The Issue Whether Weston Professional Title Group, Inc. (Respondent) committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, V, VI, and VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times, Petitioner has been the entity of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to regulate title insurance agencies. At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a title insurance agent in the State of Florida. As of the formal hearing, Respondent had ceased its operations due to the lack of business. Petitioner's investigation of Respondent was initiated by a complaint from a man named Robert Anderson. Mr. Anderson represented to Petitioner that he discovered that his name and address had been used as the buyer of the two residences discussed above. Respondent was the title and settlement agent for both transactions. The Collonade Drive transaction settled on November 14, 2006, with disbursement of the funds on November 16, 2006. The Vignon Place transaction settled and the funds were disbursed on December 15, 2006. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner his belief that his identity had been stolen by a person named Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner that he had not participated in either transaction, and asserted that he did not sign any of the documents that purport to contain his signature as the buyer. Respondent was required to comply with the provisions of RESPA in completing the HUD-1 for the Collonade Drive closing and the Vignon Place closing. RESPA required that disbursements at closing be consistent with the HUD-1 as approved by the parties to the transaction and by the lender. COLLONADE DRIVE CLOSING On September 15, 2006, Robert Anderson (or someone impersonating Mr. Anderson) signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" (Collonade contract), agreeing to buy the Collonade Drive property from Mark Mariani and Kathy Mariani, for the purchase price of $1,375,000.00. The Collonade contract reflected that a deposit had been made to "FLORIDA TITLE & ESC." in the amount of $5,000 with an additional deposit of $5,000 to be made within ten days. Two loans with separate mortgages constituted the financing for the purchase of the Collonade Drive property. The first mortgage was $962,500.00. The second mortgage, as reflected on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement with the disbursement date of November 14, 2006, was $263,430.08.3/ First Magnus Financial Corporation, an Arizona corporation, was the lender for both loans. Agents of America Mortgage Corp. served as the mortgage broker for the transaction. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, an employee of Agents of America Mortgages, signed Mr. Anderson's loan application as the "interviewer." The following was a special clause of the Collonade contract: "BUYER AGREES TO PAY FOR TITLE INSUANCE [sic] FEE ONLY (LINE 1108 OF SELLERS' SETTLEMENT STATEMENT), ONLY [SIC] IF SELLERS AGREE TO USE BUYER'S TITLE COMPANY OF CHOICE. BUYER IS A LICENSED FLORIDA REAL ESTATE AGENT." Petitioner established that Robert Anderson was not a licensed Florida real estate agent. The Collonade contract represented that there were no real estate brokers representing either party. On or about November 1, 2006, Respondent received a "Request for Title Commitment" from Claudit Casanova, a mortgage broker with Agents of America Mortgage Corp., for the Collonade Drive transaction. This was a revised request. The first request had been sent to Respondent on or about October 3, 2006. A copy of the Collonade contract had been forwarded to Respondent with the first request. In connection with the Collonade Drive transaction, Respondent prepared two HUD-1s,4/ each of which was approved by the parties and the lender.5/ The first HUD-1 had an anticipated closing date of November 14, 2006. That HUD-1 was revised in response to the lender's instruction to move the disbursement date from November 14, 2006, to November 16, 2006. The revision of the HUD-1 slightly reduced the amount of cash the buyer needed to close as a result of interest beginning to run on the loans as of November 16 instead of November 14. This was a mail-away closing, in that a packet of the documents the buyer was to sign was sent to someone named Laurie Martin at a title agency in Glendale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified she mailed the packet pursuant to instructions without specifying who gave her those instructions. The packet of documents was returned to Respondent, with signatures purporting to be Mr. Anderson's. Laurie Martin appears to have served as the notary public when the documents were signed. The transaction closed pursuant to the revised HUD-1 with the disbursement date of November 16, 2006, which, as approved by the parties and the lender, reflected that the sellers were to receive $477,884.93 upon closing. Upon closing, Respondent drafted a check in the amount of $477,884.93 made payable to the sellers. The sellers voided the check and based on instructions from the sellers, Ms. Marrero redistributed the sellers' proceeds by wire transfer as follows: $116,112.85 to sellers; $170,250.00 to Pamela Higgins; and $191,508.08 to Unlimited Advertising USA. Fourteen dollars were spent on wire transfer charges. The actual disbursement of the seller's proceeds was inconsistent with the HUD-1 and unknown to the buyer and the lender. Respondent violated the provisions of RESPA by disbursing the proceeds of the sale in a manner that was inconsistent with the HUD-1. $195,000 DEPOSIT The Collonade contract reflected that a $5,000 deposit had been made to "Fla. Title & Esc." required for the buyer to pay an additional deposit of $5,000 within ten days. There was no evidence establishing any relationship between Respondent and "Fla. Title & Esc." Both HUD-1s for the Collonade Drive transaction reflected that the buyer had provided to the sellers a deposit in the amount of $195,000. These HUD-1s, reflecting that the sellers were holding a deposit in the amount of $195,000, were approved by the parties and the lender. Ms. Marrero testified that she was instructed to include the $195,000 deposit on the HUD-1s without specifying who gave her those instructions. Ms. Marrero did not attempt to verify that the $195,000 deposit was actually being held by the sellers. FRAUD Petitioner alleged that the Collonade Drive transaction was fraudulent. Mr. Wenger's testimony, based in part on reports of mortgage fraud prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, supported that allegation. Other evidence supporting that allegation included the following facts The first mortgage quickly went into foreclosure; A mailing address given for Robert Anderson did not (as of April 19, 2011) exist. The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Claudia Rodriguez, a former Florida title agent whose license had been suspended by Petitioner for failing to disburse in accordance with HUD statements and disbursing on uncollected funds; The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Juan Carlos Rodriguez (the person who supposedly took the credit application from Robert Anderson); The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Agents of America Mortgage Corporation (the mortgage broker for the Collonade closing. Juan Carlos Rodriguez supposedly notarized the document authorizing disbursement of part of the sellers' proceeds to Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson's purported signatures on different documents are inconsistent. The address for Mr. Anderson as it appears on the HUD- 1 Settlement Statements is 14233 W. Jenan Drive, Surprise, Arizona. Prior to the closing Ms. Marrero sent by Federal Express a copy of the unexecuted closing documents to "Pam Higgins c/o Robert S. Anderson" 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Following the closing, Ms. Marrero sent a copy of the closing documents by Federal Express to Robert S. Anderson, at the address 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified that she acted on instructions in sending the two packages, without identifying who gave her those instructions. There was no evidence that anyone employed by Respondent knew anyone connected to this transaction prior to being asked to provide a title commitment. