Findings Of Fact 5. The Division hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 14 as set forth in the Recommended Order.
Conclusions The Director of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes (Division) enters this Final Order in the above referenced matter.
Appeal For This Case Ye ee eee THIS FINAL ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION AND MAY BE THIS FINAL ORDER UCONN YI ES TINA eee e———EESeaeeweorose APPEALED BY_ANY PARTY SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER APPEALED BY_ANY FARK] Y olUpolANyA.T oaoes--- Oo ——o PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND RULE 9.1 10, FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 9.110(d), FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, BOTH WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT _OF APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPROPRIATE FILING FEE, AND WITH THE AGENCY CLERK, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS _ AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, AT 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE RENDITION OF THIS ORDER. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Page 3 of 4 Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes v. Fernando Fernandez DOAH Case No. 04-0771; BPR 2003089755 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Certified Mail to Fernando Fernandez, 15397 Southwest 168" Terrace, Miami, Florida 33187, this day of , 2004. Robin McDaniel, Docket Clerk Copies furnished to: Division of Administrative Hearings Janis Sue Richardson, Office of the General Counsel Robert Badger, Section Head, Yacht & Ship Regulation Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Page 4 of 4 Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes v. Fernando Fernandez DOAH Case No. 04-0771; BPR 2003089755
The Issue Whether Respondent's license issued by Petitioner should be revoked or suspended, or the licensee be otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.25(3) Florida Statutes as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with that of other respondents by Order of the undersigned Hearing Officer dated August 8, 1977. The consolidated cases heard on November 7, 1977 are as follows: Case No. 77-1269, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. John Glorian and General American Realty Corporation Case No. 77-1275, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. James Henkel Case No. 77-1277, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Alfred Landin Case No. 77-1278, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Joseph Macko The evidence in this case consisted solely of the testimony of the Respondents in the above listed four cases, and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 withdrawn) which consisted of certain written material furnished to prospective clients by the Florida Landowners Service Bureau, including a listing and brokerage agreement sample form. Petitioner sought to elicit the testimony of Kenneth Kasha and Theodore Dorwin, but both of these prospective witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to testify in this case. After inquiring into the basis of their claims, the Hearing Officer permitted the same and they were excused from the hearing. Both individuals based their claims on the fact that they are currently under criminal investigation by state law enforcement authorities with respect to their prior activities as real estate brokers in advance fee transactions. Although Petitioner contended that Dorwin had waived his privilege by testifying in prior administrative proceedings brought by the Florida Real Estate Commission which led to the revocation of his broker's license, and that Kasha also had waived his privilege by testifying in am administrative proceeding brought by the Florida Division of Land Sales and Condominiums concerning advance fee sales, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that any such waivers did not extend to the instant proceeding. Petitioner then sought to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of Dorwin and Kasha in the aforementioned administrative proceedings, but such admission was not permitted by the Hearing Officer because the Respondents herein had not been afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses at the time they gave such testimony. Respondent Joseph Macko appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer advised him of his rights in the administrative hearing. Respondent is now a registered non-active real estate salesman, and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a registered salesman in the employ of General American Realty Corporation, a registered corporate broker (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3).
