The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent's yacht and ship salesman's license should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the notice of intent to revoke license dated June 14, 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate persons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. On April 30, 1993, the Department received an application for a yacht and ship broker or salesman license (the application) submitted by Respondent, Thomas I. Davis, Jr. The application provided, in pertinent part: LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES: Have you now or have you ever been licensed or certified in any other profession such as real estate, insurance, or securities in Florida or any other state? Yes No If you answered yes, please describe: Profession License # First Obtained Status of License (a)Has any license, certification, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession or occupation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, or is any proceeding now pending? Yes No (b) Have you ever resigned or withdrawn from, or surrendered any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation which such charges were pending? Yes No If your answer to questions (a) or (b) is Yes, attach a complete, signed statement giving the name and address of the officer, board, commission, court or governmental agency or department before whom the matter was, or is now, pending and give the nature of the charges and relate the facts. In response to the application questions identified above, Respondent entered the following answers: "No" as to questions 11, 12(a), and 12(b). As a result of the foregoing, Respondent was issued a yacht and ship salesman's license on May 10, 1993. Thereafter, the Department learned that Respondent had been censured by the NASD. In a decision entered by that body accepting Respondent's offer of settlement, Respondent was given a censure, a fine of $20,000.00, and a suspension in all capacities from association with any member for a period of two (2) years with the requirement that at the conclusion of such suspension that he requalify by examination for any and all licenses with the Association. The censure also provided a specific payment plan for the $20,000 fine which was assessed. To date, Respondent has not complied with that provision of the settlement. From 1973 through 1991, Respondent was registered with several different firms pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Respondent has been licensed to sell securities in the following states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and New York. Respondent has also been licensed in Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. Respondent has been a licensed stock broker with the Securities and Exchange Commission since 1971. Respondent answered questions 11 and 12 (a) and (b) falsely. Respondent knew he was licensed to sell securities and knew of the sanction from the NASD at all times material to the entry of the answers. Pursuant to Rule 61B-60.003, when the Department receives an application for licensure which is in the acceptable form, it is required to issue a temporary license. Had the Respondent correctly answered questions 11 and 12 on the application, the Department would not have issued Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order dismissing Respondent's challenge to the notice of intent and revoking his license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4258 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 9, 11, 13, and 15 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as repetitive. Except as to findings reached above, paragraphs 12 and 14 are rejected as irrelevant. It is found that Respondent falsely answered question 11. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Respondent's proposed findings of fact are rejected as they do not comply with Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code. However, to the extent findings do not conflict with the findings of fact above, they have been accepted. Such proposed findings of fact are paragraphs: 1, 7 and 8. The remaining paragraphs are rejected as they are not supported by the record cited (none), irrelevant, argument, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David M. Goldstein LAW OFFICE OF DAVID M. GOLDSTEIN 100 S.E. 2nd Street Suite 2750 International Place Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether Mortgage Broker License No. 3534 should be suspended or revoked under Section 494.05, F.S. At the hearing, the Respondent filed an answer to the charges in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, incorporating therein affirmative defenses. Rule 28-5.25(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the party may file an Answer which may contain affirmative defenses within 20 days of service of the Petition. Respondent's basis for late filing was inadvertence and neglect of its counsel. The Answer contained a general denial of the allegations and set forth affirmative defenses asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Petitioner to pursue its claims for alleged actions which took place on or before October 19, 1974, which was prior to the issuance of the mortgage broker license to Respondent. Further defenses included the claim that the Administrative Charges and Complaint are vague and ambiguous, that Petitioner had taken written action against Respondent without a hearing and denied it due process of law prior to the filing of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, thereby constituting double jeopardy, that Petitioner has unilaterally and without hearing denied Respondent renewal of its license, therefore denying it due process of law and claiming that petitioner is estopped from proceeding on the ground that it violated Section 494.06(5), in not keeping confidential the examination and investigation of the Respondent by giving press releases designed to influence the outcome of the hearing. The Hearing Officer permitted the late filing of the Answer and Affirmative Defenses at the hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner who claimed lack of notice as to the affirmative defenses. Respondent made a motion at the hearing to quash or abate the charges on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction on the basis set forth in its aforesaid pleading and on the grounds that Section 494.05(1) permits the petitioner only to investigate actions of licensees and not to suspend or revoke such licenses. The motion was denied by the Hearing Officer under the authority granted to deny, suspend or revoke licenses pursuant to Section 494.05, F.S. From statements of counsel at the hearing, it appears that Respondent's application for yearly renewal of its license was denied by Petitioner on September 3, 1975. However premature such a denial might have been, the question is not in issue in the instant proceeding. Nor is any purported violation by Petitioner of Section 494.06(5), concerning confidentiality of its investigations of Respondent. Both parties made opening statements and closing arguments. The Petitioner presented its case through two witnesses and submitted documentary evidence. The Respondent did not call, any witnesses. Petitioner also called Frank H. Roark, Jr. President of Respondent Corporation as a witness. Mr. Roark, after being sworn, declined to testify on the grounds of possible self-incrimination. The Hearing Officer thereupon excused the witness. Upon a showing by the Petitioner that the books and records of Respondent Corporation had been requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum and its request that Mr. Roark be required to identify the corporate books and records in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, over objection of Respondent's counsel, the Hearing Officer permitted Mr. Roark to testify for this limited purpose.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Banking and Finance of the State of Florida issued Mortgage Broker License Number 3534 to Respondent on October 10, 1974 (Petition and Answer). The transactions of the Respondent which are the subject of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, concern the purchase by investors/lenders of corporate promissory notes issued by a land development company which are secured by mortgages on its land. The purpose of selling the note is for the land development company to raise funds for the development of real property. The sales of the notes were made by Respondent to individual investors. Usually these transactions were handled through what was termed a "Master Broker" who was a middle man between the land developer and the Respondent mortgage broker which actually made the individual sales of the notes. Typical of the manner in which Respondent conducted these transactions was to enter into an agreement with an investor termed an "Application To Purchase a Mortgage" for a certain face amount at a specified interest rate with interest payable monthly and with concurrent delivery by the investor to Respondent of the stated sum under the conditions that the note would be executed, the mortgage recorded, and the note and recorded mortgage delivered to the investor-purchaser. In due course, a promissory note issued by the land development corporation (the borrower), was delivered to the investor, along with a mortgage deed to specified real property to secure the note. Some notes were payable on an interest only basis and some on a principal and interest basis. Some involved the issuance of title