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had anything to do with the buy-sell agreement between the buyer and the sellers or the efforts by Mr. Anderson (or the person or persons impersonating Mr. Anderson) to obtain financing for the purchase. While there was significant evidence that the Colonnade Closing was a fraudulent transaction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was complicit in that fraud. VIGNON COURT CLOSING On a date prior to November 6, 2006, Maribel and Timothy Graves signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" offering to sell their Vignon Court residence to Robert Anderson for the purchase price of $1,975,000.00. Mr. and Mrs. Graves were represented by counsel during this transaction. The copy of the contract admitted into evidence had not been signed by Mr. Anderson and did not bear a legible date. The contract provided an acceptance date of November 6, 2006. The fully executed contract was not admitted into evidence. On October 4, 2006, Claudit Casanova of Agents of America Mortgage requested Respondent to provide a title commitment for the Vignon Court transaction. In that request, the sales price was stated as being $1,975,000; the loan amount was $1,481,250 and the mortgagee was American Brokers Conduit. Preferred Properties, Int., Inc., was listed as being the real estate broker for the transaction. Respondent prepared a HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction that reflected a closing and disbursement date of December 15, 2006. DEPOSIT The unexecuted (by the buyer) and undated copy Purchase Agreement required a deposit of $100,000 at the time of acceptance with an additional $50,000 being due within ten days thereafter. There was no evidence as to the terms of the completely executed Purchase Agreement. Line 201 of the HUD-1 reflected a deposit of $250,000 paid on behalf of the buyer. Respondent did not verify that deposit had been made. The HUD-1 specified that the deposit was being held by the sellers. The buyer, sellers, and lender approved the HUD-1, which reflected the existence of a deposit of $250,000, prior to closing. GASPARE VALENTINO On December 6, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Graves entered into a "Joint Venture and Property Resale Agreement" (Resale Agreement) pertaining to the sale of the Vignon Court residence with Gaspare Valentino. On February 5, 2002, Gaspare Rino Valentino was issued a license by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of the type "Real Estate Broker or Sales" and of the rank "Sales Associate." That license was valid at the times relevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 2 of the Resale Agreement provides as follows: (2) SALE EFFORTS: CONTRACT PROCEEDS. Valentino agrees to use reasonable efforts to obtain a third party purchaser (a "Purchaser") for the Property. Valentino is not required to advertise the Property or list the Property for sale, but shall have such right to do so. Valentino does not guaranty [sic] the procurement of a Purchaser. The parties agree that the intention is for Valentino to secure a Purchaser who will pay a purchase price sufficient in order to (i) satisfy the existing debt upon the Property, (ii) pay ordinary and reasonable closing costs of the transaction, (iii) generate a net proceeds [illegible] to Owner not less than ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000); and (iv) generate such further sums beyond the foregoing in order to pay Valentino a fee for services rendered as set forth in this Agreement. In accordance with such understanding, Owner agrees to enter into and fully execute a Contract for Purchase and Sale with a Purchaser procured by Valentino which is consistent with the terms set forth in this Agreement, including without limitation, a designated sales price which enables Owner to receive at closing a net proceeds sum equal to ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) (the "Owner's Sale Proceeds") after payment of the Property Sale Expenses, hereinafter defined as set forth in Paragraph 3. Owner agrees that any net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner's Sale Proceeds shall be payable to Valentino (the "Excess Proceeds Fee), as Valentino's fee for the efforts of Valentino as set forth herein. Paragraph 3 (i) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" as follows: Owner shall receive the Owner Sale Proceeds consisting of exactly ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) from the net sales proceeds . . . Paragraph 3 (ii) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" and the "Owner Sale Proceeds": Valentino shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fees, constituting all remaining net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner Sale Proceeds, as a fee for services rendered by Valentino pursuant to this Agreement. Paragraph 7 of the Resale Agreement is as follows: 7. Licensed Agent: Valentino represents and discloses that Valentino is a licensed real estate agent in the State of Florida. Notwithstanding such, Valentino is individually entering into this Agreement using his own resources to assist Owner in the improvement and sale of the Property, and as such is a principal in this transaction earning the Excess Proceeds Fee. The parties acknowledge that Valentino is an investor in this transaction and as such at closing is entitled to and shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fee as set forth in Section [Paragraph] 3(ii) of this Agreement. Under RESPA, Section 700 of a HUD-1 is appropriately used for reporting the payments for commissions to real estate salesmen and/or brokers as part of the "Settlement Charges." Such payments can also be reported under Section 1300 ("Additional Settlement Charges"), if the payments are appropriately labeled. Respondent reflected the payment of $527,656.92 as "Payoff" to Gaspare Valentino at line 1307 of Section 1300." Prior to closing the buyer, sellers, and lender had approved the HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction. The lender was aware of the Resale Agreement. Mr. Marrero is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Mr. Marrero construed the payments to Mr. Valentino to be other than a real estate commission. Although it is clear that Petitioner considers that payment to Mr. Valentino to be a real estate commission, the terms of the Resale Agreement entitled Mr. Marrero to treat that payment as being to an investor. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent erroneously stated the payment to Mr. Valentino on the HUD-1. SURETY BOND As a condition of licensure, a title agency is required to provide to Petitioner a $35,000 security deposit or a $35,000 surety bond. In connection with its application for licensure on August 29, 2002, Respondent filed the required surety bond with Petitioner. The bond was issued by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland with bond number 133046577. On July 14, 2004, Petitioner received from Respondent a surety bond issued by Western Surety Company in the amount of $35,000, effective as of August 29, 2004. The bond number was 69728435. On May 28, 2010, Petitioner received a letter from his surety dated May 24, 2010, which advised that bond number 69728435 would be voided or cancelled as of August 29, 2010. That letter of cancellation showed a copy being furnished to Respondent at the address "1820 North. Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida 33326." On June 11, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent by letter sent to "1820 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite. 105, Weston, Florida 33326" that it had received the cancellation letter. The letter stated, in part, as follows: If we do not receive a replacement bond within 30 days of the dated letter, we will forward your file to the appropriate division for disciplinary action. If you do not plan to continue transacting business and wish to terminate your license, you must submit a request to us immediately. Prior to May 24, 2010, Respondent moved its offices from 1802 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida, to Suite 304 of the same building. Mr. Marrero testified that he had no recollection of receiving the letters cancelling the surety bond or the letter from Petitioner dated June 11, 2010. Respondent was without a surety bond between August 29, 2010, and November 18, 2010. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent's failure to maintain it surety bond during that period was willful within the meaning of section 626.8437(9). No prior disciplinary action has been brought against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of subsections 626.8473(2) and (4) as alleged in Count I of the Amended AC; and guilty of failing to maintain a surety bond as required by section 626.8418(2) in violation of section 626.8437(1), as alleged in Count III of the Amended AC. It is further recommended that the final order find Respondent not guilty of all other violations alleged in the Amended AC. For the violations found as to Count I, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of six months. For the violations found in Count III, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of three months. It is further recommended that the periods of suspension run concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 8th day of February, 2012