Findings Of Fact General American Realty Corporation was first registered by petitioner as a corporate broker in 1970. In 1972 John Glorian became the president of the firm and active broker. He was hired by Richard T. Halfpenny who was the owner and principal stockholder at the time. Alfred Landin, a registered real estate salesman, joined the firm in February, 1975. At that time, General American was in the business of selling acreage property in Florida. In the summer of 1975, Glorian recommended to Halfpenny that the firm become involved in the "advance fee" business. Such transactions in the trade involved the telephone solicitation of out-of-state landowners to list their land in Florida for sale with a Florida broker for a prescribed fee which would become part of any sales commission if and when the particular property was sold. Halfpenny expressed no objections to the idea and Glorian thereafter contacted Theodore Dorwin who was then associated with Florida Landowners Service Bureau in Miami. Kenneth Kasha was the president of that firm which was involved in the advance fee business. Glorian introduced Dorwin to the firm's salesmen, who included Joseph Macko, James H. Henkel, and Landin. Dorwin instructed these personnel in the method of soliciting prospective clients and provided an outline of the information that was to be given to those individuals called by the salesmen. He told the General American personnel that once the property was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau, it would be advertised in newspapers and catalogs, and that bona fide efforts would be made by his organization to sell the property. (Testimony of Glorian, Landin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 5-6). General American commenced its advance fee operation approximately August, 1975. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out-of-state landowner picked from a computer print-out list and inquire if he would be interested in selling his property at a higher price than he had paid for it. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing his property, his name was provided to Florida Landowners Service Bureau who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell his property. Also enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to Florida Landowners Service Bureau which would be credited against a ten percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, Florida Landowners Service Bureau agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one-year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring, and cataloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would "analyze" the property, comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property, and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the course of their calls to prospects, Macko, Henkel, and Landin advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States, and that bona fide efforts would be made by Florida Landowners Service Bureau to sell the property. All salesmen represented themselves to be salesmen for that organization. Henkel told prospects that foreign investors were buying Florida property; however, in fact, he was unaware as to whether any property had ever been sold by Florida Landowners Service Bureau and never inquiried in this respect. Henkel and Landin had observed copies of the literature sent to prospects in the General American office, but Macko had only seen the listing agreement. After the promotional literature was sent to a prospect, the General American salesmen made what were called "drive" calls to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls, the salesmen had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee initially was $250 and was later raised to $350. The salesman received approximately one third of the fee. Glorian was paid several hundred dollars a month by General American, but received no portion of the listing fees. He was in the office once or twice a week to supervise the activities of the salesmen who made their telephone calls during the evening hours. Halfpenny was seldom there and did not take an active part in the advance fee operation. None of the salesmen or Glorian were aware that any of the property listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau was ever sold and none of them ever saw any advertising, although Land in saw a catalog of listings at one time. Although Macko customarily recommended a listing price of the property to prospects based on the general rise in value of land since the date of purchase, Henkel merely accepted the price desired by the property owners. General American terminated its advance fee business in early 1976 after being advised that petitioner was conducting investigations into the advance fee business (Testimony of Macko, Landin, Henkel, Glorian). All of the Respondents in these cases testified at the hearing that they had made no false representations to prospects during the course of their telephone conversations and otherwise denied any wrongdoing.
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent Joseph M. Macko be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J.R. Parkinson and Louis Guttman, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Joseph M. Macko 13990 Northeast 6th Ave. Miami, Florida 33161
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Robert William Snyder, obtained his registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes, and operated as a real estate salesman without being a holder of a valid current registration certificate at the time of operating as such, in violation of subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for these violations whether the real estate license of Robert William Snyder should be suspended and/or revoked. Whether or not the Respondent, Robert William Snyder, has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealings, trick, scheme or device, or breach of trust in a business transaction as stated in the Information in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for these violations the real estate license of Robert William Snyder should be suspended for such a violation.