insurance policies and others did not. In some cases, Respondent remitted funds involved in the transaction to the "Master Broker" and in some cases directly to the land developer, less an amount retained by Respondent, ostensibly for its fees, commissions, and/or other charges. The funds were placed into escrow bank accounts when they were received from the investors by Respondent and then sometimes on the same day or in most cases several days or weeks later, the funds less the amount retained by Respondent, were forwarded on to the "Master Broker" or directly to the developer (testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3 & 4). Acting upon a request of the State Comptroller to have all mortgage companies examined, in the latter part of July, 1975, Mr. Lawrence W. Hunt, a Financial Examiner Supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Finance along with three assistants went to the Respondent's office to examine its records and determine from the examination whether or not violations of the Mortgage Brokerage Act had been committed. Utilizing source documents from the company records, Mr. Hunt and his associates prepared a worksheet and listed thereon various items of information gleaned from these records (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). After preparation of the worksheet, overcharges as to the 402 transactions identified in the worksheet were computed by Mr. Joseph Ehrlich, Deputy Director of the Division of Finance, solely from the worksheet obtained by the examiners (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Such overcharges were computed with respect to maximum fees or commissions which a broker could charge in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3-3.08, Florida Administrative Code, in consideration of the amount of funds retained by Respondent, Mr. Hunt is not a state auditor and his examination of records did not go into the depth of an audit such a compilation of financial statements. His work consists basically of an examination which involves obtaining information from corporate records and placing it on worksheets so it can be analyzed. During Mr. Hunt's visit to Respondent's place of business, he received full cooperation of its officers and employees and found the records to be in good order. He also had no reason to question any of the entries in any of the records that he observed. Neither he nor Mr. Ehrlich had received complaints from any individual or organization about Respondent's operations prior to his visit. He did not at any time contact any of the lenders or borrowers involved in Respondent's transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2). On October 11, 1974, the Division of Finance issued a "Memorandum to all Mortgage Brokers" in which it was stated that it had been brought to the Division's attention that a number of mortgage brokers in transactions (such as those under consideration here), were remitting investors' funds to the land developer rather than placing the funds in an escrow account, and that such funds were being remitted in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note. The Memorandum warned that this practice could result in substantial losses to the broker in repaying investors should the land developer fail and was also in violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act and could lead to the suspension or revocation of a license under Section 494.05, (1)(f), Florida Statutes. This section concerns placement of funds received in escrow accounts where they shall be kept until disbursement thereof is properly authorized (Respondent's Exhibit A). The Memorandum was sent to Respondent among others Mr. Hunt, during his examination of Respondent's records, found that Respondent ,had changed its escrow procedures approximately the date that the bulletin was issued and that there were no discrepancies after that date concerning escrow monies. By further correspondence in December, 1974, and May and June of 1975, Respondent's President posed various questions to Mr. Ehrlich to clarify certain aspects of escrow account requirements and received replies thereto (Respondent Composite B - Respondent's Exhibit C, D, F and G. (Note: There is no Exhibit E) In 402 separate transactions conducted by Respondent during the years 1973, 1974, and 1975, the mortgages which were purchased by the investors were delivered to the investor within varying periods from one day from the sale date until almost two months from the sale date. Forwarding of funds by the Respondent to the "Master Broker" or to the land development company was also accomplished in these transactions within varying periods of time from the sale date. These ranged from the same date as the sale to periods of a month or so thereafter, but usually on the date of delivery of the mortgage to the investor. The amounts forwarded by Respondent consisted of the face amount of the note and mortgage, less a certain amount which was retained by the Respondent (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). No effort was made by Petitioner's examiner to determine either the basis for the amount retained by Respondent or its composition. For example, he did not determine whether there were any "points" for service charges or discounts of any sort included in the retained sum. The examination was made solely on the basis of examining the business records of Respondent which did not reflect a breakdown of the retained amount. However, it could be deduced from various documents in individual investor files that certain amounts had been paid by someone unknown for title insurance premiums, recording fees and intangible taxes. The dates of mortgage delivery shown by Mr. Hunt in his worksheet were dates which he assumed were correct but he had not verified by any person the exact dates the mortgage was delivered to the investors. Neither could he ascertain from the records whether or not an investor had authorized Respondent to disburse funds at a particular time. The overcharges were determined in accordance with the formula set forth in Rule 3- 3.08, F.A.C., which is on a "gross proceeds" loan in which the borrower indicates that he wished to borrow a specified amount with all fees and charges to come out of the gross amount, thereby resulting in a reduced amount being provided to the borrower. The overcharges were computed without knowledge of whether the amount retained by the Respondent, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, included payment for state intangible tax, documentary stamps, and recording fees (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and 2). The overcharges set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 were unrebutted by Respondent and are deemed correct. In a transaction between Respondent and Cary G. Anderson, who applied for purchase of a mortgage on May 7, 1974, in the face amount of $3,500.00, the file relating to the transaction did not reflect the amount of any costs to be paid by Respondent in the matter, nor did it reveal a specific figure for brokerage fee or commission charged by Respondent. The file did reflect a bill for title insurance premium in the amount of $45.00 and recording fees in the amount off $22.25, $5.25 documentary stamps, and $7.00 for intangible tax. The amount of overcharge was $175.46. In another $2,500 transaction with Mr. Anderson, the amount remitted to the land developer was $2,075.00. The amount retained by Respondent was $425.00. Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 establishes an overcharge from this transaction of $61.37. There was no copy of the mortgage in the file and therefore no information upon which to determine the payment of intangible taxes, documentary stamps and recording fees (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In a $5,000 transaction between Walter L. and Thelma T. Beach and Respondent with application for purchase mortgage dated July 30, 1974, a check was written on Respondent's escrow account to Kingsland Development in the amount of $4,100. The maximum allowable brokerage fee or commission under the law would have been $590.90. The amount retained by Respondent was $900.00. The mortgage indicated that documentary stamps in the amount of $7.50 and intangible tax of $10.00 were paid. Assuming that Respondent paid the intangible taxes, and documentary stamps, the excess fee charged according to calculation under Rule 3-3.08, was $281.60 (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4). In respect to the above three transactions Petitioner's examiner did not find closing statements in the file, nor did he go to the Florida title ledger or Attorney's ledger of Respondent's records. However, he had, at the outset of his investigation, asked Respondent to make available all records concerning the transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a dealer in heavy construction equipment and has been since its incorporation on August 1, 1946. Among petitioner's competitors are Dewind Machinery Company, Florida Equipment Company of Jacksonville, Florida- Georgia Tractor Company, Inc., Great Southern Equipment Company, Inc., Pilot Equipment Company, Inc., Ring Power Corporation and Joseph L. Rozier Machinery Company. Like its competitors, petitioner frequently leases equipment to its customers, giving them an option to purchase, rather than selling them the equipment outright. Petitioner's exhibit No. 1 reflects one such transaction. On April 19, 1973, petitioner quoted Houdaille Duval Wright Company (Houdaille) a purchase price of twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000.00) plus sale's tax, and monthly rent of fourteen hundred dollars ($1,400.00) plus sales tax on a diesel powered, self-propelled vibratory roller. After negotiations between petitioner and Houdaille, the purchase price dropped to seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000.00), but the monthly rental remained unchanged. Houdaille agreed to lease the vibratory roller from petitioner on these terms. With respect to its option to purchase, Houdaille specified that: 100 percent of all rentals to apply towards purchase price of $17,000.00 less 10 percent discount on remaining outstanding balance at time of purchase. Interest to accrue at a rate 7 1/2 percent simple. Houdaille made lease payments for nine months, totaling twelve thousand six hundred dollars ($12,600.00), before electing to exercise its option to purchase. In calculating the amount of money Houdaille was to pay to close out the transaction, petitioner began by treating the payments Houdaille had made under the lease as if they had been payments made in repayment of a loan, outstanding for the period of the lease, in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000.00), at 7 1/2 percent per annum. Petitioner allocated portions of each lease payment to principal and to interest, calculated on the declining principal balance, aggregating eleven thousand nine hundred ten dollars and fifty-four cents ($11,910.54) to principal, and six hundred eighty-nine dollars and fourty-six cents ($689.46) to interest. Petitioner then calculated the 10 percent discount by multiplying one tenth times the difference between the original price ($17,000.00) and the amount aggregated to principal ($11,910.54), which yielded five hundred eight dollars and ninety-five cents ($508.95). This figure was subtracted from the original contract price ($17,000.00) to ascertain the' discounted price ($16,491.05) against which the lease payments were credited in their entirety ($12,600.00), yielding the figure three thousand eight hundred ninety-one dollars and five cents ($3,891.05), on which petitioner calculated 4 percent sales tax. In addition, petitioner required Houdaille, in exercising its option to purchase, to pay six hundred eighty-nine dollars and forty-six cents ($689.46), the aggregate amount of lease payments petitioner had allocated to interest. In every respect pertinent to the dispute between petitioner and respondent, this transaction between petitioner and Houdaille is typical of the transactions on which contested portions of the tax assessments were based. The same is true of petitioner's lease and sale of a truck crane to Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc. (Poston), the transaction reflected in exhibit No. 2 (although petitioner's agreement with Poston did not involve a discount.) The terms of the lease purchase agreement, as stated on respondent's exhibit No. 2, were: Option Price $124,855.00 with 100 percent of paid rentals to apply to purchase price less interest at 8.5 percent simple. After making lease payments totalling twenty-six thousand dollars ($26,000.00), Poston exercised its option to purchase. At this point the lease payments were recast as installment sales payments, portions being allocated to principal and interest accordingly. Respondent collected sales tax on the amount of money Poston paid in exchange for title, after electing to purchase, less the aggregate amount of lease payments petitioner had allocated to interest. Petitioner has been entering into lease purchase agreements of this kind with various customers since 1946 or 1947, and, when customers exercised purchase options, petitioner ordinarily calculated sales tax in the manner it employed in connection with the sale of the vibratory roller to Houdaille, and the truck crane to Poston. In at least one instance, however, petitioner calculated sales tax as 4 percent of all the money a customer, Misener Marine Construction, Inc., paid when exercising its option to purchase a truck crane, including portions of lease payments petitioner had allocated to interest. On the lease payments themselves, petitioner regularly collected 4 percent sales tax which it regularly remitted to respondent. For federal income tax purposes, petitioner treated payments from customers under a lease purchase agreement as lease payments for every tax year in which the option to purchase was not exercised. For the tax year in which the option to purchase was exercised, the lease payments were treated as payments under an installment sale contract, for federal income tax purposes. When respondent audited petitioner's rentals for the period May 1, 1970, to April 30, 1973, and earlier when respondent performed a general audit of petitioner's books for the period July 1, 1959, to February 28, 1962, no mention was mace of petitioner's sales tax treatment of lease purchase agreements under which lessees had exercised purchase options. Before the audit which eventuated in the assessments now in controversy, however, the auditors were given a copy of a letter from L. N. Hansen to Thomas D. Aitken dated December 9, 1974. Mr. Hansen was formerly director of respondent's sales and use tax division. In the fall of 1974, he was one of a group or "board" of respondent's employees who considered questions arising under the tax laws and formulated policy for respondent. His letter to Mr. Aitken, which came in evidence as, petitioner's exhibit No. 5, was written on behalf of respondent after its substance was discussed at a meeting of respondent's policy group. It pertains to lease purchase agreements entered into by Joseph L. Rozier Machinery Co. (Rozier). Mr. Hansen's letter stated that Rozier was "not correct in reducing the taxable sales price by the rental payments and thereafter adding an interest charge which, if it was incurred at all, was incurred prior to the time of sale." Petitioner's exhibit No. 5, p. 1. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stucky's of Eastman, Georgia vs. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which appears as an appendix to the order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent abandon the uncollected portions of its deficiency assessments. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4-8, and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2 is irrelevant insofar as it differs from petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, and for that reason has not been adopted where it differs from petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3 has not been adopted because it is not relevant. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 9 has not been adopted because what motivated respondent's employees is not relevant and because it was not proven what would have happened "[b]ut for the Hansen letter." Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 11 and 12 have not been adopted because they are irrelevant. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 13 has not been adopted as such because it is actually a proposed conclusion of law. The first paragraph of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, except that exercise of the purchase option may be said to relate back to the beginning of the contract. Significantly, respondent proposes as a finding of fact that the "amount termed 'Interest' . . . is payable for the use of the money during the rental/lease period." Paragraphs two through seven, nine and ten of respondent's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. The eighth paragraph of respondent's proposed findings of fact has not been adopted; it is actually a proposed conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel S. Dearing, Esquire Post Office Box 1118 424 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Patricia S. Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Mizeral Robinson (Robinson), is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0484257. From July 18, 1988, through January 5, 1997, Robinson was registered with the Department as a broker/officer of Wakefield Realty, Inc. (Wakefield Realty), a broker-corporation, and from January 6, 1997, through June 30, 1997, Robinson was registered as an active broker-salesperson with Township Realty, Inc., a broker-corporation located at 1333 South State Road 7, North Lauderdale, Florida. Since June 30, 1997, Robinson has been registered as a broker-salesperson without a current employer, with an address of 6372 Harbor Bend, Margate, Florida. From July 18, 1988, through January 6, 1997, Wakefield Realty was registered with the Department as a broker-corporation (registration number 0255869), with an address of 4699 North State Road 7, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. However, in October 1996, without notice to the Florida Real Estate Commission, Wakefield Realty relocated its offices to 2240 Woolbright Road, Boynton Beach, Florida. On January 6, 1997, the license of its corporate broker, Robinson, was reissued as a broker-salesperson with Township Realty, Inc., and, no active broker having been appointed to fill the vacancy within 14 calendar days, Wakefield Realty's corporate registration was cancelled. Rule 61J2-5.018, Florida Administrative Code. The Dobson contract and related matters (DOAH Case No. 97-5041) On October 31, 1995, Respondents, Robinson and Wakefield Realty, as agents for Hubert and Ruth Dobson, the Buyers, presented a written offer to purchase a house owned by Adrienne and Nancy Cutler, the Sellers, at 951 Southwest 88th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, Florida. On