The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondents violated specified subsections of Section 475.25 Florida Statutes with regard to alleged misuse of escrow funds.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent Mary L. Cluett was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0197523 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mary L. Cluett was as a broker, c/o Cluett Realty, Inc., 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. (pre-hearing stipulation, Paragraph 2). Respondent Cluett Realty, Inc. is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0021798 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Cluett Realty, Inc. was at the address of 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida 33905. (pre-hearing stipulation, paragraph 2). The qualifying broker for Cluett Realty, Inc. is Ernest H. Cluett, husband of Mary L. Cluett. Mary Cluett is the vice-president of the corporation. On October 17, 1984, Charles and Pamela Darr signed a multiple listing agreement with Cluett Realty, Inc. to sell their home at 598 New York Drive, Ft. Myers. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2). On February 4 and 5, 1985, the Darrs and Irving and Beverly Lockner signed a contract for sale and purchase of the New York Drive house. The terms provided for purchase price of $44,000.00; a $500.00 deposit in the form of a promissory note to be redeemed by February 26, 1985; the assumption of an existing mortgage; a second mortgage in the amount of $3,000.00 and a balance to close in the amount of $2500.00. The closing date was set for "March 14, 1985, or as soon as possible". (Petitioner's Exhibit #5). The Darrs and Lockners were told on March 14, 1985 that the paperwork was not ready for closing. The Darrs had already moved out of the house and into a leased apartment and the Lockners had travelled from their home in Baltimore with furnishings to move in. Reluctantly, Pamela Darr agreed to let the Lockners move in that day and pay rent for the rest of the month. It was understood by Ms. Darr that the closing would be on April 1st. (tr. 27,28,29) On March 14, 1985, Mrs. Lockner gave Cluett Realty $1500.00. The receipt signed by Helen Weise, an employee of Cluett Realty, is marked "escrow deposit on property, 398 New York Avenue". (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). On March 22, 1985, Beverly Lockner gave Cluett Realty $500.00; the receipt signed by Mary L. Cluett is marked "Escrow, Darr/Lockner". (Petitioner's Exhibit #3) On April 15, 1985, the Lockners gave Mary Cluett another $500.00 in the form of two checks: one for $362.64 from MSC, Inc. to Irving Lockner ( a paycheck), and a personal check to Cluett Realty from Beverly Lockner in the amount of $137.36 (tr. 17,18, Petitioner's Exhibit #4, Beverly Lockner testimony p. 17) The $2500.00 was placed in the Cluett Realty, Inc. escrow account. (tr-19) The Lockner/Darr transaction closed on June 10, 1985, (Prehearing Stipulation, Paragraph 2) In the meantime, on March 26, 1985 and April 25, 1985 Mary Cluett paid the Darr's mortgage payments for April and May with checks drawn on the Cluett Realty, Inc. escrow account in the amount of $425.38 each, payable to United Mortgage Company. (Prehearing Stipulation, paragraph 2) Beverly Lockner did not give Mary Cluett permission to use the escrow money for the Darr's mortgage. She did not know the money was being taken out until she found Mary Cluett's handwritten note left on her door which indicated that closing would be on May 6, 1985 and showed that two payments totalling $850.76 had been deducted from the $2500.00 escrow account. She called Ms. Cluett and had a confrontation about the deductions. Beverly Lockner intended that the $2500.00 be used for the closing balance. When the transaction finally closed on June 10, she had insufficient funds to close so she gave Cluett Realty a third mortgage and borrowed $500.00 from Pamela Darr. (Beverly Lockner testimony, pp. 6,7,9,16 23-26) The Darrs did not give Mary Cluett permission to use the escrow money to pay the mortgage, although Ms. Darr was concerned that the mortgage be paid. On March 14th, Pamela Darr was aware that the April mortgage payment would be taken out of the escrow account when she picked up a form, alleged signed by the Lockners, with a notation at the bottom about the payment. Pamela Darr went to Mary Cluett's office at 5:30 on that day to pick up the form. (tr. 25, 118, 119, 122, Respondent's Exhibit #1) The form in question provides as follows: [Cluett Realty, Inc. letterhead] March 14, 1985 To Whom It May Concern: We Irving N. and Beverly T. Lockner buyers, of property situated 598 New York Dr., Ft. Myers, Fl. inspected the above property on March 14, 1985 (date) and have found the property to be to our satisfaction and accept property "as is" and taking possession as Owners today. Sellers are not responsible for any maintenance on the house of any kind. (SIGNED) [Beverly Lockner Signature] (Buyer) [Irving Lockner Signature] (Buyer) WITNESS: [Mary Cluett Signature] DATE: [dated 3-14-85] NOTE: OUT OF THE ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($1,500,00) DOLLARS deposited with CLUETT REALTY ESCROW ACCOUNT THE FIRST MONTH'S PAYMENT OF $425.38 shall be made. (Respondent's Exhibit #1) The testimony of Mary Cluett and that of her employee, Helen Weise, differ substantially from Beverly Lockner's testimony regarding Respondent's Exhibit #1. Mary Cluett claims that the form was completed and signed by the Lockners in her office on March 14, 1985, and that after a phone call from Pamela Darr the note at the bottom was added before the Lockners signed. (tr- 68) She claims that by agreeing to the notation, the Lockners's clearly knew about the intended use of the escrow money for the mortgage. Beverly Lockner distinctly remembers the form. She claims that when Mary Cluett came to the house on New York Drive on March 14th, she took the blank form from her case and told the Lockners they needed to sign it that day in order to take over the house. Mrs. Lockner signed her husband's name as he had gone out to the yard. The blanks on the form were not typed in, nor was the note on the bottom. This was one of several blank forms in Mrs. Cluett's case. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, p. 6, 11-13) Helen Weise claims she typed the entire form, all but the letterhead, in the office while the Lockners were there. (tr-88) This testimony is inconsistent with the appearance of the exhibit. Mary Cluett's testimony about this form and about the purpose of the escrow money from Beverly Lockner is not plausible. For example, she claims that when the Lockners came in with the $1500.00 on March 14th the purpose was to pay the note for $500.00 referenced on the Contract for Purchase and Sale and to provide money for the mortgage payments. However, on the 14th of March, while no one knew for certain when the closing would be, it was anticipated that it would take place on April 1st. In that case only one mortgage payment would have been necessary. The amounts and timing of Mrs. Lockner's payments into the escrow account are consistent with her testimony that she was putting aside the funds necessary for closing. Assuming, for argument's sake that Mrs. Lockner did know about and approve the first payment, there is no evidence that she knew about or acceded to the second payment prior to its deduction from the escrow account. Respondent's Exhibits #2, 3, and 4 are dated May 28, 1985, May 6, 1985, and May 11, 1985, respectively. Each are notations on Cluett Realty, Inc. stationery showing the April and May deductions from the escrow account, the account number of the mortgage to be assumed, the balance required for closing and other information related to closing. Mary Cluett testified that these were delivered to Mrs. Lockner's house and copies were sent to the Darrs at the New York Avenue address as she did not know the Darr's apartment address. Pamela Darr denies receiving any of these notices. Beverly Lockner said she received only the one dated May 6th. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, P. 9) Ernest Cluett testified that the notice dated May 6, 1985 was delivered on that same date.(tr- 101) By then the second payment from the escrow account had already been made. From the testimony and evidence it is apparent that considerable confusion existed regarding the Darr/Lockner transaction. Both buyer and seller thought the deal would close on March 14th. They learned that day that it would not close and hasty arrangements were made for the Lockners to occupy the house since they had moved their belongings from Baltimore. No firm financial arrangements were made, other than an oral agreement for the Lockners to pay a pro-rated rent for the remainder of March. The closing did not take place on April 1st or the several subsequent dates that it was set, until June 10th. Meanwhile, the mortgage payments were due and no arrangements had been made for their payment. Mary Cluett prepared the March 14th form to satisfy Pamela Darr that the payments would be made, but neglected to clear the arrangement with Beverly Lockner. Mrs. Lockner figured the payments were not her responsibility because the house was not hers; the failure to close as scheduled on March 14th was not her fault. She blamed Mary Cluett for not notifying the parties sooner since she would not have left Baltimore. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, pp. 18-22)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked or otherwise penalized based upon the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
