The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, William D. Manser (Respondent) was licensed in Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number BK 0427410. Respondent was a broker/officer of United Equity Marketing, Inc., located at 6635 West Commercial Boulevard, Tamarac, Florida. Since October 1, 1995, his broker's license has not been on an active status due to non-renewal of the corporate registration. By warranty deed dated February 14, 1992, James and Angela Cunduff became owners of property located at 6531 Southwest Seventh Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. By Articles of Agreement for Deed dated February 25, 1992, James and Angela Cunduff agreed to convey the property to Respondent's corporation, United Capital Networks, Inc., if certain conditions were complied with. The conditions included Respondent's corporation making all the mortgage payments and paying the taxes on the property, and keeping the buildings on the property properly insured. In return, James and Angela Cunduff agreed, among other things, to execute a warranty deed to Respondent's corporation and to place the warranty deed in escrow. Respondent and the Cunduffs agreed that the Articles of Agreement for Deed would not be recorded. Respondent looked upon himself and conducted his actions as the owner of the property at 6531 Southwest Seventh Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On October 31, 1995, Mary J. Augustine signed a lease agreement for the rental of a portion of the home, the rear of the home, located at 6531 Southwest Seventh Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The rear area of the home had its own entrance. The rental was for one year, beginning November 15, 1995, and ending October 30, 1996. Respondent used part of the home as a storage area. At the front of the home, there were two separate entrances. One of the separate entrances was for the storage area. The other separate entrance was for another area of the home. The lease agreement indicated United Equity Markets, Inc., as the managing agent of the property. The lease agreement required signatures of the "Tenant" and the "Lessor." Ms. Augustine signed the lease as "Tenant," and Respondent signed as "Lessor," adding the word "Agent" next to his signature. United Equity Markets, Inc., is Respondent's corporation. Prior to the signing of the lease, Respondent had met with Ms. Augustine at the house at least twice before she signed the lease agreement. Respondent represented himself as the manager of the property. The home was listed as a single-family residence. Ms. Augustine believed that the home would be occupied by Respondent, another tenant, and herself. The evidence is insufficient to show and make a finding that three families would live or had lived at the home. In accordance with the lease agreement, Ms. Augustine gave Respondent $1,290, as a security deposit. Ms. Augustine had also given Respondent, prior to the security deposit, $645 for the first month's rent. Ms. Augustine wanted to move into the rear portion of the home approximately two weeks prior to the beginning of the rental period. Respondent agreed that Ms. Augustine could have access to the home and clean the rear area where she was going to reside. Ms. Augustine had problems with, such things as, the refrigerator, oven, and swimming pool. She decided not to rent the home. Ms. Augustine demanded her deposit and first month's rent from Respondent. However, he refused to return the monies. The lease agreement contained a default provision, providing for the recovery of damages by the lessor if the tenant defaulted. The lease agreement also contained a security provision, providing for the non-refundable nature of the security deposit under certain conditions, including termination of the lease prior to its expiration. Ms. Augustine attempted but could not contact Respondent at his office because he had closed his office prior to October 1995. Ms. Augustine attempted also to contact Respondent at the telephone number that he had provided her, which was his home number. She was again unsuccessful due to Respondent having his telephone disconnected because he had gone to New York to care for his ill sister. Respondent did not provide Ms. Augustine with an accounting of the monies. Respondent was conducting his own personal real estate transaction with Ms. Augustine.
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 the Administrative Complaint against William D. Manser. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 24th day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondents' Florida real estate licenses should be disciplined based on allegations that they were guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealings by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction; failed to account or deliver trust funds; placed, or caused to be placed any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, affidavit or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property if the same is known to be false or not authorized to be placed of record, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person or for any unlawful purpose; failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage account or some other depository until properly disbursed; had funds in an escrow account which were personal funds; failed to preserve and make available to Petitioner, books, records and supporting documents of all trust fund transactions; and used an identification of an organization having to do with real estate when it was not authorized to do so all in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (k) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes and rule sections 21V-14.008 and 21V-10.027, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is the state licensing and regulatory agency in Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints in the field of real estate. Respondent, Affirmative Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a real estate broker in Florida having been issued licensed No. 0267334 and the last license issued was at the address of 4815 East Busch Boulevard, Suite 201F, Tampa, Florida. During times material, Respondent, Sharon Ann Rozelle, was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Respondent, Affirmative Realty, Inc. having been issued license No. 0541685. On October 26, 1990, Respondents solicited and obtained a property management agreement with Mark Clesi to manage rental units that he owned (a duplex) located at 10118 North 14th Street in Tampa. On June 17, 1991, Respondents solicited and obtained a tenant for Unit A of Clesi's duplex. The lease reflected $300.00 as monthly rent with a $200.00 security deposit to be held in trust by Respondents. On October 12, 1991, Respondents obtained a tenant for Unit B of Clesi's duplex. The lease reflected $280.00 per month as rent with a $200.00 security deposit which was also held in trust by Respondents. The property management agreement in effect between Respondents and Clesi required Respondents to obtain prior approval before making repairs to Clesi's property. The agreement also called for repairs to be made "as needed". Also, Respondent was required to send monthly reports advising Clesi of monies expended toward the apartment for repairs, management fees and rents collected. During June, 1991, Clesi was