November 7, 1995, following negotiations, the Dobsons' offer was accepted by the Sellers. The agreed purchase price was $123,480, with the method of payment as follows: a $2,000 deposit tendered with the offer; an additional deposit of $4,000 "due within 10 United States banking days after date of acceptance"; the proceeds ($117,306) of a new conventional mortgage to be secured by the buyers; and, a balance of $174 to be paid by the buyers at closing. All deposits were to be held in escrow by Wakefield Realty. In addition to the provisions of the agreement relating to the deposits, discussed supra, the agreement contained the following pertinent provisions: D. NEW MORTGAGES: . . . if this Contract provides for Buyer to obtain a new mortgage, then Buyer's performance under this Contract shall be contingent upon Buyer's obtaining said mortgage financing upon the terms stated, or if none are stated, than upon the terms generally prevailing at such time in the county where the property is located. The buyer agrees to apply within 5 banking days . . . and to make a good faith, diligent effort to obtain the mortgage financing. In the event a commitment for said financing is not obtained within 45 banking days . . . from the date of this Contract, then the other party may terminate this Contract by delivery of written notice to the other party or his agent, the deposit shall be returned to the Buyer and all parties shall be released from all further obligations hereunder. This right of termination shall cease upon the Buyer obtaining a written commitment letter for mortgage financing at the rate and terms of payment previously specified herein prior to the delivery of the notice of termination. * * * X. DEFAULT: In the event of default of either party, the rights of the non- defaulting party and the broker shall be as provided herein and such rights shall be deemed to be the sole and exclusive rights in such event; (a) If Buyer fails to perform any of the covenants of this Contract, all money paid or deposited pursuant to this Contract by the Buyer shall be retained by or for the account of the Seller as consideration for the execution of this Contract as agreed and liquidated damages and in full settlement of any claims for damages and specific performance by the Seller against the Buyer. . . . * * * (CHECK and COMPLETE THE ONE APPLICABLE) (X) IF A WRITTEN LISTING AGREEMENT IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT: Seller agrees to pay the Broker named above including cooperating sub-agents and/or cooperating Buyers Agents named, according to the terms of an existing, separate written agreement; * * * If Buyer fails to perform and deposit(s) is retained, 50% thereof, but not exceeding the Broker's fee above provided, shall be paid Broker, as full consideration for Broker's services including costs expended by Broker, and the balance shall be paid to Seller. To finance the purchase, Robinson submitted an application on the Dobsons' behalf for a conventional residential mortgage loan with Citizens Federal Bank. That application was denied January 8, 1996. Following the denial of their application, the Dobsons made demand of Respondents, under the mortgage contingency provision of the purchase agreement, for the return of their $6,000 deposit.3 Respondents, notwithstanding the rejection of the Dobsons' application for financing and the Sellers' execution of a release of deposit, which directed the escrow agent to disburse the escrow deposit of $6,000 to the Dobsons, failed and refused to return any portion of the deposit to the Dobsons. To date, such failure continues, and the proof is compelling that Respondents have converted the deposit to their own use and benefit.4 The Rafiee contract and related matters (DOAH Case No. 98-0003) On October 25, 1996, Respondent, Mizeral Robinson, procured a written offer from Iran Rafiee to purchase a triplex owned by Henry Sweigart, located at 11460 Northwest 39th Street, Coral Springs, Florida. The stated purchase price was $195,000, with the method of payment as follows: a $1,000 deposit tendered with the offer; an additional deposit of $9,000 "due within 5 United States banking days after date of acceptance"; the proceeds ($156,000) of a new conventional mortgage to be secured by the buyer; and, a balance of $30,000 [sic] to be paid by the buyer at closing. All deposits were to be held by Wakefield Realty, Inc., Mizeral Robinson, escrow agent. According to the "Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase," Rafiee's offer was accepted on what appears to be October 27, 1996 (Petitioner's Exhibit 12), and Rafiee's initial deposit, which was in Robinson's possession by at least October 25, 1996,5 was deposited on October 30, 1996.6 Accepting October 25, 1996, as the date Robinson received the check, the check was deposited "no later than the end of the third business day following receipt."7 Rule 61J2-14.008(d), Florida Administrative Code. In addition to the provisions of the agreement relating to the deposits, discussed supra, the agreement contained the following pertinent provisions: 29. DEFAULT: In the event of default of either party, the rights of the non- defaulting party and the broker shall be as provided herein and such rights shall be deemed to be the sole and exclusive rights in such event. If Buyer fails to perform any of the covenants of this Contract, all money paid or to be paid as deposits pursuant to this Contract by the Buyer shall be retained by or for the account of the Seller as consideration for the execution of this Contract as agreed and liquidated damages and in full settlement of any claims for damages and specific performance by the Seller against the Buyer. * * * (CHECK AND COMPLETE THE ONE APPLICABLE) (X) IF A WRITTEN LISTING AGREEMENT IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT: Seller agrees to pay the Broker(s) named above according to the terms of an existing, separate written professional service fee agreement; * * * If Buyer fails to perform and deposit(s) is retained, 50% thereof, but not exceeding the Broker's fee above provided, shall be paid Broker, as full consideration for Broker's services including costs expended by Broker, and the balance shall be paid to Seller. Within days of the acceptance of her offer, Ms. Rafiee decided that she no longer desired to purchase the property and, on or about October 31, 1996, notified Robinson of her decision and requested the return of her deposit. At the time, Robinson was noncommittal and, observing that the check had only recently been deposited and likely had not yet been paid, stated they would have to speak of the matter at a later date. Thereafter, when pressed regarding the return of Ms. Rafiee's deposit, Robinson informed her that the deposit had been given to the seller, as required by the contract. Nevertheless, when Ms. Rafiee voiced her intention to pursue the matter further, Robinson agreed to pay her $800 (the parties agreeing that Robinson was entitled to $200 for her efforts) by December 20, 1996. Following the passage of a number of deadlines, and one check returned for insufficient funds, Robinson, in or about May 1997, eventually paid Ms. Rafiee the $800.00. At hearing, Robinson averred that because of Ms. Rafiee's default, she and the seller were, under the terms of the contract, each entitled to 50% of the $1,000 deposit, and that she disbursed the deposit accordingly. As for her offer to pay Ms. Rafiee $800, it was Robinson's view that such offer was made to appease Ms. Rafiee, since Robinson expected to secure further business from her, and should not be considered an admission that Ms. Rafiee was entitled to the return of any of her deposit. Given Ms. Rafiee's default under the purchase agreement, it must be concluded that Robinson, as the broker, had apparent authority to retain 50% ($500) of the deposit and to remit the remaining 50% ($500) to the seller. This is what Robinson avers she did and, given the proof or, stated differently, the lack thereof, it cannot be resolved, with the requisite degree of certainty, that she did otherwise.8
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondents' licensure and eligibility for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998.
