Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters involved herein; Petitioner held Florida real estate salesman's license number 0403224. Her license was listed with Century 21 ACR Equities; Inc., 4222 W. Fairfield Drive, Pensacola; on May 25; 1983. On March 4, 1985, Respondent listed her license with Century 21; Five Flags Properties; Inc., in Pensacola, without terminating her listing with ACR Equities. On March 22, 1985, Five Flags terminated her listing with that firm and on April 30; 1985, ACR Equities terminated her listing with that firm. On May 14; 1985; Respondent applied for a change of status to list her license with Old South Properties; Inc., in Pensacola. That firm terminated the association on July 9, 1985. On March 19; 1985; Emmison Lewis and his wife; Lillie Mae signed a handwritten sales agreement prepared by Respondent for the purchase of a piece of property located in Escambia County; for $33,000.00. The Lewises gave her a deposit of $500.00 by check made payable to Respondent and which bears her endorsement on the back. This check was made payable to Respondent because she asked that it be made that way. Several days later; Respondent came back to the Lewises and asked for an additional $1,500.00 deposit. This was given her, along with a rental payment of $310.00; in a $2,000.00 check on March 29, 1985. Respondent gave the Lewises the balance back in cash along with a receipt reflecting the payment of the $1,500.00. On that same date; Respondent had the Lewises sign a typed copy of the sales agreement which reflected that both the $500.00 deposit and the additional $1,500.00 were due on closing. This typed copy was backdated to March 19; 1985. Both the handwritten and typed copies of the sales agreement bear the signature of the Respondent as a witness. The sale was never closed and the Lewises have never received any of the $2;000.00 deposit back. On about four different occasions, Mr. Lewis contacted Respondent requesting that she refund their money and she promised to do so, but never did. They did, however, receive the $310.00 rent payment back in cash approximately two weeks later. On April 26, 1985, James E. Webster and his wife Pearlie signed a sales agreement as the purchasers of real estate with Respondent. This property had a purchase price of $31,900.00. At the time of signing, Mr. Webster gave Respondent $150.00 in cash and a check drawn by his wife on their joint account for $400.00. Due to Mrs. Webster's change of mind, the Websters did not close on the property. They requested a refund of their deposit and Respondent gave the Websters a check for $400.00 which was subsequently dishonored by the bank because of insufficient funds. The Websters called Respondent at home several times, but she was always out. Calls to the broker with whom her license was placed were unsuccessful. Finally, however, Respondent refunded the $400.00 to the Websters in cash. Respondent had listed her license with ACR Equities in May, 1983. At no time while Respondent had her license with Mr. Bickel's firm did she ever turn over to him as broker either the $2.000.00 she received from the Lewises or the $550.00 she received from the Websters. Mr. Bickel, the broker, was not aware of these contracts and did not question her about them. He terminated the placement of her license with his firm because he found out that in early March 1985, she had placed her license with another firm., Both sales agreements for the Lewises and that for the Websters had the firm name of ACR Equities printed on them as broker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law; it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee; Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Esquire p. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ralph Armstead; Esquire P. O. Box 2629 Orlando; Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner and, if so, whether Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes; and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Jared A. White T/A Jerry White Realty was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0187087 pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker with an address of 231 Skiff Pt. 7, Clearwater, Florida 34630. TITLE TO THE PROPERTY The matters at issue began with Respondent's retention as a real estate broker to bid at a foreclosure auction for a beachfront house and lot at 235 Howard Drive in Belleair Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was hired to submit the bid on behalf of Dr. Moshe Kedan and/or his wife, Ella Kedan. Prior to the auction on August 17, 1995, Respondent had no contact with the Kedans. Kathy MacKinnon of Viewpoint International Realty in Clearwater was Respondent’s point of contact with the Kedans. It was Ms. MacKinnon who obtained Respondent's services to bid on behalf of the Kedans, and Ms. MacKinnon who negotiated with Dr. Kedan as to the financial arrangements for both the bid and any ensuing commissions for Respondent. Neither Ms. MacKinnon nor Dr. Kedan was called as a witness in this case. Respondent attended the foreclosure auction and tendered the winning bid on the property. Respondent bid in his own name. Respondent testified that he had bid at several similar sales in the past, and his practice was to bid in the name of the person who would hold title to the property. Respondent did not follow his usual practice here because Ms. MacKinnon failed to instruct him as to whether the property would be titled in the name of Dr. Kedan, Mrs. Kedan, or one of their corporations. Ms. MacKinnon told Respondent she would know on August 18 how the property was to be titled. Respondent's testimony regarding the initial titling of the property is supported by a handwritten note faxed by Ms. MacKinnon to Dr. Kedan on August 17, shortly after the auction. Ms. MacKinnon's note provides instructions regarding payment of the purchase price, indicating that the money must be submitted to the Clerk of the Court no later than 10:30 a.m. on the morning of August 18. The note specifically asks, "Also, whose name do you want the house in?" Respondent testified that on August 18, he went to Atlanta on business, with the understanding that Ms. MacKinnon would handle the payments to the Clerk of the Court and the titling of the property on that date. This testimony is consistent with the handwritten note in which Ms. MacKinnon indicates that she will take the Kedans' checks to the court. The record evidence shows that the payments were made to the