The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner and, if so, whether Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes; and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Jared A. White T/A Jerry White Realty was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0187087 pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker with an address of 231 Skiff Pt. 7, Clearwater, Florida 34630. TITLE TO THE PROPERTY The matters at issue began with Respondent's retention as a real estate broker to bid at a foreclosure auction for a beachfront house and lot at 235 Howard Drive in Belleair Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was hired to submit the bid on behalf of Dr. Moshe Kedan and/or his wife, Ella Kedan. Prior to the auction on August 17, 1995, Respondent had no contact with the Kedans. Kathy MacKinnon of Viewpoint International Realty in Clearwater was Respondent’s point of contact with the Kedans. It was Ms. MacKinnon who obtained Respondent's services to bid on behalf of the Kedans, and Ms. MacKinnon who negotiated with Dr. Kedan as to the financial arrangements for both the bid and any ensuing commissions for Respondent. Neither Ms. MacKinnon nor Dr. Kedan was called as a witness in this case. Respondent attended the foreclosure auction and tendered the winning bid on the property. Respondent bid in his own name. Respondent testified that he had bid at several similar sales in the past, and his practice was to bid in the name of the person who would hold title to the property. Respondent did not follow his usual practice here because Ms. MacKinnon failed to instruct him as to whether the property would be titled in the name of Dr. Kedan, Mrs. Kedan, or one of their corporations. Ms. MacKinnon told Respondent she would know on August 18 how the property was to be titled. Respondent's testimony regarding the initial titling of the property is supported by a handwritten note faxed by Ms. MacKinnon to Dr. Kedan on August 17, shortly after the auction. Ms. MacKinnon's note provides instructions regarding payment of the purchase price, indicating that the money must be submitted to the Clerk of the Court no later than 10:30 a.m. on the morning of August 18. The note specifically asks, "Also, whose name do you want the house in?" Respondent testified that on August 18, he went to Atlanta on business, with the understanding that Ms. MacKinnon would handle the payments to the Clerk of the Court and the titling of the property on that date. This testimony is consistent with the handwritten note in which Ms. MacKinnon indicates that she will take the Kedans' checks to the court. The record evidence shows that the payments were made to the Clerk of the Court and that title insurance on the property was timely issued. However, the title and the title insurance policy listed Respondent as owner of the property. Respondent was unaware the property had been titled in his name until he received the certificate of title in the mail, approximately two weeks after the auction. Upon receiving the incorrect certificate of title, he went to the title company and signed a quitclaim deed, effective August 17, 1995, in favor of Ella Kedan. Respondent testified that he had learned from Ms. MacKinnon that the property would be titled in Ella Kedan’s name at sometime during the two-week period after the auction. The quitclaim deed was not notarized until October 9, 1995, and was not recorded until October 10, 1995. However, the face of the deed states that it was made on August 17, 1995. It is plain that the signature line of the notary statement on the quitclaim deed has been altered from August 17, 1995 to October 9, 1995. Respondent had no knowledge of how the quitclaim deed came to be altered. Respondent also had no clear recollection as to why he dated the quitclaim deed August 17, 1995, in light of his testimony that he signed it approximately two weeks after that date. A reasonable inference is that Respondent so dated the quitclaim deed to clarify that Mrs. Kedan's ownership of the property commenced on August 17, the date on which Respondent submitted the winning bid. Respondent also had no knowledge of why the title company failed to record the quitclaim deed at the time he signed it. He testified that on or about October 9, 1995, he checked the Pinellas County computer tax records and discovered that he was still the owner of record. At that time, he returned to the title company to make sure the quitclaim deed was recorded the next day. Petitioner offered no testimonial evidence regarding the events surrounding the titling of the property. Respondent's uncontradicted testimony is credible, consistent with the documentary evidence, and thus credited as an accurate and truthful statement of the events in question. THE CONTRACT FOR REPAIRS Shortly after the auction, Respondent began discussing with Dr. Kedan the possibility of Respondent’s performing repairs on the just-purchased property. Because Dr. Kedan did not testify in this proceeding, findings as to the substance of the negotiations between Respondent and Dr. Kedan must be based on the testimony of Respondent, to the extent that testimony is credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. Respondent testified that Ms. MacKinnon approached him after the auction and asked him if he would be interested in fixing up the house for the Kedans. Respondent testified that he was agreeable to contracting for the work because his carpenter was between jobs and could use the money. Respondent thus met with Dr. Kedan at the doctor’s office to discuss the repairs. Dr. Kedan explained to Respondent that his ultimate plan was to demolish the existing house on the property and to build a more elaborate residence. Dr. Kedan wanted to rent out the house for five years before tearing it down, and wanted Respondent to affect such repairs as would make the house rentable for that five-year period. Respondent testified that Dr. Kedan expressly told him he did not want to spend a lot of money on the repairs. Respondent quoted Dr. Kedan a price of $20,000.00, which was the price it would take to pay for the repairs, with no profit built in for Respondent. Respondent testified that he sought no profit on this job. He had made a substantial commission on the purchase of the property, and anticipated doing business with Dr. Kedan in the future, and thus agreed to perform this particular job more or less as a “favor” to Dr. Kedan. After this meeting with Dr. Kedan, Respondent walked through the house with Irene Eastwood, the Kedans’ property manager. Ms. Eastwood testified that she and Respondent went from room to room, and she made notes on what should be done, with Respondent either concurring or disagreeing. Ms. Eastwood typed the notes into the form of a contract and presented it to Respondent the next day. On September 21, 1995, Respondent signed the contract as drafted by Ms. Eastwood. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent represented himself as a licensed contractor in the negotiations preceding the contract. Respondent testified that he never told Dr. Kedan that he was a contractor, and that he affirmatively told Ms. Eastwood that he was not a contractor. Ms. Eastwood testified that she assumed Respondent was a licensed contractor because Dr. Kedan would not have hired a nonlicensed person to perform the contracted work. She denied that Respondent ever told her that he was not a licensed contractor. The weight of the evidence supports Respondent to the extent it is accepted that Respondent never expressly represented himself as a licensed contractor to either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood. However, the weight of the evidence does not support Respondent’s claim that he expressly told either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s subcontractors commenced work immediately upon the signing of the contract. Ms. Eastwood was in charge of working with Respondent to remodel the house, and she visited the site every day, often two or three times. She only saw Respondent on the site once during the last week of September, and not at all during the month of October. She did observe painters and a maintenance man regularly at work on the property during this period. Respondent concurred that he was seldom on the property, but testified that this was pursuant to his agreement with Dr. Kedan that he would generally oversee the work on the property. Respondent testified that he was on the property as often as he felt necessary to perform his oversight duties. Ms. Eastwood testified as to her general dissatisfaction with the quality of the work that was being performed on the property and the qualifications of those performing the work. She conveyed those concerns to the Kedans. Respondent testified that he did not initially obtain any permits to perform the work on the house, believing that permits would not be necessary for the job. On or about October 11, 1995, officials from the City of Belleair Beach shut down Respondent’s job on the Kedans’ property for lack of a construction permit. Respondent made inquiries with the City as to how to obtain the needed permit. City officials told Respondent that a permit could be granted to either a licensed contractor, or to the owner of the property if such property is not for sale or lease. Respondent checked the City’s records and discovered that, despite the fact that he had signed a quitclaim deed on August 17, he was still shown as the owner of the property. Respondent then proceeded to sign a permit