Findings Of Fact In June, 1975 Randall J. Conley, attempting to set his son and daughter-in-law up in business, arranged for them, with his help, to purchase Roger Sparks' business known as Sparky's Pizza. By Exhibit 6 dated June 17, 1975 the owner and lessor of the premises executed, with Randall M. Conley and his wife Sandra, a Consent to Assignment whereby the lease between the lessor and Mr. Spaghetti and Roger Sparks was assigned to the younger Conley and his wife and the previous lessees were released from further liability under the five year lease they had executed on April 30, 1974. (Exhibit 10) By Collateral Assignment Note dated 6-2-75 Randall J. Conley, Randall M. Conley and Sandra Conley obligated themselves to pay the Florida Center Bank $9750 over a five-year period and pledged the equipment and fixtures in the pizza business as security therefor. In October, 1975 Sandra, who had been operating the business, left for another job preparatory to separating from her husband. The business closed on November 1, 1975 and Defendant learned that the lessees were delinquent in the rent and payments on the chattel mortgage. Thereafter he attempted to sell the business. In November, 1975 Charles Hicks, the owner of a small fast-food chain, while looking for a site for a franchisee, saw the empty Sparky's Pizza and ascertained that information on occupying the property could be obtained from Defendant. He called Defendant's office and was told the rent was $260 per month. Arrangements were made for Defendant to show him the property the same afternoon. On November 25, 1975 Defendant showed Hicks and his putative franchisee, Ronald Beasley, the property. After being assured that the rental included the equipment and fixtures they agreed to accept an assignment of the lease if the lessor agreed and to bind the transaction Hicks gave Defendant a check for $200 made payable, at the request of Defendant, to Randall J. Conley. No written agreement was executed by the parties at this time. The check stated on its face that it was a deposit on lease of building here involved. The following day Defendant called Hicks and told him that the lessor had agreed with the assignment and that he should bring a check for $7,000 to pay for the equipment, plus a check for the rent. Hicks objected to the purchase of the equipment and demanded return of his $200 deposit. Defendant refused to return the money and Hicks immediately tried to stop payment on the check. When he did so he learned that his check had been cashed by Defendant as soon as the bank opened that morning, November 26. After Hicks was unsuccessful in getting his deposit returned he reported the incident to the FREC and the complaint here under consideration was filed. Defendant contends that he was operating as the owner of the lease and not in his capacity as a broker; that the consent to assignment of the lease did not result in an assignment; that by executing the collateral installment note he was part owner of the business; that when his daughter-in-law left and the business folded he acquired the leasehold by abandonment; and that he was entitled to retain Hicks' deposit of $200 as liquidated damages. One witness called by Defendant testified that the bank's policy on chattel mortgage loans was that they would only make such loans to the owners of the business. However, he acknowledged that he did not handle the loan here involved and never saw any documents showing Randall J. Conley having an interest in the leased premises, the equipment and fixtures for which was the subject of the loan represented by Exhibit 9. Defendant had advertised the sale of the lease in the newspaper and therein indicated the assignee of the lease would be required to assume payments on the equipment. Neither Hicks nor Beasley ever saw any such advertisement.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anglickis is a Florida real estate broker holding license number 0001869. Respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0169476. The address of both respondents is 102 East Leland Heights Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida. (P-26.) Respondent Anglickis is president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., and Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. All three companies are located at the same address. (Testimony of Campbell; P-5, P-26.) On March 12, 1979, Louis G. Hofstetter and his wife, Dale I. Hofstetter, both residents of North Carolina, entered into a real estate contract with American Heritage Builders, Inc. Respondent Anglickis signed on behalf of American Hertiage Inc. Under the terms of the contract, the Hofstetters were to Purchase a lot and home to be constructed thereon by American Heritage Builders, Inc. The purchase price included the transfer of a lot owned by the Hofstetters and a cash down payment. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-1, P-3, P-26.) The contract estimated closing costs to be approximately $2,000". It also contained conflicting conditions relative to the time within which any mortgage financing must be obtained. . . . In the event PURCHASER'S application for mortgage financing is not approved within sixty (60) days from date hereof, all monies receipted for, less cost of credit report, will be returned to the PURCHASER and this contract will be null and void. * * * FOR MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS: This contract of Purchase and Sale shall be void unless Purchaser's application for Mortgage has been approved by a bank or financial institution and Purchaser has executed the Mortgage Acceptance Form, within four (3) [sic] months from date of this Contract of Purchase. 2/ (P-1, R-1.) On March 12, 1979, the Hofstetters signed a mortgage loan application and submitted it to Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. (P-26.) On May 5, 1979, 45 days after accepting the application, Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., submitted the Hofstetters' mortgage loan application to First Federal of DeSoto. (Testimony of Archer.) On June 15, 1979 (95 days after receiving the loan application), Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters indicating that the local lender needed additional information on their stock holdings, and enclosing a document titled "Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Charges". This document estimated that closing costs would be $2,754--$754 more than the estimate contained in the real estate contract. (P-5.) On June 22, 1979, the Hofstetters protested the increased closing cost, requested clarification, and provided the requested information on their stock holdings. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-26.) On July 7, 1979, the Hofstetters notified Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., that the increased closing cost deviated from the contract, that they therefore considered the contract cancelled and wanted the deposit refunded. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-8.) On June 29, 1979, Robert Campbell, vice-president of Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters and explained the meaning of each component of the closing cost. (P-7.) On July 17, 1979, respondent, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote a letter to the Hofstetters expressing his position: * * * Let me try and put the contract in the proper perspective for you. It's our contention that you have reluctantly provided to us the information that would enable us to make a proper and expedient application to the lending institution and that much of this information has been confused, causing further delays. In accordance with the contract, you were to make this application as quickly and as expediently as Possible so that the contract would not expire. However, this is not the case. Thus, my immediate Position is that the contract should be expired and all of the deposits, including the cash and the lot which we gave you $6,995.00 trade for, would be forfeited as agreed upon liquidated damages. He ended by outlining other alternatives and repeating his asserted right to cancel the transaction and retain the Hofstetters' deposit as liquidated damages * * * First, the lending institution must make a quick determination based on the facts that they have that you are either eligible or not eligible for a mortgage loan as outlined in our contract. If they still do not have enough information, we have no other choice then but to ask you to pay the increase which we have experienced at this time (price list enclosed), and in paying that increase we would be willing to take another 90 days to try and secure a loan for you. If your mortgage loan is denied, your deposit less the costs of processing your mortgage application will be returned to you. Of course, the third choice is the choice I hope we do not have to take, and that is cancelling this transaction and retaining your monies as agreed upon liquidated damages. (P-9.) Mr. Hofstetter responded on July 22, 1979. He denied that he was responsible for any delay or confusion in the Processing of their loan application; asserted that 93 days had elapsed from the submission of their loan application and Mr. Campbell's letter of June 15, 1979, asking for additional financial information; and informed respondent Anglickis that the contract had already expired by virtue of the clause allowing 60 days to obtain mortgage financing. He then, again, asked that his deposit be returned. (P-10.) On July 30, 1979, respondent Anglickis, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote to the Hofstetters indicating that the loan had been approved 3/ and he was prepared to build their home at the contract price. He then addressed Mr. Hofstetter's July 22, 1979, denial of any responsibility for delay in obtaining the mortgage loan: I have reviewed your letter of July 22, 1979 and I understand we certainly have a difference of opinion as to whose fault the delay has been caused by. However, I don't think it's time to look at whose fault the delay might be, since it all has worked out to your satisfaction. The mortgage has been approved and we are ready to build. I expect you will now sign the mortgage papers when receipted for so that we may begin construction immediately. (P-11.) On August 6, 1979, the Hofstetters restated to respondent Anglickis that they were not prepared to go ahead with construction, that the contract became null and void by operation of the 60-day mortgage financing clause, and that the deposit should be immediately returned. (P-12.) On August 31, 1979, respondent Anglickis notified the Hofstetters that, pursuant to the contract conditions, he was retaining their full deposit, including cash and the real estate lot for which they received a $6,995 credit toward the purchase price. The full down payment totaled $10,350. (P-1, P-13.) On September 8, 1979, the Hofstetters replied: We cannot understand