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, 445 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Michael L. Liddle, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0241275 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license was issued to Respondent as a broker, c/o Liddle Property Services, Inc., 10877 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050. In 1988, Respondent undertook to manage the rental of an apartment for Patricia D. King and her husband Leonard King. Chris Fullum, an employee of the Respondent, was handling the details of renting the apartment for the Kings. In conjunction with the rental of the Kings' apartment, Respondent sent the Kings a net rental income check dated October 1, 1988, for $612 which the Kings attempted to deposit in their bank account. The escrow check from the Respondent was returned to the Kings on October 21, 1988, marked "NSF" (non-sufficient funds). At the request of Respondent, Ms. King attempted to redeposit the check, but it was returned again on November 1, 1988 marked "NSF" and "do not present again as a cash item enter only for collection." Ms. King filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation and sent a copy of her complaint letter to the Respondent on November 10, 1988. On November 15, 1988, she received a cashier's check from Respondent for the returned net rental income check plus returned check charges. In the latter part of 1988, Respondent managed the rental of an efficiency apartment (#116 Ocean Isles Fishing Village), for Marva Kay Mizell. In conjunction with the rental described in paragraph 7, the Respondent sent to Ms. Mizell her net rental income checks for September and October 1988 totaling $620.37. After Marva Kay Mizell deposited the checks, the checks were returned to her marked "NSF". Ms. Mizell sent a copy of the complaint she filed with the Department of Professional Regulation to the Respondent. Thereafter, on January 9, 1989, Respondent sent Marva Kay Mizell a cashier's check covering the returned net rental income checks plus returned check charges. On January 20, 1989 Respondent was interviewed in his office by Petitioner's investigator, George B. Sinden, who was accompanied by another investigator, William Reich. Respondent advised Petitioner's investigators that his bookkeeper had left his employ in August 1988, and Respondent had been lax in maintaining the escrow account during September and October of that year during which period of time approximately IS checks were returned for insufficient funds. At the January 20, 1989 meeting, Respondent further advised that he had "made all the checks good." In response to a request for documentation regarding the rentals he was managing, Respondent admitted he had no written rental agreements or leases. He offered as an explanation that his rentals were short term, i.e., one day to three months. Investigator Sinden determined from Respondent that Respondent typically maintains a "tally sheet" on each unit and sends the owner a monthly "recap" with their net rental income check each month. On January 20, 1989, an office inspection and audit of Respondent's escrow trust accounts was conducted by Petitioner's investigator George B. Sinden, assisted by Petitioner's investigator William Reich. Respondent's escrow accounts were found to be short in the amount of $1,236.19. There were no pending sales at the time of the audit. Respondent told Petitioner's investigators that he (Respondent) would deposit $1,236.19 into the escrow account and would provide proof thereof along with a copy of the last 13 bank statements, all returned checks and proof of payment by February 6, 1989, to the Miami FDPR office. As of February 23, 1989, the documentation promised by Respondent had not been received. As of March 28, 1989, very little documentation had been received by Petitioner's investigators. Efforts by Petitioner's investigators to contact Respondent have been unsuccessful and Respondent has failed to return phone calls from the investigators. Because of Respondent's lack of good accounting practices, both Ms. Mizell and Ms. King were unable to determine whether their real property had, in fact, been rented or leased during any given time or how often the units were rented.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent Michael L. Liddle guilty of all charges as alleged in Case No. 89-4981 and that the real estate broker's license of Respondent be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael L. Liddle c/o Liddle Property Services, Inc. 10877 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. Case Number 89-4981 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order where Accepted or Reason for Rejection 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' Florida licenses as real estate broker, salesperson and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession and the licensing of real estate professionals. Respondents Frank E. Smith, Elaine M Smith, and Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc., were licensed real estate professionals, a broker, a sales person, and a brokerage corporation respectively. Respondent Frank E. Smith was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc.. On or about July 23, 1991, the Respondents and Carolyn Chaple entered into a management agreement whereby Respondent agreed to rent and manage Ms. Chaple's residence located in Tampa. The terms of the management agreement signed by Ms. Chaple and Ms. Smith called for the company to render a monthly statement of receipts, charges and disbursements, and to remit the net proceeds each month to Ms. Chaple whose address was listed in the agreement as P.O. Box 12003, Brooksville, Florida 34601. For performing this service, Respondents were to receive a commission of 8% of the monthly gross receipts. The agreement also called for the Respondents to: ... hire, discharge and pay all engineers, janitors and other employees; to make or cause to be made all ordinary repairs and replacements necessary to preserve the premises in its present condition and for the operating efficiency thereof and all alterations required to comply with lease requirements, and to do decorating on the premises; to negotiate contracts for nonrecurring items not exceeding $100.00 and to enter into agreements for all necessary repairs, maintenance, minor alterations and utility services; and to purchase supplies and pay all bills. An amendment to the agreement, initialed by Ms. Chaple only, made the provision subject to a lease agreement purportedly attached but which was not offered into evidence. Ms. Chaple contends that lease provided she would be responsible only for those repairs costing in excess of $250.00 and which she had approved. This added provision was not, however, initialed by Respondents and, therefore, never became a binding part of the management agreement, regardless of what Ms. Chaple intended. Ms. Smith asserts that if Ms. Chaple had insisted on that change, she would not have entered into the agreement. It is found, therefore, that there was no agreement limiting Ms. Chaple's liability for repairs. Pursuant to the management agreement, Respondents solicited and obtained tenants for Ms. Chaple's property. Respondent admittedly did not send a copy of the first lease to Ms. Chaple, but the tenancy