Findings Of Fact On or about September 20, 1977, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of failing ". . . to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over. . ." withheld taxes to the United States, in violation of Title 26, U.S.C., Section 7215. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation for a period of one year, during which time he was to make restitution. Petitioner did in fact make restitution after his probation was extended. Petitioner was discharged from probation in the above case on or about February 27, 1979. Section 7512 of the Internal Revenue Code, under which Respondent was convicted, requires the collection of Federal Withholding Taxes from the wages of employees and the deposit of same into a separate bank account in trust for the United States. Violation of Section 7512 constitutes a misdemeanor. Petitioner owned and operated Wolfie's Restaurant in North Miami Beach for approximately 17 years. His testimony established that the business became indebted and he subsequently intentionally failed to pay some $46,000 in FICA and withholding taxes resulting in the above conviction. It should be noted that Petitioner filed the appropriate returns with the Internal Revenue Service and freely admitted his liability for taxes due and owing. The charges filed against him related only to his failure to pay said taxes and did not allege any attempt to conceal his liability. Petitioner was also charged with destruction of personal property in 1978, a misdemeanor. Petitioner pled guilty, adjudication was withheld, and he was required to pay costs of the action. This charge was not disclosed on Petitioner's application. Petitioner did not, however, intentionally withhold this information, but understood the application to require such information only where he had been formally arrested. Petitioner is currently employed at the Tiffany Hotel in Miami Beach. Prior to that, he operated the Lovin Oven Bakery in Miami. Petitioner presented two character witnesses who testified as to their personal business dealings with the Petitioner as well as Petitioner's general reputation in the business community. Their testimony established that Petitioner is regarded as honest and truthful.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1982.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Jeffrey E. Donaldson, is an applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the FREC having filed an application for licensure on or about February 4, 1992. As part of the application, Petitioner was directed to answer questions regarding his past criminal record. In answering question 7, Petitioner provided the following response: Arrested for attempted grand theft which I was put on probation for from 2/27/89 to 2/1/92 and paid a fine for. Never convicted of any crime and adjudication was withheld. Other than the answer described above, Petitioner provided no information regarding past criminal charges or other criminal involvements. In 1987, Petitioner was charged with grand theft and was placed on probation. In 1989, Petitioner was charged, in addition to the grand theft charge noted above, with a violation of the terms of his probation from the 1987 grand theft charge. In 1973, Petitioner was charged with forging a prescription and was placed on probation. Petitioner explained that he had omitted the other criminal charges from the application form as it did not provide enough space for the listing of all offenses, and because the FREC did not ask about the offenses when it sought additional information about the one charge disclosed. Petitioner did not deny the criminal charges nor that the incidents occurred. Petitioner maintained that his criminal activities resulted from his alcohol and drug addiction; that he sought help for same and attends meetings of Narcotics Anonymous; and that because his father had been an alcoholic, Petitioner was exposed to the behaviors from a young age. At the time of hearing, Petitioner did not have a real estate broker who would be willing to sponsor him. Petitioner has worked for Ryder Trucks for almost eighteen years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of July, 1993, 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 28th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7082 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1-3 and 5-14 are admitted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Manuel E. Oliver Assistant Attorney General Suite 107 South 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Jeffrey E. Donaldson 1475 S.E. 15th Street, #304 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner lacks good moral character in violation of Section 539.001(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). 1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and her husband own and operate Seminole Antiques and Pawn ("Seminole Antiques") at 6115 Seminole Boulevard in Seminole, Florida. The business of Seminole Antiques includes pawnbroking. Petitioner first engaged in the business of pawnbroking in 1990. On November 28, 1995, officers from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff's Office") arrested Petitioner on charges of dealing in stolen property and failing to maintain adequate records. On March 4, 1995, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to both charges. The court accepted Petitioner's plea, withheld adjudication of guilt, assessed costs of $144, and placed Petitioner on probation for two years. On March 14, 1997, the court entered an order terminating Petitioner's probation. Registration And License Prior to October 1, 1996, pawnbrokers had been required by former Chapter 538, Part I, Florida Statutes (1995). 