had been agreed upon and the contract for sale signed, during the interim period leading up to closing, which was held in late July, 1985, the Renshaws, along with their agent and friends, visited the property on numerous occasions even going so far as to commence decorative work to fix it up to their tastes. Also during this period, Fitton, who had done some work on the repairs to the property, advised his broker, Twitty, that there had been defects in the property and asked if it was necessary to disclose this. Mr. Twitty, who himself had, at this point, not seen the property, asked if the defects had been corrected, and when told that they had been, advised Fitton it was not necessary to make any further disclosure. During the course of their repeated visits to the property, the Renshaws noted some minor cracking which they brought to Fitton's and Daly's attention. Fitton mentioned this to Twitty who suggested they have someone out to look at them. Someone was called, reportedly an engineer, who looked at the cracks and agreed to fix them. Daly indicated insurance would cover the repairs and agreed to have the cracks repaired. They were. Ms. Palcelli, (Booth), also advised the Renshaws to have the property examined by their own expert to insure it was structurally sound. The Renshaws did not do this. The sale was closed on July 23, 1985 for the $106,000.00 purchase price and both Fitton and Twitty & Co. received their respective shares of the commission. Several months after the closing, the Renshaws noticed cracks beginning to open in the walls of the house and between the pool deck and the house wall. They contacted Ms. Palcelli, (Booth) who examined the property and then tried to contact Fitton. Both Fitton and Twitty disclaimed any responsibility for the damage. Thereafter, the Renshaws filed suit against Schneider, Daly, Fitton, Twitty and Twitty & Company in Circuit Court in Pinellas County alleging one Count of fraud and one Count of grand theft. On February 22, 1991, the Court entered its Order granting Defendants', (Respondents') Motion to Dismiss the Count alleging grand theft, but denied a similar motion relating to the fraud Count. That same date, the Court entered a Final Judgement concluding that the knowing representation the property was in "excellent" condition when they knew it was not, in an anticipation of making a profit on the sale, constituted fraud. Twitty was faulted for not having inquired of Fitton, his "novice employee", more thoroughly before advising him no disclosure to the buyers was necessary. Fitton is faulted by the Court for having: ... intentionally, knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented to the [Renshaws] the high quality, excellent condition and good value of the property, intending that the [Renshaws] would rely on those representations; [they] hid the true condition of the property from the [Renshaws] and induced them to make the purchase, believing that they were purchasing a quality property worth the price being asked. The Court also concluded that the [Respondents] were obligated to disclose to the [Renshaws] the information and knowledge which they had regarding the cracking and repairs. Fitton has moved for a rehearing on the basis that the property was described as excellent on the listing sheet by Mr. Schneider, not by him. However, he was obviously aware of the condition of the property from his frequent visits to the site while it was being readied for sale. In addition, the Judgement has now been appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals by Twitty and Twitty & Company, Ltd..
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered herein providing that: The salesman's license of Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, be reprimanded, and he be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of two years, and The licenses of Respondents, Thomas J. Twitty, Jr. and Twitty & Co., Ltd., be reprimanded and they be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of six months. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 21st day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1608 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. First, second and fourth sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence modified to reflect that Fitton concealed but Twitty was culpably negligent in failing to disclose. FOR RESPONDENT, TWITTY AND TWITTY & CO. LTD.: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. 9. Accepted, but Twitty's agent, Respondent, Fitton, worked on and was familiar with the condition of the property prior to sale. Accepted. FOR RESPONDENT, FITTON: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted except for the assertion that the individual who viewed the cracks was an engineer. There was no proof of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dominic E. Amadio, Esquire 100 34th Street North, Suite 305 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Daniel J. Grieco, Esquire 19139 Gulf Blvd. Indian Shores, Florida 34635 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the real estate license of Keith Allen. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Allan M. Parvey, Esquire Goldberg, Rubinstein & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