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Karen Kay Colucci, whose license No. is 0062107,is a registered real estate salesman in the State of Florida. The Respondent is employed by Magnolia Homes, Inc., 300 Embassy Boulevard, Port Richey, Florida. The owner of the business is David Lukacher. On May 20, 1976, Harvey Thompson and his wife Mary Thompson looked at model homes built by Magnolia Homes, Inc. They were assisted by a registered real estate salesman for Magnolia Homes, Inc., Patrick D. DePianto. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson told the real estate salesman that they wanted to build a house but wanted to sell their own house first. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson found a lot and model home they desired and then proceeded to Mr. DePianto's office to make a deposit. The office in which the transaction took place is a large room in which several people worked for the builder including the Respondent Karen Kay Colucci who is the sales manager. Mr. DePianto's desk and work area was in rather close proximity to Mrs. Colucci's desk and work area. Mrs. Colucci was not involved in the assistance to the Thompsons in locating a lot and model home and was not directly involved with Mr. DePianto and Mr. and Mrs. Thompson at the time the transaction under consideration took place. At the time of making the deposit Mr. and Mrs. Thompson asked Mr. DePianto if they could get their deposit back if they did not sell their home. Mr. DePianto called over to Mrs. Colucci and asked if a refund could be made if the Thompsons could not sell their house and, satisfied with the answer, assured the purchasers that there would be no problem. A check was written out for five hundred ($500) dollars and handed to Mr. DePianto and a receipt was written out by Mr. DePianto and handed to the Thompsons. There was no representation on the receipt written by Mr. DePianto concerning the refundability of the deposit. The Thompsons did not request that the representation be included on the receipt. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson left the office feeling that there would be no problem obtaining a refund of the deposit if they could not sell their home , although they were confident that the sale of their home was imminent. Thereafter the expected sale of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson's home was not consummated and the Thompsons asked Mr. DePianto for a refund of the deposit. Mr. DePianto asked for the request to be in letter form and Mr. Thompson complied. Thereafter he was advised by Mr. DePianto that the builder, Mr. David Lukacher, would not return the deposit but would hold the $500 until they were able to buy one of their homes and credit that amount to the purchaser. Mr. Thompson requested Mr. DePianto to put the discussion in letter form which Mr. DePianto did. Mr. Thompson wrote Mr. Lukacher a letter and called him on the telephone requesting that the deposit be refunded but no refund was forthcoming. Approximately six months later Mr. DePianto sent Mr. and Mrs. Thompson a check for $250, half of the deposit, plus 7 months of interest at 6 per cent per annum. The remainder of the deposit has not been returned to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Lukacher retains the $250, having previously sent $250 of the $500 deposit to Mr. DePianto. Petitioner Florida Real Estate Commission contends: that the Respondent Karen Kay Colucci knowingly misrepresented to the Thompson's that there would be no problem obtaining a refund of the $500 deposit if the Thompson's could not sell their home; that such representation means the Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretences, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction and that therefore her license should be suspended. Respondent contends that she was doing other work at the time the subject transaction took place and that she had no involvement with the transaction between Mr. DePianto and the Thompsons. Respondent further contends that in reply to the question posed to her by Mr. DePianto in the busy office that a refund could be made providing Mr. Lukacher, the builder, approved it. The hearing Officer further finds: There is no consistent testimony by the witnesses as to exactly what was said in reference to a refund at the time Mr. and Mrs. Thompson were seated at the desk of Mr. DePianto. There is no consistent testimony as to what exactly Mr. DePianto asked the Respondent or what her answer was. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson failed to request that the receipt reflect that the deposit was conditional and would be returned if the Thompson's could not sell their home. Mr. DePianto did not make the receipt a conditional receipt. Mr. David Lukacher, the builder, refused to refund the deposit to the Thompsons, kept $250 of it, and sent Mr. DePianto the salesman, $250. Mr. DePianto refunded his share of the deposit plus interest to the Thompsons.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth A. Meer, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Karen Kay Colucci Magnolia Homes, Inc. 300 Embassy Boulevard Port Richey, Florida 33568
The Issue Whether Respondents failed to maintain and deposit payment instruments into their own commercial account in a federally- insured financial institution, in violation of section 560.309(3), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Office of Financial Regulation, is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing chapter 560, Florida Statutes, including part III of that statute, related to money services businesses. Respondent, Moctezuma Envios, Inc. ("Moctezuma Envios"), is a Florida corporation operating as a money services business, cashing checks and acting as a money transmitter, as authorized by License No. FT30800203 issued by Petitioner. Its address of record is 19784 Southwest 177th Street, Miami, Florida 33187. Respondent Liliana Carrascal has a 100 percent controlling interest in, and is the sole officer of, Moctezuma Envios.3/ The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Respondents have been in the money services business, and Moctezuma Envios has been licensed to conduct this business, since 2001. Respondents were doing business with Intermex Wire Transfer LLC ("Intermex"), a money transfer services business, before the events giving rise to this proceeding. Sometime prior to January 2013, Carrascal was approached by representatives of Intermex about opening an account in the name of Moctezuma Envios at U.S. Bank.4/ Intermex representatives told Carrascal that the account could be used for depositing the checks that Moctezuma Envios cashed and also for paying Intermex for money transfers. According to Carrascal, this offer was attractive to Respondents because U.S. Bank accepted third-party checks, and opening a check-cashing account that accepts such checks is difficult. Additionally, having the account would streamline the process by which Moctezuma Envios paid Intermex to serve as its money transmitting agent, and would enable Carrascal to avoid driving across town carrying large sums of money to deposit cash into Intermex's account. Carrascal testified, credibly, that Intermex representatives told her she would be the owner of the account, that she could deposit payment instruments into and withdraw funds from the account, and that the account would be compliant with the law. On the basis of these representations, Carrascal authorized Intermex representatives to open an account in the name of Moctezuma Envios at U.S. Bank. The account number was XX3503. The persuasive evidence shows that Account No. XX3503 was established as an agent account, with Moctezuma Envios acting as a money transmitter agent for Intermex. As such, Moctezuma Envios was authorized to deposit funds and payment instruments into the account. Robert Lisy and Darryl J. Ebbert, both employees of