was short lived and terminated when the tenant moved out owing rent. Ms. Chaple claims the Respondents did not advise her of this situation. Instead, she claims, she heard of it from neighbors. However, on December 30, 1991, Respondents obtained another lessee for the property at a rental of $600.00 per month for 12 months. Respondents' fee was %8 of that ($48.00) resulting in a net monthly rental to Ms. Chaple, exclusive of repair expenses if any, of $552.00 per month. Ms. Chaple claims that though she repeatedly asked for a copy of the management agreement she had signed, she never got one. When she began to ask for accountings, she says she got some but not all. By the same token, she claims she did not get all the receipts relating to the repair work done on her property. Between December 4, 1991 and August 16, 1992, Ms. Chaple wrote several detailed letters to the Respondents requesting information on the status of the first tenancy and efforts being made to receive compensation, and detailed explanations for expenditures made and charged to her on the account statements that were sent. She also complained of the lateness of the statements, of the Respondents' notice of intended termination of the agreement, and an explanation of large expense charged almost every month. Respondents claim they furnished Ms. Chaple a copy of the management agreement on at least 3 separate occasions by mailing a copy to her Brooksville address, that address listed for her in the agreement. Ms. Chaple, however, was living in Houston, Texas during all this period and requested the use of the Brooksville address, apparently her father's post office box. Respondents also claim they sent Ms. Chaple a monthly statement of account along with her net rent check each month. Every check sent was cashed by Ms. Chaple indicating she received them. There is no explanation as to why she did not also receive the account statements. In light of Ms. Chaple's moves, and the use of an intermediary to transmit mail, it cannot be said Respondents did not send the agreements. This is not to say Ms. Chaple did receive them all, merely that the Respondents dispatched them to her. Ms. Chaple also claimed she never got a copy of a lease from the Respondents. Respondent, Elaine Smith, admits this indicating she did not send copies of leases to owners as a matter of practice. It is noted that Ms. Chaple repeatedly requested itemized explanations for the major expenditures deducted from the rent each month and characterized on the account statement solely as "maintenance." The management agreement obliging the owner to pay for such expenditures as a deduction from rent is silent on the need on the Respondents to explain such deductions. The agreement obliges the agent to "render a monthly statement of receipts, disbursements and charges and to remit each month the net proceeds to the [owner]." While it may be true the monthly statement of accounting showing "maintenance" might be acceptable evidence to the Internal Revenue Service, when, as here, such expenses are relatively large and frequent, it is not at all unusual or unreasonable for the owner to request and expect to receive an explanation of those deductions. To be sure, Respondents did send some receipts as requested, but it is clear they did not do so in all cases. Clearly the mere use of the word, "maintenance" does not constitute a sufficient showing of "disbursements" or "charges" as are called for in the agreement. This is so especially in light of the fact Respondents also operated a maintenance company through which they contracted for almost all maintenance and repair work except air conditioning. The charge to the owners was cost plus 10%. Ms. Chaple ultimately filed a complaint with the Division which, on March 18, 1992, sent its investigator, J.L. Graham, to the Respondents' office. As a part of her investigations, Ms. Graham did an audit of the Respondents' escrow accounts maintained at the Sun Bank in Tampa. She discovered that Respondents maintained a security escrow account which had a shortage of $5,780.00 and a rental escrow account which had a shortage of $4,261.31. Respondents admit a shortage had existed ever since the business was purchased in 1986 and claim that due to the shrinking inventory of properties they managed, the need to pay $500.00 a month on the purchase price, and $1,300.00 a month on obligated rent, they did not have sufficient income from operations to reimburse the accounts the amount of the shortages. There is no evidence that Respondents misappropriated any of the funds represented by the shortages and it is accepted they did not cause or increase either shortage. However, it is equally true they did nothing to eradicate or reduce either, routinely drawing their lawful commissions which were placed in the company's operating account and used to pay routine expenses. In any event, within 2 days of Ms. Graham's inspection, Respondents borrowed the money to reimburse the escrow accounts for the amount of the shortages in full. Ms. Graham also found that Respondents failed to prepare and sign written monthly reconciliations of the escrow accounts and had no supporting documentation for the accounts other than the check register, leases and the management agreements. Respondents' books were primarily kept in a computer and the information in support of the escrow accounts was not being kept in a manner readily accessible to the Division's representatives. Mr. Smith admits he did not do the required reconciliations, claiming that between the computer records and the bank statements, he knew what was going on. This is insufficient to satisfy the Division's requirements. Mr. Smith contends that immediately after the audit, he began doing the required reconciliations and would be willing to furnish them to the Division on a repeated basis if necessary. Respondents also failed to prepare and furnish to the tenants of clients' properties the required disclosure of agency relationship, notifying the tenants in writing that they, Respondents, represented the respective landlords, not them. Respondents asserted they made it clear to each tenant that they did not own the units being rented, but this does not meet the rule or statutory requirement. Review of the corporation records also revealed that Mrs. Smith, a licensed salesperson, was listed as an officer of the brokerage corporation. Respondents admit this but claim they did not know it was improper and that their accountant failed to so advise them. Gennie Amick has known and been friends with Respondents for more than 7 years. She has used their services in the past as managers of property she then owned and both her son and her daughter do so at the present time. They have had absolutely no complaints about the Respondents' management. Ms. Amick knows Mrs. Smith very well and considers her to be a very honorable person. Respondent's integrity has never been questioned, to the best of Amick's knowledge, and she goes out of her way to help her clients, doing more than her contract requires of her. Mr. Smith is also an honorable person. Because of Ms. Amick's trust in the Respondents, she loaned them $6,000.00 when she learned of their difficulties with the Division and this loan was repaid when Respondents thereafter mortgaged their home. Respondents have owned Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc. since they bought it in 1986, paying $20,000.00 for the business. They put $1,500.00 down and agreed to pay the balance off at $500.00 per month. They also agreed with the seller to rent his office for $1,300.00 per month. It was these commitments, and the shrinking of the client list, which prevented them from making up the shortages in the escrow accounts. Mr. Smith has been in the real estate business, both in Florida and elsewhere, since 1967. He has been licensed as a broker since 1988 and he and his wife have operated Sunshine, which does not handle sales, only property management, since 1986. It is their livelihood. He became the qualifying broker for the firm in 1988. Neither he nor Mrs. Smith has been the subject of a complaint before now. At no time did either Respondent intend to break any rules or to unlawfully profit by their improper actions. They claim any infractions are as a result of ignorance rather than design and so it would appear. Their relationship with Ms. Chaple was less than an acceptable business relationship, yet Ms. Chaple did not make a good witness. It appeared she had her own agenda to follow and her memory of facts seemed selective. She appears to be difficult to deal with and it is reasonable to believe that much of the difficulty she had with the Respondents was as a result of her own attitude and approach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered placing all Respondents' licenses on probation for a period of 1 year under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Division and imposing an administrative file of $500.00 upon each Respondent Smith for a total fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1993, 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 18th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3898 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. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the word, solicited. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein, Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein 5. Accepted to the extent that the evidence shows the agree-ment and accountings were sent to the best evidence available to the Respondents. 6. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law, 7. & 8. More a comment on the state of the evidence, than a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 14. Accepted. Rejected as implying the disclosures made satisfied the rule requirements. Accepted. & 18. Accepted as to what Respondent's did and that no harm to the public or any client resulted, but rejected to the extent public benefit is asserted. 19. & 20. Accepted but relevant only to the quantum of punishment to be imposed. 21. - 23. Accepted. 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Hurston Building - N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Sheldon L. Wind, Esquire 110 E. Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33504 Jack McRay General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license numbers 0487611 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as t/a First Capital Realty & Investments, 3510 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33137. Hector F. Sehwerert, Petitioner's Investigator, conducted an office inspection and audit of Respondent's office and escrow accounts on or about November 19, 1990. The investigation disclosed that Respondent failed to maintain escrow reconciliation statements required by applicable law. Respondent commingled the escrow funds with his personal funds. On or about October 1, 1990, and November 3, 1990, Respondent received two earnest money deposits from purchasers of HUD properties in the respective amounts of $2,000.00 and $1,615.00. Respondent deposited the earnest money in the aggregate amount of $3,615.00 into his personal account number #012153441 maintained at Southeast Bank, N.A., which contained $11,926.49 in personal funds. Respondent has subsequently changed banks and has now opened an escrow account in accordance with applicable statutes and rules. Respondent failed to display the required office entrance sign on or about the entrance to his real estate office. The Respondent had moved his office some 30 days prior to the office inspection and the sign he had maintained at his previous office had not yet been moved. The sign had been moved and was displayed in front of Respondent's new office location at the time of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued and filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent: Guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint; Placing Respondent's real estate broker certifications, licenses, permits and registrations on probation for a period of one (1) year; and During such probationary period, requiring Respondent to provide copies of monthly escrow account statement/reconcilia- tions to: James H. Gillis, Senior Attorney, Division of Real Estate, Legal Section, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801-1772. Additional terms of the probationary period, including broker education, shall be determined by the Florida Real Estate Commission; provided that such probationary terms shall not require Respondent to retake any state licensure examination as a result of these proceedings or the resulting administrative action. In accord with Florida Administrative Code Rule 21V-24.001(2)(a), it is further recommended that, as a part of the probationary conditions, Respondent appear before the Commission at the last meeting of the Commission preceding termination of probation. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL 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 16th day of July, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, etc., or by violating a duty imposed upon him by law or by the terms of a listing contract and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty; Whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(d)1., by failing to timely account or deliver to any person any personal property such as money, funds, deposit, check draft, etc. and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty; and Whether Respondent, a sales associate, registered as an officer, director of a brokerage corporation, or general partner of a brokerage partnership is in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-5.016 and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. DOAH has jurisdiction, pursuant to section 120.574, to render a decision in this matter, which shall be final agency action subject to judicial review under section 120.68. Mr. Rivas is a licensed real estate sales associate, holding license number 3385508, issued by the State of Florida. Structure of the Brokerage Corporation On or about April 7, 2015, Respondent registered GREH with the State of Florida, Division of Corporations ("Division of Corporations"), identifying himself as the registered agent and manager of GREH. Respondent filed documents on behalf of GREH with the Division of Corporations on the following dates and identified himself with the following titles with GREH: On April 13, 2016, March 14, 2017, and April 17, 2018, Respondent identified himself as the registered agent, managing member, and president; On November 22, 2017, and April 17, 2018, Respondent identified himself as an authorized member; On April 22, 2019, Respondent identified himself as a registered agent, an authorized member, and managing member; On October 23, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent and member; On November 27, 2019, Respondent identified himself as a registered agent, member, and manager; On December 6, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent and shareholder; and On December 10, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent. On March 23, 2017, GREH registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission") as a real estate corporation in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CQ 1053189. At no time was Respondent registered with the Commission as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. From November 27, 2017, to October 3, 2019, Mr. Avila, who at that time was a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number BK 3401612, was the qualifying broker of GREH. From October 3, 2019, to October 15, 2019, and from November 25, 2019, to December 9, 2019, GREH's license was invalidated due to it not having a qualifying broker. From October 15, 2019, to November 25, 2019, Gamila Murata was the qualifying broker for GREH. From December 9, 2019, to July 29, 2020, Mr. Henson was the qualifying broker for GREH. On August 22, 2019, without the authority of the qualifying broker for GREH, Respondent filed a civil action on behalf of GREH against Arnauld and Annelyn Sylvain (collectively, the "Sylvains") in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in case number 502019CA008774XXXXMB, seeking, among other things, to recover real estate commissions allegedly claimed due by GREH and Respondent. Respondent subsequently retained attorney Monica Woodard to represent GREH in the civil proceedings, and GREH's complaint was dismissed. On or about November 19, 2019, the Sylvains filed a separate civil action against GREH in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in case number 502019CC015230XXXXMB, seeking to recover a $10,000.00 escrow deposit. Respondent failed to inform the qualifying broker of record for GREH, Mr. Henson, who assumed that position shortly after the filing of the civil action, of the pending lawsuit. Respondent opened bank accounts on behalf of GREH, including