The Issue The issue is whether Respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined on the ground that Respondents allegedly violated a rule and various provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondents, Edward D. Armbruster and Colleen Michele Armbruster, were licensed real estate brokers having been issued license numbers 0002159 and 0362890, respectively, by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondents served as qualifying brokers and officers of Respondent, Armbruster Realty, Inc., a corporation registered as a real estate broker and located at 1031 West Nelson Avenue, DeFuniak Springs, Florida. The corporation holds license number 0211855, also issued by the Division. On July 10, 1996, Gerald and Joyce Singleton, who had just relocated to California, entered into a contract with James B. and Joyce Patten to sell their single-family residence located on Madison Street in the City of Freeport, Florida, for a price of $78,000.00. The contract called for the Pattens to pay $1,000.00 as an earnest money deposit, to be held in escrow by Respondents. The contract further provided that "[c]losing shall be within 30 days (more or less) after acceptance of this contract," and that "[i]n the event that buyer defaults and deposit is forfeited, it is agreed said deposit shall be divided equally between seller and broker." The transaction was handled by Geraldine Dillon (Dillon), a salesperson in Respondents' office, who is now retired. Because the Pattens had recently moved to Walton County from Washington State, and they were temporarily living with a relative in a mobile home, the time for closing was of the essence. Accordingly, the Pattens inserted into the contract a provision requiring that a closing be held within "30 days (more or less)." This meant that a closing should be held on or about August 10, 1996, give or take a few days. The parties acknowledge that property boundary problems were somewhat common in certain areas of Freeport, including the area where the subject property was located. To satisfy the bank and title company, a surveyor was engaged to prepare a survey of the property. However, the parties agree that the surveyor noted problems with the boundaries of the lot. When a second surveyor would not undertake the survey because of similar boundary problems, Joyce Patten, who was the principal negotiator for the couple, notified Dillon that they did not wish to close because of potential title problems and wanted a refund of their deposit. Notwithstanding this concern, Dillon advised Joyce Patten that a third surveyor would be hired, at the seller's expense, and he could "certify" the property. Although Joyce Patten expressed concern that the bank might not accept a third survey after two earlier ones had failed, and she did not want to pay for another survey, she did not instruct Dillon to stop the process. Accordingly, Dillon engaged the services of Tommy Jenkins, a local surveyor, to perform another survey. After a certified survey was obtained by Jenkins on August 12, 1996, which Respondents represent without contradiction satisfied the lender and title company, a closing was scheduled within the next few days. This closing date generally conformed to the requirement that a closing be held by August 10, 1996, "more or less." The seller, who by now had relocated to California, flew to Florida for the closing, and the title company prepared a closing statement and package. Just before the closing, however, Respondents learned through a representative of the title company that the Pattens were "cancelling the closing," apparently in violation of the contract. Shortly after the aborted closing, Joyce Patten requested that Dillon return their deposit. By this time, the Pattens had already entered into a second contract to buy another home in the same area and closed on that property before the end of August. Respondents were never informed of this fact by the Pattens. On August 21, 1996, Colleen Armbruster prepared a rather lengthy letter to the Pattens (with a copy to the sellers) in which she acknowledged that they had orally requested from Dillon that their escrow deposit be returned. The letter has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Armbruster stated that she was "perplexed" that they were demanding a refund of their earnest money deposit, given the fact that the seller had "met the terms and conditions of the sale." Armbruster outlined the three reasons in the contract which would allow the Pattens to withdraw without forfeiting their deposit, but noted that none were applicable here. Accordingly, she advised them that the seller would be consulted as to his wishes regarding the deposit, and that the Pattens should contact her if they had any questions. Through oversight, however, she did not include a notice to the Pattens that they must respond to her letter within a stated period of time reaffirming their demand for the trust funds, or the deposit thereafter would be disbursed pursuant to the contract. By failing to include this specific language, and sending the letter by regular rather than certified mail, return receipt requested, Respondents committed a technical, albeit minor, violation of an agency rule. Even so, the Pattens acknowledged receiving the letter, and there is no reason to believe that they did not understand its import, especially the requirement that they contact the broker if they disagreed with the proposed disbursement of the money. It can be reasonably inferred that the Pattens did not respond because they "figured [they weren't] going to be able to get [their] money back" due to their failure to perform. On September 13, 1996, the seller's attorney advised the Pattens by letter that the