Findings Of Fact On September 4, 1984, Idus B. Bowen and his wife, Jean, were shopping for a lamp in Respondents' furniture store in Palatka, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Bowen had recently retired and moved to Palatka where they intended to settle. The clerk they dealt with at the furniture store, who happened to be the Respondents' daughter, in the course of conversation regarding the Bowens' move, indicated that her father had a place for sale on the water. When the Bowens indicated some interest, she got some of the details as to size, location, and price from her father and discussed the matter with the Bowens. As they seemed to show some interest, she introduced them to her father, Respondent Richard Woodall, who discussed it with them and, that same day, took them out to see the property which was, at the time, occupied by his wife and him. When Woodall first talked with the Bowens about the property in his office at the furniture store, he advised the Bowens that he was a real estate broker but that he was selling this property, his personal home, as the owner and not the broker. Several times that day, both on the way to the house and at the house, he advised the Bowens he was selling as an owner and not as a broker. On the first visit to the house, Mr. Woodall showed the Bowens both the inside and the outside. They stayed approximately an hour and a half and the Bowens got a full view of the house and the property on which it was located and Mr. Woodall gave Mr. Bowen a plat of the property. No agreement was reached that day, however. Two days later, on September 6, 1984, Mr. Bowen again went to the furniture store to talk over the terms Mr. Woodall was offering on the sale. At this time he was advised by Mr. Woodall that there was an outstanding loan on the property of approximately $39,400.00 at 8 1/2% interest. This figure was determined by Mr. Woodall through a call to the lending institution and he received a tentative approval for the Bowens to assume this loan at a rate of 11 7/8%. Mr. Woodall passed this information on to the Bowens but in doing so, mistakenly stated the assumption percentage rate as 11.78%. In reality, the figure was 11 7/8% which, when converted to a decimal presentation, is reflected as 11.875%. Mr. Bowen did not realize this difference, however, until some time after the contract was signed. On this same date, September 6, 1984, after receiving the financing information from the lending institution, Mr. Woodall suggested that the Bowens again go out to the house so that his wife could show the property from a woman's point of view. When the Bowens agreed, an appointment was made for the showing by Mrs. Woodall for the next day, September 7, 1984. On the 7th, Mrs. Woodall showed the Bowens the house in detail. After doing so, she suggested that the Bowens stay for coffee and refreshments and when the Bowens agreed, called her husband to come home and join them. Before Mr. Woodall got there, however, Mrs. Woodall asked if the Bowens were ready to sign a contract. The Bowens indicated they were not. When Mr. Woodall arrived, he and Mr. Bowen went out for a walk around the property during which Mr. Bowen asked about the need for a fence around the swimming pool. Mr. Woodall assured him that since the house was located on the water, it was not necessary to fence the pool area all the way around. Mr. Woodall, while admitting Mr. Bowen asked about the water level in the canal, states there was no discussion of flooding and he further contends that Mr. Bowen did not discuss the issue of the fence until after he went to the County office subsequent to signing the contract. No doubt Mr. Woodall answered the questions asked by Bowen to the best of his knowledge and belief. Based on this information they went back to the house where Mr. Bowen agreed to sign a contract for the purchase on Saturday morning, September 8, 1984, in the Respondents' office in the furniture store. On September 8, 1984, both the Bowens and the Woodalls signed a contract for the sale of the Woodall's property for a purchase price of $125,000.00 with $5,000.00 to be placed in escrow in Respondent, Rich Hill Realty's escrow account. The contract also called for the Bowens to assume a mortgage in the amount of $39,400.00 at 11.78% and the balance due was to be paid in cash at closing to be held as soon as possible. The contract was conditioned upon the purchaser obtaining a firm assumption commitment within 15 days. At the time of signing the contract, Mr. Bowen gave the Woodalls a check for $5,000.00. When the Bowens arrived, the contract had already been prepared and signed by Mrs. Woodall. Once all remaining parties had signed, Mr. Woodall had it witnessed. The contract called for the deposit of $5,000.00 to be placed in escrow and Mr. Bowen assumed that it would be so placed because the sellers were both real estate professionals. He contends that if he had not thought the deposit would be placed in escrow, he doubts he would have paid a deposit to the Woodalls at that time. In all his previous real estate purchases, the money was placed into escrow and not drawn out until later. On September 10, 1984, after further consideration of the purchase and based on the fact that the pool was the same depth from one end to the other, a depth beyond the height of his non-swimming wife, Mr. Bowen went to Mr. Woodall to see if he would release him from the contract. When Mr. Woodall refused, however, he accepted the refusal. He immediately made application to assume the Woodall's loan with Security 1st Federal Savings & Loan Association, which, on September 18, 1984, furnished him a good faith estimate of settlement charges which reflected the interest rate at 11.875%. Just about this time, Mr. Bowen also became concerned as to whether the property was in the flood zone and called the Putnam County Zoning Board where he was advised that the property in question was in fact in the flood plain. When he also asked if the pool needed to be fenced, he was told that where there was a pool, it was required to be fenced a],1 around with a four foot high fence with lockable gates. When Mr. Bowen received this information, he immediately reported it to Mr. Woodall who said he would check with the County and get it straightened out. Mr. Woodall thereafter called Mr. Bowen back and told him that the property was declared to be in the flood plain sometime in 1983 and that the pool regulation became effective sometime before that, but that since the house was built before either regulation came into effect, it was grandfathered in and the rules would not apply. In the meantime, Mr. Bowen's application to assume the Woodall's loan was approved. No assumption agreements were ever signed by the Bowens because by this time Mr. Bowen had determined that the deal was not good for him and he had decided that he would not go through with it. Mr. Bowen consulted an attorney who discovered some additional minor discrepancies in the transaction such as (1) the legal description of the property was incorrect, and (2) the estimate of closing costs had not been furnished by the seller. Neither of these discrepancies are relevant to the issues for consideration at this hearing, however. On the basis of what he had already discovered and this additional information, Mr. Bowen refused to close on the contract as called. for on September 25, 1984, and requested a refund of the $5,000.00 deposit by a letter from his attorney to the attorney for the Woodall's. Mr. Bowen did not receive an answer to his demand for refund of the deposit and despite several subsequent requests, the money has never been refunded. No action has been filed in court to force return, however. On November 28, 1984, Respondents notified the Bowens their deposit had been forfeited for failure to close. Mr. Bowen admits that Mr. Woodall advised him on their first trip to the property that he was a real estate broker but that he did not deal ,with the public. He only dealt in real estate for his own investments. Mr. Bowen also admits that he did not read the contract in full before he signed it. He admits that there were no special clauses inserted in the contract at his request nor did he request that any comments be made in the contract regarding the flood plain or the pool. When he signed the contract, however, he claims he was relying on the representations made to him by Mr. Woodall which he checked out only after affixing his signature to the contract. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bowen declined to sign the contract contending they felt the property had been misrepresented by Mr. Woodall in the particulars regarding the alleged misrepresentation dealing with the fence around the pool, the fact that the property is located on the flood plain, and the fact that there is a discrepancy in the interest rate. The $5,000.00 deposit was in fact placed into the Rich Hill Realty escrow account by Mr. Woodall. However, on January 31, 1985, more than three months later, Mrs. Woodall, an officer of Rich Hill Realty, drew the amount out of the escrow account and purchased a certificate of deposit with the Citizen's 1st National Bank of Crescent City with it. This certificate has been rolled over upon maturity since that time. With regard to the state of the County Ordinances concerning fences around swimming pools in this County, according to Peter M. Christensen, the Codes Administrator for Putnam County, pools built before 1975 would not require fencing. The requirement for a four foot fence was enacted by the County Commission in 1976. With regard to the flood plain situation, the area where the property in question is located is classified A- 3,which means that the first floor of any dwelling must be at least six feet above mean sea level. Mr. Christensen cannot say for certain whether this particular property is located in the flood plain because he did not have the maps available to him at the hearing. However, the majority of the property in the area where the Woodall property is located is within the flood plain. According to Ms. Ann Keele, a specialist in the residential lending service of the Security 1st Federal Savings & Loan Association, which holds the mortgage on the Woodall property, at the time the Woodalls secured their loan, there was no requirement for flood insurance because there was no flood plain regulation in effect. She recalls the flood insurance program as coming into effect sometime in 1980 and her bank's policy is to require flood insurance if (1) the community is participating in the flood insurance program, or (2) if the area is prone to flooding. When the flood insurance program went into effect, the bank did not notify existing borrowers of the need to take out flood insurance. Since the Woodalls purchased their property and got their mortgage prior to 1980, they well may not have known of the change in the law and the requirement for flood insurance. As a matter of fact, had the Woodalls kept their property, they would not have had to purchase flood insurance. Upon assumption, however, a new purchaser would have to buy it. To determine those properties requiring flood insurance, the bank uses flood maps provided by a governmental agency. Most real estate agencies use the same maps but Ms. Keele cannot be sure whether Respondent had one or not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents here be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX The Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact have been considered and are, as to each: Paragraphs 1-6 Accepted 6 Accepted except that portion of the Finding which states the Buyer had relied upon Woodall's assurances that the 11.78% interest rate could be assumed. The evidence, while reflecting that the Bowens believed the rate was 11.78%, fails to establish that this was a major fact on which they relied. 8-10 Accepted 11 Accepted except for the term "neglected." The evidence clearly shows the refusal to return was based on full knowledge of the situation and not a matter of neglect. 12-13 Accepted. Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact have been considered and are, as to each: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted in part and denied in part. The evidence does reflect some conflict as to whether the Bowens were advised the property was in the flood plain or not and whether they were advised the pool had to be fenced. It has been found by the undersigned that Respondents' information given to the Bowens was in error but from ignorance rather than from design and that said negligence was simple and not culpable. 3-4 Accepted 5 Accepted as to the preparations for and failure of closing. Rejected as to the course of conduct attributed to the Bowens for the reasons implied and rejected as immaterial to the Findings Of Fact as to the availability of the courts to rectify a dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur Shell, Jr., Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Earl Nicholson, Esq. 407 St. John's Avenue Palatka, FL 32077 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director. Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioners are entitled to recover from Respondent the attorney's fees and costs incurred by Petitioners, pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act.
Findings Of Fact At the time material hereto, Global Real Estate and Management, Inc., was a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, Mark H. Adler was a real estate broker licensed in the state of Florida, and Richard Shindler was a real estate salesman licensed in the state of Florida. Adler was the qualifying broker for Global, and Shindler was employed by Global. On November 17, 1989, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, received a written complaint about Adler, Shindler, and Global from Jay Hirsch, a real estate broker licensed in the state of Florida. Hirsch's complaint included the following allegations. Shindler had entered into two contracts for the purchase of real estate which required Shindler to place a total of $11,000 in Global's escrow account. Requests for verification of the deposit of such funds had been ignored. Hirsch had told Shindler at the time that the contracts were executed and on numerous occasions thereafter that since Shindler had chosen to participate in the real estate commission to be earned from the transaction, Shindler had assumed a fiduciary relationship with the sellers. Shindler had arbitrarily refused to close pursuant to the contracts and on October 2, 1989, Hirsch met with Shindler, reminded Shindler of Shindler's fiduciary responsibil-ities to the sellers, made demand on Shindler for the escrow deposit on behalf of the sellers, and advised Shindler of the provisions of Florida law relating to the responsibilities of the escrow holder when demands are made for release of escrowed money. Written demand was made on Adler within days of the oral demand. Hirsch subsequently spoke with Adler, the broker of record for Global, regarding the legal requirements in escrow deposit disputes but discovered that Adler "knew nothing" about the transaction. Shindler and Adler continued to ignore the demands made on them for the escrow deposit. Hirsch also alleged that there may be "certain other irregularities" regarding fiduciary responsibilities, entitlement to commissions by Global, and conflicts of interest. An investigator was assigned to investigate Hirsch's complaint against Adler, Shindler, and Global. According to the investigative report issued on February 12, 1990, that investigation revealed possible serious violations of the laws regulating the conduct of real estate brokers and salespersons. Although the investigative report recited that Global waited two months after the initial deposit demand was made by Hirsch before it filed an interpleader action to resolve conflicting demands on the escrow deposit, the documentation attached to the investigative report clearly indicated that Global waited just a few days short of three months before filing the interpleader action. The investigative report further revealed that during the time that at least the $11,000 was required to be in Global's escrow account (if Global were not involved in any other real estate transactions at the time), the escrow account had less than an $11,000 balance for both the months of September and October of 1989. The report further indicated that the IRS had attached Global's escrow account for Global's failure to pay payroll taxes. The investigative report revealed that there had been a problem obtaining broker Adler's presence for the interview with the Department's investigator. When a joint interview with both broker Adler and salesman Shindler did take place, the broker was unable to answer any of the investigator's questions, telling the investigator that he knew little regarding the problems since he relied on salesman Shindler to operate the business on a daily basis. In response to the investigator's continued questioning as to how IRS was able to attach an escrow account, Shindler explained that although the checks were marked escrow account, the bank statements did not reflect an escrow account but rather reflected a "special account." It was further discovered during the investigation that broker Adler had not been a signatory on the escrow account; rather, salesman Shindler had been the only signatory on the escrow account. At the conclusion of that interview, Shindler, who had taken control of the interview, agreed to supply the Department's auditors with all IRS and bank correspondence relative to the escrow account attachment. During that same joint interview on January 23, 1990, when questioned about the real estate transactions which were the subject of broker Hirsch's complaint, Shindler spoke in terms of having "his" attorney file an interpleader action (although he was the buyer). He also talked about oral extensions to the written contracts. Shindler also explained that his "deposit moneys" were in the escrow account because he was using a part of sale proceeds belonging to his brother as his down payment on purchases made for himself, an explanation which suggested there might be co-mingling of funds. A complete audit of Global's escrow account by the Department's auditors was scheduled for February 7, 1990. A supplemental investigative report was issued on May 3, 1990. That report contained the following recital. Shindler and Adler had failed to comply with the Department's requests for files and bank statements so that an audit could be conducted on the escrow and operating accounts. On March 22, 1990, a subpoena was served on Global requiring those records to be made available by April 3. As of April 30, complete records were still not submitted in that case files were not available and certain checks and monthly bank statements were missing. Therefore, an