application as the homeowner, and obtained a construction permit on October 11, 1995. Respondent testified that because the City’s records showed him as the record owner of the property, he committed no fraud in obtaining a construction permit as the homeowner. This testimony cannot be credited. Whatever the City’s records showed on October 11, 1995, Respondent well knew he was not the true owner of this property. Respondent cannot be credited both with having taken good faith steps to correct the mistaken titling of the property and with later obtaining in good faith a construction permit as the record owner of the property. Respondent testified that in obtaining the construction permit under false pretenses, his main concern was to keep the job going and to finish it in a timely fashion. He testified that there was no financial advantage to him in having the property in his name: he was making no profit on the job, and actually lost money because he had to pay for another title policy in the name of the Kedans. While there may have been no immediate financial advantage to Respondent, he was clearly motivated by the prospect of future profits in projects with Dr. Kedan. The City’s closing down this project jeopardized Respondent’s anticipated continuing relationship with Dr. Kedan, and Respondent took the improper step of obtaining a construction permit as the property owner to maintain that relationship. The Kedans ultimately dismissed Respondent from the job. A claim of lien was filed against the property by the painter hired by Respondent, and the cabinet maker sent the Kedans a lawyer’s letter threatening to file a claim of lien. Mrs. Kedan testified that she paid off both the painter and the cabinetmaker in full. Ms. Eastwood estimated that the Kedans ultimately had to pay an additional $20,000 to $50,000 to complete the repairs to the house, some of which included correctional actions for the improper repairs performed by Respondent’s workers. ALLEGED PRIOR DISCIPLINE Respondent has been the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In that prior proceeding, the Division of Real Estate's Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent was guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(k), Florida Statutes. On September 25, 1995, Respondent and the Division of Real Estate entered into a Stipulation disposing of the Administrative Complaint. Under the terms of the Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1,000, and be subject to one year of probation, during which he would complete 30 hours of post-license education for brokers. The Stipulation expressly stated that Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. The Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order approving the Stipulation on November 14, 1995. Respondent's broker license was suspended by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 24, 1996. The cause for this suspension was Respondent's failure timely to pay the $1,000 fine imposed by the Stipulation. Respondent paid the fine on February 19, 1996, and late renewed his license on April 24, 1997. In the instant proceeding, Respondent testified that by entering into the Stipulation, he had no intention of pleading guilty to any of the allegations, and that he would never have entered into the Stipulation had he known it would be construed in any way as a guilty plea.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts One and Three of the administrative complaint, and finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two of the administrative complaint, and suspending Respondent’s real estate license for a period of three years and fining Respondent a sum of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 John Bozmoski, Jr., Esquire 600 Bypass Drive, Suite 215 Clearwater, Florida 34624-5075 Jared White White Realty 231 Skiff Point, Suite Seven Clearwater, Florida 34630 Henry M. Solares Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner, Florida Home Finders Realty, Inc. ("Realty, Inc."), seeks an award of costs and attorney's fees incurred in its successful defense of an administrative disciplinary proceeding. The disputed issues in this case are whether the case is moot, whether the person acting on behalf of the Petitioner is authorized to do so, and whether circumstances exist that would make an award of costs and attorney's fees unjust.
Findings Of Fact Realty, Inc., the Petitioner in this proceeding, was one of numerous Respondents in a multi-count Administrative Complaint filed by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation in September of 1995. Two of the other Respondents named in the same Administrative Complaint were Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff. Most, if not all, of the other Respondents in that multi-count Administrative Complaint resolved the charges against them without resort to proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff both disputed the charges in the Administrative Complaint and requested an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff retained the services of the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., to represent them in their defense against the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Messrs. Law and Schiff were represented by Mark Herron, Esquire, and Chris Haughee, Esquire, of the previously mentioned law firm. Simultaneous with the filing of the Administrative Complaint described above, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued an emergency suspension order. The effect of the emergency suspension order was to suspend the real estate broker licenses of Messrs. Law and Schiff and to suspend the corporate real estate broker registration of Realty, Inc. Immediately following the filing of the Administrative Complaint and the emergency suspension order, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a petition in circuit court seeking to place Realty, Inc., and a related corporation into receivership. The petition was granted, and Realty, Inc., and the related corporation were placed in receivership. Receivers were appointed to operate Realty, Inc., and the related corporation, and to take possession of the assets of Realty, Inc., and the related corporation. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, the receivership was still in effect, although the assets of Realty, Inc., and the assets of the related corporation had been sold. The receivers were able to conduct the business affairs of both Realty, Inc., and the related corporation without either corporation being registered as a real estate broker. Accordingly, it was of no importance to the receivers that Realty, Inc.'s, real estate broker registration had been suspended by emergency order or that such registration might be revoked as a result of the Administrative Complaint.4 Therefore, the receivers took no action to challenge the emergency suspension order or to defend Realty, Inc., against the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Specifically, the receivers did not file any response to the Administrative Complaint and did not request an evidentiary hearing on the charges against Realty, Inc. In June of 1996, counsel for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a motion with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking entry of a final order against Realty, Inc., on the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Grounds for the motion were that there were no disputed issues of material fact, because Realty, Inc., had failed to respond to the service of the Administrative Complaint and had failed to request a hearing on the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The receivers of Realty, Inc., did not oppose the motion, because they were not concerned about the disposition of the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The Department's motion was, however, opposed by Ian Law and Benjamin Schiff. Messrs. Law and Schiff, through their legal counsel, Mark Herron, Esquire, filed a response in which they argued that the motion should be denied on the grounds that a final order revoking the registration of Realty, Inc., would have an adverse impact on the substantial interests of Messrs. Law and Schiff. In this regard they directed attention to Section 475.31(1), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: An order revoking or suspending the license of a broker shall automatically cancel the licenses of all sales persons registered with the broker, and, if a partnership or corporation, of all members, officers, and directors thereof, while the license of the broker is inoperative or until new employment or connection is secured. Based on the above-quoted statutory provision, Messrs. Law and Schiff argued that, in order to protect their own interests, they were entitled to litigate the issue of whether Realty, Inc., was guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Messrs. Law and Schiff also argued that it would be a violation of their personal due process rights if they were deprived of an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Realty, Inc., was guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint. By order dated June 18, 1996, the Florida Real Estate Commission denied the relief requested in the Department's motion and directed that the charges against Realty, Inc., be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.5 Since the issuance of the order placing Realty, Inc., in receivership (the order was issued October 6, 1995, nunc pro tunc to September 28, 1995), Messrs. Law and Schiff have not had any authority to take any action on behalf of Realty, Inc. That authority has been, and continues to be, vested solely in the receivers appointed to manage the affairs of Realty, Inc., and in the circuit judge who entered the receivership order. Neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever retained legal counsel to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings from which this case arises. Neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever authorized anyone else to retain legal counsel to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings from which this case arises. Specifically, neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever retained or authorized anyone else to retain the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings. Similarly, neither the circuit judge nor the receivers have authorized either the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., or Benjamin Schiff, Esquire, to file the instant proceeding on behalf of Realty, Inc.