why you continue to ignore the provisions of the second sentence of Paragraph Two on the reverse side of Contract No. 1997, dated 12 March 1979. You say you intend to invoke the Provisions of the third sentence of this para- graph, but this sentence is Predicated on the assumption that the mortgage would be approved within sixty (60) days. The mortgage was not approved until late July (your letter of 17 July 1979 indicated it was not yet approved, and your letter of 30 July 1979 stated that it had now been approved), more than 120 days past the date of the original contract. Our Position is as Previously stated on several occasions: on 12 May 1979 the contract became null and void, and on that date our deposit should have been refunded. Any action other than this is illegal, according to the terms of the contract. We are due return of our down payment, plus interest, from 12 May 1979. (P-24.) On October 3, 1979, First Federal of DeSoto, which had continued to process the Hofstetter loan application, issued a commitment approving the requested loan. On October 10, 1979, the Hofstetters rejected the mortgage loan. (P-26.) Subsequently, the Hofstetters wrote letters to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and the Lehigh Chamber of Commerce complaining of respondent Anglickis' retention of their deposit; they, then, retained an attorney and filed a civil action against respondents in the circuit court of Lee County. That action was settled out-of-court. There is no evidence whatsoever to support respondent Anglickis' assertion to the Hofstetters that they were dilatory or responsible for confusion or delay in obtaining the necessary mortgage financing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., be dismissed; That respondent Richard A. Anglickis be administratively fined $1,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oaklnd Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail, unlawfully withdrew and transferred monies from an escrow account and is therefore guilty of fraud, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, or breach of trust and conversion within the purview of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979) At the final hearing, Petitioner called Donald Lloyd, Respondent, Donald Reda and Kenneth Viviano as its witnesses. Petitioner offered Exhibits 1 through 7 which were received into evidence. Respondent called no witnesses and offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 4 which were received into evidenced.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing memoranda and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its administrative complaint filed herein on July 29, 1981, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent as licensee and against his license as a real estate salesman. During times material herein, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman and has been issued license No. 0188032. During times material herein, Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc., was a Florida licensed real estate corporate broker with its offices located at 3300 NE 33rd Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida corporate entity was licensed under that name on October 12, 1979. The predecessor entity was known as Lloyds' of Lauderdale, Inc., and had its escrow account at Gulfstream Bank H.A., formerly known as Gulfstream American Bank and Trust Company H.A., formerly known as American National Bank and Trust Company of Fort Lauderdale, which account number was 005-1-00160-3. Upon obtaining the change of name, i.e. Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc., the successor entity maintained the same escrow account number at the same bank and continued using the checks on that account bearing its former name, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc. During times material herein, Respondent was a salesman associated with Century 21 and was an authorized signatory on the above-referred escrow account. Respondent was also a stockholder, officer and director of Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc. Respondent was also the owner of an unrelated business known as Brewer's Care Center, which in turn operated a motel located in Georgia. During times material, Respondent owned a one-third (1/3) interest in Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc. On February 3, 1981, Respondent issued a check, No. 79-228, drawn on the Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc., escrow account, payable to Brewer's Care Center in the amount of $11,903.12. Approximately fifteen days later, on February 18, 1981, Respondent issued another check, No. 79-223, drawn on the above-referenced escrow account payable to Brewer's Care Center in the amount of $2,500. On March 3, 1981 Respondent verbally authorized the Gulfstream Bank to withdraw $399.66 from the referenced escrow account to pay interest on loan No. 59-004-00-058-3866-4. Also, on March 18, 1981 Respondent verbally authorized the withdrawal of $799.32 to be applied against the same loan. Neither of the above-referenced checks or verbal loan authorizations were, in any wise, connected with any real estate transactions from which monies were held in escrow by the Respondent. The verbal withdrawals and checks, either authorized or drawn by the Respondent, reduced the escrow account by a sum of approximately $15,602.10 and depleted the account to such an extent that Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc. was unable to meet demands for the return of the escrow funds held in trust (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1). Respondent took the position that the monies represented by the payments of the two checks made payable to Brewer's Care Center were repayments of loans and that he was unaware that the accounts which the checks were drawn against were, in fact, escrow accounts. In this regard, evidence reveals that the Respondent suffered a heart attack during November of 1980 and his health regressed to the degree that he was placed in the intensive care unit at a hospital in Cleveland, Ohio for an extended period of time. At the conclusion of the Petitioner's case in chief, Respondent's counsel filed an ore tenus motion to continue the subject hearing until the following day. The undersigned afforded Respondent's counsel an opportunity to submit, for the record, his basis for the continuance. However, that motion was denied based on the numerous continuances which had been previously granted by the undersigned to Respondent's counsel (See Order dated November 16, 1982 - Copy attached).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed real estate salesman with license number 0364554. On or about August 13, 1982, Richard J. and Gav Greco entered into a lease purchase agreement with James C. and Phyllis Waid for residential property located at 1685 Markham Woods Road, Longwood, Florida. The purchase price of the Waid property was $190,000 towards which the Grecos made a $10,000 non-refundable deposit and agreed to pay a monthly rental of $1000. On or about November 14, 1982, the Grecos executed an Agreement with Respondent and his wife by which the Grecos assigned all rights and privileges relating to the lease and purchase of the residence at 1685 Markham Woods Road to the Alvarados. The consideration to be given for this Agreement was a payment of $10,000 by the Alvarados to the Grecos, with $5000 payable upon signing of the Agreement and $5000 payable within six months. The Alvarados, as assignees, agreed to abide by all provisions of the lease purchase agreement and were to make their first $1000 monthly lease payment to the Waids on December 4, 1982. Respondent gave Richard J. Greco a check in the amount of $5000 dated November 14, 1982 and requested that he hold the check for a couple of days before depositing it. Greco complied with the request, but was advised on December 3, 1982 that Respondent's $5000 check had been returned unused by Respondent's bank due to the fact that Respondent's account had been closed. Respondent has never paid the Grecos any part of the $10,000 due them under the assignment executed November 14, 1982. Respondent made no monthly lease payments on the property to the Waids. By letter dated February 25, 1983, James C. Waid notified the Grecos and the Alvarados that the lease purchase agreement was in default and that the $10,000 deposit paid by the Grecos was being forfeited because the rent was in arrears. The Grecos paid the Waids an additional $4000 on March 1, 1983, which represented the unpaid lease payments, for a general release from all obligations under the lease purchase agreement. Respondent and his wife executed a promissory note on March 1, 1983 whereby they agreed to pay the Grecos $10,000 on or before March 16, 1983, but no payments have ever been made pursuant to this promissory note. The Grecos brought suit against Respondent and his wife for damages arising out of this transaction, and obtained a Final Judgment on June 30, 1983 in Case No. 83-1191-CA-03-P, Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, in the amount of $15,101.28. The Grecos have not been able to execute this Final Judgment and therefore no payments on this judgment have been made to them by the Respondent or his wife. At the time of this transaction, the Alvarados were family friends of the Grecos. Richard J. Greco entered into this transaction with Respondent primarily because of the personal acquaintance and not because Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman. However, Greco knew that Respondent was licensed and therefore assumed that he was a man of integrity who would deal fairly with him in this real estate transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a Period of one (1) Year. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartmann, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, Fl. 32802 Ignacio J. Alvarado 5166 Glasgow Avenue Orlando, Fl. 32819 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Fl. 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Brenda W. Smith, violated sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2013),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute real estate licensees, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is licensed by Petitioner as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, license BK 534400. Respondent’s address of record with Petitioner is Post Office Box 15453, Panama City, Florida 32406. Respondent’s brokerage, Spirits Realty, Inc., is a registered for-profit corporation in the state of Florida with its principal place of business listed as 3812 Dolphin Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408, and a mailing address listed as Post Office Box 15453, Panama City, Florida 32406. On May 31, 2012, Respondent, on behalf of her brokerage, Spirits Realty, Inc., entered into a property management agreement (Property Management Agreement) with Ronald W. Roberts to manage the rental of Mr. Roberts’ property located at 3803 Long John Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408.3/ The term of the Property Management Agreement was for one year, beginning May 31, 2012, and provided: THIS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT is made on the 31st day of May 2012 and is effective 31 May 2012 by and between Ronald W. Roberts whose address is 3555 Walden Land, Acworth, Ga 30102, hereinafter referred to as “Owner” and SPIRITS REALTY INC., BRENDA SMITH, LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER, Post Office Box 15453, Panama City, Florida 32406, hereinafter referred to as “Agent”. WITNESSETH in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Owner and Agent agree as follows: The Owner represents to the Agent as follows: (a) The Owner is the sole owner and holder of marketable record title to the following described property: 3803 Long John Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408. The Owner hereby appoints the Agent as the sole and exclusive Agent to Lease and manage the premises known as 3803 Long John Drive. This Agreement is for 1 year beginning 31 May 2012. Agent to enter into an agreement for 1 year lease, $1000 per month rental, tenant to pay Jun/July rent in advance (non-refundable); & $1000 security deposit. The owner agrees to the following: Spirits Realty Inc. Commission of 10% of the rents collected in each calendar month (which shall be deducted from rents collected each month). Spirits Realty Inc., Hancock Bank, holds the security deposit (for liquidated damages) and advanced last months [sic] rent in Escrow. If Agent is not available, Jesse Smith, Admin, is authorized signer. 4. [sic] Owner authorizes the broker to secure tenant; and enter into a 1 year lease. Manage tenant relations collecting, give receipts, holding and disbursing rents to owner, serving notices, initiating eviction & damage actions. Agent will receive and forward $2500 check from tenant to Ron Roberts, for sale agreement of furniture and furnishings, on site. The Property Management Agreement was signed by Ronald W. Roberts and notarized in Cherokee County, Georgia, on May 31, 2012. Notably, the Property Management Agreement does not require advanced notice on the part of the Owner to terminate the Property Management Agreement. On May 31, 2012, Respondent and/or Spirits Realty Inc., ostensibly acting on behalf of Mr. Roberts, entered into a four- page residential lease agreement drafted by Respondent (Lease) with Allen Pridgen and Lori Roark (n/k/a Lori Pridgen), as tenants, for the rental of Mr. Roberts’ property located at 3803 Long John Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408 (the Premises). The term of the Lease was for one year, from June 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. Curiously, instead of naming Mr. Roberts as the lessor, the first sentence on the first page of the Lease names “Spirits Realty Inc., Brenda Smith, Lic. Real Estate Broker, Agent” as “Lessor.” The bottom of the first page of the Lease states “Page 1 of 1.” In addition, page four of the Lease submitted by Respondent as part of her Exhibit R-7 (which page was not included in the copy of the Lease submitted by Petitioner as part of Exhibit P-2) is signed by Respondent and Spirits Realty, Inc., on and below the signature line labeled “Lessor,” respectively. By comparing the signatures of the “Lessees” on the last page of the Lease (page four) with the signatures on the exhibit entitled “Security Deposit/Advance Last Months [sic] Rent Receipt” (Deposit Receipt), it is apparent that Allen and Lori Pridgen both signed page four of the Lease on May 31, 2012, as Lessees. As documented by the Deposit Receipt, on May 31, 2012, Respondent collected from Allen and Lori Pridgen a $1,000 cash security deposit, plus $1,000 as the last month’s rental payment under the Lease. The Deposit Receipt, signed by both of the Pridgens, as well as Respondent, provides that the monies collected would be held in a “non-interest bearing account Spirits Realty, Inc. Escrow” with Hancock Bank in Panama City Beach, Florida. Mr. Roberts signed a typed statement on May 31, 2012, printed on paper with a fax number, date, and time in the top margin, stating: “The four page Residential Lease on Long John Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida, is hereby agreed upon and approved by the property owner Ronald W. Roberts.” The next year, Respondent prepared a document entitled “Lease Renewal Agreement” (Lease Renewal) for renewal of the Lease for another seven months, from June 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014. The initial paragraph of the Lease Renewal listed the parties as: Lessor4/: Allen Pridgen & Lori [Pridgen] Agent: Spirits Realty Inc., Lic. Real Estate Broker The Lease Renewal kept all terms of the Lease in effect and provided that the Security Deposit and last month’s rent would continue to be held in Hancock Bank. The Lease Renewal also stated: That tenants shall pay a monthly rental of $1,000 for each month by the 1st of each month to Spirits Realty, Inc., for the Renewal Term. Tenants agree to give 60 days written notice prior to vacating property, Or give notice of intent to renew lease for up to one year. According to dates next to their signatures, the Lease Renewal was signed by Alan and Lori Pridgen on May 30, 2013; by Brenda Smith for “Spirits Realty Inc and Brenda Smith, Lic Real Estate Broker” on May 31, 2013; and by Dorothy and Ronald Roberts as “Property Owner” on June 4, 2013. In late 2013, the Roberts decided to terminate the Property Management Agreement and manage the rental of the Premises themselves. The decision to terminate the agreement was made a short time after the tenants had a problem with a water leak and a faulty water heater. Because the tenants considered the problem to be an emergency, they dealt directly with the Roberts, who, as owners, authorized the tenants to pay for the required repairs directly and take the payment off the rent. On December 1, 2013, Mr. Roberts spoke to Respondent on the telephone and advised her that the Roberts no longer wanted to use Respondent’s brokerage, Sprits Realty, Inc., for property management services and that they were going to terminate the Property Management Agreement. Ms. Roberts was present with her husband during the telephone conversation and overheard the discussions. During the conversation, Respondent told Mr. Roberts that they needed to give her at least a 60-day notice of termination, and Mr. Roberts advised Respondent that their termination of the Property Management Agreement would be effective February 1, 2014. The next day, December 2, 2013, the Roberts sent a letter by certified mail to Respondent, at her address, and to Spirits Realty, Inc., at its address. The letter was signed by both Mr. and Ms. Roberts, witnessed and notarized, and stated: Dear Mrs. Smith, Per our conversation on December 1, 2013, please accept this letter as a 60 day formal notification that we wish to terminate the contract we currently have with Spirit Realty for Property Management Services. As of 2/1/2014, we will no longer require your services in handling the property management for 3803 Long John Drive, Panama City, Florida, 32408. Please forward the security deposit that you collected from the tenant, Alan Pridgen in 2012 and are currently holding in an escrow account. You can mail it to Ronald & Dorothy Roberts at 3555 Walden Lane, Acworth, Georgia 30102. We appreciate your time and services since Mr. Pridgen began occupying the property. Although multiple attempts were made to deliver the letters, they were returned unaccepted. The Roberts made additional attempts to contact Respondent by telephone, but were unable to do so. By another letter sent by certified mail to Respondent dated January 16, 2014, Mr. and Ms. Roberts again requested in writing that Respondent forward to them the $2,000 identified in the Deposit Receipt. The letter reiterated the fact that in a telephone conversation on December 1, 2013, Respondent was advised that the Roberts were terminating the Property Management Agreement. The letter was returned unaccepted. Although the Roberts letters to