Intermex, were signatories on Account No. XX3503, and, as such, were the owners of the account. They were authorized to deposit funds into, withdraw funds from the account, and otherwise control the account. The persuasive evidence further shows that Respondents were not signatories to Account No. XX3503.5/ Accordingly, they were not authorized to withdraw funds from the account. During the period spanning from January 2013 to late 2014, Respondents deposited payment instruments received through their check-cashing business into Account No. XX3503. The persuasive evidence shows that once Respondents deposited the payment instruments into Account No. XX3503, they lost access to and control of those funds. This is because, as noted above, only Intermex representatives were authorized signatories on the account. When Respondents deposited payment instruments into Account No. XX3503, those funds were thereafter "swept" into Account No. XX7788, which was Intermex's main operating account at U.S. Bank. This means that the funds were removed from Account No. XX3503 and deposited in Account No. XX7788. Respondents were not signatories to Account No. XX7788, so did not have access to the funds in that account. As a result of Respondents not being signatories on either Account No. XX3503 or Account No. XX7788, once they deposited payment instruments into Account No. XX3503, they lost access to and control of the funds paid under those payment instruments. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondents deposited approximately ten percent of the payment instruments that they received from their check cashing business into Account No. XX3503 during the timeframe pertinent to this proceeding. The other payment instruments were deposited into other accounts that Respondents held at other banks. Carrascal credibly testified that when Intermex first approached her about opening an account at U.S. Bank, she was concerned because she knew that the law required payment instruments to be deposited into the business's own commercial account. Thus, she declined to open such account. When Intermex representatives approached her a second time, they told her that the account would be in the name of Moctezuma Envios and assured her that Moctezuma Envios would be in compliance with the law. She believed them, so authorized them to open Account No. XX3503. Carrascal further testified, credibly and persuasively, that as soon as she received notice that Petitioner believed that Account No. XX3503 did not comply with the law, she closed the account and ceased doing business with Intermex and U.S. Bank. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondents did not attempt to conceal any information or mislead Petitioner regarding Account No. XX3503. Carrascal credibly and persuasively testified that she had intended to fully comply with the law. She had received training in order to serve as Moctezuma Envios' compliance officer, and Moctezuma Envios has a legal compliance manual in place to help ensure that it complies with applicable laws. The evidence establishes that Moctezuma Envios has been disciplined twice for previous violations of applicable laws. Specifically, some time prior to December 2008, Moctezuma Envios failed to file currency transaction reports concerning cash received from another chapter 560 licensee and failed to timely file at least two quarterly reports, as required by statute and rule. In 2011, Moctezuma Envios failed to timely file a required quarterly report. Both violations were resolved pursuant to Stipulation and Consent Agreement between Petitioner and Moctezuma Envios, under which Moctezuma Envios paid fines and agreed to comply with the law in the future. Carrascal acknowledged that the violations had occurred, but testified, credibly, that in both instances, Respondents had not intended to violate the law, and that Respondents had cooperated with Petitioner to rectify the circumstances that had resulted in noncompliance. Petitioner has adopted rule 69V-560.1000, which codifies a penalty matrix that authorizes and enables Petitioner to impose a fine for a specific statutory or rule violation, based on the level of fine adopted in rule 69V-560.1000(150) and the number of times a licensee has violated that particular statute or rule. Rule 69V-560.1000(150) establishes a range of $1,000 to $3,500 for a Level A fine; $3,500 to $7,500 for a Level B fine; and $7,500 to $10,000 for a Level C fine. Here, Respondents are charged with having violated section 560.309(3) for the first time. Pursuant to rule 69V-560.1000(85), Respondents are subject to a Level B fine, which ranges from $3,500 to $7,500. Rule 69V-560.1000(148) sets forth the factors, which Petitioner characterizes as "aggravating" or "mitigating," that must be considered in determining the specific amount of the fine within the ranges established in rule 69V-560.1000(150). 29. Rule 69V-560.1000(148) states: In accordance with Sections 560.1141(2) and (3), F.S., the Office shall consider the following circumstances in determining an appropriate penalty within the range of penalties prescribed in this rule for each violation as based upon the citation number. The Office also shall consider these circumstances in determining a penalty that deviates from the range of penalties prescribed for each violation and citation number as a result of such circumstances: Whether the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; The degree of harm to the customers or the public; The disciplinary history of the licensee; Whether the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; Whether the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; Whether at the time of the violation, the licensee had developed and implemented reasonable supervisory, operational or technical procedures, or controls to avoid the violation; Where the violation is attributable to an individual officer, director, responsible person, or authorized vendor, whether the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection and intervention by the Office; Whether the licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; The length of time over which the licensee engaged in the violations; Whether the licensee engaged in numerous violations or a pattern of misconduct; The number, size and character of the transactions in question; Whether the licensee provided substantial assistance to the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; Other relevant, case-specific circumstances. Andrew Grosmaire, Chief for Petitioner's Bureau of Enforcement, testified that Petitioner proposes to impose a $7,500 fine on Respondents, and explained the basis for that amount. Grosmaire testified that Petitioner did not have any information regarding several of the factors listed in rule 69V-560.1000, so did not "use" those factors in determining the fine to be imposed on Moctezuma Envios.6/ Specifically, Petitioner did not use the factors in subsections (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l), and (m) in determining the fine. Petitioner did consider subsection (c), regarding the licensee's disciplinary history, in determining the fine. As discussed above, Petitioner presented evidence showing that Moctezuma Envios had been disciplined twice for violations of provisions of chapter 560 and implementing rules, albeit not for the same violation that is the subject of this proceeding.7/ Grosmaire noted that it was "unusual" for a licensee to have two previous violations. Petitioner thus considered Moctezuma Envios' disciplinary history an aggravating factor in determining the applicable fine. Petitioner also considered subsection (k), which addresses the number, size, and character of the transactions in question. According to Grosmaire, "100 percent of the checks were deposited into this account during the period in question," so Petitioner considered this an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate fine. As noted above, pursuant to rules 69V-560.1000(85), (147), and (148), Petitioner proposes to fine Respondents $7,500. Findings of Ultimate Fact Regarding Alleged Violation Florida case law holds that the determination of whether alleged conduct violates a statute or rule is a question of ultimate fact. Gross v. Dep't of Health, 819. So. 2d 997, 2002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st SCA 1995). For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not own Account No. XX3503, into which payment instruments from Moctezuma Envios' check-cashing business were deposited. Although