The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, etc., or by violating a duty imposed upon him by law or by the terms of a listing contract and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty; Whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(d)1., by failing to timely account or deliver to any person any personal property such as money, funds, deposit, check draft, etc. and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty; and Whether Respondent, a sales associate, registered as an officer, director of a brokerage corporation, or general partner of a brokerage partnership is in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-5.016 and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. DOAH has jurisdiction, pursuant to section 120.574, to render a decision in this matter, which shall be final agency action subject to judicial review under section 120.68. Mr. Rivas is a licensed real estate sales associate, holding license number 3385508, issued by the State of Florida. Structure of the Brokerage Corporation On or about April 7, 2015, Respondent registered GREH with the State of Florida, Division of Corporations ("Division of Corporations"), identifying himself as the registered agent and manager of GREH. Respondent filed documents on behalf of GREH with the Division of Corporations on the following dates and identified himself with the following titles with GREH: On April 13, 2016, March 14, 2017, and April 17, 2018, Respondent identified himself as the registered agent, managing member, and president; On November 22, 2017, and April 17, 2018, Respondent identified himself as an authorized member; On April 22, 2019, Respondent identified himself as a registered agent, an authorized member, and managing member; On October 23, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent and member; On November 27, 2019, Respondent identified himself as a registered agent, member, and manager; On December 6, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent and shareholder; and On December 10, 2019, Respondent identified himself as registered agent. On March 23, 2017, GREH registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission") as a real estate corporation in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CQ 1053189. At no time was Respondent registered with the Commission as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. From November 27, 2017, to October 3, 2019, Mr. Avila, who at that time was a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number BK 3401612, was the qualifying broker of GREH. From October 3, 2019, to October 15, 2019, and from November 25, 2019, to December 9, 2019, GREH's license was invalidated due to it not having a qualifying broker. From October 15, 2019, to November 25, 2019, Gamila Murata was the qualifying broker for GREH. From December 9, 2019, to July 29, 2020, Mr. Henson was the qualifying broker for GREH. On August 22, 2019, without the authority of the qualifying broker for GREH, Respondent filed a civil action on behalf of GREH against Arnauld and Annelyn Sylvain (collectively, the "Sylvains") in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in case number 502019CA008774XXXXMB, seeking, among other things, to recover real estate commissions allegedly claimed due by GREH and Respondent. Respondent subsequently retained attorney Monica Woodard to represent GREH in the civil proceedings, and GREH's complaint was dismissed. On or about November 19, 2019, the Sylvains filed a separate civil action against GREH in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in case number 502019CC015230XXXXMB, seeking to recover a $10,000.00 escrow deposit. Respondent failed to inform the qualifying broker of record for GREH, Mr. Henson, who assumed that position shortly after the filing of the civil action, of the pending lawsuit. Respondent opened bank accounts on behalf of GREH, including an account called an "Escrow Account," which was controlled by Respondent and at no time was controlled by a qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent deposited escrow funds into the Escrow Account for GREH, without the authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent closed the Escrow Account held in the name of GREH and removed funds that were to be held in trust from the account without authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent controlled all communications regarding certain real estate transactions on behalf of GREH, without the knowledge or authority of the qualifying broker for GREH. Contract 1 On or about March 4, 2019, an "AS IS" Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase ("Contract 1") was entered into between the Sylvains, as buyers, and Frederick F. Breault and Evelyn Breault (the "Breaults"), as sellers, for property located at 16595 93rd Road North, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 ("Subject Property 1"). Respondent facilitated Contract 1 on behalf of the Sylvains. Pursuant to the requirements of Contract 1, the Sylvains deposited $10,000.00 with GREH, to be held in escrow as the initial deposit. The escrow funds were delivered to Respondent in the form of a certified check drawn from SunTrust Bank in the amount of $10,000.00 and purchased by Mr. Sylvain on March 4, 2019 ("SunTrust