Clerk of the Court and that title insurance on the property was timely issued. However, the title and the title insurance policy listed Respondent as owner of the property. Respondent was unaware the property had been titled in his name until he received the certificate of title in the mail, approximately two weeks after the auction. Upon receiving the incorrect certificate of title, he went to the title company and signed a quitclaim deed, effective August 17, 1995, in favor of Ella Kedan. Respondent testified that he had learned from Ms. MacKinnon that the property would be titled in Ella Kedan’s name at sometime during the two-week period after the auction. The quitclaim deed was not notarized until October 9, 1995, and was not recorded until October 10, 1995. However, the face of the deed states that it was made on August 17, 1995. It is plain that the signature line of the notary statement on the quitclaim deed has been altered from August 17, 1995 to October 9, 1995. Respondent had no knowledge of how the quitclaim deed came to be altered. Respondent also had no clear recollection as to why he dated the quitclaim deed August 17, 1995, in light of his testimony that he signed it approximately two weeks after that date. A reasonable inference is that Respondent so dated the quitclaim deed to clarify that Mrs. Kedan's ownership of the property commenced on August 17, the date on which Respondent submitted the winning bid. Respondent also had no knowledge of why the title company failed to record the quitclaim deed at the time he signed it. He testified that on or about October 9, 1995, he checked the Pinellas County computer tax records and discovered that he was still the owner of record. At that time, he returned to the title company to make sure the quitclaim deed was recorded the next day. Petitioner offered no testimonial evidence regarding the events surrounding the titling of the property. Respondent's uncontradicted testimony is credible, consistent with the documentary evidence, and thus credited as an accurate and truthful statement of the events in question. THE CONTRACT FOR REPAIRS Shortly after the auction, Respondent began discussing with Dr. Kedan the possibility of Respondent’s performing repairs on the just-purchased property. Because Dr. Kedan did not testify in this proceeding, findings as to the substance of the negotiations between Respondent and Dr. Kedan must be based on the testimony of Respondent, to the extent that testimony is credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. Respondent testified that Ms. MacKinnon approached him after the auction and asked him if he would be interested in fixing up the house for the Kedans. Respondent testified that he was agreeable to contracting for the work because his carpenter was between jobs and could use the money. Respondent thus met with Dr. Kedan at the doctor’s office to discuss the repairs. Dr. Kedan explained to Respondent that his ultimate plan was to demolish the existing house on the property and to build a more elaborate residence. Dr. Kedan wanted to rent out the house for five years before tearing it down, and wanted Respondent to affect such repairs as would make the house rentable for that five-year period. Respondent testified that Dr. Kedan expressly told him he did not want to spend a lot of money on the repairs. Respondent quoted Dr. Kedan a price of $20,000.00, which was the price it would take to pay for the repairs, with no profit built in for Respondent. Respondent testified that he sought no profit on this job. He had made a substantial commission on the purchase of the property, and anticipated doing business with Dr. Kedan in the future, and thus agreed to perform this particular job more or less as a “favor” to Dr. Kedan. After this meeting with Dr. Kedan, Respondent walked through the house with Irene Eastwood, the Kedans’ property manager. Ms. Eastwood testified that she and Respondent went from room to room, and she made notes on what should be done, with Respondent either concurring or disagreeing. Ms. Eastwood typed the notes into the form of a contract and presented it to Respondent the next day. On September 21, 1995, Respondent signed the contract as drafted by Ms. Eastwood. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent represented himself as a licensed contractor in the negotiations preceding the contract. Respondent testified that he never told Dr. Kedan that he was a contractor, and that he affirmatively told Ms. Eastwood that he was not a contractor. Ms. Eastwood testified that she assumed Respondent was a licensed contractor because Dr. Kedan would not have hired a nonlicensed person to perform the contracted work. She denied that Respondent ever told her that he was not a licensed contractor. The weight of the evidence supports Respondent to the extent it is accepted that Respondent never expressly represented himself as a licensed contractor to either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood. However, the weight of the evidence does not support Respondent’s claim that he expressly told either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s subcontractors commenced work immediately upon the signing of the contract. Ms. Eastwood was in charge of working with Respondent to remodel the house, and she visited the site every day, often two or three times. She only saw Respondent on the site once during the last week of September, and not at all during the month of October. She did observe painters and a maintenance man regularly at work on the property during this period. Respondent concurred that he was seldom on the property, but testified that this was pursuant to his agreement with Dr. Kedan that he would generally oversee the work on the property. Respondent testified that he was on the property as often as he felt necessary to perform his oversight duties. Ms. Eastwood testified as to her general dissatisfaction with the quality of the work that was being performed on the property and the qualifications of those performing the work. She conveyed those concerns to the Kedans. Respondent testified that he did not initially obtain any permits to perform the work on the house, believing that permits would not be necessary for the job. On or about October 11, 1995, officials from the City of Belleair Beach shut down Respondent’s job on the Kedans’ property for lack of a construction permit. Respondent made inquiries with the City as to how to obtain the needed permit. City officials told Respondent that