not receiving reports on a timely basis and therefore requested that Respondent forward such reports in order that he could timely review them. During the period when Respondent served as property manager for Clesi's property, it became necessary for Respondent Rozelle to evict a tenant. The eviction came about as a result of the tenant failing to pay rent. In an effort to force the tenant from the property, Clesi turned off the water service to the property for a period of approximately three months. Clesi did so in an effort to informally evict the tenant. When Clesi's effort proved unsuccessful, Respondent initiated formal eviction proceedings. Throughout the course of the eviction proceedings, Respondent made at least six (6) trips to attend various hearings and motions. For her efforts, Respondent charged Clesi a $300.00 service fee which appears reasonable. After the tenant was evicted, the apartment was extensively damaged and required extensive repairs to make it suitable for human occupancy. Clesi approved the repairs that were necessary to enable the duplex to be rented. Based on the condition of the apartment after the tenant was evicted, it appeared that the evicted tenant had cooked over a charcoal fire for months inside the duplex. Also, there was raw human excrement over the entire bathroom and walls throughout the apartment. The entire apartment had to be sterilized and repainted prior to releasing. The Hillsborough County Health Department issued a notice which banned the duplex from human occupancy until certain specified violations were corrected. Respondent made the necessary repairs and charged Respondent for making them. Although Clesi maintains that he did not authorize all of the repairs that Respondent made, it is more probable than not that he, in fact, authorized the repairs as he was desirous of repairing the property so that he could rent the apartment again. The maintenance company which performed the repairs was "Rozelle's maintenance", a company which was owned by Respondent. There was no effort on Respondent's part to hide the fact that she owned the company as the invoices sent to Clesi clearly reflected the fact that the repair work was done by Rozelle's maintenance. Although it is clear that Respondent and Clesi had disagreements on the extent of repairs needed to make the duplex suitable for human occupancy, Clesi paid for all of the repairs with the exception of a kitchen sink which he contends was replaced simply because it was not shiny. On the other hand, Respondent credibly testified that it was more than the appearance of the sink which needed repairs i.e., the drain was leaking, it was rusty and was causing further damage to the cabinets in the kitchen. Despite the fact that Respondent replaced the sink and Clesi refused to pay, Respondent deducted the amount charged for replacing the sink from Clesi's bill and did not remove it from the unit. Clesi filed a civil claim in Hillsborough County Court seeking $1,411.04 contending that Respondent sent him invoices for unauthorized maintenance charges and fees between June of 1991 and February of 1992. Clesi was unsuccessful in that lawsuit as it was judicially determined that Respondent did not owe Clesi any money based on his claim. On February 7, 1992, Respondent Rozelle filed a claim of lien with the Hillsborough County Circuit Court against Clesi's property for payment of services and Respondent's management of Clesi's duplex. Additionally, Respondent filed five other claims of lien against other owners for property management services. All of these claims of lien have since been released and were done forthwith when Respondent was advised that, despite legal advice to the contrary, it was improper and unlawful for her to do so since the claim of lien included a management fee. On March 14, 1991, Petitioner's investigator, Marjorie G. May, conducted an office inspection and audit of Respondent's escrow accounts based upon records provided (by Respondents). At the time, Respondent's security deposit escrow account maintained at First Union National Bank in Tampa had a trust liability of $350.00 and a bank balance of $270.00 indicating a shortage of approximately $80.00. This shortage came about based on the fact that, unbeknowst to Respondent, her bank debited her account a fee for checks. When these fees came to Respondent's knowledge, she immediately replaced the $79.97 which restored the account to a non-shortage status. The audit also revealed that Respondent's rental distribution escrow account had a zero trust liability but contained $633.00 which appeared to have been Respondent's personal funds. Part of the overage came about based on the fact that Respondent made a required $200.00 initial deposit (her personal money) to keep the account open and maintained at the bank. The remaining balance was part of a shared commission which Respondent was in the process of disbursing to the proper real estate agent. Respondents failed to prepare signed written monthly escrow statement- reconciliations comparing total trust liability with reconciled bank balances of all trust accounts. These reconciliation statements were not filed as charges against Respondents inasmuch as Respondents were new brokers. As such, these matters are not at issue in this proceeding. On April 2, 1992, Petitioner's investigator, J. L. Graham (Scholtz), scheduled an office inspection and audit for Respondent's brokerage activities. This audit was not conducted as Respondent had car trouble on that day and was unable to reschedule it prior to the time that Investigator Graham appeared at Respondent's office. Approximately three weeks later, April 23, 1992, Investigator Graham made on unscheduled visit at Respondent's office. The audit revealed that some of the bank and accounting records which investigator Graham needed were not at the office as Respondent had taken some of the bank and accounting records to her home after the office was burglarized. Another audit inspection was to be conducted two days later but Respondent was unable to keep that appointment because of a scheduling conflict with an appointment with her attorney. On April 21, 1991, Respondent resigned from the Greater Tampa Association of Realtors (the Association). Respondent's name continued to be carried on the Association's roll because her dues were paid through the end of the 1991 calendar year. Respondent utilized the Association's stationery after her resignation during 1991 but whited out the association's letterhead designation on most of the correspondence which left her office. On occasion, a few letters were inadvertently sent out with the Association's letterhead however there was no attempt by Respondent to defraud or otherwise hold herself out as a member of the Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent Rozelle be required to pay a fine of $500.00 payable within thirty days of the entry of the Final Order herein. This recommendation is premised on the finding herein that Respondents filed unlawful liens affecting the title to Clesi's property in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Mark A. Neumaier, Esquire Post Office Box 8623 Tampa, Florida 33674-8623