Certified Check"). The $10,000.00 escrow funds were deposited into a bank account held in the name of GREH. The SunTrust Certified Check was deposited into a bank account over which Respondent had sole control. The GREH account in which the SunTrust Certified Check was deposited was at no relevant time controlled by a Florida licensed real estate broker. Contract 1 provided that the Sylvains had 20 days from the effective date to obtain loan approval ("Loan Approval Period"). Paragraph 18(F) of the Contract provided as follows: TIME: Calendar days shall be used in computing time periods. Time is of the essence in this Contract. Other than time for acceptance and Effective Date as set forth in Paragraph 3, any time periods provided for or dates specified in this Contract, whether preprinted, handwritten, typewritten or inserted herein, which shall end or occur on a Saturday, Sunday, or a national legal holiday (see 5 U.S.C. 6103) shall extend to 5.[:]00 p.m. (where the Property is located) of the next business day. Because 20 days from the effective date fell on a Sunday, the Loan Approval Period expired on Monday, March 25, 2019. Paragraph 8(b)(i) of Contract 1 provided that: "Buyer [the Sylvains] shall ... use good faith and diligent effort to obtain approval of a loan meeting the Financing terms ('Loan Approval') and thereafter to close this Contract." Paragraph 8(b)(v) of the Contract further provided that if neither party timely cancelled the Contract pursuant to paragraph 8, the financing contingency would "be deemed waived." Paragraph 8(b)(vii) finally provided that "[i]f Loan Approval has been obtained, or deemed to have been obtained, as provided above, and Buyer fails to close this Contract, then the Deposit shall be paid to Seller … ." The parties agreed to close Contract 1 by April 10, 2019. The Sylvains did not obtain final loan approval ("clear to close") within the Loan Approval Period. The loan was not denied for any of the exceptions set forth in paragraph 8(b)(vii), to release of the escrow deposit to the seller. The Sylvains did not terminate the contract within the Loan Approval Period. After the Loan Approval Period expired, the Sylvains sought to extend Contract 1, without consideration for the extension. The Breaults countered the Sylvains' request to extend with an offer that an extension would be granted for consideration that the Sylvains agree to forfeit the earnest money deposit. The parties never reached an agreement to extend Contract 1 and Contract 1 failed to close. On or about May 2, 2019, the Sylvains's loan application for Contract 1 was denied. On May 8, 2019, the Breaults executed a Release and Cancellation of Contract demanding release of the $10,000.00 escrow deposit on Contract 1, which Respondent received by email on that date from Betty Khan, the sales associate representing the Breaults. The Sylvains also executed a Release and Cancellation of Contract seeking return of the $10,000.00 escrow deposit on Contract 1, which Respondent communicated to Ms. Khan on May 8, 2019. Also, on May 8, 2019, Respondent informed the Sylvains of the Breaults's claim on the earnest money deposit. Despite knowing that there were conflicting demands for the escrowed funds, Respondent failed to inform Mr. Avila, the qualifying broker for GREH at the time, or the Department, of the escrow dispute. The Breaults were never informed of any escrow dispute filed with the Department, were never sued in relation to the escrow deposit, and never went to mediation or arbitration with regard to the escrow deposit, despite making a demand for the escrow deposit. Respondent claimed that he applied the $10,000.00 escrow funds to another contract under which the Sylvains were buyers. Respondent closed the GREH Escrow Account, removing the $10,000.00 from the account, without consent of either the Sylvains or the Breaults. Contract 2 On or about May 2, 2019, an "AS IS" Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase (Contract 2) between the Sylvains, as buyers, and the Mossuccos, as sellers, for property located at 7584 Apache Boulevard, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 ("Subject Property 2"). Respondent facilitated Contract 2 on behalf of the Sylvains. In relation to Contract 2, specifically paragraph 2(a), which required an earnest money deposit in the amount of $10,000.00, Respondent requested that the Sylvains provide him a check in the amount of $10,000.00 to show the Mossuccos. On or about May 6, 2019, the Sylvains then drew a check from a business account held with TD Bank in the amount of $10,000.00 and payable to Global Business Financial Investment ("TD Bank Check"), which the Sylvains delivered to Respondent. Respondent took a photograph of the check and promised the Sylvains that the check would not be cashed or deposited. On or about May 6, 2019, Miledy Garcia, now known as Miledy Rivas, Respondent's spouse, a Florida licensed real estate sales associate, having been issued license number SL 3383271, issued an escrow deposit receipt for $10,000.00 for Contract 2 on a GREH form ("May 6, 2019, GREH Receipt"). The TD Bank Check was never deposited or cashed by Respondent; rather, the Sylvains immediately issued a stop payment order on the check to TD Bank. Despite having never deposited the TD Bank