a permit could be granted to either a licensed contractor, or to the owner of the property if such property is not for sale or lease. Respondent checked the City’s records and discovered that, despite the fact that he had signed a quitclaim deed on August 17, he was still shown as the owner of the property. Respondent then proceeded to sign a permit application as the homeowner, and obtained a construction permit on October 11, 1995. Respondent testified that because the City’s records showed him as the record owner of the property, he committed no fraud in obtaining a construction permit as the homeowner. This testimony cannot be credited. Whatever the City’s records showed on October 11, 1995, Respondent well knew he was not the true owner of this property. Respondent cannot be credited both with having taken good faith steps to correct the mistaken titling of the property and with later obtaining in good faith a construction permit as the record owner of the property. Respondent testified that in obtaining the construction permit under false pretenses, his main concern was to keep the job going and to finish it in a timely fashion. He testified that there was no financial advantage to him in having the property in his name: he was making no profit on the job, and actually lost money because he had to pay for another title policy in the name of the Kedans. While there may have been no immediate financial advantage to Respondent, he was clearly motivated by the prospect of future profits in projects with Dr. Kedan. The City’s closing down this project jeopardized Respondent’s anticipated continuing relationship with Dr. Kedan, and Respondent took the improper step of obtaining a construction permit as the property owner to maintain that relationship. The Kedans ultimately dismissed Respondent from the job. A claim of lien was filed against the property by the painter hired by Respondent, and the cabinet maker sent the Kedans a lawyer’s letter threatening to file a claim of lien. Mrs. Kedan testified that she paid off both the painter and the cabinetmaker in full. Ms. Eastwood estimated that the Kedans ultimately had to pay an additional $20,000 to $50,000 to complete the repairs to the house, some of which included correctional actions for the improper repairs performed by Respondent’s workers. ALLEGED PRIOR DISCIPLINE Respondent has been the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In that prior proceeding, the Division of Real Estate's Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent was guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(k), Florida Statutes. On September 25, 1995, Respondent and the Division of Real Estate entered into a Stipulation disposing of the Administrative Complaint. Under the terms of the Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1,000, and be subject to one year of probation, during which he would complete 30 hours of post-license education for brokers. The Stipulation expressly stated that Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. The Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order approving the Stipulation on November 14, 1995. Respondent's broker license was suspended by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 24, 1996. The cause for this suspension was Respondent's failure timely to pay the $1,000 fine imposed by the Stipulation. Respondent paid the fine on February 19, 1996, and late renewed his license on April 24, 1997. In the instant proceeding, Respondent testified that by entering into the Stipulation, he had no intention of pleading guilty to any of the allegations, and that he would never have entered into the Stipulation had he known it would be construed in any way as a guilty plea.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts One and Three of the administrative complaint, and finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two of the administrative complaint, and suspending Respondent’s real estate license for a period of three years and fining Respondent a sum of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 John Bozmoski, Jr., Esquire 600 Bypass Drive, Suite 215 Clearwater, Florida 34624-5075 Jared White White Realty 231 Skiff Point, Suite Seven Clearwater, Florida 34630 Henry M. Solares Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Galdo has been a licensed real estate broker for eight years and holds license number 0414542. At all material times, he served as president of Respondent Real Estate Support and Development Corporation, which is registered as a real estate broker and holds license number 0243131. All references below to "Respondent" are to Respondent Galdo only. By Contract for Sale and Purchase executed by both parties on December 5, 1989, Respondent, as trustee, agreed to sell to Ruben P. Chalarca a parcel located at 12 Sandalwood Court, Oviedo, Florida. The contract calls for a closing on or before December 28, 1989. The purchase price disclosed on the contract is "approx. 46,300.00 1000.00 cash to Mortgagee." According to the contract, payment was to include the buyer taking subject to and assuming a mortgage held by "Central Fed Mortgage Co." in the approximate principal amount of $45,300. The contract contains no information as to a brokerage commission. Blanks on the form contract concerning a commission are filled in "N/A." The only involvement of Respondent Real Estate Support and Development Corporation appears to be that Respondent provided Mr. Chalarca a business card bearing the name of Respondent, the name of Respondent Real Estate Support and Development Corporation, the company's address, and telephone numbers for Respondent and the company. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent gave the business card to Mr. Chalarca for any purpose other than giving him the information necessary to contact Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent held himself out as representing Real Estate Support and Development Corporation in his dealings with Mr. Chalarca. The $1000 earnest money deposit that Mr. Chalarca "paid" to Respondent was by a check that never cleared. Mr. Chalarca gave another check payable to Respondent individually. The second check was dated December 5, 1989, but was only in the amount of $400. There is another check dated December 5 payable to cash and in the amount of $150, but the record does not establish that the Chalarcas gave this sum to Respondent. Except for the $1000 earnest money check, all of the Chalarcas' checks cleared. The closing took place and Respondent Galdo, as trustee, conveyed the property by deed to Mr. Chalarca and possibly his wife. Mr. and Mrs. Chalarca are from Columbia, South America. Neither has had any significant real estate experience prior to the subject transaction with Respondent. Although Mr. Chalarca speaks and understands English reasonably well, his wife does not. Mr. Chalarca did not complete high school. Prior to or at the closing, Respondent told Mr. Chalarca to make the mortgage payments to Respondent, who would make arrangements with the mortgagee, evidently to show that the Chalarcas would be making the mortgage payments. It appear that the mortgage payments may not have been current when the Chalarcas purchased the property. Respondent admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he sent the November and December, 1989, payments to the mortgagee in January, 1990, together with a request that the mortgage be transferred to the Chalarcas. He also admitted that the bank returned the package with a demand for the January, 1990, payment. Upon receipt of the demand from the bank, Respondent told the Chalarcas that they must make the January, 1990, payment at that time. However, the record establishes that the Chalarcas gave Respondent only two checks after the closing. The first is dated April 17, 1990, and in the amount of $1600. The second check is dated May 21, 1990, and in the amount of $1000. The record does not clearly establish whether Respondent ultimately made the November and December, 1990, payments. The record clearly establishes that no one made the January, February, and March payments, although there is no evidence that the Chalarcas ever tendered these payments to Respondent. For reasons not apparent from the record, Mr. Chalarca decided to make the April, 1990, payment directly to the mortgagee. This check is dated April 7, 1990, in the amount of $1220, and payable to Transohio Savings. However, the mortgagee returned the check by letter dated May 29, 1990, because the loan was already in foreclosure. The letter gave Mr. Chalarca an address to contact "in order to stop the action." Most important, the record establishes that Respondent retained the $2600 paid to him by the April and May, 1990, checks, and the record does not establish any justification for the retention of this money by Respondent. There is no indication in the record that Respondent applied this money on behalf of the Chalarcas. To the contrary, there is some indication that no payments were made on the mortgage after late 1989. By Summary Final Judgment of Foreclosure entered November 6, 1990, Transohio Savings Bank, F.S.B. obtained a foreclosure judgment on the subject mortgage against Mr. Chalarca and his wife for the total sum of $52,613.74. The foreclosure judgment shows interest on the principal balance of $5649.24 through September 23, 1990, with an additional $15.78 per day interest from September 24, 1990, through the date of entry of the judgment. The assumed interest rate was not the statutory interest rate, which is expressly imposed upon the total due, starting from the date of the judgment. If the daily interest under the foreclosed mortgage were $15.78 daily, then unpaid interest of $5649.24 represents 358 days' interest, which would suggest that no interest payments were made after September or October, 1989. The foreclosure judgment ordered the clerk to sell the property on December 20, 1990. The Chalarcas remained in the 12 Sandalwood Court parcel until about the time of the sale.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Real Estate Support and Development Corporation, finding Roger Galdo guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), suspending his license for six months, placing him on probation for 18 months following the end of the suspension, and imposing upon him an administrative fine of $1000. ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-4449 Treatment of Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-3: adopted. 4: rejected as irrelevant. 5: adopted. 6: adopted except that the $1000 check was dishonored. 7: adopted. 8: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. All of the checks that the Chalarcas gave Respondent have been identified in the recommended order., which also identifies when these checks were delivered to Respondent. The evidence does not establish by the requisite standard that the Chalarcas gave Respondent the mortgage payments each month when they were due, or even that they gave Respondent funds sufficient to make the mortgage payments that fell due following the closing. 9: adopted except as the characterization of Mr. Chalarca as "suspicious." The characterization is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate standard of evidence. 10: adopted. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The record does not establish Mr. Chalarca's motivation for giving Respondent the two checks totalling $2600. 12: adopted, although a substantial amount of time elapsed between the service of the foreclosure summons and the departure of the Chalarcas from the mortgaged property. 13: adopted. 14: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 15-19: rejected as recitation of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Attorney Janine B. Myrick Division of Real Estate Legal Section P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Roger Galdo 208 Madeira Avenue Orlando, FL 32825 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In September of 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Kenney went to 8521 Madonna Place in Sarasota, Florida, in response to a newspaper advertisement. There they found respondent, who showed them through the house at that address, saying she was a friend of the owners who were offering it for sale. Respondent told the Kenneys that she was a registered real estate salesperson employed by Marjorie McCrory Real Estate, and gave them her card. But she said there would be no commission on any sale, because the owners were her friends and had helped her with babysitting. On October 2, 1976, the Kenneys entered into a written agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Tritschler, owners of the house respondent had shown them. By this con tract, which was received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit No. 3, the Kenneys agreed to buy the house in the event that they were able to sell their mobile home within thirty days' time and in the event that they were able to obtain financing