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), by failing to disclose that a tenant was her son, by failing to collect a required security deposit, and by acting as the agent for the tenant rather than the landlord. (All reference to Chapters and Sections are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of real estate. Respondent is licensed as a real estate broker pursuant to license number 0480790. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed by Norris Realty, Inc. ("Norris"). In March 1990, Mr. and Mrs. George and Margaret Nichols entered into a property management agreement with Norris. Respondent was aware of the management agreement. Norris was the agent for the Nichols and assumed all duties owed to a principal by an agent. The managing broker was Mr. Alan Norrie. On March 22, 1996, Mr. Norrie died, and Respondent assumed responsibility as the broker/office manager for Norris. Respondent had no experience managing a real estate office at the time. She continued in that role for approximately seven months. During the time Respondent was the broker/office manager for Norris, another agent for Norris obtained a lease from Mr. Joseph McGee to rent the Nichol's property. There were no written amendments made to the lease during the time Respondent was the broker/office manager of Norris. The lease required all rents and other monies to be paid to Norris. The tenant was to deposit with Norris a $750.00 security deposit and the last month's rent of $750.00 prior to occupying the property. Respondent failed to disclose to the Nichols that the tenant was her son. The lease does not disclose the relationship of the tenant to the broker/office manager of Norris. The Nichols did not learn that the tenant was Respondent's son until March or April of 1997, approximately four months after the tenant occupied the rental property. Respondent permitted the tenant to move into the property without collecting either the security deposit or last month's rent from the tenant. Respondent failed to disclose to the Nichols that the tenant had paid neither the security deposit nor the last month's rent. Shortly after occupying the property, the tenant failed to pay further rent. A judgment of eviction was eventually entered against the tenant. The tenant vacated the property and took the stove that was in the rental property. Respondent acted as her son's agent in the rental transaction. By letter dated May 21, 1997, the Nichols filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner. During the formal hearing, Respondent admitted to being negligent regarding the transaction in question and acting as her son's agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), reprimanding Respondent, requiring Respondent to complete continuing education relevant to the specific offenses, and either imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 or requiring restitution to the Nichols. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Dorothy A. McGee pro se 109 11th Avenue Indiatlantic, Florida 32801
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was subjected to a discriminatory employment action on account of her race (black) and her disability ("severe asthmatic"). See, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, GAB Business Services, Inc. (GAB), is an insurance adjusting firm engaged in the business of adjusting insurance claims on a nationwide basis. At times pertinent hereto, it maintained a number of offices in Florida, also called "branches", one of which was located in Jacksonville, Florida, at which the Petitioner was employed at times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner was hired in March of 1985 and worked until May 31, 1992, when she was terminated because of a reduction in force enacted on a company-wide basis. Brian Sigman was appointed Branch Manager of the Jacksonville office, where the Petitioner was employed, on November 15, 1989 and served there in that capacity until May 1, 1991. After arriving as Branch Manager, he tried to assign the Petitioner property claim files and she told him that she did not want to do property insurance claims but never gave as a reason that she had an illness or disability which precluded her from handling such claims. Rather, she informed Mr. Sigman that she had a hard time visualizing hidden, structural elements of a building, such as what was behind a building wall, and, therefore, had a difficult time adjusting property insurance claims. Because at the time, in 1989, Mr. Sigman had six adjusters working in the office, he was able to give property insurance claim files to other adjusters to handle and let the Petitioner handle only casualty claims as she desired. She never informed him that she was unable to handle property claims because of asthma or other medical problems and never applied during that time for an accommodation for a disability. Mr. Sigman became aware at some point during his tenure that the Petitioner was being treated for allergies, but she never informed him of the effect of her allergies, as it related to the question of her handling property claims. There had been approximately six or more adjusters in the office since the Petitioner became employed there in 1985. Consequently, because of her aversion to handling property insurance claims, the Petitioner had been typically permitted to adjust only casualty claims, even before Mr. Sigman's tenure, since there were sufficient other adjusters in the office to handle the property claims. Property insurance claims generally deal with losses to a building while casualty claims most frequently involve third-party losses. Thus, the vast majority of the Petitioner's experience in working for the Respondent involved the handling of only casualty claims, with very little experience handling property insurance claims. In March 1991, Mr. Almus Shivley became the Branch Manager of GAB in Tampa, Florida. The Tampa branch included under its authority offices in Ft. Myers, Sarasota, Lakeland, Gainesville, and Jacksonville. All of the offices outside of Tampa are satellite offices, and each has a Supervising Adjuster supervising that office. A Supervising Adjuster reports directly to Mr. Shivley. Mr. Sigman was a Supervising Adjuster when Mr. Shivley became the Branch Manager in Tampa. When Mr. Shivley took over as Branch Manager working out of the Tampa branch office in 1991, he learned that the Petitioner was only handling casualty claims. He learned of this when she was asked to work property insurance claims and she declined to do so. She explained that she had asthma, and that various materials and smoke usually attendant to fire damage claims and locations, would, she feared, aggravate her asthmatic condition. Mr. Shivley accepted her representations to this effect and allowed her, for the time being, to work only casualty claims. The testimony of Sheila King establishes that as recently as February 1990, when she and the Branch Manager met with the Petitioner to ask her to handle property claims, she had made no mention of the asthma condition. Mr. George Walsh is in charge of the national operations of GAB, as they concern equal opportunity, affirmative action, salary administration and other personnel-type functions involving human resources. Mr. Walsh was involved with the hiring of the Petitioner and established that the Petitioner made no mention of the fact that she had any disability during the pre-hiring interview. The application form which the Petitioner executed and filed at the time of her hiring in 1985 contained a question concerning whether