2/ to register with the Department of Revenue ("DOR") as secondhand dealers. From 1990 through 1996, Petitioner was continuously registered with DOR as a secondhand dealer. In relevant part, former Section 538.09(4) provided: . . . registration may be denied . . . or any registration granted may be revoked, restricted, or suspended . . . if the applicant or registrant: (f) Has, within the preceding 5-year period, been convicted of, or has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, a crime . . . which relates to registration as a secondhand dealer or which involves . . . dealing in stolen property. . . . The registration provisions in former Section 538.09 did not include a requirement that a pawnbroker be of good moral character. Effective October 1, 1996, Section 539.001 transferred responsibility for licensing and regulating pawnbrokers from DOR to Respondent and prescribed license eligibility requirements. 3/ The license eligibility requirements in Section 539.001 include a requirement that an applicant be of good moral character. On October 1, 1996, the eligibility requirements in Section 539.001 did not prohibit a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge of dealing in stolen property within a five year period. However, Sections 539.001(4)(a)3. and 4. did prohibit a conviction in the last 10 years of any felony or any other crime that directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of a pawnbroker ( a "related crime"). In 1997, the legislature amended Sections 539.001(4)(a) and 4. to prohibit a plea of nolo contendere to a felony or related crime. The amendments took effect on June 3, 1997, approximately 36 days after the hearing in this case. As amended, Section 539.001 provides inter alia: (4) ELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE-- (a) To be eligible for a pawnbroker's license, an applicant must: 1. Be of good moral character; Not have been convicted of, entered a plea of . . . nolo contendere to, or had an adjudication withheld for a felony within the last 10 years . . . . Not have been convicted of, entered a plea of nolo contendere to, or had adjudication withheld for a crime that involves dealing in stolen property . . . within the last 10 years. * * * (6) SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, AND SURRENDER OF LICENSE . . . (a) The agency may, after notice and a hearing, suspend or revoke any license upon a finding that: The licensee . . . has violated this section . . . . A condition exists that, had it existed when the original license was issued, would have justified the agency's refusal to issue a license. . . . (emphasis supplied) The underlined provisions became effective June 3, 1997. Pawnbrokers already in business had six months from the date Section 539.001 became effective to comply with the "registration . . . provisions" of Section 539.001. 4/ Section 539.001(21) provides, in relevant part: (21) TRANSITION PERIOD FOR LICENSING--Each pawnbroker operating a pawnshop in business of the effective date of this section shall have 6 months from the effective date of this section to comply with the registration . . . provisions before the agency may initiate any administrative . . . action. (emphasis supplied) Section 539.001 became effective on October 1, 1996. Petitioner, had until April 1, 1997, to comply with the registration provisions in Section 539.001. Prior to April 1, 1997, Respondent was statutorily prohibited from initiating any administrative action against Petitioner. On October 8, 1996, Petitioner applied for a pawnbroker license. On December 4, 1996, Respondent initiated administrative action by denying the application. Notice In the letter of denial dated December 4, 1996, Respondent stated several grounds for denying Petitioner's application. In relevant part, the letter stated: Section 539.001(4) . . . provides that to be eligible for a pawnbroker's license, an applicant must be of good moral character and must not have been convicted of a felony within the last 10 years . . . that directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of a pawnbroker. Our background investigation has revealed that you were found guilty of or pleaded nolo contendere to dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records, case number CRC9519648CFANOB in 1996 (sic). Based upon these findings, your application for a pawnbroker license is hereby denied for failure to meet the eligibility requirements of s. 539.001(4) . . . . (emphasis supplied) Consistent with Section 539.001(4), Respondent's letter of denial listed as separate and distinct requirements the requirement for good moral character and the requirement of no felony conviction within the last 10 years. However, Respondent's letter of denial deviated from the statute that was in effect at the time, by expanding the definition of a conviction to include a plea of nolo contendere. Petitioner timely requested an informal hearing with Respondent. Respondent conducted the informal hearing by telephone conference. During the telephone conference, Petitioner testified that she was not guilty of dealing in stolen property. She testified that law enforcement officers, posing as consumers, had tried, unsuccessfully, to get her husband to purchase a watch. The transaction was not completed, and Petitioner was not present at the time. Nevertheless, Petitioner was charged with dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records. Petitioner further testified that she chose to enter a plea of nolo contendere in order to quickly resolve the issue. Respondent disregarded Petitioner's testimony. On January 13, 1997, Respondent issued a letter overruling Petitioner's objections and denying Petitioner's application. Respondent based its administrative action on the ground that Petitioner was not of good moral character. Respondent did not make an