for 80 percent of the agreed purchase price. The Kenneys were unable to obtain such financing and were also unable to sell their mobile home within thirty days of the signing of the contract. On October 5, 1976, the Kenneys drew a check to respondent's order in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), on which was written "Earnest Money-Escrow." The check was delivered to respondent. On October 6 1976, respondent endorsed the check arid deposited it in a savings account. Afterwards, she showed the Kenneys her newly acquired pass book, on which was written "Sherry Gayer, Escrow Account for Robert L. Kenney." After the Kenneys' efforts to meet the conditions of the contract proved unavailing, they demanded the return of the money they had given respondent. Her refusal resulted in litigation which was settled when the Kenneys agreed to accept five hundred dollars ($500.00), plus the interest that had accrued on the entire one thousand dollars ($1 000.00) while it had been on deposit in respondent`s account. The other five hundred dollars ($500.00) went to the Tritschlers, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Ms. Sherry L. Gayer 2116-59th Street Sarasota, Florida 33580
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are: (1) whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, failed within a reasonable time to satisfy a civil judgment relating to a real estate commission; (2) whether Respondents failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; and (3) whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them, if Petitioner proves one or more of the violations charged in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Veloso Judgment Toirac and Elena Veloso ("Veloso") did business together and wound up as opponents in court. Veloso got the better of Toirac, obtaining, on June 5, 2001, a judgment in the amount of $4,437.60 against her and HCIC from the Dade County Court. The judgment liquidated a real estate commission that Veloso claimed the defendants owed her. On June 12, 2001, Toirac filed a Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment, wherein she asked the county court to (a) vacate its judgment in favor of Veloso, on the ground that the defendants had not been served with process and (b) consolidate Veloso's county-court proceeding with an action then pending in circuit court, which Toirac had brought against Veloso.1 As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac's motion, after four years, had not been heard or decided. As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac had not satisfied the judgment in favor of Veloso. The Escrow Account Shortfall On January 24, 2002, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt, on or about June 20, 2001, of a complaint from Veloso.) Pursuant to the audit, Ms. Morales determined that the balance in Toirac's escrow account was $4,961.05. Ms. Morales determined further that Toirac's trust liability, i.e. the total amount of money that she should have been holding in escrow on her clients' behalf, was $12,242.00. Thus, there existed a shortfall of $7,280.95 in Toirac's escrow account. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to explain the shortfall. A few weeks later, however, by letter dated February 13, 2002, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that the shortfall had been caused by the issuance, "in error," of a check in the amount of $7,345.00, which was drawn on HCIC's escrow account and payable (evidently) to HCIC; HCIC had deposited the funds into its operating account, thereby creating, according to Toirac, an "overage" of $7,345.00 in the latter. To correct the problem, Toirac had arranged for the transfer of $7,345.00 from HCIC's operating account to its escrow account, which was accomplished on or about February 1, 2002. The Charges In counts I and IV, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.2 Petitioner's position is that Respondents failed within a reasonable time to satisfy the county-court judgment in favor of Veloso. In counts III and V, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that the escrow account shortfall identified on January 24, 2002, is proof that funds held in escrow had been disbursed without proper authorization. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no dispute (for Toirac admitted at final hearing) that the judgment debt owed by Respondents to Veloso relates to a real estate commission. It is also undisputed that, as of the final hearing, the county-court judgment had not been satisfied. The undersigned determines that Respondents have failed to satisfy the civil judgment in Veloso's favor within a reasonable time.3 Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.4 It is determined that the erroneous transfer, via check, of funds from HCIC's escrow account to its operating account constituted an unauthorized disbursement of funds entrusted to Toirac by others who had dealt with her as a broker. While this might have resulted from the simple mistake of an incompetent bookkeeper, as Toirac maintains, nevertheless the disbursement was unauthorized and substantial——amounting to approximately 60 percent of Toirac's total trust liability. Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has established the charges set forth in counts I, III, IV, and V of its Administrative Complaint, by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: (a) finds Respondents guilty as charged in counts I, III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint; (b) suspends Respondents' respective real estate licenses for 90 days; and (c) imposes an administrative fine of $2,500 against Respondents, jointly and severally; and (d) places Respondents on probation for a period of at least 3 years, subject to such lawful conditions as the Commission may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2005.