Check, Respondent communicated the May 6, 2019, GREH Receipt and a photo of the TD Bank Check to Mrs. Mossucco and Ms. Weintraub. The $10,000.00 escrow funds from Contract 1 were the escrow funds represented on Contract 2. Respondent represented that the $10,000.00 escrow funds were applied to Contract 2, prior to cancellation of Contract 1, and continued to represent the same, even after Respondent knew the Breaults were making a claim against the funds. Contract 2 failed to close. After Contract 2 failed to close, the Mossuccos and Sylvains agreed to cancel Contract 2 and release each other from liability under the terms of Contract 2, and further agreed that any earnest money deposit could be returned to the Sylvains. Respondent failed to deliver the escrow funds to the Sylvains. Rather, Respondent believed that the funds belonged to him (or one of his companies) and that he was entitled to remove the escrow funds and use them as he (or his company) saw fit. Respondent testified that he submitted a notice of escrow dispute, dated "9-30-2019," to the Department, identifying the parties to the transaction as the Mossuccos and the Sylvains, and the subject property as 7584 Apache Boulevard, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470. Respondent gave conflicting testimony, including, for example: First testifying that he believed the $10,000.00 escrow funds belonged to him (or his company) to be spent as he saw fit; then, after a break in the proceedings and on re-direct by his counsel, changing his story by saying that counsel for Petitioner put words in his mouth and that he meant only that there was a "dispute on the funds." First testifying that Mr. Avila was a signatory on the GREH "Escrow Account," then admitting that Mr. Avila was not a signatory on the account. There was also conflicting testimony between Respondent and several of the witnesses; however, where there were inconsistencies, Petitioner's witnesses' testimony was substantially consistent and supported by the documentary evidence presented. Parts of Respondent's testimony were inconsistent with documentary evidence admitted into evidence by stipulation of the parties. Facts Concerning Aggravation or Mitigation of Penalties Respondent collected escrow funds and deposited them into an account that he, only a licensed real estate sales associate, controlled, rather than one that was controlled by the qualifying broker for GREH. Respondent admittedly removed escrow funds in the amount of $10,000.00 from the bank account in which they were deposited, without all parties having a claim to the escrow funds executing a release. Respondent testified that he believed the escrow funds belonged to him (or one of his companies) and that he had a right to do with the funds as he (or he through one of his companies) saw fit. Respondent used vulgar language, threats, and demeaning language toward his clients, other real estate professionals, and title agents to attempt to coerce those individuals into submitting to his demands. Respondent failed and refused to comply with the direction of the qualifying broker with supervisory responsibility over Respondent and GREH. Respondent failed to keep the qualifying broker of GREH apprised of the real estate transactions in which Respondent was involved. There was significant testimony establishing that Respondent was performing tasks that are only allowed to be performed by a licensed real estate broker, not a real estate sales associate, mortgage broker, or mortgage loan originator. Additional Facts Raised by Respondent In his proposed conclusions of law, Respondent raises, as a matter of fact, that the "Department failed to plead sufficient facts underpinning its argument" regarding the handling of escrow funds. In paragraph 25 of his Proposed Final Order, Respondent states: Nowhere in the administrative complaint does the Department allege that Mr. Rivas falsely represented that GREH received the TD Bank Check as earnest money for Contract 2, or that he falsely represented to the Sylvains that the Breaults did not have a legitimate claim against the $10,000.00 escrow funds deposited by the Sylvains toward Contract 1, or that he misrepresented to the Sylvains that the $10,000.00 funds from the SunTrust Certified Check could be and were applied to Contract 2. Respondent further argued that none of the "facts relevant to aggravation or mitigation" set forth in the Department's Proposed Final Order were pled in the A.C., in violation of Respondent's due process rights. Both of these arguments are rejected as set forth in paragraphs 108 and109 below. Additional Facts Concerning Department Costs The Department presented competent evidence that it incurred investigative costs in the amount of $1,551.00.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes, 1/ through culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction; by failing to account or deliver trust funds; and by failing to timely notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of a deposit dispute or to implement remedial action; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0037920. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker at Heath Realty, 4864 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. On May 18, 1993, Mr. Anthony Rodgers and Ms. Jill Rodgers (the "buyers") entered into a contract to purchase real property from Ms. Norma A. Cash (the "seller"). The buyers entrusted Respondent with a total earnest money deposit of $1,000. The transaction failed to close. On July 8, 1993, Respondent timely notified Petitioner in writing that there were conflicting demands for the earnest money deposit and a good faith doubt regarding the deposit. However, Respondent failed to institute one of the settlement procedures described in Section 475.25(1)(d)1. until legal proceedings between the buyer and seller were amicably settled approximately seven months later. Respondent failed to institute a prescribed settlement procedure in a timely manner even though Petitioner advised Respondent in letters dated July 26, 1993, and September 9, 1993, of the action Respondent should take. On February 9, 1994, Respondent finally requested an escrow disbursement order in accordance with Section 475.25(10(d)1. The escrow deposit was paid to the seller pursuant to the agreement of the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1., but guilty of violating Section 475.42(1)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.032. It is further recommended that the Final Order place Respondent on probation for a period of one year and, during the period of probation, require Respondent to complete courses in broker management not to exceed eight credit hours. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1991.
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 The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of mishandling an escrow deposit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Vu is and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license number 0394778. He is and was at all material times the qualifying broker for Respondent American Homes and Investment Realty, Inc., which holds Florida license number 0250718. Respondent Vu owns Respondent American Homes. In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Serge Delisfort contacted Respondents about purchasing a residence. The Delisforts eventually signed a contract to purchase a home and paid the $500 earnest money deposit to Respondents. Later learning that they would be liable to pay an annual homeowners' fee of $72, the Delisforts told Respondent Vu that they did not want to complete the purchase. The listing broker, which was not either Respondent, omitted mention of the homeowners' fee from the listing information supplied Respondents and the Delisforts. The sellers refused to release the deposit. Confronted with the dispute, Respondent Vu promptly requested an escrow disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 29, 1991. Due to the presence of a factual or legal dispute, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents, in a 47-word letter dated October 16, 1991, that it could not issue an escrow disbursement order. The October 16 letter warns Respondents to "immediately choose one of the other two alternatives available to you under ss. 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, to settle this dispute, i.e., arbitration or a civil court." Instead, Respondents did nothing. The Delisforts periodically contacted Respondent Vu and asked if he could release their deposit. The sellers sold their house to another party and moved to Puerto Rico. The Delisforts contacted another broker and purchased a different house through the new broker. Eventually, the Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission and asked its help in obtaining the deposit. An investigator for the Division of Real Estate interviewed Respondent Vu on March 1, 1994. Explaining the reason for the delay, Respondent Vu, possibly confused, stated that the buyers had left Orlando for awhile. In fact, the buyers had remained in Orlando. At the suggestion of the investigator, Respondent Vu contacted both parties, and they agreed to split the deposit equally. Respondent Vu prepared the paperwork, which the parties signed on March 11, 1994. At that time, Respondents paid each party $250. The Delisforts have since listed their home for sale by Respondents. While improperly holding the $500 deposit, Respondent Vu was preoccupied by the illnesses and deaths of his parents, who remained in Vietnam. Despite the possibility of trouble upon his return to Vietnam, Respondent Vu traveled to Vietnam at least once during this time to care for one or both of his parents. Respondents failed to implement timely the remedies established by law and identified by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its letter of October 26, 1991. Respondent Vu acted two and one-half years later, only after one of Petitioner's investigators contacted him. It is no excuse that the costs of arbitration or court would have consumed a large part of the amount in dispute. Confronted with that prospect, the sellers or the Delisforts would probably have settled the matter. If not, that would have been their problem, not Respondents'. The fact is that Respondents failed to discharge their obligations by presenting the dispute for resolution in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, the amount involved is modest. Neither party had a clear claim to the funds, nor was either party exceptionally troubled by Respondents' casual