Findings Of Fact On February 9, 1972, the Respondent made application to be registered as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. (See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 1). The Respondent was subsequently registered a real estate salesman in the State of Florida, and was so registered on March 11, 1975, when he was given a notice of the Information in this cause, as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit no. 2. On the date of the hearing in this cause, Respondent was still registered as a real estate salesman with the State of Florida. It would appear that the initial registration certificate became effective on June 1972. When responding to Paragraph 18(a) and 18(b) of the application for registration, which is Petitioner's Exhibit no. 1, the Respondent answered those questions in the negative. The statement of questions 18(a) and 18(b) in the application were as follows: "18(a) Have you in this state operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate broker, within one year next prior to the filing of this applica- tion? 18(b) Have you in this state operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate salesman, within one year next prior to the filing of this application, without being the holder of a valid current registration certificate authorizing you to do so?" Prior to the answers to the questions in the form as stated above, discussions of a purchase of real estate in the State Florida had been entered into between the Respondent and his mother, Eleanor C. Russell. The first of these conversations had occurred while returning to the northeastern United States from a vacation trip to Florida. The exact location of that initial discussion is not known; however, the conversation took place in the Fall of 1971. During 1971 Mrs. Russell lived with the Respondent and his wife for a period of six to eight weeks. During that time frame Mrs. Russell entered into a contract for construction, with the Lake Placid Construction Company, Inc.. The terms of this contract are found in Petitioner's Exhibit no. 8. The date of the contract was November 27, 1971. The contract indicated that Lot 2, Block 153, in Unit 12 Placid Lakes, Highland County, Florida, was the contemplated real estate site upon which a duplex home was to be built. The contract was signed by Mrs. Russell and witnessed by Betty Jane Snyder, the Respondent's wife. The contract was subject to financing being obtained. Respondent appeared in the contract as Robert Snyder, a Connecticut broker. The purchase that was considered was a joint venture between the Respondent and his mother, Eleanor C. Russell. The contract was signed by Mrs. Russell because of certain tax advantages, according to the Respondent, and also because the Respondent was not financially able to get a mortgage in his name solely. When an application for mortgage money was applied for in the name of Eleanor C. Russell, this request was turned down. It was turned down based upon the age of the applicant and the Respondent was required to be a co-signer with his mother for the mortgage commitment to go through. On February 29, 1972, the Respondent signed an agreement for deed on the same parcel of land as shown in the contract which is Petitioner's Exhibit no. 1. The terms of the agreement for deed are found in Respondent's Exhibit no. 1. This agreement for deed was supported by a cash down payment from the Respondent, and was signed solely by the Respondent. Eleanor C. Russell had put up money in the amount of $14,000.00 for the purchase of the real estate indicated in the contract of November 27, 1971. The amounts of the checks can be found as part of the attachment to Petitioner's Exhibit no. 3. The purchase of the property was to be effectuated with $14,000 to be paid by Eleanor C. Russell to William Snyder, to be given to the Lake Placid Holding Company, and by funds which the Respondent expected to derive from the sale of the property which he was going to purchase with his mother. The funds were commissions for the sale of the lot according to the contract with the Lake Placid Holding Company, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 9, and also, funds as a commission for the sale of the building itself, which is in accordance with the contract, Petitioner's Exhibit no. 9. The contract was never consummated due to a disagreement between the Respondent and his mother. The $14,000 which the mother had paid to the Respondent has never been reimbursed to the mother and a judgment has been rendered in favor of Eleanor C. Russell, in the amount of $14,000.00. (See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 6). The formal negotiations for the sale of the contract for the benefit of the Respondent and his mother, Eleanor C. Russell, occurred in the State of Florida, as it pertains to the contract which she signed, Petitioner's Exhibit The contracts with the bank for financing, and the agreement for deed, Respondent's Exhibit no. 8, signed by the Respondent were in Florida. On the subject of the commissions which the Respondent intended to claim, he intended to claim those commissions as a Connecticut broker, although the sale would have occurred in Florida. The rationale for claiming the commissions, was that the Respondent was entitled to those commissions for the sale of the property to himself, in the same fashion that he would be entitled to the commissions for sales of property to a client in the State of Connecticut, acting as a Connecticut real estate broker. An indication of the Respondent's perception of his status is supported by the words "Connecticut Broker," found on the aforementioned checks signed by Eleanor C. Russell, the contract signed by Mrs. Russell and the agreement for deed signed by the Respondent. The money which was given to the Respondent by his mother as a part of the purchase of the real estate and home, has been spent by the Respondent for debts and for furniture, none of these items for the benefit of the mother, Eleanor C. Russell.