The Issue Whether the Defendants have been guilty of violating Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission and should have their corporate and personal licenses annulled, suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact United Real Estate Association, Inc. holds License Number 0134096 as a corporate real estate broker operating out of the principle office and branch offices in various cities throughout the State of Florida. The five (5) Defendants, Stuart R. Snively, Lic. No. 0083024, Clark Roberts, Lic. No. 0074117, Juanita M. Robbins, Lic. No. 0145920, Yvonne Yount, Lic. No. 0099456 and Vivian R. Whitney, Lic. No. 0156013, were listed as brokers for and officers of the corporation. Mrs. Elizabeth C. Dyer was employed by the Defendant, United, at its Winter Park office from March 1, 1975 through May 5, 1975. During the time of her employment, two checks were returned to her - one for "insufficient funds" and one for "account closed". At the time of discharge, United owed Mrs. Dyer money for work done. The Defendant Juanita Robbins later paid Mrs. Dyer all monies owed her by United. United failed to refund a fee to Mr. and Mrs. Browne after promising a refund due customers because of unsatisfactory service. During the time Mrs. Dyer was employed by United, part of her duties was to call owners of properties to obtain rental listings. Other employees also worked for United obtaining and servicing the rental business. No personal inspection was made of many of the properties on which United took rental listings, nor did the employees of United accompany those who were charged a fee to examine the rental list to the listed property. Properties were listed by United which were not properly described thereby misleading those who paid a fee to obtain a list of rental properties. There were many people who were dissatisfied with the services rendered by United and their rental listings. Houses were listed at a certain rental fee and after customers paid their $25 to $30 for the use of the rental listings, houses as advertised could not be located. The Defendant United Real Estate Association, Inc., leased furniture from the American Furniture Company and failed to pay the amount owed. Ultimately the bonding company paid a portion of the $3,509 owed by United. Part of the amount owed was for rent and part was for furniture that was not returned. Monies are still owed by several of the offices owned by United. Thomas J. Capobianco was the manager of United Real Estate Association and signed rental agreements as secretary/treasurer of the corporation. (As the date of this hearing, Mr. Capobianco had bought five of the offices from United.) The office in which Mr. Capobianco was employed in Winter Park, Florida and supervised by Defendant Stuart R. Snively, was closed in March or April of 1975. When United closed its office, it owed money to the Sentinel Star newspaper and the American Furniture Rentals. The Orlando Sentinel Star, through a court proceeding, was awarded a sum exceeding $8,000, in a proceeding brought by the Sentinel Star against United Real Estate Association, Inc. for monies due. At one time the Star refused to accept advertisement from United for the reason that the advertising was not accurate and there were complaints from the readers. Some of the complaints were verbal and some were written to the publisher of the Sentinel Star or to the Better Business Bureau of Orlando. Misrepresentations of the property were the majority of the complaints and most were directed at the Winter Park office. The Defendant Juanita Robbins was affiliated with the corporation Defendant United Real Estate Association, Inc. in March of 1975 and severed her relationship in September 1975. United had offices on the east coast, an office in Winter Park and offices in Bradenton, St. Petersburg, and Sarasota. Defendant Robbins was responsible for the St. Petersburg, Sarasota and Bradenton offices but exercised supervisory direction only over the office in the Tampa Bay Area. Defendant Stuart Snively was in charge of the office of United in Winter Park. All of the defendants were listed as brokers of each office. The complaint against United is mainly a complaint about the Winter Park office operated by Mr. Snively. No trust or escrow bank accounts were maintained as required by Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21V.14, F.A.C., for the deposit of fees collected by United at any of the offices. Insufficient evidence was adduced to prove the employment of a non-registered salesman by United.
Recommendation Revoke the Corporate License Number 0134096 of United Real Estate Association, Inc. Suspend the license of Stuart R. Snively for a period of not less than thirty (30) days. Dismiss Complaint as to the defendants, Clark Roberts, Juanita M. Robbins, Yvonne Yount and Vivian R. Whitney. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Albert P. Schwarz, Esquire 255 Royal Ponciana Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate broker, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's responsibilities include the prosecution of administrative complaints. Prior to February 1993, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. In February 1993, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for licensure as a real estate broker. The application provided the applicant with two boxes, one marked "yes" and the other marked "no" to the following question, instructions, and caveat: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "YES," attach the details and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could result in denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney of the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered Question 9 in the negative. Respondent thereafter signed the application, including the following affidavit: The above named and undersigned applicant for licensure as a real estate broker under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn deposes and says that s(he) is the person so applying, that s(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information, an records permit, without any evasion or mental reservations whatsoever; that s(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and s(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications, whether and additional oath thereto shall be administered or not. On the evening of September 28, 1986, Respondent and her husband became involved in a loud argument at their home after having consumed too much alcohol. As a result, someone called the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with disorderly intoxication. On November 20, 1986, Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of disorderly intoxication in Broward County, Florida. Respondent was fined, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Katherine [sic] Lawand, which is her married name, and Kay Starr, which is the name Respondent uses for business purposes. On the evening of April 25, 1992, a virtual repeat of the incident of September 28, 1986, occurred. Again, as the result of a loud, drunken argument between Respondent and her husband, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was called. As a result of her behavior, Respondent was arrested on the charge of disorderly conduct. On May 21, 1992, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of disorderly conduct in Broward County, Florida. The court records reflect Respondent's name entered on this plea as Kathline [sic] Starr. Respondent testified that she thought Question 9 on the application for a broker's license only pertained to felony crimes. Respondent testified that she does not consider herself to be a criminal and that she did not intend to mislead or deceive the licensing agency. On May 3, 1993, Respondent passed the broker licensure examination. On May 23, 1993, Respondent was issued her initial license as an inactive broker. The license number was BK0459569. Since September 24, 1993, Respondent has been actively licensed as either a broker or a broker/salesperson. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was licensed as an individual broker with an office at 120 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Following an automobile accident in Broward County, Florida, on December 12, 1994, Respondent was charged with "DUI/ Blood Alch Above 0.20" (Count I); "Driving Under the Influence" (Count II); and "Disobey Stop/Yield Sign" (Count III). On October 3, 1995, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (Count II). Count I was nolle prossed and Count III was dismissed. As a result of the plea entered on October 3, 1995, Respondent was adjudged guilty of D.U.I. She was fined, placed on probation for six months, and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. Her driver's license was suspended for six months. As a condition of her probation, she attended a Court Alcohol Substance Abuse Program D.U.I. School. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Kay Starr Lawand. There was only minor property damage as a result of the accident involving Respondent on December 12, 1994. No person was injured.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be adopted that finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and orders that all licenses issued to her by Petitioner be revoked without prejudice to her right to reapply for licensure. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count II of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 30th day of March, 1998