appointment was made to conduct the audit in Global's office on May 1 with the requirement that broker Adler be present. On that date, files were still not available and bank records were incomplete, precluding the conduct of a proper audit. Adler told the investigator on that date that Shindler had not even told Adler that a subpoena had been served, which statement reinforced the investigator's belief that salesman Shindler had been operating as a broker and running the business operations of Global, with broker Adler merely lending his license. On that same date Shindler changed his explanation of the escrow account shortages, saying the IRS had not garnished the escrow account; rather, Global's bank had transferred $3,200 from Global's "escrow" account to Global's operating account to cover checks written on Global's operating account when the account did not have sufficient funds. It was also discovered that Adler had not been performing monthly reconciliations of Global's "escrow" account. Adler told the investigator that he would supply files and reconciliations by June 1, 1990. A supplemental investigative report was issued on June 12, 1990, advising that although the subpoena return date had been extended to June 1, 1990, as of June 12 Adler had still failed to respond by producing the required records. On June 19, 1990, the Probable Cause Panel of the Florida Real Estate Commission considered the investigative reports and determined that there was probable cause to believe that Adler, Shindler, and Global had violated statutes regulating the conduct of real estate brokers and salespersons. The administrative complaint recommended to be filed by the Probable Cause Panel was issued by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, on June 21, 1990, against Mark H. Adler, Richard Shindler, and Global Real Estate and Management, Inc. That Administrative Complaint contained factual allegations regarding Shindler's contracts to purchase properties listed by broker Hirsch, regarding the alleged "verbal" extensions of the closing dates in the written contracts, regarding the repeated demands on broker Adler for release of the escrowed money as liquidated damages, and regarding the lengthy delay in responding to those demands. The Administrative Complaint also contained factual allegations regarding Shindler's use of a part of sale proceeds due to his brother as his own down payment on the properties and regarding the escrow account balance which was less than $11,000, the minimum balance required to be maintained in Global's escrow account if there were no other sales pending. Also included were factual allegations regarding the alleged attachment of Global's escrow account by the IRS for failure to pay payroll taxes, regarding the fact that broker Adler was not a signatory on the escrow account, and regarding Adler's reliance on Shindler to operate the real estate brokerage office on a daily basis. The Administrative Complaint also recited the failure of the Respondents to comply with the subpoena served on Global by the Department, which precluded the possibility of conducting a proper audit of Global's account. Factual allegations were included reciting that on May 1, 1990, Shindler had acknowledged that he had been operating as a broker and running the real estate brokerage business of Global with broker Adler "lending his license." In addition, the Administrative Complaint recited Shindler's original explanation that the IRS had attached the escrow account, which explanation was later changed by Shindler to be that Global's bank had taken $3,200 from Global's escrow account to cover checks written against Global's operating account when there were not sufficient funds in that operating account. Lastly, the Administrative Complaint alleged that Adler had not done monthly reconciliation statements of the escrow account from October of 1989 through the date of the Administrative Complaint. Based upon those factual allegations, the Administrative Complaint alleged that Adler was guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction (Count I), that Shindler was guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction (Count II), that Global was guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction (Count III), that Adler was guilty of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized (Count IV), that Global was guilty of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized (Count V), that Adler was guilty of having failed to produce for inspection records when subpoenaed by the Department (Count VI), that Global was guilty of having failed to produce for inspection records when subpoenaed by the Department (Count VII), that Shindler was guilty of having failed to deposit funds with his employing broker (Count VIII), and that Shindler was guilty of having operated as a broker while being licensed as a salesman (Count IX). The Administrative Complaint sought disciplinary action against Adler, Shindler, and Global for those alleged violations. Adler did not seek a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained within that Administrative Complaint. Rather, he entered into a settlement agreement with the Department, agreeing that all of his real estate licenses, registrations, certificates, and permits would be suspended for a period of eighteen months, that he would resign as an officer and/or director of Global, and that he would testify at any formal hearing held regarding the Administrative Complaint. Adler also agreed that notice would be published that he had been suspended for 18 months for culpable negligence and failure to properly supervise a licensed salesman in his employ. That agreement was approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission in a Final Order filed of record on August 31, 1990. On the other hand, Shindler and Global did request a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained in that Administrative Complaint. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal hearing and was assigned DOAH Case No. 90 That formal hearing was conducted on January 9, 1991. Based on the evidence presented during that final hearing, a Recommended Order was entered on March 20, 1991, finding that the Department had failed to prove its allegations as to Shindler and further finding that the Department had failed in its burden of proof as to two of the three counts against Global. The Recommended Order did find that Global failed to maintain trust funds as alleged in Count V of the Administrative Complaint and recommended that Global be ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $500. That Recommended Order was adopted in toto by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its Final Order filed on April 24, 1991. It is clear that Shindler prevailed in the underlying administrative action and that Global prevailed as to two of the three counts against Global. The Department was substantially justified in initiating the underlying administrative proceeding against both Shindler and Global. At the time that the underlying action was initiated, it had a reasonable basis both in law and in fact.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Richard Shindler has been a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0395044. The last license issued was as a salesman with Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0223589. At all times material hereto, Mark H. Adler was licensed and operated as the qualifying broker and officer of Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. Adler's license is currently under suspension by agreement with Petitioner as a result of the activities complained of in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. At no time has Respondent Shindler been a director or officer of Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shindler has been the sales manager for Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. As the sales manager, Respondent Shindler sometimes helped other salesmen structure financing and helped them with other problems. Respondent Shindler was not responsible for the collection of funds from individual salesmen. Each individual salesman was responsible for collecting funds from any real estate transaction and giving those funds to Respondent Global's bookkeeper for deposit. As sales manager, Shindler was a signatory on the escrow account in order to make disbursements for small transactions mainly involving rental properties. In addition, Respondent Shindler was responsible for the hiring and firing of office personnel. However, he had no control over the contracts of other salesmen. On March 13, 1989, Respondent Shindler, as a private purchaser, made two purchase offers for two pieces of property owned by the same sellers. The purchase offers were for $115,000 and $80,000, respectively, and required that Respondent Shindler place $6,000 and $5,000, respectively, into Respondent Global's escrow account as a deposit on the purchase of the properties. Respondent Global and real estate broker Jay Hirsch were to receive commissions on the sale of the properties. Those offers to purchase disclosed in writing that Respondent Shindler was also a licensed real estate salesman. Although both offers to purchase were accepted by the sellers, the transactions involving the purchase of these properties did not close due to Respondent Shindler's inability to obtain financing, which was a contingency