independent determination that Petitioner was guilty of dealing in stolen property. Respondent determined that Petitioner lacked good moral character solely on the basis of the criminal charge and plea of nolo contendere. In relevant part, Respondent's letter of January 13, 1997, stated: The facts set forth in the . . . denial letter dated December 4, 1996, are undisputed. As part of the . . . review of your application, a criminal background check . . . by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement . . . revealed that you pled nolo contendere to dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records. Adjudication was withheld. During the proceeding, you stated that law enforcement officers, posing as consumers, had tried, unsuccessfully, to get your husband to purchase a watch. Although according to your testimony the transaction was not completed and your were not present at the time, you were charged. Subsequently, you chose to enter a plea in order to quickly resolve the issue. . . . Pursuant to Section 539.001(4) to be eligible for a pawnbroker license the applicant must be of good moral character. Based upon your criminal arrest and plea discussed herein, you fail to meet the eligibility requirements set forth in the Florida Pawnbroking Act. Therefore, your objections to the denial of your application for a license are hereby overruled. (emphasis supplied) Petitioner retained counsel. On February 5, 1997, Petitioner's counsel sent a letter to Respondent requesting a formal hearing. In relevant part, the letter stated: . . . my client . . . received a letter indicating that she had been turned down for her license because of a criminal matter where she had been charged with dealing in stolen property and received a withhold of adjudication and probation. It is my understanding that her probation is now complete. . . . Mrs. Garafolo received a letter from Geoffrey G. Luckemann informing her that she was not eligible for a pawn broker's license because she was not of good moral character. . . . I . . . believe that the ends of justice would be honestly met by allowing . . . a Formal Hearing. . . . (emphasis supplied) On February 24, 1997, Respondent referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the administrative hearing. From February 24 through April 28, 1997, Petitioner's counsel did not file a request for discovery. On April 11, 1997, Respondent voluntarily served Petitioner's counsel with a copy of its administrative file. The administrative file contained numerous exhibits, including the exhibits Respondent submitted for admission in evidence at the administrative hearing. On April 15, 1997, the parties entered into a Prehearing Stipulation that included a list of Respondent's witnesses. The only witnesses listed by Respondent were the two undercover investigators Respondent called at the hearing. The Prehearing Stipulation stated that the issue for determination at the administrative hearing was whether Petitioner lacked good moral character. The parties did not stipulate that Respondent was limited to evidence of Petitioner's ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". In relevant part, the Prehearing Stipulation stated: . . . the application for a pawnbroker license was denied by respondent on the basis petitioner did not have good moral character. * * * The issue of fact to be determined is the good moral character or lack thereof by Nella Garafolo. At the administrative hearing, Respondent stated, for the first time, that it intended to prove Petitioner's lack of good moral character by evidence other than evidence of her ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". Respondent sought to prove that Petitioner actually dealt in stolen property and failed to keep adequate records. Petitioner's counsel objected to the admissibility of any evidence other than the ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . ." and moved to suppress any other evidence. Petitioner's counsel stated numerous grounds for the objection and motion, including due process requirements for adequate notice. The objections by Petitioner's counsel were overruled, and the motion was denied. Petitioner's counsel had adequate notice of the nature and scope of evidence Respondent intended to present at the administrative hearing. Even if Respondent had been required to file an administrative complaint in this case, due process would not require the complaint to satisfy the technical niceties of a legal pleading. 5/ Due process requires a specific accusation in the charging document or a procedure for disclosure, but not both. 6/ Respondent's letters of denial specifically charged that Petitioner lacked good moral character. Petitioner's counsel had adequate time from January 13, 1997, through April 28, 1997, to seek disclosure of the nature and scope of the evidence Respondent intended to adduce at the hearing. Petitioner's counsel declined to avail himself of the benefit of any procedure for disclosure. Petitioner's counsel had notice that Respondent intended to call the undercover investigating officers as witnesses in the administrative hearing. Neither Petitioner's arrest nor her plea were disputed issues of fact. The testimony of the undercover investigators was unnecessary to prove the criminal arrest and plea. It was reasonable to conclude that the undercover investigators were going to testify to facts other than Petitioner's ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". The notice to Petitioner's counsel was timely. On April 11, 1997, Respondent served Petitioner's counsel with a Notice of Filing Discovery. The notice listed the two undercover investigators as Respondent's only witnesses. On April 15, 1997, Petitioner's counsel signed the Prehearing Stipulation with a list of Respondent's witnesses attached as Exhibit 1. The Prehearing Stipulation identified the undercover investigators as Respondent's only witnesses. Petitioner's counsel had approximately 17 days from April 11, 1997, until the hearing on April 28, 1997, to inquire into the scope of the witnesses' testimony and to either prepare his case accordingly or to request a continuance to allow him time to do so. Petitioner's counsel chose not to avail himself of that opportunity prior to the hearing. There was no material error in procedure that impaired the correctness of Respondent's action. Respondent followed prescribed procedure. 