she had any disability which would restrict her ability to perform the job. She specifically answered "no" to that question. Mr. Walsh thereafter had no contact with the Petitioner until October 31, 1991, when she filed a "disability survey" form with him. A disability survey is a request by an employee for a disability accommodation, which can only be granted by the home office of the Respondent corporation. Mr. Walsh established that this was the first time he had any knowledge that the Petitioner had any sort of handicap of disability. He stated in his testimony that her job was thereupon analyzed in great detail because her request "went directly to the heart of our business". That is, the Petitioner was requesting the accommodation of not having to perform property insurance claims adjusting, which is a major portion of GAB's business since GAB is in the sole business of adjusting property and casualty insurance claims. In any event, Mr. Walsh reviewed her request under the appropriate company policies and determined that the number of casualty assignments and the work that the company was receiving was on a severely-declining trend in the Jacksonville office and, indeed, nationwide. He determined, however, to grant the accommodation to the Petitioner but informed her that "we could not guarantee that there would be enough casualty work in the future to allow her to perform only casualty work and still be a productive member of the office." In May of 1992, Mr. Shivley, the Branch Manager, made a recommendation to his superiors with the Respondent that the working force in Jacksonville be reduced because of a severe decline in business in that office. Prior to May of 1992, when the reduction in force took effect, there were already only three employees working in Jacksonville. After the reduction in force, only Mike Robinson, the Supervising Adjuster, who managed that office, remained. Almost two years after the reduction in force, at the time of the hearing, Mr. Robinson is still the only GAB employee in the Jacksonville office. The Petitioner, a black female, and Mr. Clark, a white male, were terminated as part of the reduction in force. Numerous offices of GAB, other than the one in Jacksonville, had suffered substantial reductions in force. A few years previously, the company had employed approximately 5,000 adjusters nationwide; and at the time of the hearing in this proceeding, it employed fewer than 2,000 adjusters nationwide. The Petitioner, upon being advised of her termination due to the reduction in force, was not offered a transfer nor requested to relocate by the Respondent. She was, however, offered an employment position in the company's Atlanta, Georgia, branch office. Under regular and customary company policy, when employees are transferred, the company pays relocation expenses, where appropriate. Since the Petitioner herein was terminated, the Respondent was under no obligation to pay relocation expenses if she took the offered position in the Atlanta office. Nevertheless, the Atlanta branch office offered her $3,000.00 in relocation expenses. Further, the job offered was one which accommodated her stated disability, being an "inside liability adjuster" position, handling only casualty claims. That was the type of work which she was performing in Jacksonville at her own request. The Petitioner took the position that the relocation expenses were insufficient for her to afford to move and refused the offer of employment. It was eventually accepted by a white female, who accepted the same amount of relocation financial assistance that had been offered to the Petitioner. Further, when Mike Robinson, the Supervising Adjuster in the Jacksonville office, was transferred to that office from Dallas, Texas, a much more distant location than Atlanta, he was only offered and paid $1,000.00 in relocation expenses. Mr. Robinson is a white male. In addition to Mr. Robinson, the testimony of Ms. Sheila King, the Human Resource Officer (Personnel Manager) for the Florida offices of GAB, establishes that two other employees were given only $1,000.00 for moving expenses, a black male and a white male. In conjunction with the reduction in force, the Petitioner and the white male, Mr. Clark, were terminated from the Jacksonville office because the volume of business did not justify any employees, other than the Supervising Adjuster. At the time of the hearing, some two years after the reduction in force, no employees have been hired to replace them. In fact, no employees have been hired at all, because the business volume only justifies the presence of the Supervising Adjuster and clerical staff in that office. GAB's offices in Florida, other than Tampa, are satellite offices and each has a Supervising Adjuster supervising the business and the employees of that office. Each Supervising Adjuster reports to Mr. Shivley, the Branch Manager in the Tampa office. In the summer of 1991, Brian Sigman left his position as Supervising Adjuster in the Jacksonville office, leaving an opening. The Petitioner applied for that position, among other employees who sought the promotion. Mr. Shivley recommended to his superiors that Adjuster Nan Hendricks become the Supervising Adjuster to replace Mr. Sigman. He found that Ms. Hendricks was an extremely good adjuster, being a multi-line adjuster handling a large volume of both property and casualty claims. She was a good performer at the functions of marketing, public relations, and generating new business. A multi-line adjuster is one who can handle any type of claim assigned to the Respondent's offices. The two most numerous types of claims handled by GAB are property and casualty claims, as described above. In considering who to hire for that position and ultimately deciding on Ms. Hendricks, the Respondent and Mr. Shivley determined that the Petitioner had little experience as a multi- line adjuster, even though she was so licensed, because she had handled almost entirely casualty claims, because of her own request that she not be given property damage claims. The Supervising Adjuster has to supervise the quality of the work performed by all adjusters and employees at the office. If an adjuster cannot work a property insurance claim, then the adjuster can gain no relevant experience performing such claims adjustment. A Supervising Adjuster needs to have had experience in performing such claims adjustment and performing adjustments of all types of claims. Mr. Shivley testified to this effect, saying "the Supervising Adjuster has to supervise the quality of the work that's going out of the office. If she can't work a property file, and if she can't handle a property file, then she can't supervise one". There is a regular and normally-followed company policy that, in considering who to place in supervising adjusting positions, such a person has to have had substantial experience handling all types of claims handled by GAB. The Petitioner did not have that type of experience and thus although she was considered for the position, she was found not to be qualified for it. Further, the Petitioner's performance, and evaluations of her performance, showed deficiencies over the period of time she was employed in the Jacksonville office. She was deficient in the areas of marketing, public relations, and generating new business, which, when coupled with the fact that she had no