seller considered the deposit forfeited pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the contract, which pertains to the "Default" provisions. The Pattens never responded to either letter, and they also failed to respond to telephone calls made by Respondents or their agents regarding this matter. In view of the Pattens' lack of response or reaffirmance of their demand, and the fact that they had already closed on another property, Respondents logically and fairly assumed that the Pattens were in agreement with the disbursement procedures outlined in Coleen Armbruster's letter of August 21. Accordingly, on September 17, 1996, Edward Armbruster, who had not been involved in this transaction to date, in good faith signed two disbursement checks giving $697.50 to the seller and retaining the balance for his firm. This division was consistent with the terms of the contract. In making this disbursement, there was no intent on the part of Respondents to trick, deceive, breach their trust, or in any way unlawfully deprive the Pattens of their deposit. Respondents did not notify the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) that they had received conflicting demands for a deposit, nor institute any other procedures regarding the deposit, since they no longer had any good faith doubt as to whom was entitled to their trust funds. This was because the Pattens had failed to respond to letters and telephone calls regarding the sellers' claim to the deposit. There is no evidence that Respondents have ever been the subject of prior disciplinary action during their lengthy tenure as licensees. At the same time, it is noted that Respondents acted in good faith throughout the process and genuinely believed that there was no dispute. It should also be recognized that, for at least part of the time, the Pattens were working two contracts simultaneously without advising the realtors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of a technical violation of Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that they be given a reprimand. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Edward D. Armbruster Colleen M. Armbruster Post Office Box 635 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate license in Florida should be disciplined because the Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined because the Respondent failed to account and deliver funds in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
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 Joyce A. Wolford is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0313643 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, t/a Blue Ribbon Realty, 1400 N. Semoran Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32807. As To Counts I and II Diane Ortiz was employed by Respondent Joyce Wolford to perform various duties, including operating the computer and taking messages. During her employment with Respondent, Diane Ortiz completed a contract for sale and purchase of certain real property which was signed by Jane Evers as buyer. In conjunction with the Evers contract, Ortiz did receive an earnest money deposit in the form of a cashier's check for the sum of $1000 and made payable to Blue Ribbon Realty. The earnest money deposit check given by Evers was turned over to Respondent by Ortiz. The endorsement on the Evers deposit check was Blue Ribbon Realty. The sale was contingent on Evers' assumption of the existing mortgage. The mortgagee did not approve Evers, and the transaction did not close. Evers contacted Ortiz and Respondent on several occasions and demanded return of her $1,000 deposit. Evers met personally with Respondent and demanded return of the $1,000 deposit. Evers sent a written demand for the return of the deposit by certified mail to Respondent on August 9, 1989. Despite Evers repeated demands for return of the $1000 deposit, Respondent has not returned any money to Evers. Jane Evers filed a lawsuit against Respondent Joyce Wolford in the County Court for Orange County, Florida, for the sum of $1,000 and court costs. A Final Judgment in the civil lawsuit was rendered for Jane Evers against Joyce Wolford for $1,000 principal plus $73 in court costs on March 15, 1990. Respondent has not satisfied the Final Judgment awarded to Evers or any portion thereof. As To Counts III and IV Anthony Pellegrino did enter a contract to purchase certain real property known as Lakefront Motel near Clermont, Florida. Respondent Joyce Wolford did negotiate the contract. Pellegrino did give Respondent a $5,000 earnest money deposit in the form of a cashier's check to secure the contract for purchase of Lakefront Motel. The cashier's check given as a deposit by Pellegrino was endorsed to Blue Ribbon Realty account #0880510063. The Lakefront transaction did not close, and Pellegrino demanded that Respondent return the $5,000 earnest money deposit on several occasions. Respondent has not returned the $5,000 deposit or any portion thereof to Pellegrino. The $5,000 earnest money deposit for the Lakefront contract was transferred to a mortgage company for a transaction involving a condominium that Pellegrino sought to purchase. Said condominium transaction did not close. In neither case did Respondent request the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order. On July 2, 1990, the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order in the case of Department of Professional Regulation v. Joyce Wolford, finding Respondent guilty of failure to account and deliver a commission to a salesman and imposing a reprimand and an administrative fine of $1000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes (1989), as charged in Counts I, II, III and IV of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent's real estate license be suspended for two years, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 and, upon completion of the suspension period, placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years with such conditions as the Commission may find just and reasonable. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1990, 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 8th day of October, 1990. 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: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,7,18,19,20,21,22,24 (in part), 25 Rejected as cumulative or irrelevant: 7,8,23,24 (in part) Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraph 1 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: Paragraph 2,3 COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Raymond Bodiford, Esquire 47 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 475.025(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what the appropriate penalty is.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, O. Dane Streets was licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker having been issued License No. 0085710-1 for an address in Lakeland, Florida. In the Spring or early Summer of 1991, Nathan Price, a minister in Orlando, Florida, contacted Respondent to solicit Respondent's participation in representing Price's daughter, Melissa Howard, in purchasing real estate in Orlando. Price and Respondent have been business and social acquaintances for more than 10 years, and Price was helping his daughter and son-in-law in purchasing a home. The Howard's found a house they liked, Respondent obtained the listing information from the listing broker and prepared a contract for sale and purchase (Exhibit 1). As modified and accepted by all parties, this contract provided for a $1000 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Respondent's real estate company. In lieu of obtaining the deposit from Price or Howard, Respondent told Howard to give the earnest money deposit to the selling broker as all of the transactions were to be conducted in Orlando. The $1000 earnest money deposit was given to neither Respondent nor the listing broker, ReMax Southwest in Orlando. The failure of Respondent to follow up to insure that the earnest money deposit had been given to the listing broker in this transaction does not reach the status of fraud or dishonest dealing as Respondent had no such intent. Shortly before the August 21, 1991 closing date, Price advised Respondent that the mortgage lender was asking about the earnest money deposit. Respondent immediately obtained a cashier's check dated August 8, 1991 (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $1000 which Price presented at the closing on August 21, 1991. In his testimony, Respondent acknowledged that he erred in not obtaining the earnest money deposit or failing to check to be sure the deposit had been made with the listing broker. Since Respondent is located in Lakeland and the property being purchased is in Orlando when the closing was held, Respondent thought everything would be simplified if the deposit was held by the listing broker. When the listing broker learned that the deposit of $1000 had never been received by Respondent and placed in escrow, a complaint was made to the Florida Real Estate Commission, and these proceedings followed. Respondent has held licenses from the Florida Real Estate Commission for some 20 years, and this is the first time any charges have been brought against his license.
Recommendation It is Recommended that a Final Order be entered finding O. Dane Streets not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged. ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 21st day of January, 1992. Copies furnished to: Steven N. Johnson, Esquire Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate Division Director 400 W. Robinson Street Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1900 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1900 O. Dane Streets Post Office Box 6852 Jack McRay, Esquire Lakeland, FL 33807 Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate brokers and holds license No. 0002997. On May 7, 1979, Respondent acted in the capacity of a real estate broker in the transaction of the sale of a parcel of real property located in Polk County, Florida. The purchaser in that transaction was Margaret Rhoden, and the seller was June Davis, who was represented in the transaction by a relative, Henry Goodwin. On May 7, 1979, Margaret Rhoden entered into a Contract for Sale of Rea1 Estate for the purchase of a piece of property Frostproof, Florida, from June Davis. The full purchase price of the property was $3,500, which Ms. Rhoden paid to Respondent in cash on May 7, 1979, and obtained a receipt from Respondent for that amount. At the time the contract was entered into, Ms. Rhoden was advised that a deed should be forthcoming from the seller within two to four weeks. A date of June 20, 1979, was established to close the transaction, subject to a 120-day curative period should any cloud on the title be discovered. The contract between the parties provided that should any such cloud appear of record, the seller would have a period of 120 days after receipt of written notice prior to the date set for closing in which to attempt to cure the defect. The contract further provided that if title defects were not cleared within the l20-day period, the deposit would be returned to the buyer, or, at the buyer's option, the transaction should be closed in the same manner as if no defect had been found. A warranty deed purporting to transfer the property from the seller to the buyer was executed on June 7, 1979, and a title binder was issued on that same