Recommendation It is recommended that the real estate registration certificate of Robert William Snyder, the Respondent, to be a real estate salesman in the State of Florida be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Robert William Snyder 2078 Sunset Point Road, Apt. 82 Woodlake Condominiums Clearwater, Florida 33515
The Issue Whether respondent violated Section 498.023, Florida Statutes, by offering or disposing of an interest in subdivided lands (Pinecrest Estates) without first registering it or delivering a public offering statement to the purchasers and, if so, what penalty should be assessed or affirmative action ordered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter an order assessing a $10,000 civil penalty against respondent for its violation of Chapter 498 Florida Statutes; requiring respondent to fully disclose the adverse features of the Pinecrest Estates property to each of its prior purchasers, such disclosure to be accomplished in a manner approved by the Division; requiring respondent to offer and make full refunds to its prior purchasers who desire a refund, such refunds to be made in a manner approved by the Division and conditioned only on reconveyance of the land to the respondent or recission of the agreement for deed; and requiring respondent to record in the official records of St. Johns County, Florida, all outstanding agreements for deeds covering lots belonging to prior purchasers who, after disclosure, choose not to request refunds. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent in Administering grants under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) failed to comply with the applicable rules and regulations. As a result thereof, a total of $6,503 was spent in violation of applicable rules and regulations. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer as set out in the Recommended Order are hereby accepted and adopted, except that the undersigned rejects the hearing officer's conclusion of law at paragraph two on page five of the recommended order. The undersigned concludes that according to applicable law the amount of $4,824 charged to the contract on account of the ineligible participant is not an allowable expenditure, and that Respondent is liable for the payment of that sum. It is further found that Respondent did not present adequate evidence to refute the findings of its failure to comply with applicable regulations. WHEREFORE, it is Ordered: That Respondent immediately repay $6,503 spent in violation of applicable regulations. In the event either party disagrees with this determination, an appeal can be filed with Mr. Lawrence Weatherford, Regional Administrator, United States Department of Labor, 1371 Peachtree street, N.W., Room 405, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The provisions pertaining to the appeal process, 20 C.F.R. 676.88 et. seq., are attached hereto. Dated this 27th day of, 1982 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES R. RUSSELL, Director Division of Employment and Training COPIES FURNISHED: Frances Jackson Box 70 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Chad Motes Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry Warren Internal Audit Division of Employment and Training Atkins Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald R. Alexander Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY AMENDED FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-882 SUWANNEE RIVER ECONOMIC COUNCIL, INC. Respondent. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent repay $1,654 in questioned costs under Contract No. 80ET-86-03-71-17-021. The questioned costs pertaining to Contract No. 79MP- 2U-03-44-17 should be allowed. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 25th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Chad J. Motes, Esquire Suite 131-Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frances Jackson Post Office Box 70 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Wallace E. Orr, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkley Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-882 SUWANNEE RIVER ECONOMIC COUNCIL, INC. Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Stanley Fried is guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stanley Fried is a registered real estate salesman. Stanley Fried was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. He was paid by International Land Sales Chartered, Inc.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Stanley Fried as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire and Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ronald L. Fried, Esquire 2699 South Bayshore Drive Suite 400C Miami, Florida 33133
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesman should be sus pended, revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 475, F.S., as set forth in Administrative Complaint dated May 4, 1982. This proceeding commenced upon the filing of an Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondent had refused to convey the title and deed to certain real property to the purchasers thereof, thus being subject to discipline for fraud, misrepresentation, false promises and dishonest dealing, in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(b) , Florida Statutes, and of failing to account and deliver a deed of property to the rightful owners, in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent made a request for administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and the matter was referred by the Florida Real Estate Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer. Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses at the hearing and submitted five exhibits. Respondent testified in her own behalf. Post-hearing submissions of the parties have been fully considered and those parts not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact. Respondent's post-hearing Motion to Supplement the Record by including a warranty deed executed by Respondent on October 28, 1982, is denied.