7/ Good Moral Character In support of the allegation that Petitioner lacked good moral character, Respondent submitted evidence of an investigation and arrest that took place in November, 1995. On November 7, 1995, two undercover investigators for the Sheriff's Office began an investigation of Seminole Antiques. They were supported by four more officers at remote locations who monitored the conversations of the two undercover investigators. One or both of the undercover investigators visited Seminole Antiques on November 7, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 28. The investigation concluded on November 28, 1995, when Sheriff's deputies arrested Petitioner and her husband. The evidence submitted by Respondent consisted of the testimony of two undercover investigators, their arrest reports, tapes of visits they made to Seminole Antiques on November 14 and 17, 1995, transcripts of those two tapes, and transcripts of the tapes of the other visits. The evidence also included other miscellaneous documents. The tapes and transcripts purport to evidence conversations between the investigators, Petitioner's husband, and Petitioner. The two tapes submitted by Respondent are copies of the original tapes made by Sheriff's office personnel who monitored the conversations of the undercover investigators from outside Seminole Antiques. The original tapes were destroyed by the Sheriff's Office in accordance with department policy for cases in which a nolo contendere plea is entered. One of the undercover investigators made copies of the original tapes for November 14 and 17, 1997. Both copies are in evidence in this proceeding, without objection. Transcripts exist for the original tapes for each of the six visits that the undercover investigators made to Seminole Antiques. None of the transcripts are verbatim transcriptions. Each transcript is a summary prepared by one or the other of the two undercover investigators. Each summary contains only that portion of the recorded conversations which, in the opinion of the author of the transcript, are inculpatory. 8/ Respondent did not provide Petitioner with the notice of intent to use summaries that is required in Section 90.956. Similarly, Respondent did not make available to Petitioner the data from which the summaries were prepared because the data had been destroyed by the Sheriff's Office. The undercover investigators did not conduct business transactions every time they visited Seminole Antiques. On each occasion that the undercover investigators did conduct business, they used stolen property that the Sheriff's Office had recovered, inventoried in its log books, and stored. For the initial transaction conducted on November 7, 1995, the undercover investigators used two rings. One ring was a 14 karat gold ring with an onyx stone. The investigators placed a wholesale value of approximately $30 on the ring. The other ring was a gold ring with four diamond chips. The investigators placed a wholesale value of $35 on the second ring. On November 7, 1995, the undercover investigators pawned the two rings to Petitioner for $30. 9/ Petitioner completed the required paperwork evidencing the transaction. One of the undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques on November 14, 1995. He carried a bag containing two gold rings, two gold bracelets, and a gold necklace. One ring was a 10 karat gold ring with one sapphire stone flanked by two small diamond chips. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $40. The other ring was a 14 karat gold ring. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $39. One bracelet was a seven inch, 14 karat, bracelet. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $27. The other bracelet was also a seven inch, 14 karat, bracelet. The investigator estimated its retail value at $54. The necklace was an 18 inch, 14 karat, necklace. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $108. When the undercover investigator presented the bag of items to Petitioner, she and her husband were standing behind the counter at Seminole Antiques. Petitioner opened the bag and appraised the items inside while the undercover investigator conducted simultaneous conversations with Petitioner and her husband. Petitioner did not agree with the value placed on the goods by the undercover investigator. Petitioner gave the undercover investigator $30 for all of the items. She completed the required forms. The investigator terminated the transaction and returned to the Sheriff's Office. The same undercover investigator returned to Seminole Antiques on November 17, 1995. He did not conduct a transaction. He described to Petitioner and her husband a fictitious transaction on the previous day in which the investigator said he sold a gold Rolex watch to a competing pawn shop for $600. Petitioner was upset and told the investigator she would have given him more money. The investigator stated that Seminole Antiques was closed and that he needed the money. On November 20, 1995, both investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with unopened video cassettes. The investigators placed an aggregate value on the cassettes of $340. The investigators conducted a transaction with Petitioner's husband and agreed to take $60 for the cassettes. Petitioner paid the investigators $60 and completed the required forms. The investigators returned to the Sheriff's Office. On November 22, 1995, the two undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with a video cassette recorder and remote control. They valued the two items at $149. The investigators conducted a transaction with Petitioner's husband and agreed to $55 for both items. Petitioner paid the investigators $55 and added the VCR to the pawn ticket for the previous transaction. On November 28, 1995, the two undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with two Rolex watches. One watch was a stainless and gold watch. The other was an 18 karat gold watch with a 14 karat gold band. The undercover investigators valued each watch, respectively, at $2,995 and $6,995. The investigators first offered to sell the watches to Petitioner for $300 each. The investigators conducted the balance of the transaction with Petitioner's husband. The investigators agreed to accept $600 for the watches. Law enforcement officers from the Sheriff's Office arrested Petitioner and her husband. They took Petitioner and her husband to the Sheriff's Office and questioned them. Petitioner stated that she did not know any of the items had been stolen. She said that she was going to do the paper work on the watches and then resell them in the store. Petitioner did not have actual knowledge that the items she purchased were stolen. The investigators never represented to Petitioner that the items were stolen. As one of the investigators explained during his testimony: . . . at some time . . . it has to be represented as stolen. And that's hard to do sometimes because a lot of stores and pawn shops are fully aware of the law, and once you say something is stolen, they'll throw you right on out. * * * I did not say stolen. Transcript ("TR") at 40, 68. Respondent failed to show that Petitioner should have known that the items were stolen. Much of the evidence submitted by Respondent consisted of opinion testimony by the undercover investigators and hearsay statements by Petitioner's husband. The investigators opined that Petitioner paid them amounts far below the fair market value of the property. When asked how he determined the fair market value for each item, one investigator testified: . . . we've been taught by jewelers how to appraise and pawn brokers, and we give, at the Sheriff's Office, an incredibly low retail value. Wholesale and retail very low so that this way there's never no error. TR at 41. The investigators are not qualified experts in appraising property as diverse as jewelry, video equipment, VCRs, and watches. Respondent offered evidence that the investigators were dressed to portray someone who, in the opinion of the investigators, Petitioner should have known was of bad character. When questioned on this issue, one investigator testified: I had a goatee. I would wear a hat that I've got that's a very scrubby hat. I've got several of them that are scrubby. Holes in my pants. . . . I cut my grass. I don't shower. I get real sweaty. You can see the sweat stain on my shirt, and I walk in looking crummy. Pretty crummy. . . [t]o portray someone of bad character. TR at 42. Respondent offered evidence that the investigators conducted themselves in a manner which, in the opinion of the investigators, Petitioner should have known was typical of bad guys. When questioned on this issue, one investigator testified: I pulled the second [ring out of my pocket], which is typical of bad guys because they want to see how much money they can get for an item. TR at 47. The transactions conducted with Petitioner on November 7 and 14, 1997, do not show that Petitioner should have known she was dealing in stolen property. The investigators did not conduct a transaction on November 17. The transactions of November 20, 22, and 28, 1997, were conducted primarily with Petitioner's husband. Respondent relied on hearsay statements allegedly made by Petitioner's husband in the same room with Petitioner. Those statements are not competent and substantial evidence that Petitioner should have known she was dealing in stolen property. Petitioner maintained adequate records. The investigator who was at Seminole Antiques on each occasion originally testified that Petitioner did not complete the required records. He later testified that Petitioner completed the required paperwork after every transaction but did not give the investigator a copy of the paperwork.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for a pawnbroker license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1997.
The Issue Whether respondent should grant petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman?
Findings Of Fact At the time and place set for hearing petitioner failed to appear in person or otherwise, and proved no facts in support of his application.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for license as a real estate salesman. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 12th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Frank J. Norris 1038 Arco Road, #4 Jacksonville, FL 32211