Respondents were able to deposit payment instruments into Account No. XX3503, they were not signatories on the account so could not withdraw funds from that account. Further, Respondents were not signatories to, and therefore did not have access to funds in, Account No. XX7788, into which Intermex swept the funds from the deposited instruments in Account No. XX3503 on a routine basis. On this basis, it is determined that Petitioner demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Moctezuma Envios and Liliana Carrascal, by virtue of being an affiliated party pursuant to section 560.103(1), violated section 560.309(3) by failing to maintain and deposit payment instruments into their own commercial account at a federally- insured financial institution. As discussed above, Petitioner proposes to fine Respondents $7,500, the maximum amount that can be imposed for a Level B fine. Petitioner reached this amount taking into account the factors set forth in rules 69V-560.1000(148)(c) and (k), which it considered to be aggravating factors that militated imposition of a higher fine within the Level B range. As discussed above, Carrascal presented evidence regarding several of the factors in rule 69V-560.1000(148) considered in determining the appropriate fine. Specifically, Carrascal testified, persuasively, that no harm to her customers or the public resulted from Respondents' violation of section 560.309(3); that Respondents' violation of the statute was inadvertent and was the result of misrepresentation by Intermex, so that the violation was not the result of Respondents' willful conduct or recklessness; that Moctezuma Envios has in place a professionally-prepared compliance manual to help Respondents avoid future violations, including the type of violation at issue in this proceeding; that once Carrascal became aware that Petitioner believed Account No. XX3503 was noncompliant with section 560.309(3), she cooperated fully with Petitioner's investigation and did not attempt to conceal, mislead, or deceive Petitioner; that as soon as Carrascal became aware of the noncompliance issues with Account No. XX3503, she closed the account and Respondents terminated all business dealings with U.S. Bank and Intermex, the latter with which Respondents had a business relationship that predated the matters giving rise to this proceeding; and that the deposits into Account No. XX3503 constituted only approximately ten percent of the total deposits Respondents made during the timeframe pertinent to this proceeding, with the other 90 percent being deposited in other accounts at other financial institutions. As discussed above, the undersigned found Respondents' evidence of mitigation regarding the factors set forth in rules 69V-560.1000(148)(b), (e), (f), (h), (k), and (l) credible and persuasive. Further, the undersigned considers relevant that in this case, Respondents affirmatively were misled into violating the law by Intermex.8/ Petitioners did not present persuasive countervailing evidence rebutting the evidence of mitigation presented by Respondents with respect to the amount of the fine. As noted above, Grosmaire testified that Petitioner considered subsections (c) and (k) as aggravating factors in determining that Respondents should be fined $7,500. Rule 69V- 560.1000(148) does not specifically address how much weight each factor should be assigned in determining the specific fine within the authorized range, and Grosmaire did not explain how the factors Petitioner "used" were weighed in arriving at the $7,500 fine. Considering the "aggravating" and "mitigating" factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that a $4,500 fine should be imposed on Respondents in this proceeding.9/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order finding that Respondents, Moctezuma Envios, Inc., and Liliana Carrascal, violated section 560.309(3), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $4,250. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 22nd day of June, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission hereafter) by its representative, Charles F. Borer (Plaintiff hereafter) filed an Administrative Complaint on December 17, 1976, alleging that the Defendant, on or about April 29, 1975, was found guilty in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court of this state of engaging in lewd and lascivious acts or assault upon or in the presence of a child and that by reason thereof, the Defendant is guilty of a crime of moral turpitude fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, the Commission seeks to revoke or suspend the licensee and his right to practice thereunder. The Commission introduced into evidence an Information filed January 20, 1975, against the Defendant for engaging in Involuntary Sexual Battery, Lewd and Lascivious Act or Assault upon or in the Presence of a Child in violation of Chapter 794.021(e) and Chapter 800.04 Florida Statutes. On April 29, 1975 a jury found the Defendant guilty as charged. See Commission's Exhibit #1. Chapter 475.25 Florida Statutes set forth grounds for which the Commission may revoke or suspend a registrant's license. Subsection (e) thereof provides in pertinent part that the Commission may suspend a registrant's registration based upon a finding that the registrant has "been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States, involving moral turpitude The documentary evidence introduced and received in this case provides ample basis for a finding that the registrant has been guilty of a crime within the meaning of Chapter 475.25(1)(e). Based thereon, I make the following:
Recommendation 1. That the Defendant's registration as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Frank L. Pepperel c/o ITT Community Development Corp. 5225 Northwest 87th Avenue Miami, Florida 33166
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Allen Darrell Probus, Respondent, was licensed as a real estate salesman and was employed by Florida Westbay Corporation (Westbay). Prior to becoming licensed as a real estate salesman in Florida, Respondent was employed by Westbay to search out and purchase real property for Westbay. James Parker Waddle was the owner of Westbay and served as active broker for Westbay. When Probus became licensed, he was given the designation of sales manager for Westbay, authorized to sign documents on behalf of Westbay and directed to sign those documents as Vice President of Westbay. At no time was Probus officially made an officer in Westbay or a director of the corporation. Donald Miller deeded property located at 7235 Heath Drive, Port Richey, Florida, to Westbay Corporation on which Westbay took out a first mortgage and Miller accepted a second mortgage on the property. The mortgage note on this property was signed by Waddle. A Westbay salesman negotiated the contract to purchase from Miller and a contract to sell this Heath Drive property to Brian Goldbaum on a contract for deed. Respondent signed this latter contract on behalf of Westbay. Neither Goldbaum or Miller had any other contact with Respondent. In carrying out his part of the agreement, Goldbaum made monthly payments to Westbay; however, Westbay failed to make first mortgage payments or second mortgage payments. When Miller learned the bank was getting ready to foreclose on the first mortgage, he went to Goldbaum and advised him that he, Miller, was the owner and that if Goldbaum wanted to stay in the house he would have to make arrangements to pay Miller. When Goldbaum declined the offer, Miller, through his attorney, sent an eviction notice to Goldbaum. Miller subsequently obtained a default judgment against Westbay and Waddle (Exhibit 16) for damages for civil fraud. Respondent also signed a contract to sell Westbay property to Dorothy James and James Bradford (Exhibit 9). This document, too, was signed on behalf of Westbay by Probus, V.P. Probus also signed an agreement for deed as Westbay, V.P., agreeing to transfer property to Jones and Bradford after certain conditions were met. Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker in Kentucky from 1973 to 1988 with no record of disciplinary actions (Exhibit 11). James P. Waddle's affidavit (Exhibit 15) corroborates Respondent's testimony that Respondent was hired to hire, train and manage sales people and sign contracts as agent for Waddle. Further, this affidavit corroborates Respondent's testimony that he was not an officer or director of Westbay, and the title given him as Vice President was in name only to give Respondent more "clout".