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Virginia D. Calhoun, is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license No. 0012452 and was so licensed at relative times referred to in the Administrative Complaint. At the time in question she was an associate with Stroud Realty in Suwannee, Florida. (Testimony of Respondent, pleadings.) In 1979, Berry H. Padgett and Geraldine Padgett, his wife, then living in Tampa, Florida, were interested in acquiring vacant property in Suwannee, Florida, for a retirement location. They went to Stroud Realty in Suwannee where Respondent was employed as a salesman. She drove them around the area and showed them several pieces of property which were not acceptable. She then told them that she had two lots to show them which were her property. Although a Stroud Realty sign was on the lots, they were not listed with that firm. The Padgetts decided to purchase the lots and, on June 4, 1979, entered into a contract for deed with Respondent to purchase Lots 67 and 72, Garden Island Replat, Dixie County, Florida, for the price of $19,000. The purchase price was payable by a $5,000 down payment, $10,000 to be paid in 129 equal consecutive installments of $107.47 each, and the remaining balance of $4,000 to be due and payable by July 4, 1984, plus interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum. The contract further provided that if the purchasers complied with the terms of the agreement, the seller agreed to convey the property in fee simple, clear of all encumbrances by a good and sufficient deed. Respondent told the purchasers that it was unnecessary to conduct a title search because of the contract provisions in that regard. The Padgetts proceeded to make the down payment, and monthly payments, with an interim lump sum payment in July, 1981. In November, 1981, they made the final payment on the property and Respondent promised that they would receive a deed by Christmas of that year. When the deed was not forthcoming at that time, Respondent told the Padgetts that her lawyer was out of town but that she would get the deed to them by January, 1982. At the request of the Padgetts, Respondent gave them a receipt, dated January 2, 1982, showing that payment in full had been made on the lots. Several further requests for the deed were made by the Padgetts, but each time Respondent told them that her lawyer was "out of town." As of the date of hearing, Respondent had not provided the Padgetts with a deed to the property. (Testimony of B. Padgett, G. Padgett, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2.) Respondent had entered into a contract of deed for the purchase of the lots in question on April 23, 1979, and had been making payments in the amount of $107.47 since May, 1979. At present, she still owes about $7,000 on her contract and therefore has never received the deed to the property. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioners Exhibit 3.) On April 29, 1981, a judgment was entered in the Alachua County Circuit Court, Case No. 80-3005-C, in favor of North Florida Regional Hospital, Inc., against Respondent and her husband, Arthur T. Calhoun, in the amount of $15,032.70 plus interest, court costs, and attorneys' fees, for a total of $18,988.33. Respondent testified at the hearing that her husband had been hospitalized for a lengthy period, and that they were unable to pay the hospital bills, thus resulting in the judgment which had been recorded against their property. She further testified that she had placed in a bank escrow account the sum of approximately $6,000 paid by the Padgetts which would be used to pay off her contract, and then obtain and transfer title to the lots as soon as she is able to get the hospital judgment and lien against the property paid. She testified that she was currently negotiating with the hospital for that purpose. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 4.)
Recommendation It is recommended that the complaint herein against Respondent, Virginia D. Calhoun, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman should be revoked for violation of Section 475.25(2), F.S. The Hearing Officer explained to the Respondent the nature of the hearing and his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, including the right to be represented by counsel at his own expense if he so desired. It was also explained to the Respondent that he could testify in his own behalf, that he is not required to do so, and that if he did so testify, he could be cross-examined by counsel for Petitioner. Respondent acknowledged understanding of these rights and elected not to testify in his own behalf.
Findings Of Fact 1. Counsel for Petitioner introduced into evidence Respondent's application for registration as a real estate salesman (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) and rested his case. No evidence was introduced in support of the allegation against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Janis K. Hinsch (Hinsch), was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. 0350063. Hinsch was the vice president and sole qualifying broker of Respondent, Huntco of Marco, Inc., a Florida corporation, licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, license No. 0222987. During all times material hereto Huntco was the owner of the Sea Oats Beach Club, a condominium located in Charlotte County, Florida. Huntco marketed the Sea Oats Beach Club under a time-share plan. The gravamen of the complaint in this case involves the sale of eight time-share units during the period of April 9, 1983 through August 11, 1983. The purchase agreements executed by the eight purchasers in question provided in pertinent part: 8. CLOSING AND TITLE At closing, . . . Seller shall deliver its warranty deed conveying fee title to the Unit Week(s) to Buyer under a plan of Interval Ownership as defined in the Declaration of Condominium . . . . The closing will be . . . not later than one (1) year from the date of this Agreement. Petitioner contends Hinsch and Huntco are guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because the deeds for the eight units were not delivered to the clerk of the court for recording within one year of the date the purchase agreements were executed. Petitioner's assertion is ill-founded. The deeds for each of the units in question were executed within 30 days of the date the purchase agreements were executed. The deeds, together with other pertinent documents, were delivered to a title company for closing and for issuance of an owner's title insurance policy. The title company, subsequent to closing, was to have forwarded the deed to the clerk for recording and, upon return of the recorded deed by the clerk, to have delivered the deed to the purchaser(s). However, the title company, through a clerical error, failed to deliver the deeds for these eight units to the clerk for recording. Respondent, upon receiving notice that purchasers had not received their deeds, immediately inquired of the title company to discern the reason, the error was discovered, and the deeds were promptly recorded. Admittedly, the deeds were not recorded within one year of the date the purchase agreements were executed, but the purchase agreements only required that the closing be held within one year. There is no evidence to suggest that the deeds in question were not delivered to the title company, or that these transactions were not closed, within one year of the date the purchase agreements were executed.