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: By application filed on November 5, 1990, with respondent, Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission), petitioner, Mark E. Smith, sought licensure as a real estate salesman. In response to question seven on the application, which asked whether the applicant had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, even if adjudication was withheld, petitioner answered in the affirmative. As is relevant to this proceeding, respondent acknowledged that he had been convicted of driving while intoxicated (DUI) in December 1983 in St. Lucie County, Florida and again in March 1988 in Juanita County, Pennsylvania. 1/ After reviewing the application, respondent issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter on May 21, 1991, denying the application because of petitioner's "answer to Question #7 of the licensing application and/or your criminal record". The denial prompted petitioner to request a formal hearing. Smith, who just turned thirty six years of age, admitted that he once had a drinking problem which resulted in the two arrests. However, after his 1988 DUI arrest and conviction in Pennsylvania, Smith attended a twenty-eight day rehabilitation program in that state and thereafter received six months of out-patient counseling. He now regularly attends alcoholic anonymous meetings. Thus, to the extent a DUI can serve as the basis for denying an application, there has been a sufficient lapse of time since the convictions and subsequent good conduct on petitioner's part to demonstrate rehabilitation. Smith is presently employed by the marketing department of Sunrise Bay Resort and Club Condominium, a time sharing resort in Marco Island, Florida. His duties are to solicit prospective customers to visit the resort and hear a sales presentation. Smith desires a real estate license so that he can become involved in the sale of real estate, and if licensed, he intends to work for his present employer. His assertions that (a) he is simply attempting to better himself and (b) he poses no threat to society or the real estate profession, while self-serving to some degree, were not contradicted. Moreover, they are corroborated by a letter received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 3. Finally, Smith's application file reflects that he was previously licensed in Florida as a real estate salesman from September 1983 until March 1985. There is no evidence that he was disciplined by the Commission during that period of time. Thus, it is found that Smith possesses the necessary attributes for licensure as a salesman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Mark E. Smith for licensure as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 29, 1987, Petitioner filed with Respondent an Application for Licensure as a Real Estate Salesman. The application revealed that Petitioner had been charged with attempted sexual battery, as to which adjudication had been withheld, and Petitioner had received five years' probation. The application also disclosed that he had served 17 days in Orange County Jail for possession of marijuana. Pursuant to order dated June 3, 1981, in Orange County Circuit Court Case No. CR 80206, Petitioner, having entered a plea of no contest to attempted sexual battery on his 15 year old stepdaughter, was placed on five years' probation for this second degree felony as to which adjudication of guilt was withheld. Pursuant to judgment entered on February 27, 1984, in Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 80-206, Petitioner, having been found to have violated his probation, was adjudicated guilty of the above-referenced count of attempted sexual battery in violation of Sections 777.04 and 794.011(4)(e), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to order of disposition in Orange County Court Case No. M083- 4486, Petitioner, having entered a plea of no contest to possession of cannabis, was fined $100 plus court costs for this misdemeanor as to which adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner testified further that, in connection with this incident, he entered a plea of guilty to attempt to evade arrest. Petitioner testified that he was generally of good character and a solid citizen apart from the criminal record disclosed on the application and court records produced at the hearing. However, he offered no corroborative evidence in this regard, nor specific examples of his behavior from which good character could be inferred.
Findings Of Fact In his application for registration as a real estate salesman John J. Hurley, Respondent, answered "yes" to question nine regarding arrest, and completed the "State details in full" space with "speeding ticket in January, 1973; paid fine; other misc. non-moving traffic violations." Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 showed that in August, 1963 Respondent was charged with conspiracy to commit a robbery and accessory after the fact to robbery; in February, 1964 he was arrested for armed robbery; in August, 1965 he was arrested for grand larceny. In testifying in his own behalf Respondent acknowledged that the allegations of arrests were true and that he realizes that he should have truthfully answered question nine. In explanation for failing to do so Respondent stated this was a chapter of his life that caused him great embarrassment and problems and at the time he submitted his application he could not have written of those arrests. With respect to the first two arrests in 1963 and 1964 he was the victim of Captain David Helman, a Miami detective who was subsequently removed from the police force for committing robberies and pinning them on others. Respondent was acquitted of both of those charges and they caused him difficulties and embarrassment for many years. With respect to the charge of grand larceny in 1965 Respondent acknowledged stupidity in believing his friend who told him he had bought the TV set from the motel. When brought to trial he pleaded guilty to petit larceny and adjudication of guilt was withheld. Respondent has never activated his real estate salesman's registration. He owns a bookstore in Coral Gables and serves on the board of directors of his church. He holds an insurance salesman's license and a security salesman's license issued by the SEC. Following his acquittal and withhold adjudication of guilt he discussed the matter with his attorney and, as a result of the discussion, he felt he could henceforth decline to elaborate on that chapter of his life.