Findings Of Fact In February of 1988, Petitioner took the real estate broker's examination compiled by Respondent, and otherwise complied with all applicable licensure requirements. The Petitioner received a grade of 74 on the written examination. A grade of 75 or higher is required to pass the test. Had Petitioner answered question number 62 with the answer deemed by Respondent to be correct, Petitioner's score would have been 75 and, as such, would have entitled him to licensure. Question number 62 reads as follows: The Department of Professional Regulation may withhold notification to a licensee that the licensee is being investigated IF: NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INVESTIGATION. NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE LICENSEE. THE ACT UNDER INVESTIGATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Possible answers to question number 62 were as follows: I only. II only. I and III only. I, II and III. The answer to question number 62 chosen by Petitioner was D. The Respondent determined the correct answer should have been C. The Respondent's examining board followed a standard procedure for conducting and grading the examination. Statistically, 58 per cent of candidates taking the examination and placing in percentile rankings 50 through 99, answered the question correctly. Of those candidates taking the examination and placing in the lower half (0-50 percentile), 33 per cent answered the question correctly. The results obtained to question number 62 from all applicants taking the examination revealed the question exceeded effective testing standards. Question number 62 and the appropriate answer to that question are taken directly from section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the question is to determine if an applicant is knowledgeable of the law governing real estate broker licensees. The Respondent adopts the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, mandates that Respondent shall notify a licensee of any investigation of which the licensee is the subject and authorizes withholding notification to that licensee only where such notification would be detrimental to the investigation, or where the act under investigation is a criminal offense. The Petitioner takes the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, does not prohibit withholding notification of an investigation from a licensee when such notification would be detrimental to the licensee. The Petitioner bases this contention on the broad power provided the Real Estate Commission by section 475.05, Florida Statutes. The Commission has not, however, adopted any rule, regulation or bylaw supportive of Petitioner's position and the statutory mandate is clear. Further, the statute referenced by Petitioner specifically does not support an exercise of this power of the Commission if the result is a conflict with another law of the State of Florida. Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, states Respondent "shall" notify "any person" of an investigation of that person. Under that section, discretionary authority to refrain from such notification is allowed only where there is a potential for harm to the investigation, or the matter under investigation is a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming the grade of the Petitioner as previously determined. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2442 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 The Petitioner submitted a document entitled summary of hearing and consisting of seven numbered paragraphs. They are treated as follows: Rejected as unnecessary. Included in findings 5, and 7. Rejected, contrary to the weight of the evidence. 4.- 6. Rejected, contrary to evidence adduced. 7. Rejected as argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Respondent submitted a three page document entitled "argument" and consisting of eight unnumbered paragraphs. Numbers 1-8 have been applied to those paragraphs. They are treated as follows: 1.-5. Rejected as conclusions of law. 6. Included in findings 8, 9, and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip I. Salerno 11812 Timbers Way Boca Raton, Florida 33428 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Evidence reveals that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. Said application revealed that Defendant, Frank Viruet, was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice president of the Company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; and that Lee Klien was to become president and Director of the company. The application also revealed that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket #2357); that Lee Klien is the sister of Carol Bauman; and that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman (Progress Docket #2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing the above corporate application For registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that at each such change, new application For corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Further, the stated offices and Active Firm Member Broker remained the same. Thus, For all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. As to Count One of the complaint, according to the certificate of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, 1976, (which was offered and received into evidence without objections), during the period November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate, no registration was issued to or held by either of the three corporations above referred to. This was confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, evidence reveals that Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., entered a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation). The unrebutted testimony by Plaintiff Reagan was that he observed during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 (2nd Floor). A similar display on the building directory appeared on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness, Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company, testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in said room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., and that from January 1 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 phone calls were made from such phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman and Bernard Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but did not recall nor introduce records as to how many calls were in fact made. Jeffrey Bauman testified that Frank Viruet had also made phone calls from the stated phones but did not state whether they were solicitations. On this point, Frank Viruet denied making solicitation calls although he admitted using the phone For other purposes. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing received. He further testified that upon being advised, by the investigator with the Commission, that the operation was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company, and that all who were engaged in real estate activities For said company were in violation of the licensing law, the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was confirmed by nominal Plaintiff Reagan. Frank Viruet denied having knowledge of real estate activities being conducted by the Baumans. He further denied knowledge that office space in Room 212 of the Nankin Building was occupied by Land Re- Sale Service, Inc. and used by the Bauman's. He admitted to signing the application For registration which was submitted to the Commission as the corporate Active Firm Member Broker to be. As to Count Two, evidence established as stated above, that defendants Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, the Baumans, admitted by their own testimony that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers either intrastate or nationwide. Bernard Bauman testified that no money was ever returned to senders. There was no evidence received to show that Defendant Frank Viruet knew that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation; nor that Viruet was aware that solicitations were being made. As to Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the acts and doings set out in Counts One and Two establish a course of conduct by defendants upon which revocation of their registration should issue.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro, has been a licensed real estate broker. She is the qualifying broker for the company known as Orange Management Corp. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees in the State of Florida. On or about July 20, 1994, the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of unlawful use of a notary. As a result, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for a period of six months, and required to make payments and serve community service as directed by the court order. The plea and conviction stemmed from Respondent's conduct in connection with a warranty deed (the deed) which was recorded in the public record for Indian River County, Florida, on October 12, 1993. The deed conveyed a condominium unit from Leon R. Leavitt to the G. Corsoro Family Trust. The deed, notarized on October 1, 1989, purportedly bore the signatures of Leon R. Leavitt, the grantor; Mamie Cellura, a witness; Marie Copley, a witness; and Joseph Cellura, the notary before whom the document was executed. In fact, the document was not signed by Marie Copley or Leon R. Leavitt. At the time of the hearing, Mamie Cellura and Joseph Cellura were deceased. They were the parents of Marie Copley and her sister, the Respondent. At the time the deed was executed, Respondent signed Mr. Leavitt's name under a power of attorney he had reportedly given to her. Respondent further claims that Mamie Cellura signed for herself as a witness, signed for Marie Copley as a witness, and signed her husband's name with him (he had Parkinson's disease) as the notary. All this was completed, according to Respondent, Marie Copley, and Leon R. Leavitt, with everyone's full consent and knowledge. Marie Copley and Leon R. Leavitt were not present when the document was executed. Since they claim Respondent was authorized to execute the document, they are not concerned as to who signed the document but believe Mamie Cellura and Respondent signed as represented by Respondent. According to Nicholas Burczyk, the Respondent signed the document for all signatories on the instrument. Even by Respondent's account, the named parties did not execute the deed as presented on the face of the document. Respondent was originally charged with uttering a forged instrument and forgery. She chose to enter the plea as to the misdemeanor charge of unlawful use of a notary because she was "financially unable to pay to go to trial."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, through the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order determining the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro violated Section 475.25(f), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand together with an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 10th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0334 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is accepted as stated in findings of fact paragraphs 6 through 14 above; otherwise rejected as incomplete statement of fact. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. Respondent's assessment of the charges against Respondent together with the argument has been considered in the preparation of the foregoing. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Michael F. Berry MICHAEL F. BERRY, P.A. 2145-15th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, (Division), was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. At the same time, Respondent, Thomas Twitty, Jr. was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, operating under license number 0090569, and was broker for the Respondent, Twitty and Company, Ltd., which operates under license number 0211681 at 13090 B. Starkey Road, Largo, Florida. Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, was a licensed real estate salesman under license number 0442127. On March 12, 1985, while employed as a salesman with Twitty & Company, Ltd., Fitton solicited and obtained from James L. Schneider a sales listing for Schneider's house located at 1316 Kennywood, Largo, Florida. The listed sales price was $129,500.00. Mr. Schneider had purchased the property, along with another individual no longer involved, Mr. Daly, from Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association in December, 1984 for $50,000.00 in a distress sale. The property had been occupied but was abandoned, and Pioneer, which had held the mortgage on it, gained title in a foreclosure action. When Schneider purchased the house, it was in poor condition. The walls and cement slabs on which it rested were severely cracked in numerous places. The foundation, pool decking, and decorative block walls were severely cracked, and it was determined that this condition was due to an abnormal settling and subsidence of the ground on which the house had been constructed. This settling caused and continues to cause door and window frames to fall out of square resulting in a poor fit and, in many cases, large gaps and along the window and door parameters. After Mr. Schneider purchased the property, Fitton, along with Fitton's father, both of whom resided next door to the property in question, assisted Mr. Schneider in making repairs to the property. Cracks were filled in with cement, plaster and caulking, and the property was painted which covered up