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses held by Respondent as a real estate broker, licenses numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 300092222, and as a real estate instructor, license number 32195, for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(f), (n) and (p), Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact Facts Alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint Uncontested by the Answer: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed Florida real estate broker, issued license numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 3092222, in accordance with Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued were as a broker at AAA Realty of Florida Comm. Real Estate Properties/Investments, Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118, and at AAA Realty of Florida International Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. Respondent is a licensed real estate instructor issued license number 32195 with AAA College of Real Estate. Additional Facts: More specifically concerning licenses issued to Respondent as a real estate broker, from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker doing business as AAA Realty of Florida License No. BK3000807, a brokerage sole proprietorship located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. From January 1, 2005 to March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker, License No. BK3092222, affiliated with AAA Realty of Florida International, Inc., License No. CQ0000000, a brokerage corporation located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. License No. BK3000808 expired March 31, 2004. In State of Florida vs. Fadel Fawzi Elbadramany, in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Division 41, Case No. 2001-36519CFAES, the defendant, Respondent here, was tried and found guilty by a jury of grand theft of over $20,000, an offense recognized in Subsections 812.014(1) and (2) (b), Florida Statutes. On February 11, 2005, an order of judgment was entered by Circuit Judge R. Michael Hutcheson adjudicating the defendant in that cause, Respondent, in the present case, guilty of grand theft. On that same date an order of sentence was entered against the defendant/Respondent, by which he was committed to the Department of Corrections to be imprisoned for a term of 15 years, with credit for 105 days of time served while incarcerated before the imposition of this sentence. By separate order the defendant/Respondent was required to pay certain charges, costs and fees. That order was entered on February 11, 2005. In Fadel Elbadramany, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fifth District, July term 2006, Case No. 5D05-754 decision filed August 8, 2006, the court entered a per curium affirmance. On September 27, 2006, that court ordered "that appellant's motion for rehearing, rehearing En Banc and request to issue a written opinion filed August 22, 2006 and Appellant's Supplemental to Request to Issue a Written Opinion, filed September 18, 2006 are denied." Respondent is presently confined in Washington Correctional Institution where the final hearing was held. He is inmate number V21541. His tentative release date from his imprisonment is October 26, 2019. His confinement is in relation to the grand theft offense.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes (2004), that Respondent did not violate Section 475.25(1)(p) Florida Statutes (2004), and revoking the real estate broker licenses and real estate instructor license held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner), is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material hereto, Robert A. Schwartz (Respondent) was a Florida licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0481297, with an address of American Real Estate Properties, Inc., 13833 Wellington Trace, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent was initially licensed on or about May 23, 1988. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying broker and officer of American Real Estate Properties, Inc. (American Real Estate). On or about May 18, 1992, Respondent met with Ms. Renate Schuetze in West Palm Beach. 4/ Ms. Schuetze was from the State of New York and was interested in buying lots, building homes on the lots and renting the homes. Respondent had been referred to Ms. Schuetze by her friend, Ms. Mary Ann Runer. A few years ago, on behalf of Ms. Runer and using monies provided by her, Respondent had purchased a lot in West Palm Beach, overseen the contracting and construction of her home on the lot and rented out the home. All for which he charged Ms. Runer a fee. Ms. Schuetze wanted Respondent to do the same for her. On that same day, after meeting with Respondent, visiting prospective lots and model homes with him and discussing his process and procedure, Ms. Schuetze gave Respondent a check for $15,120 made payable to American Real Estate and returned to New York. Although Ms. Schuetze noted on the check that the money was for a deposit on one of the model homes, the monies were actually for a deposit of $2,000 on two certain lots ($1,000 each) and Respondent's fee of $13,000 ($6,500 per house) 5/ for performing the same service for her that he had performed for Ms. Runer. Ms. Schuetze wanted to pay Respondent his fee in advance instead of waiting until the homes had been built and rented. This was the first time that Respondent had received his fee in advance. The following day, on May 19, 1992, Respondent deposited the $15,120 into the operating account of American Real Estate which did not have an escrow account. Furthermore, Respondent had no intentions of opening an escrow account. However, the day before, on May 18, 1992, Respondent wrote two checks for $1,000 each to Miki S. Murray Realty (Murray Realty) for a deposit on two certain lots on behalf of Ms. Schuetze, leaving a balance of $13,120 from the monies given by her to Respondent. The deposits held the lots for Ms. Schuetze. On May 19, 1992, Murray Realty completed a document entitled "Reservation Deposit" for each of the lots. The document represented an acknowledgment of a deposit and the terms associated therewith. Murray Realty sold the lots and the homes to be constructed as a package deal. Each Reservation Deposit indicated, among other things, a lot deposit of $1,000 on a certain lot, the location of the lot, the purchase price of the house to be constructed on the lot, the representative for the builder/seller (Murray Realty), and the buyer who was indicated as Respondent. Also, each Reservation Deposit indicated that the deposit was an "earnest money deposit," that the contract was to be entered into on June 10, 1992, and that the deposit could be returned for any reason on or before June 10, 1992. Murray Realty required no further monies until after the signing of a contract for purchase from which construction draws would come from an account specifically setup for that purpose. This was not the first time that Respondent had entered into such a transaction with Murray Realty. Respondent used the same transaction for Ms. Runer. From on or about May 12, 1992, through on or about June 1, 1992, Respondent wrote checks from American Real Estate's operating account, totalling $10,403.01, from the remaining $13,120 given to Respondent by Ms. Schuetze. The expenditures were for Respondent's own use and benefit; none were associated with the services requested by Ms. Schuetze. On or about June 1, 1992, Respondent sent a completed contract for sale and purchase of the lots and homes and a blank buyer-broker contract, by express mail, to Ms. Schuetze for her signature. The contract for sale and purchase reflected that a "deposit" of $15,120 had been paid to American Real Estate, as seller, toward the purchase price and that the deposit was being held in "escrow." The blank buyer-broker agreement contained spaces for Respondent to insert an agreed upon fee but these were also left blank. Prior to sending these documents, Respondent had discussed the contracts with her and informed her that he was sending them to her. At the same time, on or about June 1, 1992, Ms. Schuetze wrote to Respondent requesting the return of her "deposit" of $15,120 within three days, indicating that she had decided not to sign a contract for the purchase of the homes. After she received the contracts, Ms. Schuetze returned them to Respondent unsigned. At no time prior to June 1, 1992, had Respondent presented to