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner should be accepted for licensure as a real estate salesman or whether that application for licensure should be denied on account of her past criminal record.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 19, 1989, the Petitioner filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of licensed real estate salespersons and with regulating and controlling entry into that profession in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules. The Petitioner answered question 6 on that application, the question inquiring as to her criminal history, by enclosing a copy of her arrest record and candidly admitting that she had been subjected to criminal prosecution in the past. That arrest record reflected charges of driving under the influence (DUI) to which she plead guilty and was placed on probation for a term of six months in each of two cases. The record also reflected 22 incidents of issuing worthless checks. She was prosecuted for these with the result that adjudication was withheld and the Petitioner was ordered to make restitution and to pay court costs. The criminal record further discloses that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of grand theft in 1985 involving a retail store, apparently Sears, in Pensacola, for which she was adjudicated guilty and placed under community control for one year, ordered to make restitution and to perform six weeks of community service followed by one year of probation. The denial was only based upon the worthless check charges and the 1983 DUI conviction as well as a conviction in Texas occurring in 1981, when the Petitioner was 17 years old. The Petitioner candidly admitted this criminal histor both on her application form and in her testimony at hearing. The Texas charge was not indicated on her application form because the Petitioner had been told by the prosecutor in Texas that the result of her offense would not be of record for purposes of later employment. That charge involved alleged grand theft which was reduced by the prosecution to a charge of disorderly conduct for which she was adjudicated guilty and required to pay a fine and court costs. The factual circumstance in the Texas charge involved the theft of a tube of lipstick and a bottle of nail polish. The Petitioner testified that the prosecutor in San Antonio had told the Petitioner's mother that it was a juvenile offense which would have no effect on her record. With regard to the bad check charges, full restitution was made to all the vendors involved before the matter went before the court for adjudication. Although the criminal records reflect various arrests through 1985 and in 1986 on the worthless check charges, in fact the Petitioner established that the checks were all written in a very short period in the summer of 1985, but were prosecuted at different times, hence the different arrests. The Petitioner is genuinely remorseful about those charges and the related conduct and established that, by way of mitigation, they occurred at a time when she was only 21 years old, was married, but was having marital discord with her then husband, who exerted a great deal of influence in inducing her to issue the worthless checks. They have since become divorced and she is making an effort to better herself and engage in a productive life and career. She freely acknowledges that at the time of the San Antonio, Texas, disorderly conduct conviction she was 17 years old and at the time of the worthless check and grand theft convictions in Florida she was only approximately 21 years of age, was quite immature and having significant personal problems which she has since overcome. She is genuinely sorry for engaging in such conduct and has consistently attempted to improve her life ever since. She has held a number of jobs as waitress and cashier for local restaurants in the Pensacola area and the Navy Club at the Pensacola Naval base. This includes the handling of large sums of money or her employers for which she has an unblemished record, accounting for all monies entrusted to her in an honest, reliable way. This testimony to this effect is borne out by various letters of recommendation which the Respondent stipulated into evidence and in which former employers and friends all uniformly attest to her good reputation and character, all of whom knew of her past criminal history. They unhesitatingly describe her reputation and character as good. Her employers so attesting to her reputation for honesty and good morals attest to the fact that she worked in a capacity as waitress and cashier and successfully and honestly handle their funds. In particular, as a waitress at the Pensacola "Navy Club," she was placed in charge of the bingo concession or activity and served as the cashier for thousands of dollars collected in the course of such activities. She handled and accounted for these large sums of money in an honest, reliable and accurate fashion to the satisfaction of her employer. The Petitioner's one witness aside from herself was Rusty Coleman. He has known the Petitioner for at least three years and they are best friends. He was aware of her past criminal problems because she has told him about them herself. He finds her trustworthy and an honest, decent person who is seeking to better herself and become a reliable, productive citizen and member of society, as evidenced by her pursuing her higher education since the criminal episodes of record. It is noteworthy that although 22 incidents of prosecution for worthless checks appear at first to be a