real, substantial, property claim adjustment experience, showed that she was not qualified for the promotion. Nan Hendricks left the employ of GAB after a short time as Supervising Adjuster in the Jacksonville office. When she left in 1991, she left because she was dissatisfied with the work of the office in terms of the rapidly- declining volume of business and the fact that both the Petitioner and Mr. Clark were performing their work in a sub-standard fashion. When she left the employ of GAB, Mr. Shivley recommended to his superiors that the position be awarded to Mike Robinson, who was then working in the Dallas, Texas, office of GAB. Mr. Shivley had experience with Mr. Robinson's capacity and abilities to work in a multi-line adjustment position and with the quantity and quality of his knowledge and experience at the job. He found him well-qualified for the position of Supervising Adjuster, due partially to his extensive experience in multi-line adjusting. The Petitioner was considered for the position but was not deemed to be qualified because she did not have significant experience as a multi-line adjuster and did not meet the qualifications, as explained more particularly in the above Findings of Fact, concerning the decision to promote Nan Hendricks as Supervising Adjuster. There has been no showing that the decision to terminate the Petitioner or the decision concerning the manner and amount of offered payment of her re-location expenses, had she taken the Atlanta job, was motivated by any discriminatory intent on account of her race or disability. In fact, the Respondent amply demonstrated that the termination was due to a legitimate reduction in force caused by loss of business in the Jacksonville office. The Petitioner's position was not later filled by another employee. Nevertheless, the company, without being required to do so, voluntarily offered the Petitioner a position in its Atlanta office at no reduction in salary. This position would even accommodate her disability by allowing her to only process casualty claims, even though the Respondent had a legitimate basis for terminating the Petitioner without any recourse, due to the reasons justifying the reduction in force. Further, the two promotions, one accorded to Nan Hendricks, a white female, and one to Mike Robinson, a white male, of which the Petitioner complains, were given to those two employees based upon their superior job performance and superior experience in being able to handle all types of insurance claim adjusting work. The Petitioner was shown to clearly not be so qualified. The Respondent's lack of discriminatory intent in terms of the Petitioner's race or disability was further demonstrated by the fact that a white female, a white male, and a black male were only offered and paid $1,000.00 in re-location expenses, when they moved their place of employment to distant offices in the company, especially Mike Robinson, who transferred to Jacksonville, Florida, all the way from Dallas, Texas. The Petitioner, however, was offered $3,000.00 to relocate from Jacksonville, Florida, to Atlanta, Georgia, when the company was not even obligated to offer any relocation expense, since the Petitioner's job offer in Atlanta did not involve a company- required transfer. Rather, it was a job merely offered to accommodate the Petitioner and to assist her in obtaining employment when she had to be terminated from the Jacksonville office. It has simply not been demonstrated that any of the employment actions of which the Petitioner complains and which are delineated in the above Findings of Fact were motivated by any discriminatory motive directed at the Petitioner's race or disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1994, 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 11th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4399 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-17. Accepted, except to the extent that they differ or are subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the same subject matter. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are stricken and rejected on the basis that they were not timely submitted and the motion requesting extension of time for their submission was substantially late. COPIES FURNISHED: Reginald Estell, Jr., Esquire 816 Broad Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kalvin M. Grove, Esquire FOX AND GROVE 360 Central Avenue, 11th Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner received appropriate relocation assistance for her home and business as a result of the Department’s taking.
Findings Of Fact For several years during the mid to late 1990’s, and specifically during 1996 and 1997, the Department of Transportation was engaged in acquiring property in Pasco County, Florida, for the construction of the Suncoast Parkway, a new corridor which, when completed, will extend approximately 42 miles from the Veteran’s Expressway in Hillsborough County in the south to a connection with US Highway 98 in Hernando County in the north. In support of that project, it became necessary for the Department to acquire approximately 639 individually owned parcels of land. To facilitate the planning for and purchase of this property, the Department utilized the services of several engineering firms, including the firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., (PBS&J). PBS&J’s manager for this project was Norris Smith, who has been employed with the company in this type of work for approximately eight years. PBS&J, as general consultant for the Turnpike District, also manages other firms working on road construction projects for the Department. Included among these firms utilized on the Suncoast Parkway project were Gulf Coast Property Acquisitions (Gulf Coast), and Universal Field Services (Universal). In acquiring the identified individual parcels which make up a specific project, the procedure usually followed calls for a relocation specialist to make the original calculation of the relocation payment to the property owner. This calculation is then put through a review process during which it is evaluated for approval by the project manager. In the instant case, the initial relocation specialist was Gary South, an employee of Gulf Coast, who made the initial relocation contact with the Petitioner. However, Mr. South took ill in January 1997, and was replaced on this project by David Cole. Mr. Cole has worked with Gulf Coast as a relocation specialist since 1993, and, since 1970, has worked as a relocation specialist under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (Act) in five states. He has participated in relocations involved in approximately 70 parcel acquisitions on the Suncoast Parkway project. Relocations of individuals displaced as a result of property acquisitions for road construction are accomplished under the guidelines of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Program memorialized in 24 C.F.R., Part 24. These guidelines have been adopted by the State of Florida and are incorporated in the Department of Transportation’s Rule 14-66. Once the Department is tasked to undertake a construction project in which land is to be acquired or businesses are to be relocated, it conducts one or more public hearings in the area of development to explain the scope and dimensions of the project. After that, relocation specialists visit each residence and