Ms. Schuetze for her signature a buyer-broker contract or a contract for sale and purchase. At no time pertinent hereto has Ms. Schuetze executed a buyer-broker contract or a contract for sale and purchase. Not having received a response to her letter of June 1, 1992, on or about June 8, 1992, Ms. Schuetze again made a demand by way of a letter for return of the $15,120 within three days. On or about June 11, 1992, at the request of Ms. Schuetze, Murray Realty returned her deposit of $2,000 on the two lots. At that time, Respondent had not contacted Murray Realty regarding her request, and he was unaware that Murray Realty had returned the deposit. Shortly thereafter, but also in the month of June 1992, Respondent agreed to return the $13,120, less the value of services he had already rendered, to Ms. Schuetze but requested additional time in which to so do since he had spent the money. She agreed to give Respondent additional time. On or about December 4, 1992, Respondent gave a statement to Petitioner in which he agreed to return, within 12 months, the $13,120 less 10 percent for the services that he believed that he had already rendered, leaving a balance of $11,808 to be returned. At the time of hearing on October 13, 1993, Respondent had failed to refund any of the money to Ms. Schuetze. Respondent has no history of disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order DISMISSING Count II of the amended administrative complaint; and SUSPENDING the broker's license of Robert A. Schwartz for five years. Provided, however, that the duration of his suspension may be lessened upon the return to Ms. Schuetze of the $13,120. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of May 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 26th day of May 1994.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at final hearing was whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In October 1992, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent for licensure as a real estate salesperson, together with the required fee. The application asked several questions, including in pertinent part: Question 9: if Petitioner had been "convicted of a crime, found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld," and Question 13: if Petitioner had had a license to practice any regulated profession revoked upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law. Petitioner responded in the affirmative to both questions and provided written documentation and statements regarding the questions. Petitioner attached to her October 1992 application for licensure various letters to support her application. The letters included one from her probation officer indicating her compliance with her probation; from the local board of realtors indicating that no complaints had been registered against Petitioner during her membership with them, which was from 1979 to 1982 and 1990 to 1992; and from her present employer who is a licensed real estate agent and has employed Petitioner since 1989. On October 21, 1992, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. The denial was based upon her response to questions 9 and 13 on the application, specifically her 1991 conviction and sentence and the 1992 revocation of her real estate salesperson license. On May 29, 1991, Petitioner plead nolo contendere to three felony counts of grand theft in the third degree. She was placed on probation for five years with special conditions, and adjudication of guilt was withheld. The special conditions of Petitioner's probation were that she would make restitution in the amount of $19,864.52, that she would perform 500 hours of community service, that she would fully cooperate with the State Attorney's Office in the investigation of the criminal activity in which she was involved, and that the probation may be terminated, upon motion, after 30 months. The theft involved a scheme devised by Petitioner's "boss" to obtain funds, beyond entitlement, from the City of Miami. Petitioner was employed as a bookkeeper by an elderly center from 1986 to 1988, which provided transportation, lunches and recreational activities for senior citizens. The center received funds from the City of Miami to operate by being reimbursed for monies paid to vendors. From 1986 to 1988, the center was performing poorly economically. In order to obtain additional monies, the invoices of vendors who did business with the center were inflated or increased and submitted by the center to the City of Miami for reimbursement. As bookkeeper, Petitioner was instrumental in the scheme. The difference between the actual cost and the inflated cost was retained by Petitioner and her boss and distributed at the end of the year to the center's employees, including Petitioner and her boss. Petitioner and her boss controlled the illegally obtained funds. At the end of the center's budget year, which was June 30th of each year, the center was withholding back payments to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), using the funds held to pay salaries. As a result, a debt to IRS was created, and when IRS attempted to collect on the debt in 1988, the scheme was discovered and stopped. Petitioner cooperated fully with the State Attorney's Office. At the time of her conviction, Petitioner was licensed by Respondent as a real estate salesperson. Less than a month after her plea of nolo contendere to the grand theft charge and sentence, in June 1991 Petitioner notified Respondent of her conviction and sentence in accordance with statutory provisions regulating the practice of her profession as a licensed real estate salesperson. No evidence of any other conviction was presented. Subsequently, on or about October 30, 1991, an administrative complaint was filed by Respondent against Petitioner based upon her conviction. Petitioner admitted the allegations contained in the administrative complaint. She saw no need to deny the allegations, since she had reported the incident to Respondent. To Petitioner's shock and surprise, in a Final Order dated February 14, 1992, Petitioner's license as a real estate salesperson was revoked by Respondent. Petitioner had been licensed for 13 years without a complaint being filed against her. On February 13, 1992, Petitioner's probationary terms were modified by the court due to her inability to pay the $19,864.52 restitution. The modification included, among other things, that Petitioner was only required to pay monthly the restitution to individuals, which totaled $1,700, that the restitution to the City of Miami could be paid through community service at $10.00 per hour for each month that Petitioner was unable to pay, and that probation could be terminated early after 30 months if restitution was paid in full. By March 9, 1993, Petitioner had completed 500 hours of community service in accordance with the original court order, and for compliance with the modified court order, she had completed 235 hours of community service and paid $125.00 restitution to individuals. Prior to her conviction and license revocation, in 1989. Petitioner was employed with a real estate broker at Allied Associates of the South, Inc. (Allied Associates), in Miami Springs, Florida, as a sales associate, and continued in that position until sometime in 1991 when, due to economic constraints on Allied Associates, the broker cut her staff, choosing a more experienced salesperson over Petitioner. During her employment as a sales associate, no complaints were received by Allied Associates against Petitioner, and no money which was entrusted to her was reported missing. Allied Associates received many complimentary remarks from clients and real estate brokers alike. Subsequently, in November 1991, the broker re-employed Petitioner as a sales manager at Allied Associates. Petitioner informed the broker of her conviction and the circumstances of her conviction. The broker has allowed Petitioner to manage the financial books of the business with no problems. And Respondent has audited Allied Associates' financial books without citing a problem. Furthermore, Petitioner has handled escrow deposits and cash without any problems. Since October 1992, Petitioner has been working with Allied Associates as a sales manager on a part-time basis due to financial constraints experienced by Allied Associates. She has continued to handle escrow deposits and cash without any problems. Moreover, the broker/owner of Allied Associates has no hesitation in putting Petitioner in a position of trust. Further, Petitioner has assisted in the guidance of Allied Associates' sales associates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order allowing Petitioner to take the real estate salesperson's examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of October 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 29th day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7368 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact consists of one paragraph with several sentences. 1. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 2, 4, 5, and 7-14; but rejected, regarding the second sentence, as unnecessary to the determination of the issues of this case and rejected, regarding the sixth sentence, as constituting argument, conclusions of law, or recitation of testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 1. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 1 and 4. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 4. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 10. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 10. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 11. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9; but rejected, regarding notice and failure of Petitioner to appear at the informal hearing, as unnecessary to the determination of the issues of this case. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 5; but rejected, regarding the first sentence, as constituting argument, conclusions of law, or recitation of testimony and rejected, regarding the last sentence which indicates that only Petitioner received and used the monies, as contrary to the evidence present. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 8. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 12-14. Note: Respondent proposed finding of fact is very close to constituting recitation of testimony. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 13. Note: Respondent proposed finding of fact is very close to and constituting recitation of testimony. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Marina P. Cintron 151 Fairway Drive #2301 Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Manuel E. Oliver Assistant Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 107 South Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, Kathi L. Kitts, should be revoked or otherwise penalized based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: Brickell Grove Realty Corporation ("Brickell Grove") is a licensed real estate brokerage corporation in Florida having been issued license number 0245921. From at least May 1988 through September 1, 1988, the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove was Frederick Morrison, Jr. (Morrison). At some point in mid to late 1988, (the exact date was not established by competent substantial evidence) Morrison was hospitalized with a terminal illness and his subsequent involvement in the real estate brokerage business was limited. Morrison died on September 1, 1988. Respondent, Kathi L. Kitts (formerly known as Kathi L. Abassi), was licensed by Petitioner as a salesman with Brickell Grove beginning on or about August 13, 1986. Respondent completed the required course for a real estate broker's license in April of 1988. On September 19, 1988, she passed the state exam required to obtain a broker's license. The evidence did not establish when Respondent first filed an application for a broker's license. After passing the exam in September of 1988, Respondent submitted an application which she thought would enable her to become the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove. The evidence did not establish the date that application was submitted. That application was not signed by the qualifying broker of Brickell Grove and/or the owner so it could not serve to qualify Respondent as the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove. On October 1, 1988, Petitioner issued Respondent a broker/salesman license as an employee of Brickell Grove. That broker/salesman license was revoked in November of 1988 when it was discovered that the corporate registration of Brickell Grove was cancelled effective September 30, 1988 as a result of the death of Morrison and the non-renewal of the corporate license. The exact date of the revocation was not established by competent substantial evidence but it was apparently on or after November 1, 1988. Prior to receiving the revocation notice, Respondent was advised by an investigator employed by Petitioner that her application to become the qualifying broker was deficient because it was not signed by the owner or broker. On October 20, 1988, Respondent filed another application to become licensed as the qualifying broker for Brickell Grove and to change the name on her license from Kathi Abassi to Kathi Kitts. This second application contained the signature of the owner of Brickell Grove. On November 4, 1988, Respondent sent a letter to the Division of Real Estate indicating that Mr. Morrison was seriously ill and that it was urgent that her application to be the active broker for Brickell Grove be approved as quickly as possible. Respondent did not, however, discover that Mr. Morrison had died on September 1, 1988, until sometime in the middle of November when she was advised by Petitioner's investigator. Petitioner approved Respondent's second application to become the qualifying broker for Brickell Grove on November 22, 1988. The approved broker's license was backdated to establish an effective date of October 20, 1988. Effective October 20, 1988, the corporate registration of Brickell Grove Realty Corporation was reinstated upon the Respondent becoming its sole qualifying broker. Respondent admitted that at least during the time period from September 1, 1988 through October 20, 1988, she operated as a salesman in the office of Brickell Grove Realty without any supervision from another broker in the office. However, no competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the nature or extent of business conducted by that office or by Respondent during this time period. Respondent did not open bank accounts or advertise as a broker until after October 20, 1988. While Respondent contends that she thought Mr. Morrison was continuing to carry on as the active broker for Brickell Grove during the time period he was hospitalized and continuing through November (after his death), she admitted that she only saw him on occasion and could not recall when he was last in the office. The limited contact between Respondent and the licensed broker for Brickell Grove is reflected by her lack of knowledge of his death until almost two months after it occurred. While there is hearsay testimony that Mr. Morrison was in the hospital for several months prior to his death and that his involvement with Brickell Grove Realty during the several months preceding his death was limited, or nonexistent, no competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the nature or extent of the business conducted by Respondent without the benefit of supervision by a licensed broker during the time period prior to September 1, 1988. Petitioner had previously initiated an investigation into unlicensed practice by one of the owners of Brickell Grove, Mahmoud Abassi (Respondent's former husband) in July of 1986. That investigation resulted in an August 29, 1986 affidavit executed by Mahmoud Abassi to cease and desist unlicensed real estate brokerage activity. However, no competent substantial evidence was offered to prove any involvement by Respondent in the activities which led to the execution of that affidavit nor was any evidence offered to show that Mahmoud Abassi was actually running Brickell Grove at any point subsequent to the execution of the affidavit. Moreover, no competent substantial evidence was offered as to Respondent's activities and/or supervision during the period from the execution of the affidavit until September 1, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Kathi Kitts, guilty of operating as a broker without a license during the period from September 14, 1988, to October 1, 1988, reprimanding her and placing her on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of December 1989. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 15th day of December, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate salesman, is guilty, as charged, of fraud, misrepresentation, culpable negligence or breach of trust in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact I. At all times material to the charges, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate salesman associated with Woodlake Realty, Inc., in Melbourne, Florida. He obtained his real estate salesman's license in 1982. On March 14, 1985, became a licensed real estate broker and now operates his own business under the name of Peter Frontiero Realty. His office is located in his residence at 3247 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Florida. II. On or about April 7, 1983, while employed as a real estate salesman at Apollo Realty, Inc., Mary E. Sousa obtained a listing on a tract of land owned by John and Janet Biansco. In connection with the listing, an Exclusive Right of Sale Contract was executed. This contract contained the following legal description of the tract to be sold: Parcel of land lying in the County of Brevard in the southwest 1/4 of Sec 11, TW 28 South Range 36E more particularly described as follows: S 2/3 of the following tract: commence at SE corner of W 1/2 of Sec 11 TW 28 South Range 36E, thence along south line of said Sec 11, 589-54-14 West for 30 feet., thence north 1- 17-00E for [sic] 43 feet to the point of beginning thence south 89-54-14 west along the north R/W line Melbourne Tillman Drainage district canal #63 for 297.43 feet, thence north 1-15-49 east for 353 feet, thence north 89-54-14 east for 297.55 feet, to the west R/W line of Arizona Street; thence south 1 17-00 West along R/W line for 353.00 feet, to the point of beginning. (P-4, Admissions No. 5, 6) As so described, this tract of land measures 235.34' x 297.47' and contains approximately 1.61 acres. (Admission No. 7) Mary E. Sousa and her broker, Peter Sergis, however, incorrectly determined that the legal description described a tract of land measuring 297' x 353' feet, containing 2.4 acres. (They determined this by examining the legal description attached to the Listing Contract and relying on Mr. Biansco's representation that the tract contained 2.4 acres.) Mary E. Sousa then had the property listed in the Melbourne Multiple Listing Service (MLS) on or