an account called an "Escrow Account," which was controlled by Respondent and at no time was controlled by a qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent deposited escrow funds into the Escrow Account for GREH, without the authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent closed the Escrow Account held in the name of GREH and removed funds that were to be held in trust from the account without authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent controlled all communications regarding certain real estate transactions on behalf of GREH, without the knowledge or authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Contract 1 On or about March 4, 2019, an "AS IS" Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase ("Contract 1") was entered into between the Sylvains, as buyers, and Frederick F. Breault and Evelyn Breault (the "Breaults"), as sellers, for property located at 16595 93rd Road North, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 ("Subject Property 1"). Respondent facilitated Contract 1 on behalf of the Sylvains. Pursuant to the requirements of Contract 1, the Sylvains deposited $10,000.00 with GREH, to be held in escrow as the initial deposit. The escrow funds were delivered to Respondent in the form of a certified check drawn from SunTrust Bank in the amount of $10,000.00 and purchased by Mr. Sylvain on March 4, 2019 ("SunTrust Certified Check"). The $10,000.00 escrow funds were deposited into a bank account held in the name of GREH. The SunTrust Certified Check was deposited into a bank account over which Respondent had sole control. The GREH account in which the SunTrust Certified Check was deposited was at no relevant time controlled by a Florida licensed real estate broker. Contract 1 provided that the Sylvains had 20 days from the effective date to obtain loan approval ("Loan Approval Period"). Paragraph 18(F) of the Contract provided as follows: TIME: Calendar days shall be used in computing time periods. Time is of the essence in this Contract. Other than time for acceptance and Effective Date as set forth in Paragraph 3, any time periods provided for or dates specified in this Contract, whether preprinted, handwritten, typewritten or inserted herein, which shall end or occur on a Saturday, Sunday, or a national legal holiday (see 5 U.S.C. 6103) shall extend to 5.[:]00 p.m. (where the Property is located) of the next business day. Because 20 days from the effective date fell on a Sunday, the Loan Approval Period expired on Monday, March 25, 2019. Paragraph 8(b)(i) of Contract 1 provided that: "Buyer [the Sylvains] shall ... use good faith and diligent effort to obtain approval of a loan meeting the Financing terms ('Loan Approval') and thereafter to close this Contract." Paragraph 8(b)(v) of the Contract further provided that if neither party timely cancelled the Contract pursuant to paragraph 8, the financing contingency would "be deemed waived." Paragraph 8(b)(vii) finally provided that "[i]f Loan Approval has been obtained, or deemed to have been obtained, as provided above, and Buyer fails to close this Contract, then the Deposit shall be paid to Seller … ." The parties agreed to close Contract 1 by April 10, 2019. The Sylvains did not obtain final loan approval ("clear to close") within the Loan Approval Period. The loan was not denied for any of the exceptions set forth in paragraph 8(b)(vii), to release of the escrow deposit to the seller. The Sylvains did not terminate the contract within the Loan Approval Period. After the Loan Approval Period expired, the Sylvains sought to extend Contract 1, without consideration for the extension. The Breaults countered the Sylvains' request to extend with an offer that an extension would be granted for consideration that the Sylvains agree to forfeit the earnest money deposit. The parties never reached an agreement to extend Contract 1 and Contract 1 failed to close. On or about May 2, 2019, the Sylvains's loan application for Contract 1 was denied. On May 8, 2019, the Breaults executed a Release and Cancellation of Contract demanding release of the $10,000.00 escrow deposit on Contract 1, which Respondent received by email on that date from Betty Khan, the sales associate representing the Breaults. The Sylvains also executed a Release and Cancellation of Contract seeking return of the $10,000.00 escrow deposit on Contract 1, which Respondent communicated to Ms. Khan on May 8, 2019. Also, on May 8, 2019, Respondent informed the Sylvains of the Breaults's claim on the earnest money deposit. Despite knowing that there were conflicting demands for the escrowed funds, Respondent failed to inform Mr. Avila, the qualifying broker for GREH at the time, or the Department, of the escrow dispute. The Breaults were never informed of any escrow dispute filed with the Department, were never sued in relation to the escrow deposit, and never went to mediation or arbitration with regard to the escrow deposit, despite making a demand for the escrow deposit. Respondent claimed that he applied the $10,000.00 escrow funds to another contract under which the Sylvains were buyers. Respondent closed the GREH Escrow Account, removing the $10,000.00 from the account, without consent of either the Sylvains or the Breaults. Contract 2 On or about May 2, 2019, an "AS IS" Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase (Contract 2) between the Sylvains, as buyers, and the Mossuccos, as sellers, for property located at 7584 Apache Boulevard, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 ("Subject Property 2"). Respondent facilitated Contract 2 on behalf of the Sylvains. In relation to Contract 2, specifically paragraph 2(a), which required an earnest money deposit in the amount of $10,000.00, Respondent requested that the Sylvains provide him a check in the amount of $10,000.00 to show the Mossuccos. On or about May 6, 2019, the Sylvains then drew a check from a business account held with TD Bank in the amount of $10,000.00 and payable to Global Business Financial Investment ("TD Bank Check"), which the Sylvains delivered to Respondent. Respondent took a photograph of the check and promised the Sylvains that the check would not be cashed or deposited. On or about May 6, 2019, Miledy Garcia, now known as Miledy Rivas, Respondent's spouse, a Florida licensed real estate sales associate, having been issued license number SL 3383271, issued an escrow deposit receipt for $10,000.00 for Contract 2 on a GREH form ("May 6, 2019, GREH Receipt"). The TD Bank Check was never deposited or cashed by Respondent; rather, the Sylvains immediately issued a stop payment order on the check to TD Bank. Despite having never deposited the TD Bank Check, Respondent communicated the May 6, 2019, GREH Receipt and a photo of the TD Bank Check to Mrs. Mossucco and Ms. Weintraub. The $10,000.00 escrow funds from Contract 1 were the escrow funds represented on Contract 2. Respondent represented that the $10,000.00 escrow funds were applied to Contract 2, prior to cancellation of Contract 1, and continued to represent the same, even after Respondent knew the Breaults were making a claim against the funds. Contract 2 failed to close. After Contract 2 failed to close, the Mossuccos and Sylvains agreed to cancel Contract 2 and release each other from liability under the terms of Contract 2, and further agreed that any earnest money deposit could be returned to the Sylvains. Respondent failed to deliver the escrow funds to the Sylvains. Rather, Respondent believed that the funds belonged to him (or one of his companies) and that he was entitled to remove the escrow funds and use them as he (or his company) saw fit. Respondent testified that he submitted a notice of escrow dispute, dated "9-30-2019," to the Department, identifying the parties to the transaction as the Mossuccos and the Sylvains, and the subject property as 7584 Apache Boulevard, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470. Respondent gave conflicting testimony, including, for example: First testifying that he believed the $10,000.00 escrow funds belonged to him (or his company) to be spent as he saw fit; then, after a break in the proceedings and on re-direct by his counsel, changing his story by saying that counsel for Petitioner put words in his mouth and that he meant only that there was a "dispute on the funds." First testifying that Mr. Avila was a signatory on the GREH "Escrow Account," then admitting that Mr. Avila was not a signatory on the