date. The title binder indicated an outstanding mortgage on a larger piece of property of which the parcel purchased by Ms. Rhoden was only a part. When efforts to clear this cloud on the title took longer than expected, Ms. Rhoden asked, and was granted, permission by the seller's agent to commence construction on the improvements on the property notwithstanding the fact that she knew that a cloud remained on the title to the lot, and the transaction had not been closed. Construction was not completed on the improvements because Ms. Rhoden ran out of cash during the course of construction. She moved into the dwelling while it was still in a partially completed condition and, on September 8, 1979, with the permission of the seller's agent, received a loan of $3,000 from the $3,500 deposit she had placed with Respondent, Ms. Rhoden executed a promissory note dated September 8, 1979, in which she agreed to repay the $3,000 loan when clear title to the property was issued. Ms. Rhoden used the proceeds of this loan to make additional improvements on the property. On October 26, 1979, Respondent received both the warranty deed dated June 7, 1979, and the title binder issued on that date from the attorney for the seller. When approached by Ms. Rhoden, Respondent agreed to lend her the deed and title binder to attempt to obtain additional financing to complete construction on her home. The clear inference from the record in this proceeding is that there was never any understanding between Respondent and Ms. Rhoden that this deed could be recorded at this or any other juncture in this transaction. In fact, the contract entered into between the buyer and seller clearly called for the payment of the full purchase price of the property at closing, and the note subsequently executed by Ms. Rhoden conditioned the issuance of a warranty deed to her on the payment of the $3,000 face value of the note. Ms. Rhoden was unsuccessful in obtaining additional financing to complete construction on her home, probably due to the fact that when she sought that financing the outstanding mortgage on the property had still not been satisfied. When Respondent advised the seller's attorney that he had loaned the warranty deed to Ms. Rhoden for the purposes outlined above, he was advised that there was nothing to keep Ms. Rhoden from recording the deed, at which point Respondent apparently determined that it would be prudent for him to retrieve the deed from Ms. Rhoden's possession. Ms. Rhoden had her mother return the deed to Respondent in February of 1980. According to the testimony of both Ms. Rhoden and her mother, they felt the purpose for the returning of the deed was to have it recorded. Respondent denies any such understanding. In resolving this conflict in testimony, the clear inference from the circumstances involved in this transaction, including the wording of the contract of sale and the note executed by Ms. Rhoden, supports a finding that all of the parties to this transaction either knew, or should have known, that the recording of the deed at this juncture in the transaction would have been improper. Although the outstanding mortgage had been satisfied in January of 1980, Ms. Rhoden had not Performed her obligation under the contract of sale by paying the full purchase price. When Respondent had recovered the deed from Ms. Rhoden, he was advised by the attorney for the seller not to record the deed until he had received payment from Ms. Rhoden in accordance with the contract and the promissory note. As indicated above, the outstanding mortgage on the property was satisfied in January of 1980. On February 6, 1980, Respondent Prepared a closing statement reflecting the purchase price of the property as $3,500. From this amount he deducted a total of $478 for state documentary stamps, title insurance, Preparing the deed, and amount of real estate commission leaving a the apparently forwarded the note from Ms. Rhoden for $3,000, together with the $22.00 cash balance remaining from her initial $3,500 deposit to the seller along with the deed which the seller had earlier executed. Ms. Rhoden apparently never made or tendered payment of the $3,000 note, the transaction never closed, and at the time of final hearing in this cause an eviction action was apparently pending between the seller and Ms. Rhoden. Paragraph seven of the contract of sale executed between the seller and Ms. Rhoden Provides as follows: If Buyer fails to perform this contract, the deposit this day paid by Buyer as aforesaid shall be retained by or for the account of Seller as consideration for the execution of this agreement and in full settlement of any claims for damages.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged by the Administrative Complaint, and, if she did, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints against real estate professionals, including licensed real estate salesmen. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent, America Canizales, was licensed by Petitioner as a real estate salesman. At the time of the hearing, however, Respondent's license was on inactive status. Respondent was the real estate salesman who represented Elvira Martinez when Ms. Martinez bought her apartment in the middle of 1987. As a result of her professional dealings with Ms. Martinez, Respondent learned that Ms. Martinez was interested in investing in real estate. On December 4, 1987, Respondent persuaded Ms. Martinez to enter into a real estate transaction with her. Respondent intended to purchase a house for the sum of $34,000, but she did not have the funds necessary to close the transaction. Respondent needed an additional $5,000 to apply toward the purchase price and to pay the costs of closing. The house was to be purchased by Respondent in her individual capacity in a transaction that was independent of her status as a real estate salesman. The agreement executed by Respondent and Ms. Martinez on December 4, 1987, provided for Ms. Martinez to give to Respondent the sum of $5,000. In exchange for this money, Respondent agreed that she would convey to Ms. Martinez one-half interest in the $34,000 house after she had acquired title to the property. In the event the transaction did net close and Respondent did not obtain title to the house, Respondent was to return to Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000 without the payment of interest. Between December 4, 1987, and December 8, 1987, Ms. Martinez gave to Respondent a check made payable to America Canizales in the amount of $5,000. This check, dated December 9, 1987, was to be held in trust by Respondent until the closing on the purchase of the $34,000 house. At no time did Respondent deposit the check in a bank account. There was no evidence that Respondent took any action to safeguard Ms. Martinez's check or the funds represented by the check. Although the check was dated December 9, 1987, the check was cashed on December 8, 1987, at the bank used by Ms. Martinez. The person who cashed the check endorsed it in the name of America Canizales. On or about December 10, 1987, Respondent told Ms. Martinez that Respondent's husband had stolen all of Respondent's money and that he had also stolen Ms. Martinez's check. Respondent also told Ms. Martinez that because of the theft, she would be unable to close their contemplated transaction and promised to repay the $5,000. Respondent offered no further explanation or accounting for the funds. Respondent made repeated promises to repay Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000 on the occasions Ms. Martinez was able to contact her. Thereafter, Respondent moved from the State of Florida without letting Ms. Martinez know where she could be reached. When Ms. Martinez located Respondent in Chicago, Illinois, Respondent again promised to repay Ms. Martinez. As of the time of the formal hearing, Respondent had returned to Dade County, Florida, but she had made no effort to repay Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000. Respondent repeatedly misled Ms. Martinez as to her intentions to repay her. The factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner to "initiate this case were denied by Respondent. The request for a formal hearing was timely filed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of `Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the final order revoke the real estate salesman's license issued to Respondent, America Canizales. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 30th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Alexander, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 America Canizales 158 West 10th Street Hialeah, Florida 33010 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent Martha M. Bustillo is a real estate broker licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0401092. At all times material hereto, she has been the qualifying broker for Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc. Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., is a real estate brokerage corporation licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0237551. At no time material hereto has Respondent Olga Venedicto been licensed in the State of Florida as either a real estate broker or as a real estate salesperson. In July of 1992 Thomas F. Sevilla contacted Virmar Investments, looking for a house to buy. Olga Venedicto took his phone call and told him that she would help him. Sevilla went to Venedicto's "office" at Virmar Investment and began working with her. Venedicto gave Sevilla her business card which represented that she is the vice president of Virmar Investments, Inc., and carries the notation "registered real estate brokers." In addition to giving him her card which carried her name, Virmar's name, and the word "brokers" in the plural form rather than the singular form, Venedicto specifically told Sevilla that she was a broker. Venedicto and Bustillo took Sevilla to see a house which he decided to buy. He gave Venedicto his check for $2,000 as a deposit and instructed her and Bustillo to make an offer on that house. Venedicto told him she would put the money in Virmar's escrow account. Instead, the money was deposited in Virmar's operating account. Sevilla did not buy that house, and Venedicto and Bustillo took him to see a second house. Sevilla decided not to make an offer on that house and asked Venedicto to refund his money. It took a month before Sevilla received a check from Venedicto. Although the check was marked "deposit return," the check was not written from Virmar's account but rather was a check from a Mega Group Corp. for only $1,675. When Sevilla attempted to cash that check, it was dishonored three times, with the notation "N. S. F." Finally, the check was honored by the bank. Sevilla had expected to receive his entire $2,000 deposit. Neither Venedicto nor Bustillo had ever told him in advance that they would keep part of his money. Although Respondents' attorney during the final hearing implied that his clients may have kept part of Sevilla's money to pay for a survey and credit report, Sevilla had not agreed in advance to pay for a credit report, and no evidence was offered as to what house Sevilla might have purchased a survey on or for what reason. Further, neither Venedicto nor Bustillo gave him a copy of any survey or credit report nor was he ever shown one or advised that either would be obtained. When Sevilla inquired as to why he was reimbursed the lesser amount, only then did Venedicto tell him that Respondents were keeping part of his money for a credit report. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar authorized and assisted Venedicto in her performance of acts and services requiring licensure as a salesperson relative to the transaction with Sevilla. Rita and Carlos Benitez listed their house for sale with Pedro Realty. Gladys Diaz was the listing agent at Pedro Realty. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto brought Carlos Martinez and his wife to look at the Benitez house. Gladys Diaz was present at the time. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto subsequently came to Diaz' office and presented to Diaz and Carlos Benitez an offer on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Martinez. Respondent Venedicto represented herself to be a realtor and Respondent Bustillo to be Venedicto's partner and broker. Respondent Venedicto discussed the contract and price with Diaz and Benitez while Respondent Bustillo observed Venedicto's presentation. The offer had previously been signed on behalf of Respondent Virmar by Respondent Venedicto who represented to Diaz that the signature on the offer was that of Respondent Venedicto. Mr. Benitez signed the document, and Diaz then took the offer to Mrs. Benitez to obtain her signature. Mrs. Benitez also signed the offer, thereby completing the contract. Thereafter, delays ensued because Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were not in a financial position to be able to purchase the home. Respondent Venedicto contacted Mrs. Benitez and attempted to re-negotiate the contract. During those negotiations which were not successful, Respondent Venedicto represented herself to Mrs. Benitez as being a licensed real estate agent. In response to Mrs. Benitez' inquiries, Respondent Venedicto gave Benitez her business card carrying the names of Venedicto and Virmar and the notation "registered real estate brokers." As to the portion of the transaction involving Mrs. Benitez, all of her contact with the three Respondents in this cause was with Respondent Venedicto. Venedicto gave Benitez advice regarding proceeding with the sale and handled the negotiations. Prior to September 24, 1992, Hector F. Sehweret, an investigator for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, requested that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar produce certain records for inspection by him. He spoke with Respondent Bustillo on a number of occasions to no avail. He offered to give her time to gather the records if necessary, but she never did. On September 24, 1992, he served Respondent Bustillo with a subpoena for those records. She still failed to produce them. Thereafter, she would not return his phone calls, and when he came to the office of Virmar Investments, Respondent Bustillo would hide from him. Neither Respondent Bustillo nor Respondent Virmar have ever produced the records subpoenaed. Further, no explanation has been given for the failure of Respondents Bustillo and Virmar to produce their records. Although the attorney for Respondents implied during the final hearing that the records may have been destroyed by Hurricane Andrew, there is no evidence to support that implication; rather, the evidence is uncontroverted that the building housing the real estate office of Respondents Virmar and Bustillo was not damaged by Hurricane Andrew. Ileana Hernandez is a realtor and a mortgage broker licensed in the State of Florida. She met Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto during a real estate transaction. In November of 1991 Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto contacted Hernandez regarding obtaining money in exchange for a second mortgage on certain real property. At the time, Respondents did not tell Hernandez the identity of the owner of the property, but Hernandez was given the address of the property and was advised that the market value of the property was approximately $79,000. Hernandez was subsequently advised that Respondent Venedicto (a/k/a Olga Bichara) was the owner of the property. It was agreed that Respondent Venedicto would execute and record the promissory note and mortgage in the amount of $15,500. Hernandez, who knew that Respondent Bustillo was the president of Terra Title, gave her a personal check payable to Terra Title in the amount of $15,000 on November 26, 1991. Respondent Venedicto, who had promised Hernandez that the promissory note and second mortgage would be recorded, never recorded those documents. Further, Respondents never delivered the original copy of the promissory note and mortgage to Hernandez despite her repeated demands. Hernandez later discovered that Respondent Venedicto was not the sole owner of the property which she had attempted to mortgage but jointly owned the property with her son. Accordingly, Respondent Venedicto's signature would not be sufficient to perfect a mortgage on the property. Hernandez also discovered that the mortgage, represented by Bustillo and Venedicto to be a second mortgage, was not. There were already two mortgages on the property. Had Hernandez known the true ownership and the true encumbrances on the property, she would not have loaned Venedicto the $15,000 because that raised the total amount of mortgages on the property to be in excess of the value of the property. Three checks which were subsequently written by Respondent Bustillo from the operating accounts of Respondent Virmar and of Mega Group Corp. were dishonored by the bank with the notation "N. S. F." As a result of those checks, Hernandez obtained default final judgments against Respondent Virmar and against Mega Group Corp., which final judgments are still unsatisfied. Prior to that