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Allen Darrell Probus not guilty of all charges and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Allen Darrell Probus 6701 Leeword Isle Way Tampa, FL 33615 Anthony Elgin, Qualified Rep. The Elgin Company 2155 NE Coachman Road Clearwater, FL 34625
The Issue The Administrative Complaint alleges the following: Count I alleges that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, and the like, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by failing to notify a seller's agent that the earnest money deposit he received was a check with contingencies on its face preventing its deposit in a trust account. Count II alleges that Respondent is guilty as a salesman of violating Section 475.256(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by failing to place with his employer a deposit check entrusted to him. Count III, admitted to by Respondent, alleges that he violated Sections 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by acting as a broker while licensed as a salesman, or by operating as a salesman for a person not registered as his employer. The issues are whether these violations occurred and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact In 1986 and 1987, at all times relevant to the complaint, Jeffrey Robert Horne was licensed as a Florida Real Estate salesman, holding license number 0433763. At that time he was employed by Realtyline, Inc., Post Office Box 800, Sebastian, Florida 32958. Jeffrey Horne is currently licensed as a real estate broker, c/o The Peoples Realty, Inc., 951-C Fellsmere Highway, Sebastian, Florida 32958. On June 6, 1987, Jeffrey Horne, while employed at Realtyline, Inc., obtained from John F. Baer, Jr., as trustee for Colonial Realty Trust, eleven written offers to purchase eleven lots in an unrecorded subdivision in Brevard County. The lots had various owners, although the owner of one of the lots was unknown at the time. On that same date John F. Baer gave Jeffrey Horne a check in the amount of $5,000, payable to "Realtyline c/o Jeff Horne," representing a $500 earnest money deposit for each of the lots. The face of the check bears this lengthy notation: This check to be held by Jeff Horne pending notification that all contingencies have been satisfied on Parker Rd. offers. At that time it will be replaced with a check for 2500 for each contract negotiated and then deposited to escrow. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) The contingencies, described in an addendum to the contracts, included the provisions that all eleven contracts be accepted for the same offer and that certain permits and local development approvals be obtained. At the hearing, John Baer explained that he wanted the check held by Jeffrey Horne because he had been dealing with Horne on the property. He knew that the realty company was in transition and did not want the deposit stuck in an escrow account if the firm "went under." Furthermore, he had operated in this manner in the past with other firms. Peter S. Tarbell was the qualifying broker for Realtyline, Inc. During this time Jeffrey Horne was attempting to get a partner and purchase the company from Tarbell. The negotiations were acrimonious and both men were dealing through attorneys. Tarbell was aware of the Baer offers on June 6, 1987, and read one of the contracts with the addendum. He vehemently denies that he was aware of the deposit check with its restrictions. Horne just as strongly insists that he told Tarbell about the check. It is uncontroverted, however, that Tarbell instructed Horne to hold on to the contracts until he got the deposit money. Horne went back to Baer and asked to have the restrictions removed from the check. Baer refused and told him to get the contracts changed to reflect the restrictions on the check. The contracts, as executed, provided for $500 deposit each, to be held in escrow by Realtyline, Inc. On six of the contracts Jeffrey Horne signed as escrow agent, under the following preprinted statement: "Deposits under 1.(a) received. (If check, subject to clearance.)" Rhoda Swiger, a broker with Atha and Swiger Real Estate, Inc., had the listing to sell the lots. When Baer was in Horne's office executing the contracts, Horne called her to find out if there were prior offers on the lots. Horne told her that Baer was getting ready to make his offer. Horne became nervous holding the contracts. He knew that Rhoda Swiger was expecting them but he also knew that Tarbell had told him to hold them. He could not get another deposit from Baer. He admits that he committed an error in judgment, but contrary to Tarbell's instructions, he took six of the contracts to Rhoda Swiger after they had been in his desk drawer for several days. He told her he had the deposit check but did not tell her about the restrictions on the check. Sometime later Rhoda Swiger called Realtyline to say that the offers were accepted. Tarbell took the call and found out that Horne had released some of the contracts against his wishes. Tarbell obtained the check and remainder of the contracts from Horne and terminated his employment. In Baer's words, the deal then "fizzled." The record does not disclose any past violations by this licensee, either as a salesman or a broker. He cooperated fully with the investigation and readily admitted, in his affidavits and at the hearing, his participation in the events which led to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMEND that a final order be entered finding Jeffrey Robert Horne guilty of violations of Subsections 475.25(1)(a), (b) and (k); that he be reprimanded and fined $500 per count, for a total of $1,500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 20th day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 George B. Turner, Esquire Gateway Business Center 1333 Gateway Drive Suite 1025 Melbourne, Florida 32801-2623 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Fred J. Will was a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0142418, t/a Will Realty, 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32014. At all times material to this proceeding, Richard P. Pollock was a licensed real estate salesman in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0139861, c/o Fred J. Will, t/a Will Realty, 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida, with a last listed home address of Post Office Box 2085, Flagler Beach, Florida 32036. Either in late December 1987 or early January 1988, Pollock approached Will with the idea of opening a real estate office using Will's real estate broker's license wherein Pollock would run the office since Will was currently employed managing the self storage facility of Regency Health Care Centers, Inc. In late January 1988, Will filed a Request For License or Change of Status Form using license number 0142418 wherein he advised the Petitioner that he would be operating under Will Realty located at 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. Upon opening the offices at 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Will opened an operating or business bank account and an escrow bank account for the Will Realty at the Commercial National Bank (Commercial) Only Will was authorized to write checks on the excrow account. There was insufficient evidence to show whether any funds were ever deposited in the business or escrow account at Commercial. Once the office and bank accounts were opened, Will left the daily operation of the office to Pollock and was at the office only a couple of times between the time it was opened in late January 1988 and when it was closed around April 23, 1988. The "agreement", as such, between Will and Pollock was a 50/50 "split" once the business "got going". Will did not receive any compensation from Pollock for the "use of his license". Will did not receive any money from Pollock in regard to Will Realty, personally or for deposit in either bank account at Commercial. The "agreement" was that Will would allow Pollock to "work under" his real estate broker's license. Will did not have any knowledge of the advertising being used by Pollock for Will Realty such as newspaper ads or business cards until just before the office closed in April 1988. Will did not have any knowledge of the forms being used by Pollock for Will Realty such as contracts or agreements for advance fee arrangements or receipts evidencing payment of such fee until just before the office closed in April 1988. Additionally, Will did not have any knowledge of the advance fee arrangement which Pollock may have had with prospective tenants as payment for securing rentals until just before the office closed in April 1988. Will did not have any knowledge of Pollock opening the bank accounts at Coast Federal Savings and Loan Association (Coast) in the name of Will Realty until just before the office closed in April 1988. None of the funds received by Pollock from prospective tenants while with Will Realty were deposited in the accounts at Commercial. Nor did any of the funds collected by Pollock from prospective tenants while he was with Will Realty go to Will personally. During the latter part of March 1988, Donna Elliott approached Pollock through Will Realty for the purpose of