business to speak with the resident or business owner and conduct a needs assessment survey which is supposed to be used as a guide to determine the type of relocation assistance necessary. It is at this visit that the relocation specialist provides the resident or business owner with a relocation brochure which explains the process and the displacee’s rights and responsibilities in detail. The displacee’s prior term of tenancy of the property determines his/her eligibility level for relocation assistance payments. If the resident/occupant has been in the property for 180 days or more, he or she is eligible for relocation payments of up to $22,500 in addition to benefits to cover moving personal property to the new dwelling. If the resident/occupant has been a tenant in place for 90 to 179 days, he or she is eligible for a rental assistance payment not to exceed $2,500 which may be used either FOR rent payments on a replacement rental property or as a down payment on the purchase of a new home. Consistent with the described procedure, Gary South conducted the needs assessment survey of Petitioner’s household in February 1996 during which he informed Ms. Dornseif of the relocation services available. It was determined during that survey that there were two residences as well as three business on the Dornseif property. One of the residences was occupied by Petitioner and her family. The other residence was occupied by Petitioner’s father, Mr. DeClue. Mr. DeClue was determined to be a 180-day homeowner/occupant eligible for benefits, while Petitioner was classified as a 90-day tenant and eligible for rental assistance payments and move costs. This information was conveyed to Petitioner by Mr. South. After Mr. South became ill and Mr. Cole took over from him as relocation specialist for this property, Mr. Cole met with Petitioner to update the survey and determine that the information previously developed by Mr. South was still accurate. Cole also reiterated the relevant information regarding the relocation advisory services for which Petitioner was eligible. Included in this advice was the information regarding rental assistance payments, as well as the information necessary to calculate that figure. Mr. Cole specifically advised Petitioner that she could utilize the rental assistance payment as down payment on a home. In connection with this move, Mr. Cole updated the household survey relating to the number of people in the home and the number of rooms contained in the house. He also delivered to Petitioner the residential relocation brochure, explained his participation in the process, and delivered the original Notice of Eligibility. He also delivered a statement of eligibility and gave Petitioner a briefing of the amount of money available as a rent supplement and how it was calculated. In addition, he provided Petitioner with a list of available properties. In addition to the verbal communication by Mr. Cole, all the pertinent and necessary information regarding relocation assistance was also included with a Notice of Eligibility which the Department served on Petitioner on July 19, 1996. By this notice, Petitioner was advised of her eligibility for a relocation assistance payment, but because the specific amount of payment is dependent upon financial input from the individual being displaced, the exact dollar amount of the payment may not be available when the eligibility notice is issued. That was the case here. Ms. Dornseif acknowledged receipt of her Notice of Eligibility on July 19, 1996, but because she had not submitted all relevant and required financial information to the Department by the time of eligibility determination, the exact amount of payment had not been determined. Petitioner was informed of that fact and the reason for it. In fact, the required rental and income information needed to calculate the amount of payment to be made was not received by the Department until approximately one year later, when it was submitted by Petitioner’s attorney. Once the required financial information was received by the Department, however, a revised Notice of Eligibility was issued on June 17, 1997, which included the amount to be paid by the Department. According to the Department’s calculations, based on information submitted by the Petitioner, Ms. Dornseif was to receive a rental assistance payment of $7,440.12. This figure was based on the difference between the rental and utility costs at the former dwelling and the rental plus utility costs at the replacement dwelling. Under the formula for calculating payment, the difference is multiplied by 42 so as to provide displacement costs to cover 42 months. In implementing the formula, the replacement rental is based on the rental costs of a comparable dwelling on the market at the time of the assessment. It appears that though the land on which the mobile home occupied by Petitioner was located was owned by her, her husband, and her father, Mr. DeClue, the actual residence was owned by her father. It was for that reason that Petitioner was eligible for the rental supplement as opposed to the other allowance. She claims she made all this information known to the Department in advance and was assured it was “OK,” but now asserts she did not know, and was not told at the time, that there was a maximum for rental supplements. The maximum cap for rental assistance payments is set by law at $5,250. This is less than the amount received by the Petitioner. However, there is a provision in the law for exceeding the cap upon justification by the Department in writing to the federal government. Because of market conditions at the time of the search for comparables for Petitioner, the comparable used in the calculation was the best available. This information regarding the regulatory cap, the calculations made in this case, and the effect that current market conditions had on the calculations, were explained to Petitioner by Mr. Cole. With regard to the actual move by Petitioner from the former residence to the replacement dwelling, Petitioner after being fully briefed both in writing and by Mr. Cole on the procedure to be followed, chose to be reimbursed for the actual costs of the move by a commercial mover. She was instructed to obtain estimates from two commercial movers and advised she would be reimbursed the lower of the two estimates. This was $5,728.62. After the move was completed, Petitioner submitted receipts for the commercial move totaling approximately $6,074.94, but she was reimbursed the $5,662.94. The reduction was made because of some duplications and claims for ineligible items, but Petitioner was dissatisfied with the amount paid. Petitioner also was eligible for reimbursement for the move of her business. In this case, she chose an “in lieu of” payment instead of actual reimbursement for a commercial move. She elected to do this after she had been personally briefed by Mr. Cole on the options available to her for this part of the move. She claims she was told by Department personnel she would receive a fixed amount for the business plus a reimbursement for the business move, but she now contends she received no reimbursement. Petitioner is not satisfied with the relocation assistance payments made to her, claiming that the amounts finally offered were approximately one-half the amount initially estimated by Department personnel. She asserts that all the original