significant level of such miscreant conduct, that all the checks were issued within a short period of time in 1985 when she was under considerable stress due to her unfortunate and successful marriage situation, and related financial difficulties, and the same consideration applies to the issue of the grand theft conviction and the DUI convictions in 1983. Under ordinary circumstances this aggregation of criminal convictions and conduct would appear sufficient to preclude an applicant from licensure approval only four years after the last incident of such conduct, as was reflected in her criminal record. It is noteworthy however, that, in addition to the Petitioner's own credible, candid testimony concerning her genuine change in attitude and attempt to live an honest, productive life, that none of this type of conduct was repeated after the time when she ended her unsuccessful marriage and the related stress it caused in both an emotional and financial sense. She has honestly pursued gainful employment ever since, in positions of trust, handling large sums of money and further has embarked on a higher education career as well as, at the same time, successfully completing and passing her real estate instruction course in an effort to prepare herself for a productive, honorable profession. Under these circumstances, established by the Petitioner, her attending witness, and the corroborative statements admitted in evidence, although only four years have elapsed; it is found that in her particular situation that is sufficient time, coupled with the other evidence of her rehabilitation, to justify admitting her to licensure if she should pass the state examination involved. This is particularly true given that the Respondent has sufficient regulatory authority to oversee her entry into and practice of the profession so that it can ensure that the public is protected through its authority to impose accounting and reporting requirements on all funds and transactions the Petitioner might engage in as a realtor as conditions upon her entry into the profession. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case it is thus fund that the Petitioner has established her rehabilitation and resultant qualification for licensure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the pleadings and arguments of the parties, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2127 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted except that the criminal record in evidence shows that only 22 charges of issuing worthless checks were the subject of criminal proceedings. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted in a general context, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Delia H. Dolan 2635 Belle Christiane Circle Pensacola, Florida 32503-5860 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent took the examination for real estate salesman and was licensed December 16, 1982. His license was last renewed in December 1984 (exhibit 1 and Price testimony). At all times relevant hereto he was licensed by Respondent as a real estate salesman. By judgment dated-May 10, 1985, Buford D. Price was convicted of murder in the third degree, possession of cocaine, and possession of narcotic paraphernalia. Respondent was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment on the murder charge, imposition of sentence was withheld on the narcotic charges and he was placed on probation for five (5) years to run consecutively to the imprisonment. Respondent expects to be released from prison by June 1988 although his current release date is June 8, 1989. For the past three months he has been working outside prison on the highways and in communities. Prior to his arrest and incarceration Respondent worked principally for property management companies and Pulte Homes. As owners of the property leased or sold their salesmen do not need a real estate license to sell or lease such property only.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a natural person over 18 years of age, and is a bona fide resident of the State of Florida. He has successfully completed the educational course required for a real estate salesman's license. The office of the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Orange County, Florida, issued an amended criminal information in May, 1980, charging the Petitioner with unlawfully practicing dentistry without an appropriate license in violation of Section 466.026(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On September 30, 1980, the petitioner appeared in Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, and entered a plea of nolo contendre to the charges and waived the taking of testimony. The court entered a finding of guilt but withheld adjudication of guilt and directed that a pre-sentence investigation be conducted. On November 22, 1980, the court entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt, placing Petitioner on probation for a term of three years, and ordering Petitioner to pay a fine. Petitioner remains on probation. In his application for licensure, Petitioner fully revealed the particulars relating to the criminal charges. The Board of Real Estate initially issued a pass which would entitle Petitioner to take the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman. Subsequently, the Board entered an order denying the application for licensure, and this proceeding ensued. Petitioner has, except in connection with the criminal charges, demonstrated good character. He has a good reputation for fair dealing. Except as set out herein, the Petitioner has not been charged with the commission of any crimes. Petitioner has been in business in the Orlando area for a number of years, and has a good reputation for fair dealing in connection with his business.