finding a home to rent. Pollock arranged for Edward R. Brown to show Elliott a home he had for rent. Elliott eventually rented this home and gave Pollock a check in the amount of $100.00 dated March 26, 1988 as a deposit on the home. On March 31, 1988 Elliott mailed Pollock another check in the amount of $1,000.00 as rent for the Brown home. The funds from these two checks were deposited in the account at Coast. Brown experienced some difficulty in getting Pollock to pay the deposit and rent collected from Elliott. However, once Will became aware of the situation he demanded that Pollock pay over the deposit and rent and, as a result of Will's effort Brown received $575.00 from Pollock. After paying Brown the $575.00 Pollock disappeared and Brown demanded the balance from Will since Pollock was working under Will's real estate broker's license. At first, Will agreed but later on advice of counsel declined to pay on the basis that it was not his responsibility. Brown filed suit and was awarded a judgment for the balance which Will paid. Around the middle of April 1988 Diane Smith approached Pollock for the purposes of renting a home. Smith paid Pollock an advance fee of $75.00 for service to be rendered by Pollock in securing her a rental home. However, before Pollock found a rental home for Smith he disappeared without returning Smith's fee. Within a short period after Smith paid the advance fee she went to the office of Will Realty only to find it closed and Pollock gone. There was no evidence that Smith made a demand on Will for the return of the advance fee paid to Pollock. After Will became aware of the situation he called Petitioner's Orlando office and was informed by Judy Smith that he should close the office immediately. Will followed this advice and closed the office sometime around April 23, 1988. As soon as Will began to receive complaints from Pollock's clients he got involved with Pollock and attempted to correct the problems but Pollock disappeared before Will could correct the situation. There was insufficient evidence to show that while Pollock was at Will Realty, any of his prospective tenants, other than Smith, specifically Catherine Vick, failed to receive reimbursement for any advance fee paid to Pollock where rentals were not obtained for the prospective tenant. Will was not directly involved with any of the transactions between Pollock and the prospective tenants and did not have any knowledge of these transactions until shortly before Pollock disappeared and Will Realty was closed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the mitigating circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Fred J. Will guilty of violating Section 475.25(1) (d) and (e), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $500.00 and issue a reprimand. In recommending the reprimand I have taken into consideration the harshness of a suspension or revocation and feel that under the circumstances of this case that a reprimand and a fine is more appropriate. See: Webb v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 351 So.2d 71 (2 DCA Fla. 1977). It is further RECOMMENDED that Counts VI, IX and XIV of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 22nd day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert W. Elton, Esquire 648 S. Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32014 Fred J. Will 2281 Carmen Daytona Beach, Florida 32119
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joyce Chandler, prior to February 2, 1982, was a real estate salesman employed by Frank Ambrose, a real estate broker. On February 2, 1982, Chandler became licensed as a real estate broker with the State of Florida, and holds license number 0348072. On February 8, 1982, the Respondent drafted an offer to purchase for herself property located at 811 Perrine Avenue in Miami, which belonged to Dr. Harry Moskowitz. The purchase price of the offer was $140,000. The Respondent took the offer to Carol Rebhan, the listing salesman of the property who was employed by Tauber-Manon Red Carpet Realty. The offer provided that an earnest money deposit of $100 would be placed in the escrow account of Roberta Fox, the Respondent's attorney, with an additional $5,000 to be deposited in Roberta Fox's escrow account within three working days of acceptance of the offer. The contract also called for a ten percent brokerage fee to be divided equally between the Respondent and Tauber-non Red Carpet Realty. Carol Rebhan and the Respondent presented the offer to Eugene Lemlich, attorney for the seller Dr. Harry Moskowitz. After contacting Dr. Moskowitz in Texas, Lemlich accepted the offer on his behalf. Three working days after the offer was accepted, Carol Rebhan called Roberta Fox's office repeatedly to determine whether the additional $5,000 deposit had been placed in escrow. Fox's office advised Rebhan that they did not have the $5,000 deposit. Rebhan confronted the Respondent with this information, and the Respondent stated that she was going to deposit the monies with Frank Ambrose at Landmark Title. The next day, Rebhan contacted Landmark Title and was informed that they did not have the deposit in escrow. On or about the 14th of February, 1982, Rebhan contacted Frank Ambrose personally and inquired about the $5,000 deposit. Ambrose told Rebhan that Landmark Title was in possession of the deposit. This was not true. Rebhan requested that Ambrose send her an escrow letter acknowledging possession of the $5,000 deposit. By letter dated February 18, 1982, Ambrose informed Rebhan that Landmark Title was in possession of the $5,000 deposit. On February 18, 1982, the Respondent gave Ambrose a $5,000 check payable to Landmark Title Company. The check was for the additional deposit on the Moskowitz property and was post-dated to February 28, 1982. The check was deposited on February 19, 1982. On February 25, 1982, Ambrose was informed that there were insufficient funds in the Respondent's account to pay the check. Ambrose notified the Respondent that the check had been returned unpaid. She advised him that she was expecting some funds, and would make the check good within a few days. Ambrose took no action to notify the parties at this time. In the first week of March, 1982, when Ambrose had still not received funds from the Respondent to cover the check, he contacted Carol Rebhan and informed her of the series of events which had occurred with regard to the deposit check. When Rebhan subsequently contacted the Respondent and told her that her $5,000 check had bounced, the Respondent seemed shocked at the news. The Respondent has not made good the check returned to Landmark Title Company, nor has she placed the $5,000 deposit in escrow in accordance with the terms of the contract with Dr. Moskowitz. Throughout the entire transaction, the Respondent misled the parties involved with regard to the location and existence of the earnest money deposit, she represented that she would replace the dishonored check or make it-good but has not done so, and she has thereby breached her contract to purchase the subject property from Dr. Moskowitz. The Respondent contends that she informed all parties that the $5,000 check would be post-dated, but there is not sufficient evidence to support this assertion. Nevertheless, the post-dated check given by the Respondent has never been made good, so the Respondent's contention that she advised the parties at the outset that the $5,000 check would be post-dated, is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, Joyce A. Chandler, be suspended for a period of one year. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Joyce A. Chandler 11231 S.W. 201st Street Miami, Florida 33189 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary measures against her license as a licensed Real Estate Salesperson.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Barbara Gordon Schneider, at all times material to this matter, was a licensed Florida Real Estate Salesperson, holding license no. 0481077 with an address of 5825 Indian Trail, Keystone Heights, Florida 32656-9773. As a consequence of previous disciplinary action, Respondent’s license has been suspended since February 17, 1995, due to non-payment of a fine. Basically, that case revolved around a finding of Respondent’s guilt of culpable negligence and operating as a broker while licensed as a salesperson. Respondent did not inform her then current employer, Coursey and Associates Real Estate (Coursey and Associates) of the February 1995 suspension of her license. Additionally, as documented by a certified copy of judgment admitted at final hearing as Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, Respondent also failed to notify Petitioner of Respondent’s plea of guilty to a felony charge of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, Florida, on December 19, 1989. Adjudication was withheld by the Court and Respondent was placed on probation for 18 months. On or about July 14, 1995, while employed as office manager and selling manager for Coursey and Associates, Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase for Flint and Jessica Banther as buyers for property located at 2276 Chablis Court, West, Orange Park, Florida. Also, Respondent negotiated an