of the contracts. In October, 1989, demands for the release of the escrowed monies were made by the sellers and by the sellers' broker Jay Hirsch. They made demand upon Respondent Global's attorney. Additionally, Jay Hirsch made demand on Mark Adler by telephone and then by demand letter to Adler, who, as the qualifying broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for the release of the escrowed funds. Subsequent to the demands made by the sellers and their broker, Respondent Global filed a complaint for interpleader. The escrowed deposits were eventually disbursed pursuant to a settlement among the parties claiming an interest in the escrowed deposits. In March, 1990, Petitioner began an investigation of the Respondents and Adler. Investigators Castro and Rehm both participated in the investigation. Investigator Castro believed Respondent Shindler to be the office manager of Respondent Global. During the initial interview with Respondent Shindler, he produced records which indicated that a deposit of $14,265.69 had been made on January 13, 1989, into Respondent Global's escrow account. This check had been given by Respondent Shindler to Global's bookkeeper for deposit. This deposit represented proceeds from the sale of property owned by Respondent Shindler's brother Paul, and was placed in escrow in anticipation of the offers to purchase made by Respondent Shindler on the two properties involved in this cause. Investigator Rehm examined the escrow account bank records and determined that for a two-month period the escrow account balance had dropped below the minimum $11,000 balance required by the two contracts in question herein alone. Initially, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank where the escrow account was maintained had represented that it had debited the escrow account as a result of a lien placed on that account by the Internal Revenue Service. Upon further investigation, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank itself had withdrawn $3,200 from Global's escrow account to cover a shortage in Respondent Global's operating account. At all times material hereto, both Adler and Respondent Shindler were signatories on the escrow account. As part of its investigation, Petitioner served a subpoena on Maria Aguerra, Respondent Global's bookkeeper, requesting from Adler, or Respondent Shindler, or the custodian of records for Respondent Global Real Estate, all contracts, leases, agreements, monthly bank statements, deposit slips, and cancelled checks for all accounts for the period of January 1, 1989, through March 22, 1990. Some of the requested documents were initially unavailable because they had previously been sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Although Adler testified that he was initially unaware that a subpoena had been served, he was given a 30-day extension to produce the records when he met with investigators Castro and Rehm on May 1, 1990. Although Adler had both the responsibility for and control over the records of Respondent Global, he was not fully familiar with the records, and the bookkeeping was in disarray. At all times material hereto, Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for operating the Global office, for overseeing Global's escrow account, for reviewing contracts, and for being aware of the day-to-day events in the Global office. In addition, as the broker, Adler was required to be an officer of the corporation, to be a signatory on the escrow account, to have prepared and to sign the monthly escrow account reconciliations, and to respond to Petitioner if there were complaints or requests for production of documents. Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, did not reconcile and sign escrow account statements on a monthly basis since he was not aware of the requirement that he do so. However, Adler did testify that he was aware of his responsibility for escrowed funds. At no time did Respondent Shindler have the responsibility to maintain Global's escrow account or to reconcile the escrow account on a monthly basis. At no time did Respondent Shindler represent that he was the broker for Respondent Global or that he was a broker. Respondent Shindler did not state to investigator Rehm that he was acting as the broker for Global or that Adler had simply lent Adler's license to Shindler to use. At no time did Adler and Respondent Shindler enter into an agreement whereby Shindler would act as the broker for Global using Adler's broker's license, and Adler was never paid any monies for any use of his broker's license. Adler testified that his involvement with Global's business had declined as he had pursued his growing interest in performing appraisals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Dismissing Counts II, III, VII, VIII, and IX of the Administrative Complaint filed herein; Finding Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., guilty of the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint; and Ordering Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., to pay a fine in the amount of $500 by a date certain. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4522 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7-9, 11-12c, 13, 14, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 17 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12d has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The transcript of proceedings, together with Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 3, 5, and 8-14 and Respondents' Exhibit numbered 1 which were admitted in evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate - Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 - One Datran Center Miami, Florida 33156 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2- 14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate sales associate having been issued license number 3101946. During the time relevant to this case, Respondent was a sales associate affiliated with Bahia Real Estate ("Bahia"), a brokerage company owned by Raul and Ricardo Aleman, with offices located in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, Florida. Respondent was employed in Bahia's Miami location. In 2010, Respondent acted as a sales associate on behalf of Michael Perricone for a real estate transaction involving the purchase of a condominium in the Blue Lagoon Towers ("Blue Lagoon") in Miami which was purchased as an investment. Mr. Perricone's sister, Francesca Palmeri, and her husband, Santo Palmeri, were present at the closing where they met Respondent for the first and only time. During the closing, which lasted approximately one hour, the Palmeris indicated to Respondent that they would be interested in making a similar purchase of investment property if another comparable condominium unit became available at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no further interaction with Respondent until he contacted them at their home in Pueblo, Colorado, in 2011 to advise them of the availability of a condominium for sale at Blue Lagoon. On or about October 6, 2011, Respondent faxed a partially completed Bahia form "'AS IS' Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase" to Mrs. Palmeri for the Palmeris to use in making an offer on a condominium unit located at 5077 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to forwarding the document to Mrs. Palmeri, Respondent wrote on the form the property description, the escrow agent name and address, the initial escrow deposit amount and additional deposit, the time for acceptance, the closing date, and listed himself as the "Cooperating Sales Associate" with "Bahia Realty Group, LLC." The Palmeris decided to offer a $125,000.00 purchase price. Respondent directed Mrs. Palmeri to complete the contract and provide a ten percent escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri entered a purchase price of $125,000.00, initialed each page, and signed the form as "Buyer." Respondent provided Mrs. Palmeri with instructions on how to wire the funds for the escrow deposit. On October 7, 2011, Mr. Palmeri wired $12,000.00 to J.P. Morgan Chase, which was then deposited in an account for Bonaventure Enterprises, LLC ("Bonaventure").1/ The Palmeris had no knowledge of Bonaventure, but, based upon the representations of Respondent, they understood the money they were asked to wire to the J.P. Morgan Chase account of Bonaventure was an escrow deposit for the property they intended to purchase at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no discussion with Respondent regarding the reason for sending the escrow deposit to Bonaventure. They assumed that Bonaventure was somehow related to the seller or its title company. The condominium unit in question was bank owned; however, the Palmeris were not informed of this. No evidence was presented that Respondent had an ownership interest in Bonaventure. However, Bonaventure is owned by Respondent's brother and sister-in-law. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the managing member of Bonaventure. Bonaventure is not a licensed real estate broker. Bahia does not maintain an escrow account, and its sales associates are authorized to use title companies of their choice for receipt of escrow deposits. Respondent was aware that he was unable to accept the escrow deposit of the Palmeris in his own name, because, as a licensed real estate sales associate, he is prohibited from receiving the money associated with a real estate transaction in the name of anyone other than his broker or employer. In fact, Respondent was disciplined in 2010 for a similar violation.2/ Respondent claims that the Palmeris entrusted him with their $12,000.00 to hold for possible investments, not necessarily related to real estate transaction, and he was doing it as a favor for them as "friends." Respondent contradicted himself by stating his intention in directing the Palmeris to deposit their money into the Bonaventure account was to help them have cash on hand in Florida in order to meet the Blue Lagoon condominium seller's requirements to make the escrow deposit with the seller's title company within 24 hours after an offer was accepted. The Palmeris had no knowledge of the seller's unique restrictions on the escrow money. Further, Respondent's asserted motive in requesting the $12,000.00 to have cash on hand in Florida is undermined by the fact that, if the Palmeris could wire $12,000.00 to Bonaventure's bank account, they could also wire the funds directly to a title company chosen by the selling bank after acceptance of their offer. Shortly after returning the contract to Respondent and sending the escrow deposit, Mrs. Palmeri discussed increasing the purchase price by $1,000.00 for a total of $126,000.00. Based upon the language of the proposed contract, the Palmeris expected a response to their offer within 24 hours. Immediately thereafter, Respondent told the Palmeris that they were "in negotiations." However, almost a month passed before they heard from Respondent regarding the status of the purchase of the condominium. On or about November 4, 2011, Respondent contacted Mrs. Palmeri and stated that he had "good news." He indicated that the seller would be willing to sell the property for a price of $129,500.00. According to Respondent, the seller requested documentation from the Palmeris' bank indicating their ability to pay. Mrs. Palmeri indicated that this was not an acceptable counter-offer. Respondent suggested that he could negotiate a sales price of $129,000.00, but he needed the Palmeris to send an additional $9,000.00 to put into escrow. Mrs. Palmeri told Respondent that she was no longer interested in the property because their maximum offer was $126,000.00. During the same conversation, Mrs. Palmeri asked for the return of her deposit. Respondent expressed agitation that she was retreating from the possible purchase because he had done "so much work." Respondent clearly anticipated he would receive a commission if the deal was consummated. The Palmeris did not get an immediate return of their escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri called Respondent repeatedly and received no answer. She also sent an e-mail to J.P. Morgan Chase trying to find out the status of the deposit and received no reply. Mrs. Palmeri again attempted to contact Respondent on November 18, 2011, and left him a message that he needed to call her regarding the deposit. After receiving no response, she contacted Bahia and spoke with Ricardo Aleman. Mrs. Palmeri explained to Aleman that she had signed a real estate contract with Respondent on October 6, 2011. She no longer wanted to pursue this real estate transaction and wanted the escrow deposit returned. Aleman was unaware that Respondent was negotiating a real estate transaction for the Palmeris or had accepted their deposit money. Aleman contacted Respondent who confirmed by email that the Palmeris were no longer interested in purchasing the condominium at Blue Lagoon. Respondent wrote, "After a month of hard work . . . the client decided to drop. It was a little bit problematic. I lost time and money because the offer was already accepted and she had no reason to negotiate." Respondent assured Aleman he would return the deposit to the Palmeris. In accordance with Bahia's policies and procedures, its sales associates are required to complete a deposit form at the time of receipt of funds for escrow. No such receipt was received by Bahia from Respondent with regard to the transaction involving the Palmeris. However, it was not unusual for Bahia not to receive information regarding real estate transactions conducted by their sales associates until the time of closing. After discussing the matter with Aleman, Respondent advised the Palmeris that he could return their money within ten days. Respondent advised Mrs. Palmeri that he would send her two checks for the total amount--one check which she could cash immediately and a second check which would be postdated. In order to get a return of their deposit, Mrs. Palmeri agreed. On or about November 28, 2011, the Palmeris received two checks, each in the amount of $6,000.00, including one postdated for December 16, 2011. These checks were written on the account of Bonaventure and signed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order imposing on Alfonso Miranda an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00 and suspending the real estate sales associate license of Alfonso Miranda for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent Marvin M. Kornicki has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License Nos. 0265344 and 0252335. The last license issued was as a broker for Waterway Properties, Inc., t/a Waterway Properties. At all times material hereto, Respondent Waterway Properties, Inc., t/a Waterway Properties, has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0265344. At all times material hereto, Respondent Kornicki was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker and an officer of Respondent Waterway Properties, Inc. On January 7, 1990, Respondents solicited and obtained an offer in the amount of $155,000 from Alda Tedeschi and John Tocchio, buyers, to purchase real property, to-wit: Unit 422 at Mariner Village Garden Condominium, Aventura, Florida, from Arthur Goldstein and Myra Goldstein, sellers. The buyers' offer reflected a $1,000 deposit to be held in trust by the Respondent Waterway Properties, Inc. The offer reflected that if the offer was not executed by and delivered to all parties, or fact of execution communicated in writing between the parties, on or before January 10, 1990, the deposit would be returned to the buyers and the offer would be withdrawn. The offer also reflected that "time is of the essence." On January 8, 1990, Respondents sent the buyers' offer to the sellers in New Jersey by air express. On January 10, 1990, the sellers signed the offer but made it a counteroffer by requiring the buyers to furnish an additional deposit of $14,500 by January 12, 1990, and requiring the buyers to sign a condominium rider and an agency disclosure form. The sellers returned the counteroffer with condominium rider and agency disclosure form to the Respondents. On January 12, 1990, Respondents sent the counteroffer, condominium rider, and agency disclosure form, together with a letter dated January 11, 1990, to the buyers for the buyers' initials and signatures. Although the buyers could not have received the counteroffer until after its expiration date, they advised Respondents by telephone that they had in fact initialed the counteroffer and mailed it back to Respondents. Respondents never received from the buyers that accepted counteroffer. The buyers subsequently verbally demanded the return of their $1,000 deposit, but Respondents wrote to the buyers on February 9, 1990, advising the buyers that they were in default. On February 8, 1990, Respondents had already disbursed the $1,000 deposit to Respondents' operating account since the sellers had told the Respondents to use the deposit to cover the costs incurred advertising the sellers' property. Since he was uncertain as to whether he had "conflicting demands upon an escrow deposit" Respondent Kornicki telephoned the Florida Real Estate Commission and discussed the matter with one of the Commission's attorneys. Because Respondent Kornicki believed that the buyers were "in default," Respondents failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing that they had received conflicting demands. No explanation was offered as to why Respondent Kornicki believed the buyers were in default when the counteroffer could not have been signed by the buyers prior to its expiration and when Respondent Kornicki had never seen a fully executed document. Further, no explanation was offered as to why the sellers believed they were entitled to the money. Since that transaction, Respondents have experienced other transactions where conflicting demands were made. In those subsequent instances, they have timely notified the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing as to those conflicting demands. On June 18, 1990, Petitioner's investigator conducted an office inspection and escrow/trust account audit of Respondents' office and escrow/trust account. That audit revealed that Respondents wrote a trust account check on September 1, 1989, in the amount of $369.15, which was returned on October 3, 1989, for insufficient funds. A second trust account check in the amount of $800 was also returned for insufficient funds on October 3, 1989. Respondents had received rental monies from a tenant by check. Respondents had written checks out of those monies for the mortgage payment on the rental property, not knowing that the tenant's check would fail to clear. The worthless check written by the tenant caused these checks written by Respondents to be returned for insufficient funds. Respondents have changed their office policies so that they no longer accept checks from tenants except before tenants move into rental properties and the checks must clear before the tenants are allowed to take possession of the leased premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondent Kornicki guilty of Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and Finding Respondent Waterway Properties, Inc., guilty of Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII; Dismissing Counts XIII and XIV; Ordering Respondent Marvin M. Kornicki to pay a fine of $1,000 to the Division of Real Estate within 60 days and revoking Respondents' licenses should such fine not be timely paid; Placing Respondents on probation for a period of one year if the fine is timely paid; Requiring Respondent Kornicki to complete and provide satisfactory evidence of having completed 60 hours of approved real estate post-licensure education for brokers, 30 hours of which shall include the real estate broker management course, during the probationary period; Establishing terms for the probationary period except that such probationary terms shall not require Respondent Kornicki to retake any state licensure examinations and Requiring Respondent Kornicki to appear before the Commission at the last meeting of the Commission preceding the termination of Respondents' probation. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of February, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-5863 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4, 6-14, and 16-19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 15 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McCray, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Legal Division 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Marvin M. Kornicki Waterway Properties, Inc. 16560 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
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
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its president, an active firm member, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, failed to maintain funds in its escrow or trust bank account until disbursement thereof is properly authorized; by receiving earnest money deposits from Edward Sheredy and Sharon Sheredy, his wife, and a separate earnest money deposit of Joseph Federico, both of which deposits were placed in the escrow bank account of Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., and were allegedly unavailable for withdrawal from the escrow account at the time of any alleged real estate transaction closing in the two transactions, set for November 27, 1974, and by reason of the foregoing the Respondent, Vista Realty Inc., by and through its president, an active firm member, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, failed to maintain funds in an escrow or trust bank account until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(i), F.S. Whether or not Arthur Sinett and Sylvia Sinett, his wife, as purchasers, and Vista Community Builders, Inc. by and through its president, Raymond S. Hurley, as seller, and Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its president an active firm member, Raymond S. Hurley, as real estate broker, entered into a contract to purchase and sell certain real property in Palm Beach County, Florida which called for deposits by the buyer to be held in escrow account until the sale is closed; and whether or not the $50,000.00 sum placed with Vista Community Builders, Inc. was an earnest money deposit made pursuant to the terms of the contract; and whether or not Vista Community Builders, Inc. by and through its president, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, failed to deposit and maintain the said funds in an escrow account until the sale closed; thereby showing the Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, to be guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device in a business transaction, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), F.S. Whether or not Richard J. Fenick and Agina J. Fennick, his wife, as purchasers, and Vista Community Builders, Inc. by and through its president, Raymond S. Hurley, as seller, and Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its president, as an active firm member, Raymond S. Hurley, as real estate broker, entered into a contract to purchase and sell certain real property in Palm Beach County, Florida which called for deposits by the buyer to be held in escrow account until the sale is closed; and whether or not the $10,000.00 sum placed with the Vista Community Builders, Inc. was an earnest money deposit made pursuant to the terms of the contract; and whether or not Vista Community Builders, Inc. by and through its president, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, failed to deposit and maintain the said funds in an escrow account until the sale closed; thereby showing the Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, to be guilty of misrepresentation, false policies, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device in a business transaction, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, is the holder of license no. 0042412, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission, at all times pertinent to this administrative complaint. The Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., is the holder of license no. 0091754, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission, at all times pertinent to this administrative complaint. The Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, is now and was at all times alleged in the complaint, the President and active firm member of the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., a registered corporate broker. On or about November 8 & 26, 1973, Edward Sheredy and Sharon Sheredy, his wife, entrusted the sums of $100.00 and $3,050.00 respectively, to the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc. as a real estate broker. A secretary of the Respondent corporation, one Marie Tolton, received the aforesaid sums, which represented an earnest money deposit on the purchase of real estate in Palm Beach County, Florida, by Edward Sheredy and Sharon Sheredy. On or about November 8 & 27, 1973, the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its President and active firm member, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, deposited the sums of $100.00 aid $3,050.00, respectively, into its escrow or trust bank account, to wit, the account of Vista Realty, Inc., escrow account with the American National Bank and Trust Company, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. This deposit was made by an employee of the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., and was made to the account no. 2191-639-3. The balance in the escrow or bank account subsequent to the above deposits was $9,562.98, effective November 27, 1973. On or about February 19, 1974, Joseph Federico entrusted the sum of $5,637.50 to the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc. as a real estate broker. The aforementioned sum represented part of an earnest money deposit of $5737.50 on the purchase of real estate in Palm Beach County, Florida, being made by Joseph Federico. The remainder of the earnest money deposit was made by voiding a prior real estate contract and transferring the $100.00 earnest money deposit therein to the new transaction. On or about March 1, 1974, the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its President and active firm member, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, deposited $5637.50 escrow money into its escrow or trust bank account, to wit, the account of Vista Realty, Inc. placed with the American National Bank and Trust Company, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. This deposit of escrow was made by an employee of the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc. into account no. 2191-63-3 after being received by the employee Marie Tolton, a secretary in the Respondent corporation. The balance in the escrow or trust bank account on March 4, 1974, which was present subsequent to the aforementioned deposit was $22,545.48. On November 27, 1974, the escrow bank account of the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc. in the American National Bank and Trust Company, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, reflected the balance of $4,700.48. On November 27, 1974, the aforementioned real estate transactions did not close, and any withdrawal of the earnest money deposit placed by the parties, Sheredy and Federico was not authorized to be made by the Respondents. The total obligation of the Respondents for the payment of the earnest money deposits for the Sheredy and Federico contracts, was $8,887.50. Other escrow funds which the Respondents had on deposit included $91.80 shown on account and $4,050.90 as a cashier's check on the same account, which was an escrow account with the First Community Bank of Boca Raton, Florida. The account no. in the Boca Raton bank was account no. 7145831. The amounts mentioned in the escrow account in the First Community Bank of Boca Raton were those amounts effective on November 27, 1974. Taking the totals of the escrow deposits in both banks, the total amount available on November 27, 1974, was $8,843.18, leaving a $44.32 deficit in honoring the refund of the Federico and Sheredy earnest money deposits. In