estimates by Department personnel were reduced and cut, and she received far less than she was led to expect. She claims her neighbors, who had resided nearby for a far shorter time than she got far more than she did. Petitioner requested that the Department’s calculations of the amounts to be paid to her be independently reviewed. Niether individual who performed the recalculations made any changes to the amounts determined payable. Petitioner then requested another review by a higher authority, and the matter was referred to Paula Warmath, at the time the Right-of Way Manager for the Turnpike District. After her review of the matter, Ms. Warmath did not make any changes to the payment amounts. Petitioner’s next appeal was to Richard Eddleman, the Department’s State Relocation Administrator, the final review authority for relocation assistance appeals. Mr. Eddleman obtained the complete relocation files maintained by the Department on this case, carefully reviewed it, spoke with relevant Turnpike district personnel, and recalculated the relocation assistance payments. Based on his review of the file, Mr. Eddleman concluded that the relocation assistance payments for Petitioner had been properly calculated according to the established rules. This decision was communicated to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order affirming the relocation assistance payments previously calculated for Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Vlenda Dornseif 15331 Penny Court Spring Hill, Florida 34610 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Suite 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, is now and was at all times alleged, a registered real estate broker, and from January 31, 1974, to January 7, 1975, an active firm member of International Land Services Chartered, Inc., a registered corporate broker, and was acting in that capacity. Whether or not from January 31, 1974, to January 7, 1975, the Respondent, in the capacity of active firm member of International Land Services Chartered, Inc., solicited by telephone and mail, property owners nationwide, on the subject of their real property interest in the State of Florida, to obtain a fee in return for a listing to sell property; by representing and holding out to the property owners that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property so listed with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Whether or not the representation holding out that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property listed with international Land Services Chartered, Inc., was false and was known to be false when made. Whether or not property owners acted in reliance of the comments by Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, and listed their property for sale with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and paid a listing fee. Whether or not the solicitation of property owners nationwide was wholly a scheme to fraudulently secure money from the public, i.e., the advance listing fees, for reason that no bona fide effort was made to sell the properties so listed with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Whether or not by reason of the foregoing, the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or devise, or breach of trust in a business transaction in this state; and has violated the duty imposed upon him by law or the terms of a listing contract in a real estate transaction; and has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in said misconduct and has committed an overt act in furtherance of such intent, design, or scheme in violation of 5475.25(1)(a), F.S. Whether or not for the reason of the foregoing factual allegations set forth above, the Respondent is guilty of a conduct of practices which show that he is so dishonest and untruthful that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors and those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation may not safely be entrusted to him, all in violation of 5475.25(3), F.S.
Findings Of Fact From January 31, 1974, to January 7, 1975, the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, was an active firm member of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and was acting in the capacity of registered corporate broker. He was a holder of certificate number 0133731 during that time sequence. That license was held with the Florida Real Estate Commission, the Petitioner. Beginning with January 31, 1974, and continuing to the present, Kenneth Kasha was also the holder of what is now certificate number 0046189, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission by Kenneth Kasha as real estate broker to trade as Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During the tenure of his affiliation with International Land Services Chartered, Inc., from January 31, 1974, to January 7, 1975, Kenneth Kasha was the Secretary of that corporation. (The facts of his Iicensure by the Petitioner and his affiliation with the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., are more completely described in the Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 10, admitted into evidence.) In the pendancy of his service for the above-mentioned corporation, Kenneth Kasha was involved in the advertising of properties which had been solicited from out-of-state owners who owned land in the State of Florida. His involvement in this advertising is established by the Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. Through this exhibit it is demonstrated that the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., was advertising with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. More specifically, the invoices in the exhibit have assigned reference numbers which correspond to the advertising sheet which was placed with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. These sheets would show a number of listings of property which had been solicited from out-of-state owners who had paid a fee for the right to have their properties listed through International Land Services Chartered, Inc., who in turn advertised in National Multiple Listing, Inc. The circulation of those listings may he traced by taking the reference number in the left margin on the individual listing sheet of National Multiple Listing, Inc., found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, and comparing this with the certificates of circulation which are Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 12, and which have a comparable reference number affixed. By doing this, it can be seen that the circulation of the individual listing sheets by National Multiple Listing, Inc., numbered as many as 2,500 contacts. An examination of the advertising done through National Multiple Listing, Inc., demonstrates that a potential purchaser could not determine the exact location of the land. At best that purchaser could locate the subdivision and development, municipality and/or county and state and the general size of the tracts of land. Some of the property does not have a purchase price. Therefore, the quality of the advertising that was done is somewhat suspect. At the time the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., was billed, it was in the name of Kenneth Kasha, who tendered payment in behalf of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Moreover, when