about April 26, 1983. The MLS listing reflected the incorrect measurements and size of the tract, as submitted by Ms. Sousa. (P-3, Admission No. 8) III. During May, 1983, Karen Dunn-Frehsee and Paul Winkler (her fiance), contacted Respondents, a real estate salesman associated with Woodlake Realty, Inc., about purchasing a home. After Respondent showed them a house they were interested in, Ms. Dunn-Frehsee and Mr. Winkler decided that what they really wanted was to buy land on which they could build a residence. They told Respondent that they would need a minimum of two acres since they had two horses: local zoning requirements required at least one acre of land per horse. (Admission No. 10, Testimony of Dunn-Frehsee) Respondent checked MLS and found the listing (containing the incorrect measurements and size) of the Biansco property. He showed the land to Ms. Dunn- Frehsee and Mr. Winkler, who liked it and decided to make an offer. (At that time, Respondent was unaware that the MLS listing erroneously described the tract to be 297' x 353', containing 2.4 acres, when in fact it was 297.47' x 235.34', containing approximately 1.61 acres.) On or about May 5, 1983, Respondent prepared a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" containing the offer of Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. After she signed it, it was presented to the Bianscos, who subsequently accepted it. (Admission No. 12, P- 1) The Contract for Sale and Purchase contained, on the attached addendum--a correct legal description of the tracts as the description was taken from the listing agreement, not the erroneous MLS listing. Prior to closing, Respondent contacted Ms. Dunn-Frehsee several times to advise her regarding efforts being made by Lawyers Title Insurance Company to locate the prior owner of the property and secure a quitclaim deed covering a 30-foot strip of land bordering Arizona Street on the east side of the property. He was still unaware of the discrepancy between dimensions of the property contained on the MLS listing and the Contract of Sale. He did not tell Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he had personally measured the property, or that he had confirmed the accuracy of the listing information. He was concerned only with the problem of obtaining access to the property through the 30-foot strip bordering Arizona Street. Although he told Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he thought she was getting 2.7 or 3.0 acres by virtue of the additional strip of land which was to be quitclaimed to her at no additional cost, this belief was based on his reasonable assumption that the original tract contained 2.4 acres, as represented by the listing agents (Mary Sousa and Peter Sergis of Apollo Realty) and reflected in the Multiple Listing Book. Respondent also contacted Mr. Winkler, but similarly, did not represent to him that he (Respondent) had personally measured the property or confirmed the MLS information. (Testimony of Respondent) Prior to the closing, Respondent discussed with Ms. Dunn-Frehsee the need to order a survey of the property. She then ordered a survey, which was completed a week and a half before closing. After picking it up, Respondent telephoned Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. There is conflicting testimony about the conversation which ensued. Respondent testifies that he telephoned her and asked if she would like him to deliver the survey to her house or mail it to her, or if she would like to pick it up at his office. (TR-30) Ms. Dunn- Frehsee, on the other hand, testified that Respondent telephoned her stating that he had looked the survey over and there was no reason for her to drive out to his office to pick it up, that he would bring it to the closing. (TR-48) Neither version is more plausible or believable than the other. Both Respondent and Ms. Dunn-Frehsee have a discernible bias: Respondent faces charges which could result in the revocation of his professional license; Ms. Dunn-Frehsee has sued Respondent for damages resulting from her purchase of a tract of land which was smaller than what she was led to believe. Since the burden of proof lies with the Departments, the conflicting testimony is resolved in Respondent's favor as it has not been shown with any reliable degree of certainty that Respondent told Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he had looked the survey over and that there was no need for her to examine it before closing. Both witnesses agree, however, and it is affirmatively found that Ms. Dunn-Frehsee agreed that Respondent should bring the survey with him to the closing, which was imminent. The surveys prepared by Hugh Smith, a registered land surveyors correctly showed the property to be approximately 235.33' x 297.43', but did not indicate the size by acreage. (Admission No. 20, P-2) At closings on or about June 23, 1983, Respondent showed the survey to Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. Ms. Dunn- Frehsee questioned the measurements as not being the same as she recalled being on the MLS listing. Neither Ms. Sousa nor Respondent, both of whom were in attendance, had a copy of the MLS listing so that the measurements on the two documents were not compared. (Admission No. 22-23) Ms. Dunn-Frehsee chose to close the transaction anyway after her questions regarding the property were apparently resolved to her satisfaction by Kathleen Van Mier, the agent for Lawyers Title Insurance Company which was handling the closing. Ms. Dunn-Frehsee signed a contingency statement indicating that all contract contingencies had been satisfied and that she wished to proceed with the closing. (TR-4O-41; 77-78) Respondent was misinformed regarding the dimensions and size of the property by the listing agents, Mary Sousa and Peter Sergis of Apollo Realty, who had provided inaccurate information to the Multiple Listing Service. Respondent reasonably relied upon the listing information and the representations of the listing agents concerning the size of the property. In his discussions with Ms. Dunn-Frehsee and Mr. Winkler, he drew reasonable inferences from such (incorrect) representations. He did not intentionally mislead anyone. It has not been shown that, under the circumstances, he failed to exercise due care or that degree of care required of a licensed real estate salesman. Nor has it been shown that he violated any professional standard of care adhered to by real estate salesmen and established by qualified expert testimony at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint, and all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED for failure of proof. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1985.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent acted as a real estate agent/sales associate without being the holder of a valid and current real estate license in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and therefore, in violation of Section 455.228, Florida Statutes; and, if so, (b) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. As such, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute cases against persons who operate as real estate agents/sales associates without a real estate license. At all times material, Respondent was not a licensed Florida real estate agent/sales associate or broker. From January 2005 to June 2007, Respondent worked as a secretary/administrative assistant to Gail Gee, licensed Florida real estate agent and broker affiliated with Tradewinds of Mandalay, Inc., trading as Tradewinds Realty, a brokerage corporation located in or near Crystal River, Florida. Respondent was not the only secretary in the office. In 2005, Ms. Gee had three real estate sales offices. The offices were located in Beverly Hills, Ozello, and Crystal River, Florida. Respondent began working at Ms. Gee's main office in Ozello, Florida. Ms. Gee was at that office seven days a week in 2005. Ms. Gee paid Respondent hourly wages. Respondent's duties included the following pursuant to Ms. Gee's instructions: (a) answering the phone and taking messages; (b) faxing documents and e-mail listings; (c) placing advertisements; (d) drafting contracts; and (e) researching public property records. Ms. Gee took Respondent to a convention so they could participate in a class where the need for an agent to have a policy and procedure manual was discussed. Ms. Gee bought a computer disc of the proposed manual and subsequently used it to create one of her own. Ms. Gee had all of her associate agents and employees sign the manual. The manual advised the employees, including Respondent, what they could and could not do. Sometime before February 2005, Bruce Sculthorpe of Ann Arbor, Michigan, found some property in Citrus County, Florida, listed for sale on the internet. One property was located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace, in the Crystal Manor area of Crystal River, Florida. The other property consisted of two lots, Lots 206 and 207, in Waterman Subdivision, in Citrus County, Florida. Mr. Sculthorpe then contacted Ms. Gee to make further inquiries about the properties. On or about February 7, 2005, Bruce and Julie Sculthorpe brought the property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace from Mary Lynn Netzel, for $25,063.50. As a result of this transaction, Ms. Gee received a commission in the amount of $2,500. The Sculthorpes bought the property without seeing it. On or about February 8, 2005, the Sculthorpes listed their property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace, Crystal