Respondent dated December 1, 2013, and January 16, 2014, were returned unaccepted, Respondent’s own exhibit, a copy of a certified letter that Respondent allegedly sent to the tenants on December 11, 2013, acknowledges that Mr. Roberts called on December 1, 2013, regarding both the Lease and the Property Management Agreement. The first paragraph on the third page of Respondent’s December 11, 2013, letter to the tenants states: 1 Dec 2013 Ron Roberts called SRI [Spirits Realty, Inc.] agent saying Alan [Pridgen] paid over $900 in improvement costs having to do with the air conditioner and hot water heater - & Alan would not be paying rent due 1 Jan 2014 – SRI would not receive a management fee – triggering liquidated damages clause. Breach of lease. Lease – Agreement/relationship of landlord & tenant (real property) or lessor and lessee – specifes [sic] 10% rent compensation. Further, during her cross-examination of Ms. Roberts at the final hearing, Respondent acknowledged that she had spoken on the telephone with Mr. Roberts on December 2, 2013, and that during the conversation the subject of breaking a contract with a real estate person was discussed. While it is found that the telephone conversation occurred on December 1, 2013, as opposed to December 2, 2013, it is evident that the conversation indeed occurred. Based on the evidence, it is found that on December 1, 2013, the Roberts effectively communicated their desire to terminate the Property Management Agreement, effective February 1, 2014. Further, although the certified letters were refused, it is found that the Roberts timely asked Respondent for return of the $2,000 reflected in the Deposit Receipt. In addition to the letters that the Roberts sent to Respondent, after speaking to the Roberts, Ms. Pridgen prepared a letter, at the Roberts’ request, for her husband to send to Respondent, dated December 1, 2013, which stated: Brenda, This letter is to inform you that I no longer wish to continue my contract with you and the Roberts. I have been renting this property since June of 2012, the original contract was for one year. I agreed to rent the property for an additional 6 months which is now up. I no longer wish to continue this contract with Spirits Realty Inc. Thank you Allen D. Pridgen The letter was sent to Respondent by certified mail on December 4, 2013, but Respondent never picked it up. Shortly after her conversation with Mr. Roberts on December 1, 2013, Respondent called the police and tried to have the Pridgens evicted from the Premises. The Roberts explained over the phone to the police officer that they, not Respondent, were the owners of the Premises. The Pridgens were not evicted. Ms. Pridgen’s credible testimony explained that they did not intend to vacate the Premises, but rather planned to continue to rent it directly from the Roberts. As of the date of the final hearing, the Pridgens were still leasing the Premises from Ms. Roberts. To date, Respondent has not returned to Ms. Roberts, as owner with responsibilities over the Lease, either the $1,000 Security Deposit or the $1,000 Advanced Rent she collected from the tenants. Instead, Respondent has retained the entire $2,000 and characterizes the funds as “liquidated damages” for the Roberts’ wrongful termination of the Property Management Agreement. The Property Management Agreement has no specific requirement for the manner in which it is to be terminated. Nevertheless, Respondent transferred the $2,000 reflected in the Deposit Receipt into Spirits Realty, Inc.’s, operating account at Hancock Bank. Respondent argues that she is entitled to retain the $2,000 because Ms. Roberts did not make a timely claim upon the escrow deposit following receipt of Respondent’s expressed intent to keep the escrow monies as “liquidated damages.” Respondent bases her argument on the Roberts’ alleged breach of the Property Management Agreement. As there was no breach and the Roberts’ request for return of the escrow funds was timely made, Respondent’s belief that she is entitled to liquidated damages has no merit. Respondent also suggests that she is entitled to retain the $2,000 reflected in the Deposit Receipt because the tenants failed to give 60 days’ notice of their intent to terminate the Lease. Respondent’s suggestion is premised upon the fact that she and her brokerage are erroneously named as the “Lessor” in the Lease that Respondent drafted. Respondent’s argument evinces that she either has a misunderstanding of her role as agent for the Roberts, or intended to take advantage of her position in a manner inconsistent with her obligations under the Property Management Agreement. Although erroneously listed as the “Lessor” under the Lease, neither Respondent nor her brokerage was a proper party to the Lease. Rather, in accordance with the Property Management Agreement, Respondent and her brokerage were only authorized as agents for Mr. Roberts in dealing with the Premises. Under the circumstances, even if the tenants had breached the Lease (which they did not), Mr. Roberts and his successor in interest, Ms. Roberts, not Respondent and her brokerage, would be entitled to make a claim against the tenants as the owners and actual lessors under the Lease. Incredibly, at the final hearing, Respondent submitted into evidence a copy of a document entitled “Lease Addendum” dated May 31, 2012, which was purportedly signed by the tenants, Alan Pridgen and Lori Pridgen. The purported “Lease Addendum” provides: Lease Addendum 31 May 2012 FS 83.575, 83.595 breach, liquidated damages, and termination FS 83.595(4) Tenant statue [sic] contains two liquidated damages provisions allowing the landlord (Lessor) an opportunity to impose liquidated damages on the tenant for early termination or for failure to give notice of intent not to renew lease. Lessor, Spirits Realty Inc. will receive the $2,000 advance fees, “early termination fee”, out of escrow, if a breach of the lease occurs. X I agree as provided in the lease agreement, $2,000 security (an amount that does not exceed 2 months rent) as liquidated damages or an early termination fee if I elect to terminate the lease agreement and Lessor waives the right to seek additional rent beyond the month in which landlord takes possession. FS 83.575 Lessee is required to give 60 days notice of intent not to renew the lease or Lessor, Spirits Realty Inc will receive the $2,000 advance fees security deposits as “liquidated damages”. Spirits Realty Inc is entitled to 5% real estate fee at close. In addition, Respondent submitted into evidence a second document entitled “Lease Addendum” purportedly signed by the now-deceased Mr. Roberts. That second “Lease Addendum” provides: Lease Addendum 31 May 2012 I agree with the Lease Addendum. Spirits Realty Inc will receive the $2,000 security deposits advanced fees out of escrow if there is a breach in the lease. Spirits Realty Inc will receive 5% real estate fee when the property closes. Lessor is acting as a Transaction Broker to lease/sale property. Ms. Roberts and Lori Pridgen credibly testified during the hearing that neither they nor Mr. Roberts, prior to his death, signed a separate Lease Addendum. Ms. Pridgen testified that she would not have signed any type of document which essentially gave up any and all rights to the escrow monies. Further, Ms. Roberts explained that her late husband, Mr. Roberts, who had an understanding of real estate matters, would not have signed such a document. Moreover, the documents presented as lease addenda are suspect. The type font is remarkably different from other documents obtained on May 31, 2012, in connection with the Lease and Property Management Agreement. Further, the paper signed by Mr. Roberts on May 31, 2012, in which he agreed to the Lease, has a fax number, date, and time at the top, but the purported lease addendum does not. Finally, the signatures on the lease addenda appear to have been copied from other signatures and taped into place. While reviewing the purported lease addendum during her cross-examination by Respondent at the final hearing, Ms. Pridgen testified: Okay. First of all, this is not the –- this has never been seen in our paperwork. The whole time that we’ve been doing paperwork with you for all these years, this was never ever seen till Brande sent it up here in the paperwork she had. And besides that, the print is not the same as any of your paperwork. And also, you can tell by the signature that they have been copied and paste onto the amendment. If the – somebody will just look at them, you didn’t clean up your work under your tape before you put it right there. So you - - you needed to clean your work up when you tape something like that because we’ve done it before. You have to clean up your work, or people can tell it when you look at it. Other than evincing Respondent’s nefarious intent to justify her retention of the $2,000, the purported lease addenda are given no evidentiary value. The evidence does not justify Respondent’s retention of the $2,000. The evidence adduced at the final hearing otherwise clearly and convincingly showed that Respondent wrongfully retained the $2,000 identified in the Deposit Receipt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, finding that Respondent violated sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.25(1)(d)1. as charged in the Administrative Complaint, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,500, assessing reasonable costs pursuant to section 455.227(3)(a), and revoking Respondent’s license to practice real estate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2016.