the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., had signed an agreement with National Multiple Listing, Inc., to have the latter corporation do the advertising for International, it had signed in the person of Kenneth Kasha and took effect on March 1, 1974. The period of the contract was for one year and this is shown by Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. A further understanding of Kenneth Kasha's involvement with the listings of out-of-state owners of Florida property through International Land Services Chartered, Inc., may be found in the testimony of Marvin Rothstein. Roths to in worked for the corporation approximately 3 or 4 weeks full time and then part time and in total obtained 10 or 15 listings for the benefit of the corporation. Mr. Rothstein described the technique for listing the out-of-state owners of Florida property with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. (These listings have been referred to as "advance fee" listings, and will be so referenced in the balance of this Recommended Order.) Mr. Rothstein had seen an advertisement in the paper placed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc., advertising for the employment of real estate salesmen. He answered that advertisement and was interviewed by Kenneth Kasha for a job with the subject corporation. Kasha explained to Rothstein that his duties would be to contact people by phone and find out if they would like to have their property listed. There were 4 or 5 other salesmen involved in International Land Services Chartered, Inc's, employ whose function it was to make the contacts and solicit listings. The salesmen worked in the evening hours 3 or 4 hours a night and would call the out-of-state owners and ask if they wanted to list their property with the corporation, International Land Services Chartered, Inc. The corporation had given the salesmen so-called lead cards to contact the people. (The office in which the salesmen were ,working was a very small office with 5 or 6 phones.) Mr. Rothstein described the contact with the out-of-state owners to be one to obtain a listing, in opposition to an effort to try and sell the property of the out-of-state owner. Mr. Kasha was the supervisor of the activities of the salesmen who were working at night. Through the Rothstein testimony, it is established that there was a script which the salesmen were called upon to follow. The salesmen would introduce themselves to the prospective landowner/client and ask if the landowner would be willing to list their property for resale. If the owner was interested, certain materials were mailed to the owner for their perusal, prior to any agreement for resale. The mailouts were made after positive responses that Mr. Rothstein would be given when he made his inquiry about listing the property. Mr. Rothstein is unfamiliar with the materials that were mailed out. He was never responsible for making a second contact with the parties initially solicited. He does know that a fee was charged for listing the property with International Land Services Chartered, Inc., and the purpose of the fee was explained to the parties to be for expenses for listing the property and for whatever other expenses that might be incurred by the corporation. Rothstein is unfamiliar with what the exact expenses would have been for the corporation to fulfill the functions of taking care of listings. To Rothstein's recollection, the amount of fee for listing was $25 or $50, that is the amount he would receive for obtaining a listing agreement with the out-of-state owner. He is not certain what the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., received as their portion of the listing fee. There was no agreement that Rothstein himself would be compensated by commission should the property be sold. Rothstein was also unfamiliar with the method which the corporation used to arrive at an asking price for the listed property. Rothstein was unaware of any appraisals that may have been done by the corporation during the tenure of his employment with the corporation. His knowledge of the advertising method was that there were multiple listings. These multiple listings would equate to the form of listings placed with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. One other matter that was discussed in the initial solicitation, was the fact that the possible purchasers of the land were constituted of foreign as well as domestic buyers. This comment was in connection with the overall statement that the owners were being solicited for a listing to bring about the resale of the property. Rothstein said that he did not know of any sales of the property during the time he worked for International Land Services Chartered, Inc. An examination of the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, which is a profit and loss statement for the period in question, indicates that income derived from the International Land Services Chartered, Inc.'s business activities far exceeded advertising and other expenses labeled as selling expenses. That document, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, does not indicate whether there was income derived from sources other than the "advance fee" listings. Moreover, there was no testimony given in the course of the hearing which would clearly identify the amount of money that was received from owners who desired the services of the "advance fee" listing. Finally, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate through competent evidence the true nature of the specific details of the follow-up written information which was submitted to the potential client once that client had been solicited in the initial contact phase. On balance there is insufficient testimony to prove that the solicitation of the property owners was a scheme to fraudulently secure money from the public through "advance fee" listings, or that no bona fide effort was made to sell the properties that were listed with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Consequently, the Petitioner has failed to show that the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device or breach of trust in a business transaction in this state; or that Kenneth Kasha has violated the duty imposed on him by law or the terms of listing contract in a real estate transaction, or that he has formed an intent, design or scheme to engage in said misconduct or has committed an overt act in furtherance of such intent, design, or scheme in violation of 475.25(I)(a), P.S. Furthermore, the Petitioner has failed to establish that Kenneth Kasha is guilty of a course of conduct or practice which shows that he is so dishonest and untruthful that the money, property, transactions, and rights of investors and those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation may not safely be entrusted to him, in violation of 475.25(3), P.S.
Recommendation It is Recommended that the Administrative Complaint brought against the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, who is now licensed by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, under certificate number 0046189, as a real estate broker, he dismissed and set aside. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1973, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Louis Guttmann, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Kenneth Kasha Post Office Box 611238 North Miami, Florida 33161