account. There was also conflicting testimony between Respondent and several of the witnesses; however, where there were inconsistencies, Petitioner's witnesses' testimony was substantially consistent and supported by the documentary evidence presented. Parts of Respondent's testimony were inconsistent with documentary evidence admitted into evidence by stipulation of the parties. Facts Concerning Aggravation or Mitigation of Penalties Respondent collected escrow funds and deposited them into an account that he, only a licensed real estate sales associate, controlled, rather than one that was controlled by the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent admittedly removed escrow funds in the amount of $10,000.00 from the bank account in which they were deposited, without all parties having a claim to the escrow funds executing a release. Respondent testified that he believed the escrow funds belonged to him (or one of his companies) and that he had a right to do with the funds as he (or he through one of his companies) saw fit. Respondent used vulgar language, threats, and demeaning language toward his clients, other real estate professionals, and title agents to attempt to coerce those individuals into submitting to his demands. Respondent failed and refused to comply with the direction of the qualifying broker with supervisory responsibility over Respondent and GREH. Respondent failed to keep the qualifying broker of GREH apprised of the real estate transactions in which Respondent was involved. There was significant testimony establishing that Respondent was performing tasks that are only allowed to be performed by a licensed real estate broker, not a real estate sales associate, mortgage broker, or mortgage loan originator. Additional Facts Raised by Respondent In his proposed conclusions of law, Respondent raises, as a matter of fact, that the "Department failed to plead sufficient facts underpinning its argument" regarding the handling of escrow funds. In paragraph 25 of his Proposed Final Order, Respondent states: Nowhere in the administrative complaint does the Department allege that Mr. Rivas falsely represented that GREH received the TD Bank Check as earnest money for Contract 2, or that he falsely represented to the Sylvains that the Breaults did not have a legitimate claim against the $10,000.00 escrow funds deposited by the Sylvains toward Contract 1, or that he misrepresented to the Sylvains that the $10,000.00 funds from the SunTrust Certified Check could be and were applied to Contract 2. Respondent further argued that none of the "facts relevant to aggravation or mitigation" set forth in the Department's Proposed Final Order were pled in the A.C., in violation of Respondent's due process rights. Both of these arguments are rejected as set forth in paragraphs 108 and109 below. Additional Facts Concerning Department Costs The Department presented competent evidence that it incurred investigative costs in the amount of $1,551.00.
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Powell should be disciplined for irregularities in the handling of an escrow deposit by a real estate firm for which he was the qualifying broker.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie Powell, was at all relevant times a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0070494. Mr. Powell was the sole qualifying broker of Future Investments & Development II Co., Inc., trading as ERA Thompkins and Saunders Realty Company (hereafter, T & S), 2734 N.W. 183rd Street, Suite 206, Miami, Florida 33056. On or about November 12, 1990, Guillermo Castillo, a licensed real estate broker for Emerald Enterprises, Inc., received a listing agreement from Horace B. Miller to sell residential property (a duplex) owned by Miller located at 2331 N.W. 103rd Street, Miami, Florida. The property was listed with the Multiple Listing Service. On or about February 27 or 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received a telephone call from Willie J. Thompkins of T & S saying he wanted to show the Miller property to a prospective buyer. On or about February 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received through the mail slot at his office a written offer from George R. Howell of Dorchester, Massachusetts, to buy the Miller property, with a business card of Jerry Saunders of T & S. On or about March 6, 1991, Guillermo Castillo met with Horace Miller to review the Howell offer. At Miller's request, Castillo made some changes to the contract to reflect that Miller was selling the duplex in "as is" condition. Miller signed the contract and initialed the changes, and Mr. Castillo signed the contract on behalf of Emerald Enterprises, and called Willie J. Thompkins to tell him the contract had been signed. The next day, Mr. Castillo went to the office of T & S and dropped off the contract for the buyer to consider the seller's changes. A day or two later, a representative of T & S telephoned Guillermo Castillo and told Mr. Castillo that the buyer had accepted the seller's changes to the contract; Mr. Castillo then notified Miller. Mr. Castillo later received from T & S the signed contract with Mr. Miller's changes initialed by Mr. Howell. The contract was also signed by Mr. Thompkins of T & S. The contract called for a $1,000 deposit to be held in escrow by T & S (Exhibit 5, Paragraph IIa). Guillermo Castillo contacted T & S to check on the progress of the sale. He learned that J.P. Mortgage was handling the buyer's mortgage loan application. Castillo contacted J.P. Mortgage and was told that the loan was proceeding normally. After the contractual closing date of April 29, 1991, had passed without the closing taking place, Castillo contracted J.P. Mortgage again, but was told that they were no longer processing the loan. Castillo requested that J.P. Mortgage send him a letter to that effect, and he received a letter dated May 2, 1991, stating that J.P. Mortgage was withdrawing as the lender because the buyer failed to return the mortgage loan application. Castillo informed Horace Miller of the situation and Miller instructed Castillo to write to T & S making a claim to the buyer's deposit under the contract of sale. On May 4, 1991, Castillo sent a letter to T & S claiming the deposit for the seller. Paragraph Q of the contract provided for the seller to retain the buyer's deposit as liquidated damages if the buyer failed to perform the contract. On or about May 9, 1991, Guillermo Castillo received from Mr. Thompkins, the manger of T & S, a letter dated May 1, 1991, but postmarked May 6, 1991, ". . . requesting that the . . . file be cancelled" due to ". . . communication problems with . . . Mr. Howell," and citing unsuccessful attempts to contact Howell by telephone and by mail. When Castillo received that letter he contacted T & S to point out the seriousness of the matter and to press for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit. On May 9, 1991, Castillo received a telefax from Mr. Thompkins of T & S stating that the Howell deposit check had been returned for insufficient funds and attaching a copy of the returned check. Prior to his receipt of this telefax, Castillo had not taken any independent steps to verify whether T & S had actually received the Howell deposit. He had relied on the contract, which had been executed by a licensed salesman and believed he did not require further verification that the escrow deposit had been made. Neither Mr. Castillo nor Mr. Miller dealt with the Respondent, Mr. Powell, at any time concerning the sale of the Miller property. T & S received George Howell's $1,000 deposit in the form of a check on March 4, 1991, drawn on a Massachusetts bank and deposited it in its account with First Union National Bank which was used as the escrow account, account number 15462242336, on March 5, 1991. The check was charged back to the account twice, on March 11, 1991, and on March 26, 1991. Mr. Powell was a signatory on that escrow account. After Guillermo Castillo received the May 9, 1991, telefax, he notified Horace Miller. Mr. Miller had not taken any steps on his own to verify whether T & S had received the deposit because he had confidence in his broker to let him know right away if there were any problems with the sale. By May 9, 1991, Horace Miller had already incurred expenses preparing the property for closing, and had lost rent by terminating a tenancy in the property. Because the transaction never closed, Mr. Miller sustained financial