River, Florida, with Ms. Gee. The exclusive listing agreement indicates that the sale price for the property was $75,000 and that the Sculthorpes agreed to pay Ms. Gee a 10 percent commission. Later in February 2005, Mr. Sculthorpe learned that Respondent worked for Ms. Gee. Neither Ms. Gee nor Respondent ever represented to the Sculthorpes that Respondent was a licensed real estate agent. In March or April of 2005, Julie Sculthorpe came to Florida to see the property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace for the first and only time. Ms. Sculthorpe made the trip with two female friends. Ms. Sculthorpe was over an hour late to her appointment with Ms. Gee who had another appointment pending. Ms. Gee understood that Ms. Sculthorpe just wanted to see her property and was not interested in purchasing property or doing any business. Ms. Gee introduced Ms. Sculthorpe to Respondent as her secretary/assistant. Ms. Gee asked Respondent to use Ms. Gee's van to take Ms. Sculthorpe and her friends to see the Sculthorpes' property and the surrounding properties because they were unfamiliar with the area. Respondent did not "show" Ms. Sculthorpe other properties with the intent to interest the Sculthorpes in future purchases. The trip consisted of going to 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace and back without stopping anywhere else to look at property. During the trip to 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace, Ms. Sculthorpe was not impressed with the surrounding property. She indicated that she and her husband would not be interested in property that looked like "Sanford and Son," with "trailers and license plates in their decorative stuff all over the front of their yards and stuff." Respondent did not advise Ms. Sculthorpe to lower the price on the property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace in order to sell it quickly. Ms. Gee eventually made that suggestion to the Sculthorpes. The record is silent regarding the circumstances of the Sculthorpes’ purchase of property in the Waterman subdivision. On or about June 28, 2005, the Sculthorpes listed their properties, Lots 206 and 207, in the Waterman Subdivision, Crystal River, Florida, with Ms. Gee. The listing price for each lot was $175,000. The Sculthorpes agreed to pay Ms. Gee a commission in the amount of 8 percent on each lot. On or about August 1, 2005, Gustavo Roperto and Nathalie Roperto of West Palm Beach, Florida, bought property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace, Crystal River, Florida, from the Sculthorpes for the contract sales price of $70,000. As a result of this transaction, Tradewinds Realty and Exit Realty, of Naples, Florida, each received $2,800 in commission. The Sculthorpes made about $40,000 in profit in about six-months time. Ms. Gee negotiated the sale price of the property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace. Respondent's only involvement in the sale was in facilitating communication between the Sculthorpes and Ms. Gee. Respondent did not locate the buyers, Mr. and Mrs. Roperto, or make any decision or make any statement about the property to the Sculthorpes, other than as instructed by Ms. Gee. On September 3, 2005, Julie Sculthorpe's son died. Mr. Sculthrope had subsequent conversations with Respondent regarding the need to find a home for the deceased son's dogs. Later, Mr. Sculthorpe talked to Respondent about other personal matters, like finding a Christmas gift for his wife, Julie Sculthorpe. On or about September 21, 2005, the Sculthorpes signed a contract to purchase property located at 1106 South Ozello Trail in Citrus County, Florida, from Willard Radcliffs of Brooksville, Florida. The property is also described as Lots 9 and 10, St. Martians Esturary Retreats, Unit 1, in Citrus County, Florida. The Sculthorpes agreed to pay Mr. Radcliffs $285,000.00 for the property. The sales contract indicated that Tradewinds Realty would receive commissions as the selling and listing real estate agent. The sale of the property located at 1106 South Ozello Trail closed on October 27, 2005, giving the Sculthorpes title to the property. Tradewinds Realty received a commission in the amount of $17,000 for the sale of the property. On or about October 7, 2005, the St. Lucie Development Corporation, located in Vero Beach, Florida, bought property described as Lot 206, Waterman Subdivision in Crystal River, Florida, from the Sculthorpes for the contract sales price of $160,000. As a result of this transaction, Tradewinds Realty and Kevin S. Hawkins each received commissions in the amount of $6,400. On or about October 7, 2005, Orion Property and Sales, Inc., located in Ft. Pierce, Florida, bought property described as Lot 207, Waterman Subdivision in Crystal River, Florida, from the Sculthorpes for the contract sales price of $160,000. As a result of this transaction, Tradewinds Realty and Kevin S. Hawkins each received commissions in the amount of $6,400. Lots 206 and 207, located in the Waterman Subdivision in Crystal River, Florida, are sometimes referred to in the record as the Hunt Point Lots. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent had any involvement in the sale of the Hunt Point property to St. Lucie Development Corporation and to Orion Property and Sales, Inc., other than as instructed by Ms. Gee. On or about November 15, 2005, the Sculthorpes listed the property located at 1106 Ozello Trail (Lots 9 and 10 in St. Martians Estuary Retreats) for sale with Ms. Gee. The Sculthorpes signed on exclusive listing agreement to sell Lot 9 for $249,000. They signed another exclusive listing agreement to sell Lot 10 for $249,000. In both agreements, the Sculthorpes agreed to pay Ms. Gee a commission in the amount of 8 percent. Ms. Gee subsequently advertised Lot 9 in St. Martians Estuary Retreats as for sale for $214,000. At the time of the hearing, the Sculthorpes still owned the property located at 1106 Ozello Trail (Lots 9 and 10 in St. Martins Esturary Retreats). When the Sculthorpes purchased the property at 1106 Ozello Trail, there was a stilt house on one lot and a screened enclosure with a fireplace on the other lot. The Sculthorpes paid to have both structures removed before listing the lots for sale. Respondent was not involved in finding someone to remove the structures for Bruce and Julie Sculthorpe. Respondent began working part-time for another real estate broker/developer, John Holdsworth, sometime toward the end of 2005. Mr. Holdsworth owned a restaurant across the street from Ms. Gee's office. Mr. Holdsworth hired Respondent to manage the restaurant because of her prior experience owning and operating a pizzeria. Ms. Gee and Mr. Holdsworth paid Respondent by the hour for time spent in each respective business. Ms. Gee hired another secretary around December 2005, to do the work Respondent no longer had time to do. During his business relationship with Ms. Gee, Mr. Sculthorpe would call her, repeatedly asking, "What's next?" He also called Respondent repeatedly, wanting information about his properties or just to discuss his personal life. Mr. Sculthorpe used e-mail and Instant Messaging so much that, on one occasion, Ms. Gee instructed Respondent to turn off the computer so she could get other work done. Ms. Gee and Respondent were not the only people in the office answering Mr. Sculthorpe's calls. Other secretaries in the office answered some of the calls. On some occasions, the office staff would look at each other and ask who wanted to take the call. On other occasions, Respondent placed Mr. Sculthorpe's call on speakerphone. Mr. Sculthorpe "would talk and talk and talk and talk" while Respondent continued to do her work. At some point in time, Mr. Sculthorpe advised Respondent that he did not like paying commissions to Ms. Gee. Respondent then recommended that Mr. Sculthorpe take the same real estate licensure course that she was taking. Respondent gave Mr. Sculthorpe the web site for the real estate school. At some point in time, Mr. Sculthorpe's sister-in-law, Linda Wilkinson went to Crystal River. Ms. Wilkinson was a real estate agent in another state. Ms. Gee showed Ms. Wilkinson some property located in an area known as Bimini Bay. Respondent never met with or talked to Ms. Wilkinson. During the hearing, Mr. Sculthorpe testified that Respondent encouraged him to buy another piece of property. According to Mr. Sculthorpe, Respondent asked him to refer her to another buyer after he refused to buy the property. Mr. Sculthorpe's testimony in this regard is not persuasive. Toward the end of the Sculthorpes' relationship with Ms. Gee, Respondent was still working only part-time with Ms. Gee. After Mr. Holdsworth closed the restaurant, Respondent continued to work for Ms. Gee. In June 2006, Ms. Gee moved Respondent from the Ozello office to a new office that became Ms. Gee's primary office. In June 2007, Respondent quit working for Ms. Gee because she could no longer afford to pay Respondent a salary. At $33 per hour for an investigator's time, Petitioner spent $412.50 investigating this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is Recommended: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Leigh Blakeman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Cara S. Cacioppo 5756 West Costa Mesa Lane Beverly Hills, Florida 34465 Heather A. Rutecki, Esquire Rutecki & Associates, P.A. Bank of America Tower 100 Southeast Second Street, Suite 2950 Miami, Florida 33131 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