addition, there was other real estate deposit in the Boca Raton bank, earnest money deposits on two contracts. Those amounts were $2,564.10 for Kathleen G. and Carl F. Monturo, and $2,500.00 for Hogeland Barcalow. Taking the total of the Monturo and Barcalow contracts this would an additional $5,064.10, debit against the available funds in two escrow accounts, which would be in addition to the $44.32 deficit already mentioned. The $5,064.10 could not have been used to satisfy the obligation on the Federico and Sheredy contracts. On or about August 30, 1974, Arthur Sinett and Silvia Sinett, his wife, as purchasers, went to the offices of Vista Realty, Inc. 2 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, to enter into a contract to purchase real estate. The Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley was representing the corporation know as Vista Community Builders, Inc. and received $50,000.00 deposit as earnest money deposit on the purchase of the real estate in two separate installments, one of $45,000.00 and one of $5,000.00. The deposit receipt contracts signed was on a form prepared for Vista Realty, Inc. and listed Vista Realty, Inc. as real estate broker in the transaction. A copy of that is Petitioner's Exhibit number 5, admitted into evidence. The contract called for the $5600000 earnest money deposit to be placed in an escrow account until the sale was closed, and Raymond S. Hurley entered into this contract as President of Vista Community Builders, Inc. listing Vista Realty, Inc. as real estate broker. The money was never placed in an escrow account until closing, as stated in the contract, and this failure to place the money in an escrow account was without the permission of the Sinetts. On or about July 16, 1974, Richard J. Fenick and Aginia J. Fenick, his wife, entered into a contract for the purchase of real estate. This negotiation of the contract was entered into at the offices of Vista Realty, Inc. at 2 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. Raymond S. Hurley signed, in his own name, as the party receiving the earnest money deposit, which was in the amount of $10,000.00. He signed as a contracting party in the name of Raymond S. Hurley, President, Vista Community Builders, Inc. The contract did not show the name of any broker, and in fact, indicated the word none in the space provided for such designation. The contract entered into between the Fenicks and Hurley is petitioner's Exhibit number 19, admitted into evidence. The contract form was a form prepared for Vista Realty, Inc., and contained a statement that deposits by the buyer should be placed in an escrow account until the sale was closed. The Fenicks paid the $10,000.00 to Raymond S. Hurley and the earnest money deposit was never placed in an escrow account, and the failure to place the earnest money deposit in an escrow account was without the permission of the Fenicks.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license no. 0042142, held by Raymond S. Hurley, be suspended for one year. It is recommended that the license no. 0091754, held by Vista Realty, Inc. be suspended for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Ronald Sales, Esquire Sales & Christiansen 247 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2759 PALM BEACH COUNTY vs. DOAH CASE NO. 76-0243 RAYMOND S. HURLEY and VISTA REALTY, INC., Defendants. /
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. Murata is a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license numbers BK 3266198, 3326041, 3330594, 3334183, 3338731, 3345773, 3346456, 3346845, 3350300, 3364670, 3366527, 3366441, 3368235, 3369788, 3372663 and 3378303. Ms. Murata is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner and subject to applicable statutes and rules. Ms. Murata is the owner of the Florida Qualifying Broker of Record Service and maintains the Internet website, http://floridabrokerofrecord.com, which states its business model to be an opportunity for Florida real estate sales associates to run their own real estate companies without having to share their commissions with the broker of record. Friendly International Realty, LLC ("Friendly"), was formed in June 2011. From March 3, 2016, to June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata was the qualifying real estate broker for Friendly. Ms. Murata agreed to receive a monthly fee of $289.00 in exchange for being the qualifying broker of record for Friendly. Ms. Murata did not physically visit the license location of Friendly, at 937 Northeast 125th Street, North Miami, Florida, 33161, during the time that she was the qualifying broker. Ms. Murata was not a signatory on any escrow account used by Friendly. Ms. Murata did not keep any of Friendly's brokerage records. From March 4, 2016, to November 21, 2016, Jean Berthelot was a registered real estate sales associate with Friendly. He acted as an independent contractor. Ms. Murata was aware that Mr. Berthelot was doing business on the Multiple Listing Service ("MLS"). After she became the broker for Friendly, Ms. Murata activated one sales associate to help Mr. Berthelot. Joan Feloney is the owner of the subject property. Audrey Flanders is a real estate broker acting on behalf of Ms. Feloney in her efforts to lease the subject property. Ms. Flanders received a contract to enter into a lease from Tamara Stanton, a real estate sales associate at Friendly, on behalf of Paul Allicock. Ms. Feloney accepted the offer. Mr. Allicock paid $2,350.00 to Friendly toward lease of the subject property in the form of signed money orders dated March 6 and March 18, 2016. The money was placed in a Friendly escrow account. These money orders were paid to engage the services of Friendly and Ms. Murata as broker in the rental of the subject property. Pursuant to a written statement signed by Ms. Feloney, $550.00 of this amount was to be paid to Friendly, and $1,650.00 was to be paid to Ms. Feloney. A lease agreement between Mr. Allicock as tenant and Ms. Feloney as landlord and owner of the subject property was executed on March 21, 2016. Mr. Berthelot wrote a check from the Friendly escrow account to Ms. Feloney for $1,650.00 on the same date. Ms. Feloney attempted to deposit the check, but on April 14, 2016, the check was returned to her marked "NSF," indicating that insufficient funds were in the account. She was charged a $15.00 return item fee. Under the agreement between Ms. Murata and Friendly, Mr. Berthelot was not authorized to have an escrow account or otherwise hold funds or assets on behalf of a third party. As for brokerage transactions, he was supposed to e-mail transactional records to Ms. Murata or place them in a dropbox. Neither Ms. Stanton nor Mr. Berthelot ever placed documents in the dropbox. But, as Ms. Murata told Investigator Percylla Kennedy, she did learn that Friendly was doing business on the MLS. Ms. Murata became aware of the Friendly escrow account on April 26, 2016, in connection with a complaint about a transaction unrelated to this Administrative Complaint. She discussed the escrow account with Mr. Berthelot on April 27, 2016. Ms. Murata requested that Mr. Berthelot close the escrow account, submit proof that he had closed the account, and turn over all contracts between Mr. Berthelot and current clients. Ms. Murata did not want to perform a reconciliation of the escrow account. As she testified in deposition: Q: When you learned that there were third party funds being held by Friendly International Realty, did you demand the records of that account so you could perform a reconciliation? A: No, because [sic] was to be closed, because I did not want to manage an escrow account. So when I discovered what he was doing, the agreement was that he was going to close it immediately. I was not going to manage an escrow account for him, so I demanded, what I demanded was proof that the account was closed and proof that he had engaged in a written agreement with a title company for all escrow funds. Q: Approximately when did you make that demand? A: The moment that Jessica Schuller came up and he confessed that he had kept the account from his previous broker. That he had not told me because he was going to close it. I threatened I was going to resign once he paid those funds to Jessica. But then I agreed to continue if he closed that account immediately. On May 10, 2016, a complaint was filed with the Department against Ms. Murata, as broker of Friendly, regarding the lease transaction involving the subject property. After Ms. Murata became aware that Friendly owed money to Ms. Feloney, she maintained regular contact with her brokerage in an attempt to ensure that the money owed to Ms. Feloney was paid. Ms. Murata cooperated with the Department's investigation. Ms. Feloney, through Audrey Flanders, requested on June 2, 2016, that the $1,650.00 and an additional service charge of $82.00 be paid within 15 days or a case would be filed with the state attorney's office. The parties stipulated that on June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata resigned from her position as broker of record for Friendly. She testified that she resigned because she had not received the documents or actions that she had requested of Mr. Berthelot. Ms. Murata did not write a check to Ms. Feloney to pay the amount Friendly owed her because, with an investigation underway, Ms. Murata did not want it to be construed as an admission that she had personally collected funds from Mr. Allicock. She also evidently believed that since she had resigned, she was not professionally responsible for obligations that arose during the time that she had been the broker. Ms. Murata convincingly testified that in another, unrelated, situation, she became involved as the broker to resolve a potential dispute by ensuring that the party entitled to funds was paid. On June 25, 2016, a Bad Check Crime Report was filed with the Broward County State Attorney's Office. By letter dated June 8, 2016, the Department requested that Ms. Murata provide copies of monthly reconciliation statements; bank statements and records; and sales, listing, and property management files of Friendly. As Ms. Kennedy testified, Ms. Murata never provided those accounts and records to the Department, saying she did not have them. While Ms. Murata insists that any failure was only because Mr. Berthelot actively kept information from her, the parties stipulated that Ms. Murata failed to maintain control of, and have reasonable access to, some of the documents associated with the rental of the subject property. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in real estate brokerages, reviewed chapter 475; Florida Administrative Code Rule Title 61J; the deposit paperwork of Mr. Allicock; the Bad Check Crime Report; the investigative report; and the Administrative Complaint. He prepared an expert report to the Department. As Mr. Trafton testified, the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to other parties. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. He also testified that a broker must maintain the records of the brokerage. Mr. Trafton testified that in his opinion, Ms. Murata failed to meet these standards. Ms. Murata failed to promptly deliver funds to Ms. Feloney that were in possession of the brokerage. Ms. Murata failed to manage, direct, and control Real Estate Sales Associate Berthelot to the standard expected of a broker of record. She did not actively supervise him, instead relying completely on Mr. Berthelot and other associates to provide her any information she needed to know. Ms. Murata failed to preserve accounts and records relating to the rental or lease agreement of the subject property. Petitioner did not clearly show that Respondent was guilty of either "culpable negligence" or "breach of trust." As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of this complaint through September 14, 2017, costs incurred by the Department were $1,443.75, not including costs associated with an attorney's time.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Finding Maria Camila Murata in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), and 475.25(1)(e) as charged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00; imposing license suspension for a period of two months; and imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Robert & Gilman, Inc. at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate broker by the State of Florida. Delair A. Clark at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate salesman by the State of Florida. Residential property owned by William L. and Frances Crummett was listed with J.B. Steelman, Jr. real estate broker and put on Multiple Listing Service. On June 17, 1972, immediately after the For Sale sign was erected, Respondent, Delair A. Clark, presented an offer to the sellers on this property which was accepted by sellers on the same date presented (Exhibit 9). This contract provided the purchase price of $28,500 with a $300 earnest money deposit, the usual clauses in a form contract for sale and purchase, and two special clauses to wit: "A. Subject to: Buyer being reassigned to central Florida prior to June 22, 1972. In the event the assignment does not materialize by June 23, 1972 deposit will, be returned in full and contract will be null and void. B. Subject to: Buyer obtaining a 90 percent conventional loan for a period of 25 years or an FHA loan for 30 years." By telegram dated 6/20/72 (Exhibit 8) buyer confirmed re-assignment to Orlando, thus satisfying condition A in the contract. Buyers thereafter asked for earlier occupancy than originally called for. Since special arrangements would have to be made by sellers, Mr. Crummett asked for an amendment to the contract to increase the earnest money deposit to $1,000 of which $500 would be non-refundable if contract was not consummated. This amendment was duly executed by the buyers on July 15, 1972 and by the sellers. A copy thereof was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11 which provides: "SPECIAL CLAUSE" "C. An additional deposit of $700 will be made on July 17, 1972, of which $500 will be non-refundable in the event the referenced contract is not consumated (sic)." This amendment was forwarded to the sellers by Respondent's Roberts & Gilman letter of July 17, 1972 which amendment was executed by the sellers upon receipt and mailed back to Roberts & Gilman. The July 17, 1972 letter was signed by Judy L. Rostatter of the sales processing department. A copy of the check received from the buyers was not enclosed although the letter stated it was enclosed. Prior to receipt of this amendment Crummett was advised by Richter, the buyer, that he had mailed a $700 check to Roberts & Gilman made payable to Crummett. Crummett was also advised by Respondent Clark that the check had been received. Since closing was scheduled to be held within a couple of days Crummett requested Clark to hold the check and he would endorse same at closing. Crummett never saw the original check for $700. On the day originally scheduled for the closing (circa July 18, 1972) Crummett received a telephone call from Respondent Clark to the effect that the appraisal on the property had come in some $3,000 below the asking price and inquiring if Crummett would accept $26,000 for his property. The latter advised he would not and, after some heated words, Crummett hung up. At this time it was evident to Respondent Clark and the sellers that the sale would not be consummated. Clark put a memo in the file dated July 28, 1972 saying: "Return checks of $700 + $300 in estrow (sic) to Richter. Seller advised we had no contract." A few weeks later, on August 3, 1972, after making several phone calls to Roberts & Gilman without success, Crummett had the listing broker, J.B. Steelman, write a letter (Exhibit 7) to Gilman making demand for the $500 deposit refund. By letter dated August 11, 1972 (Exhibit 6) Roberts and Gilman replied that they considered the contract had been terminated by the seller and saw no "justification by the seller to claim any escrow that has been returned to the buyer". This letter was signed "Dan T. Gilman /b.c." Several months later, in the spring of 1973, Crummett went to the office of Roberts and Gilman and obtained a photostatic copy of the check dated 7/15/72 that had been made by J.A. Richter in the amount of $700. This was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 12. At the hearing Dan G. Gilman, President of Roberts & Gilman, Inc. denied any recollection of any part of this transaction or ever having heard of the incident prior to the investigator from the FREC coming to inquire about the incident. At the time of this transaction the realtor's office was very busy with several branch offices and some 120 salesmen handling transactions in eight or ten counties in central Florida. He has no recollection of dictating Exhibit 12 or anything about the incident but his secretary at that time was Beverly Cass. It was standard practice for a broker to review every contract before trust account money was disbursed or refunded. His initial testimony that numerous people in the office had authority to sign his name to letters going out of the office was recanted when he was recalled as a witness after the close of the Commission's case. He then stated he never authorized anyone to sign his name to a document having legal implication. Clark testified that the first time he ever saw Exhibit 11, the amendment to the contract, was when shown to him by the investigator for the FREC. Likewise he claims never to have seen or received the $700 check signed by Richter. With respect to the return of the deposit to Richter, (after being shown Exhibit 13) his recollection of the cancellation of the contract was that Richter was not re-assigned to the Orlando area. This was the only contract ever handled by Clark which involved the return of an escrow deposit. He has no recollection of talking to any member of the realty firm regarding clearing the return of the escrow deposit to Richter. Exhibit 5 is a photocopy of the check by which the $300 earnest money deposit was returned to Richter. It is obvious that the contract for the sale of the residential property herein involved was amended to provide for an additional deposit from the buyers and a clause which required the buyer to forfeit one half of his deposit in the event the transaction was not consummated. It is incomprehensible that such an amendment to the contract could be made without the knowledge of the salesman or the broker. It therefore appears that the Defendants either: (1) are not telling the truth; (2) have faulty memories; (3) allowed the duties normally performed by brokers to be carried out by secretaries; or (4) operated a realty company in a slipshod manner without due regard to the duties and responsibilities imposed upon brokers and salesman by the real estate license law.