damage, some of which he might have avoided if he had been notified earlier of the buyer's dishonored escrow deposit check. On or about May 28, 1991, Miller filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, which Sidney Miller investigated. He found that the person introduced to him during his investigation at T & S as Willie Powell was not actually the Respondent. In March 1991, Mr. Powell had not seen the bank statements for the T & S escrow account for several months, and had not signed the written monthly escrow account reconciliation statement for the month of October 1990 or for any subsequent month. Mr. Powell was serving as the qualifying broker of T & S for a salary of $75 per month and no commissions. He was not active in the management of the firm. He would come to the office of T & S approximately three days per week to check files and sign listing agreements, and he would call in to see if there were any problems, messages or documents to sign. He essentially loaned his brokers' license to those who operated T & S as an accommodation because he had known the Thompkins family for 25 years. Mr. Powell argues in his proposed order that "the adequacy of [Mr. Powell's] monthly reconciliations were impeded by frauds perpetrated upon him by persons at [T & S]" (PRO at page 9, paragraph 5). It is obvious that there were problems at T & S, since a person there misrepresented himself to the Department's investigator as Mr. Powell. The full extent of the misconduct there is unclear. There is no proof in this record that salespersons at T & S had fabricated escrow account statements for Mr. Powell. Had Mr. Powell proven that he performed monthly reconciliations with what turned out to be falsified records of T & S, his argument might be well taken. The record, unfortunately, shows that no reconciliations were done. Had Mr. Powell done them, the problem here should have been uncovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Willie Powell guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, finding him not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and taking the following disciplinary action against him: Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 to be paid within 30 days of the date of the final order adopting the recommended order. Placement of the license of Mr. Powell on probation for a period of one year beginning on the date of the final order and providing that during that period he shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Legal Section, Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N-308, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801-1772, of having completion a 30-hour postlicensure education course in real estate brokerage management, in addition to any other education required of him to remain current and active as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, and that he be required to submit to the Commission during that year his monthly trust account reconciliations. Cf. Rule 21V-24.002(3)(i), Florida Administrative Code, on penalties for violation of Rule 21V-14.012(2), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of July 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 day of July 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-0192 Rulings on Findings proposed by the Commission: Adopted in Findings 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 15. Rulings on Findings proposed by Mr. Powell: Adopted in Finding 1 with the exception of the license number. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Generally adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as subordinate to Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary, the reconciliation was not one done shortly following the month of March reconciling the account for March 1991. It was done during the investigation conducted by Mr. Miller and took place between approximately June 20 and July 10, 1991. Adopted in Finding 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as unnecessary, or subordinate to Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite N-607 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent, John P. Wickersham ("Wickersham"), is licensed as a real estate broker under license number 0095775. Respondent, Aladdin Real Estate of Rockledge ("Aladdin"), is a Florida corporation registered as a real estate broker under license number 0213244. Wickersham is the qualifying broker and corporate officer for Aladdin. Respondents maintain their escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Cocoa. On April 28, 1994, Ms. Marie Ventura, Petitioner's investigator, audited Respondents' escrow account. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $46,287.30 and a reconciled balance of $43,557.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a shortage of $2,730.04. Respondents provided Ms. Ventura with additional information. On May 16, 1994, Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $43,546.21 and a reconciled balance of $42,787.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had an excess of $11.05. Respondents never had a shortage in their escrow account. Respondents maintained an excess of $11.05 in their escrow account since September, 1993. In September, 1993, Respondents converted their method of bookkeeping to a computer system. The computer system failed to disclose an excess of $11.05 due to Respondents' misunderstanding of the appropriate method of labeling inputs to the software system. Respondents discovered and corrected the error prior to the formal hearing. Respondents properly made and signed written monthly reconciliation statements comparing their total escrow liability with the reconciled bank balances of their escrow account. Although Respondents did not use the form suggested in Rule 61J2- 14.012(2), Respondents satisfied the substance of the requirements for record keeping and reporting. Respondents maintained the information required in Rule 61J2-14.012(2) in bank statements, ledger cards, and checkbooks. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondents presented the information in a form that complied with the requirements of Rule 61J2-14.012(2). The shortage determined by Petitioner on April 28, 1994, was caused, in part, by errors made by Petitioner's investigator. It was the investigator's first audit, and the information provided by Respondents was not in an easily discernible form. However, Respondents never withheld any information, and Respondents maintained and provided all information required by applicable law.
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 Section 475.25(1)(b) and Rule 61J2-14.012(2). RECOMMENDED this 18th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL 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 18th day of January 1996.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Naomi N. Radcliff, is licensed in Florida as a real estate broker (license No. 0369173) and has been at all times material to the Administrative Complaint. On December 2, 1987, Respondent submitted a Request for License or Change of Status form which sought to cancel the license. Thereafter, the Department reclassified Respondent as an inactive broker. In July, 1986, Randy Mangold and his wife entered into a contract to purchase real property located in Indian River Estates. Naomi Radcliff was the real estate agent who handled the transaction on behalf of the Mangolds. The Mangolds' contract provided for occupancy prior to closing with a security deposit for the rental in the amount of $1500. This amount was paid to Respondent. At closing the $1500 security deposit was to be applied to the buyers' closing costs. The Mangolds rented the home for a year and attempted to obtain financing for the purchase. When their mortgage application was denied, they elected to vacate the property. After they vacated the property, the Mangolds requested the return of the $1500 security deposit. Demands were made on Respondent who refused to return the deposit despite the fact that the Mangolds had fully paid all rents owed and had left the house in good condition. Finally, the Mangolds sued Respondent in the St. Lucie County Court and obtained a judgment for the $1500 security deposit. Respondent has not satisfied the judgment. At one point Respondent did give the Mangolds a check for $500 which was returned due to insufficient funds in the account. In December, 1986, Respondent acted as a rental agent for Walter Zielinski, an