time, however, Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo approached Hernandez regarding their need to borrow $35,000 to be re-paid in 30 days in conjunction with some real estate development in which Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo were involved. Respondent Venedicto and Respondent Bustillo each individually represented that Hernandez would have her money back in 30 days. Respondent Bustillo told Hernandez that Respondent Venedicto was in business with Bustillo and was selling real estate in Mexico. Bustillo asked Hernandez to make the check payable to Bustillo's company Terra Title. Hernandez went to the offices of Respondent Virmar and handed her personal check made payable to Terra Title to Respondent Venedicto. When the 30 days had passed with no payments to Hernandez, she went to Virmar Investments and made Respondent Venedicto sign a promissory note for $35,000. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Hernandez had recovered only $15,000 of the $35,000 loan made to Respondent Venedicto and had recovered only the principal amount of the money supposed to have been secured by a second mortgage on real property. Hernandez is still owed $20,000 in principal alone.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the license of Respondent Martha M. Bustillo, revoking the license of Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., and requiring Respondent Olga Venedicto to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days from the entry of the Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3328, 93-3329, and 93-3330 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-18, 20-29, and 31-33 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 findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 30 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 25, 26, 28, 37, 42, 49-52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 69, 71, and 73 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 6, 11-17, 19-22, 30- 36, 43, 46-48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 67 and 68 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 10, 23, 29, 61, 64, 65, 70, 72, and 75 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 24, 27, 38-41, 44, and 45 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 59, 66, 74, and 76-78 are rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Ofer M. Amir, Esquire Amir & Associates, P.A. 8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 500 Plantation, Florida 33324 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent on September 9, 1981 be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Jordan, Esquire CONRAD, SCHERER & JAMES 707 Southeast Third Avenue Post Office Box 14723 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Philip Jansen, Esquire JANSEN & DE GANCE, P.A. Post Office Box 7375 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman and broker-salesman, license number 0326235. In 1983, Dorothy Nutt and Diane Falstad were the owners of a house located at 608 Hillcrest Street, Orlando, Florida. In December of 1983, Ms. Nutt and Ms. Falstad placed this house for sale with real estate broker Frank Daley. The listing was an exclusive listing except as to the Respondent and another individual, for which no commission would be paid, if a contract submitted by the Respondent was accepted by Nutt and Falstad prior to December 26, 1983. On December 25, 1983, the Respondent, along with his parents, Barbara Okoniewski and Louis Okoniewski, Jr., submitted a written contract to Diane Falstad and Dorothy Nutt for the purchase of the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The contract was accepted by the sellers on December 26, 1983. The contract, as executed by the Respondent and his parents, specified that a $1,000 deposit was to be held in escrow by "Closing Agents." Additionally, Respondent represented to Ms. Falstad that the $1,000 deposit was being maintained in an escrow account. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Respondent applied for a V.A. mortgage loan, but was later determined to be ineligible. Subsequent thereto, on or about February 8, 1984, application was made with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC), to obtain financing to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The application was in the name of the Respondent's parents, with Respondent handling the matter on their behalf. Thereafter, the Respondent requested that the loan officer (Charlyne Becker) at RFC not submit the loan application for approval to the underwriters. Pursuant to his request, the application was not submitted for approval. The transaction did not close. Subsequent to the scheduled date of closing both Ms. Falstad and Ms. Nutt made demands of the Respondent for forfeiture of the $1,000 deposit, due to their belief that, he had breached the contract by failing to secure financing. It was not until after the scheduled closing date that the sellers learned the $1,000 was not in escro. To date, Respondent has neither deposited the $1,000 in any trust account nor paid any money to the sellers. Respondent admits through his own testimony, that he did not make the deposit, nor was the deposit placed in any escrow account by his parents. Respondent's testimony, which was not rebutted, established that he and his parents sought to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property and that adjacent to it for rental purposes. However, they were advised by the RFC loan officer (Charlyne Becker) that the applications were not likely to be approved by RFC. Respondent did not thereafter pursue any of the loan applications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent $500. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esq. Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis S. Okoniewski 730 Lake View Avenue, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Harold Huff. Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issues in the case are whether Respondent's real estate broker's license had been revoked when he applied for a mortgage broker's license and whether Respondent falsely answered certain questions on his application for a mortgage broker's license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed as a mortgage broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number HA 056265422-5P. He had been licensed continuously since August 5, 1986. Respondent previously has been licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. By Administrative Complaint filed March 1, 1985, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, alleged, among other things, that Respondent was guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, and breach of trust, among other things, in connection with an improper disbursement from an escrow account. Following a hearing on January 17, 1986, a Recommended Order entered April 18, 1986, found that Respondent was, as to the above-described allegations, guilty "at least of culpable negligence and breach of trust" and recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for one year. After a hearing on June 17, 1986, the Division of Real Estate entered a Final Order June 30, 1986, effective 30 days thereafter, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Recommended Order, but revoking rather than suspending Respondent's license. By Application for Registration as a Mortgage Broker signed by Respondent on March 22, 1986, Respondent applied for a mortgage broker's license (March Application). The application was filed on March 25, 1986. Question 19 of the March Application asks: Has any judgement or decree of a court or other judicial, administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal been entered against you, or is any such case pending in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation, in which you were charged in the petition, complaint, declaration, answer, counterclaim or other pleading with any fraudulent or dishonest dealing? (If your answer is in the affirmative, attach complete signed notarized statement of the charges and facts, together with the name and location of the court in which the proceedings were had or are pending.) Respondent answered this question, "no." By Application for Registration as a Mortgage Broker signed by Respondent on July 1, 1986, Respondent applied for a mortgage solicitor's license (July Application). The application was filed on July 9, 1986, and approved by Petitioner on July 31, 1986. Question 16 on the July Application asks whether the applicant is currently licensed in any state as a real estate broker or salesman. Respondent answered this question, "no." Question 17 on the July Application asks: "Has your license of any kind ever been denied, suspended or revoked?" The question then asks for a complete signed statement of the charges and facts in full detail. Respondent answered Question 17, "no." On July 28, 1986, Respondent sent a notarized letter to Petitioner concerning the July Application. In the letter, he elaborated upon the circumstances surrounding the answer to an unrelated question, but did not elaborate upon the above-described answers Respondent did not answer accurately Question 19 on the March Application. Over a year earlier, Respondent had been charged with fraudulent dealing. Respondent had no basis for omitting this item from the application because, even though he had not received the recommended order, the case obviously was still pending at the time of submitting the March Application. Respondent's incorrect answer was an intentional attempt to conceal from Petitioner the license-revocation proceeding. Although Respondent's answer to Question 16 on the July Application may have been accurate because he had relinquished his license, his answer to Question 17 was inaccurate. Respondent testified that he understood that the Final Order, which had just been issued, had not yet taken effect, so that his license had not yet been revoked. However, without further elaboration, the answer to Question 17 was incomplete and misleading, regardless of Respondent's understanding of the technical status of his license. Respondent knew that his answer was incomplete and would mislead Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter a Final Order revoking the mortgage broker's license of Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4380 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-7 Adopted or adopted in substance. 8 Rejected as irrelevant. 9-29 Adopted or adopted in substance. 30-32 Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 33-34 Rejected as legal argument. 35-36 Adopted. 37-38 and 40 Rejected as legal argument. 39 and 41-42 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as irrelevant. 45-50 Rejected as recitation of testimony. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7 Adopted or adopted in substance. 8 Rejected as irrelevant. 9-13 Adopted. 14 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 15-21 Adopted or adopted in substance. 22-23 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 24-29 Adopted or adopted in substance. 30-31 Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 34-38 Rejected as irrelevant. 39 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. James 258 East Altamonte Drive Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Elise M. Greenbaum Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, FL 32801 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