handling of the matter. The Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission, but did not realize that they were in effect filing a complaint against Respondents, in whom they entrusted the sale of their current home. A final order issued July 18, 1988, involves Respondents' mishandling of a salesperson's commission. The husband of the salesperson owed Respondent Vu some money, and both men agreed that the debtor's wife would work off the debt by selling real estate at Respondent American Homes. However, the debtor's wife was of a different mind. After earning her first commission, she refused to allow Respondents to credit it against her husband's debt. When Respondent Vu ignored her demand for payment, she filed a complaint, which resulted in the final order and Respondents' proper payment of the commission.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding both Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25((1)(d)1, reprimanding both Respondents, and requiring Respondent Vu to take a thirty-hour broker management course. ENTERED on February 22, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 22, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section--Suite N-308 Hurston Bldg., North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802-1772 Dau Viet Vu 1048 Pine Hills Rd. Orlando, FL 32808
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters involved herein; Petitioner held Florida real estate salesman's license number 0403224. Her license was listed with Century 21 ACR Equities; Inc., 4222 W. Fairfield Drive, Pensacola; on May 25; 1983. On March 4, 1985, Respondent listed her license with Century 21; Five Flags Properties; Inc., in Pensacola, without terminating her listing with ACR Equities. On March 22, 1985, Five Flags terminated her listing with that firm and on April 30; 1985, ACR Equities terminated her listing with that firm. On May 14; 1985; Respondent applied for a change of status to list her license with Old South Properties; Inc., in Pensacola. That firm terminated the association on July 9, 1985. On March 19; 1985; Emmison Lewis and his wife; Lillie Mae signed a handwritten sales agreement prepared by Respondent for the purchase of a piece of property located in Escambia County; for $33,000.00. The Lewises gave her a deposit of $500.00 by check made payable to Respondent and which bears her endorsement on the back. This check was made payable to Respondent because she asked that it be made that way. Several days later; Respondent came back to the Lewises and asked for an additional $1,500.00 deposit. This was given her, along with a rental payment of $310.00; in a $2,000.00 check on March 29, 1985. Respondent gave the Lewises the balance back in cash along with a receipt reflecting the payment of the $1,500.00. On that same date; Respondent had the Lewises sign a typed copy of the sales agreement which reflected that both the $500.00 deposit and the additional $1,500.00 were due on closing. This typed copy was backdated to March 19; 1985. Both the handwritten and typed copies of the sales agreement bear the signature of the Respondent as a witness. The sale was never closed and the Lewises have never received any of the $2;000.00 deposit back. On about four different occasions, Mr. Lewis contacted Respondent requesting that she refund their money and she promised to do so, but never did. They did, however, receive the $310.00 rent payment back in cash approximately two weeks later. On April 26, 1985, James E. Webster and his wife Pearlie signed a sales agreement as the purchasers of real estate with Respondent. This property had a purchase price of $31,900.00. At the time of signing, Mr. Webster gave Respondent $150.00 in cash and a check drawn by his wife on their joint account for $400.00. Due to Mrs. Webster's change of mind, the Websters did not close on the property. They requested a refund of their deposit and Respondent gave the Websters a check for $400.00 which was subsequently dishonored by the bank because of insufficient funds. The Websters called Respondent at home several times, but she was always out. Calls to the broker with whom her license was placed were unsuccessful. Finally, however, Respondent refunded the $400.00 to the Websters in cash. Respondent had listed her license with ACR Equities in May, 1983. At no time while Respondent had her license with Mr. Bickel's firm did she ever turn over to him as broker either the $2.000.00 she received from the Lewises or the $550.00 she received from the Websters. Mr. Bickel, the broker, was not aware of these contracts and did not question her about them. He terminated the placement of her license with his firm because he found out that in early March 1985, she had placed her license with another firm., Both sales agreements for the Lewises and that for the Websters had the firm name of ACR Equities printed on them as broker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law; it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee; Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Esquire p. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ralph Armstead; Esquire P. O. Box 2629 Orlando; Florida 32802
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.
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.