out-of-state owner. Mr. Zielinski owned two houses in Port St. Lucie, one of which was located at 941 Fenway. In early December, 1986, Respondent advised Mr. Zielinski that the tenants had left the home at 941 Fenway and that the unit was in fairly good condition. Sometime later in the month, Mr. Zielinski discovered the house was empty but that it had been damaged. There were holes in the wall in the utility room approximately two feet in diameter. The flooring in the utility room and kitchen was ripped up. There was a hole in the wall in the master bedroom. More important to Mr. Zielinski, the house was unsecured because the garage door latch was broken and the house was accessible through the garage. After discovering the unit was at risk for additional damage, Mr. Zielinski attempted to contact Respondent but numerous calls to Respondent, her place of work, and to a former employer proved to be unsuccessful. Finally, Mr. Zielinski obtained another real estate agent to represent the 941 Fenway home. The new agent, Cathy Prince, attempted to obtain from Respondent the keys, the security deposit, and the rent money belonging to Mr. Zielinski. In January, 1987, Mr. Zielinski came to Florida from Illinois to take care of the rental problems. Mr. Zielinski incurred expenses totalling $876.74 to repair the damages to 941 Fenway. Also, Mr. Zielinski wanted to collect the rents owed by Respondent for his other property and have the security deposit for the second property transferred to the new agent. Respondent issued a personal check for the security deposit which was returned for insufficient funds. A second personal check paid to Mr. Zielinski for the rent owed was accepted and cleared. According to Mr. Zielinski, Respondent did not maintain an office where he could find her during the latter part of December, 1986 through January, 1987. In March, 1987, the security deposit for Mr. Zielinski's second rental was paid to the new agent. The check was issued by Respondent's mother. Respondent never personally returned any calls to the new agent. In June, 1986, Alyssa and Jeffrey Maloy entered into a contract to purchase a house. Respondent handled the real estate transaction for the Maloys. The closing was to be December 9 or 10, 1986. Respondent held monies that were required to complete the Maloy closing. Respondent attended the closing but the check tendered to the closing agent, Chelsea Title, was drawn on an trust account which had been closed. The closing agent discovered the problem and requested sufficient funds. Respondent left the closing and returned some hours later with new checks drawn on another account. After checking with the bank, it was again discovered that the funds in the account were insufficient to cover the amount needed for closing. Finally, some days later the Respondent's brother delivered a certified check to cover the amount needed to close the Maloy transaction.
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 suspending the Respondent's real estate broker's license for a period of five years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 12th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4631 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, with the exception of the date referenced (November, 1986) the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected a hearsay evidence unsupported by direct evidence of any source. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted. The second sentence calls for speculation based on facts not in the record and is, therefore, rejected. Paragraphs 7-11 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 12, the first four sentences are accepted; with regard to the balance, the Respondent's brother did deliver funds to allow the Maloy transaction to close however the source of the funds is speculation based upon hearsay unsupported by the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Naomi N. Radcliff 1420 Seaway Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33482
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number HK0008557. In 1986, he was employed by Cityfed Mortgage Company. In July, 1986, Respondent met John and Audrey-Ann Marzano, husband and wife, at a party at the home of a mutual friend, Barbara Fieste. The Marzanos and Respondent agreed that he would pre-qualify them for a mortgage in order to determine the maximum amount of a mortgage loan that they could anticipate receiving. On or about October 22, 1986, the Marzanos signed a contract to purchase a home in a subdivision known as Coventry in the Melbourne area. The contract was prepared by Ms. Feiste, who was not a licensed real estate broker or salesman. Respondent, who was a licensed real estate broker or salesman at the time, reviewed the contract to determine its sufficiency from the point of view of a mortgage lender. No counterparts or copies of the contract remain in existence. Respondent was to deliver the signed contract offer to the seller or its attorney, but never did so. On October 22, 1986, the Marzanos delivered to Respondent a check drawn on their personal checking account in the amount of $2500 and payable to "EMBY Associates." "EMBY Associates" was a corporation that Respondent had recently formed or was about to form. This payment represented the Marzanos' earnest money deposit that was to accompany the contract offer. Respondent deposited the check in his personal checking account on October 23, 1987. He endorsed the check, "EMBY Assoc" and, beneath that, "MB Reed." After receiving the check from the Marzanos, Respondent or someone at his direction added to the payee line on the check, "or MB Reed." Respondent deposited the Marzanos' check into an account that he had opened about ten days earlier. Either Respondent or Ms. Feiste could sign checks drawn on the account. In fact, the account belonged to Respondent, who signed all of the checks drawn on it during the months of October and November, 1987. Ms. Feiste was on the account only in the event that Respondent died or became disabled. The Marzanos' bank honored the check and debited their account in the amount of $2500. Between the opening of the account and the day that Respondent deposited the Marzanos's check, he had written checks in the total amount of $2570.22 against total deposits during the same period of $937.04. All of the checks drawn on the account were for personal expenses of Respondent. The single largest check was in the amount of $2025 representing rent for Respondent's personal residence. The monthly statement dated November 3, 1986, shows that one of Respondent's checks was returned for insufficient funds one week after he deposited the Marzanos' check. The monthly statement dated December 3, 1986, shows that 19 of Respondent's checks were returned for insufficient funds between November 14 and December 3, 1986. The contract signed by the Marzanos was never signed by the seller. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent stressed to the Marzanos the importance of acting quickly on the house due to its favorable price, he allowed them to submit a contract without a deadline for the time for acceptance. After making the offer, the Marzanos applied for a mortgage with Cityfed Mortgage Company through Respondent. Weeks passed with the Marzanos hearing nothing about their offer. Finally, they demanded that Respondent return to them their money. Respondent offered different explanations as to what had happened to their money, but declined to repay them the $2500 that they had entrusted to him. Repeated demands were unsuccessful and the Marzanos never received their money back. Respondent testified that he took $2500 in cash in a sealed envelope to the receptionist of the law firm that represented the seller. He testified that he neither asked for nor received a receipt and that that was the last that he saw of the money. An attorney representing the firm testified that the firm had never accepted a cash earnest money deposit. Respondent testified that the source of the cash was the repayment by a Mr. Hamel of the final installment of a note, of which Respondent had no copy. Respondent omitted mention of this critical fact in his lengthy answer to the Administrative Complaint or in any of his statements to investigators. Respondent's testimony that he delivered $2500 cash is implausible. In fact, he used the Marzanos' money for personal expenditures and never transferred cash representing their earnest money deposit to anyone.