the filled in cracks and gaps which had existed. When the repairs were completed, the property was put on the market with Fitton securing the listing. There is little evidence as to how the repairs were made to the property other than that the cracks were filled and painted. No effort was made to correct the soil conditions which underlay the problem. No evidence was produced to indicate whether the corrective actions taken by Mr. Schneider, along with the Fittons, was appropriate to correct problem causing the cracks or if filling was the appropriate method of correction. Also, it was not clearly established how much and of what nature the work was accomplished by Respondent, Fitton. Whereas he indicates his participation was limited to only carrying away trash and debris, Ms. Renshaw indicates he was actively engaged in actual repair work. Whatever the actual work involvement, it is clear that he knew of the condition of the house and was familiar with the steps taken to correct the deficiencies. In May, 1985, Yvonne L. and Lorraine Renshaw, sisters, were shown the property by Diane Y. Palcelli (Booth), a salesperson employed by a different realty company. The Renshaws made an initial offer of $96,000.00, and Ms. Palcelli transmitted the offer, through Fitton, (and Twitty & Co.), to Mr. Schneider who resided out of state. A series of proposals by both sides followed and ultimately, on June 1, 1985, the parties agreed upon a sales price of $106,000.00. After the sales price had been agreed upon and the contract for sale signed, during the interim period leading up to closing, which was held in late July, 1985, the Renshaws, along with their agent and friends, visited the property on numerous occasions even going so far as to commence decorative work to fix it up to their tastes. Also during this period, Fitton, who had done some work on the repairs to the property, advised his broker, Twitty, that there had been defects in the property and asked if it was necessary to disclose this. Mr. Twitty, who himself had, at this point, not seen the property, asked if the defects had been corrected, and when told that they had been, advised Fitton it was not necessary to make any further disclosure. During the course of their repeated visits to the property, the Renshaws noted some minor cracking which they brought to Fitton's and Daly's attention. Fitton mentioned this to Twitty who suggested they have someone out to look at them. Someone was called, reportedly an engineer, who looked at the cracks and agreed to fix them. Daly indicated insurance would cover the repairs and agreed to have the cracks repaired. They were. Ms. Palcelli, (Booth), also advised the Renshaws to have the property examined by their own expert to insure it was structurally sound. The Renshaws did not do this. The sale was closed on July 23, 1985 for the $106,000.00 purchase price and both Fitton and Twitty & Co. received their respective shares of the commission. Several months after the closing, the Renshaws noticed cracks beginning to open in the walls of the house and between the pool deck and the house wall. They contacted Ms. Palcelli, (Booth) who examined the property and then tried to contact Fitton. Both Fitton and Twitty disclaimed any responsibility for the damage. Thereafter, the Renshaws filed suit against Schneider, Daly, Fitton, Twitty and Twitty & Company in Circuit Court in Pinellas County alleging one Count of fraud and one Count of grand theft. On February 22, 1991, the Court entered its Order granting Defendants', (Respondents') Motion to Dismiss the Count alleging grand theft, but denied a similar motion relating to the fraud Count. That same date, the Court entered a Final Judgement concluding that the knowing representation the property was in "excellent" condition when they knew it was not, in an anticipation of making a profit on the sale, constituted fraud. Twitty was faulted for not having inquired of Fitton, his "novice employee", more thoroughly before advising him no disclosure to the buyers was necessary. Fitton is faulted by the Court for having: ... intentionally, knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented to the [Renshaws] the high quality, excellent condition and good value of the property, intending that the [Renshaws] would rely on those representations; [they] hid the true condition of the property from the [Renshaws] and induced them to make the purchase, believing that they were purchasing a quality property worth the price being asked. The Court also concluded that the [Respondents] were obligated to disclose to the [Renshaws] the information and knowledge which they had regarding the cracking and repairs. Fitton has moved for a rehearing on the basis that the property was described as excellent on the listing sheet by Mr. Schneider, not by him. However, he was obviously aware of the condition of the property from his frequent visits to the site while it was being readied for sale. In addition, the Judgement has now been appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals by Twitty and Twitty & Company, Ltd..
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered herein providing that: The salesman's license of Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, be reprimanded, and he be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of two years, and The licenses of Respondents, Thomas J. Twitty, Jr. and Twitty & Co., Ltd., be reprimanded and they be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of six months. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1608 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. First, second and fourth sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence modified to reflect that Fitton concealed but Twitty was culpably negligent in failing to disclose. FOR RESPONDENT, TWITTY AND TWITTY & CO. LTD.: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. 9. Accepted, but Twitty's agent, Respondent, Fitton, worked on and was familiar with the condition of the property prior to sale. Accepted. FOR RESPONDENT, FITTON: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted except for the assertion that the individual who viewed the cracks was an engineer. There was no proof of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dominic E. Amadio, Esquire 100 34th Street North, Suite 305 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Daniel J. Grieco, Esquire 19139 Gulf Blvd. Indian Shores, Florida 34635 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