occupancy agreement whereby the Banthers agreed to rent the property they were planning to purchase. Kevin Coursey, the broker for Coursey and Associates, had no knowledge of this transaction although Respondent signed the occupancy agreement on behalf of Coursey and Associates. On or about July 14, 1995, the Banthers gave Respondent a $500 cash binder for the purchase of the Chablis Court property. The money was not turned over to her employer by Respondent. Respondent had previously procured, on or about May 17, 1995, a listing agreement on behalf of Coursey and Associates for a home owned by Gary J. and Agnes Beagles which was located at 4854 Gopher Circle North, Middleburg, Florida. Respondent rented the Beagles’ home to Christine and Jim Weaver, without the knowledge or permission of Kevin Coursey on behalf of Coursey and Associates. Coursey and Associates were not in the business of brokering rental property and had no insurance to cover such activity. Respondent was accepting checks from the Weavers and depositing them into the Beagles’ bank account. On or about June 23, 1995, Christine Weaver made check no. 2952 in the amount of $250 payable to Coursey and Associates. Respondent endorsed the check by writing “Coursey & Assoc.” On the back of the check and signed her name with “co-owner” written under her name. Kevin Coursey did not authorize Respondent to endorse the check. Respondent never informed Kevin Coursey of the check’s existence and deposited it into her personal bank account at the Jax Navy Federal Credit Union without Coursey’s authorization. Respondent also procured renters for the Weavers’ home without the knowledge and consent of her employer. Initially, Robert and Pamela Campbell, the renters of the Weaver home, gave Respondent a check which was returned for insufficient funds. When the check was returned, the Campbells gave Respondent cash in the amount of $600 in place of the check. Respondent did not turn the cash over to the Weavers and, as a result, Coursey and Associates were later compelled to pay the Weavers the $600. Sometime around July 26, 1995, Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase for Charles Crum as the buyer of property located at 5615 Indians Trail, Keystone Heights, Florida. Crum gave Respondent a binder for the property consisting of three money orders totaling $500. The money orders were payable to Coursey and Associates, but Respondent did not deliver the funds to her employer. Approximately three weeks later, Respondent did deliver the binder, in the form of a different set of money orders, to Kevin Coursey. At some point prior to July 30, 1995, Respondent negotiated the rental of property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richard J. Connell. The renter was James Cawley. This was accomplished without knowledge or consent of Kevin Coursey, although Respondent led the Connells to believe that the property was being rented through Coursey and Associates. The Connells never received the cash security deposit paid to Respondent by Cawley. By letter dated September 19, 1995, Richard J. Connell and James L. Cawley informed Coursey and Associates of Connell’s entry into a rental agreement with that firm on February 25, 1995. Respondent had negotiated the agreement which provided that Cawley would initially rent the property for $350 a month until he established credit for the purchase. Respondent, it was agreed, on behalf of Coursey and Associates, would collect the rent every month. Coursey and Associates would receive a ten percent commission on the rental proceeds and also retain $65 per month in escrow for repairs. Respondent signed the Connells’ names to the agreement without their consent. Respondent left the employ of Coursey and Associates, without notice, on or about July 30, 1995, and contacted Martha J. O’Shields, co-broker for Century 21 Bryant and O’Shields Realty, about coming to work for O’Shields. Respondent did not tell O’Shields that Respondent’s salesperson license was suspended. O’Shields hired Respondent. On or about August 2, 1995, Respondent negotiated a contract for sale and purchase of the property owned by the Beagles. Coursey and Associates were, of course, the listing agents. Instead of presenting the offer to Coursey and Associates, Respondent presented the offer directly to the owners. Respondent signed the contract on behalf of Coursey and Associates, although she was then working for O’Shields. Respondent had the buyers of the property sign a consent to dual agency although she was not acting as a dual agent and had not been authorized by O’Shields to present the offer in this fashion. On or about August 2, 1995, Respondent proceeded to list the buyers’ property located at 1594 Twin Oaks Drive West in Middleburg, Florida, on behalf of Bryant and O’Shields. O’Shields discovered on or about August 15, 1995, that Respondent had taken all files upon which she was working from the office. By letter dated August 18, 1995, O’Shields notified Petitioner that she had terminated Respondent’s employment on August 15, 1995. According to O’Shields’ notification, Respondent had sales pending and O’Shields had not been previously aware of Respondent’s license suspension.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of counts I through V, counts VII through VIII, counts X through XII, counts XV through XVI, and counts XIX through XXI of the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent’s license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 28th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Barbara Gordon Schneider 5086 Granny's Place Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 James Kimbler, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined for fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in any business transaction, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes(1983).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent Thomas F. Steffan Jr. was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0402257. Respondent has since been issued a license as a real estate broker, same license number. Mr. and Mrs. Walther Ellis were the owners of certain property located on Windsor Road, Bonita Springs, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Ellis listed their property for sale with Wesley Brodersen of Gulder Real Estate, Inc. in Bonita Springs, Florida. The Respondent was employed at Gulder Real Estate, Inc. during the time that the Ellises listed said property with Gulder Real Estate, Inc. On or about May 23, 1984, the Respondent solicited and obtained a Catherine A. Griffin as a prospective purchaser of the Ellis' property. Mrs. Griffin submitted a contract for sale and purchase, witnessed by Respondent, which contract for sale and purchase the Respondent in turn submitted to the Ellises. Pursuant to the terms of the May 23, 1984 contract for sale and purchase, Mrs. Griffin had placed down a total deposit of $5,000.00. The Ellises rejected the terms of sale (offer) as expressed in the May 23, 1984 contract for sale and purchase. Thereafter, Mrs. Griffin, as buyer, along with her husband, Donald Griffin, who is not a buyer in the transaction but was intimately involved in the negotiations, continued to express an interest in the property and the Ellises continued to express an interest to sell the property. In July, 1984, contract negotiations were once again begun and Mr. Griffin informed the Respondent what terms would be acceptable to his wife, Catherine A. Griffin. Mr. Griffin further requested that the signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Ellis be obtained first on a new contract for sale and purchase setting out the terms he had dictated to Respondent. Somewhere during this time period, Mr. Griffin directed Respondent to have completed a survey of the property at the Griffins'expense. Respondent next communicated with Mr. Ellis and a new contract for sale and purchase was prepared by the Respondent and signed by Mr. Ellis personally and signed by Mr. Ellis for Mrs. Ellis with Mrs. Ellis' express consent and permission. Subsequent thereto, the Respondent brought the new contract for sale and purchase to the Griffins. In the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Griffin the Respondent presented the offer. Mr. Griffin immediately signed the new contract for sale and purchase in the presence of both Respondent and Mrs. Griffin on the line indicating he was signing as a witness to the buyer's signature/execution. However, as this contract (offer) was physically handed by Mr. Griffin to his wife for formal execution, it was further reviewed by Mr. Griffin, who became aware that the terms of purchase contained in the new contract for sale and purchase were not as he had dictated them to the Respondent. Mr. Griffin advised his wife not to accept the offer, instructed her not to sign, and, in fact, the new contract for sale and purchase was not signed or accepted by Mrs. Griffin. Respondent requested that the Griffins think about the offer for a while longer and they agreed to do so over an extended vacation. While the Griffins were on vacation, the Respondent, apparently believing the offer contained in the second contract for sale and purchase would eventually be accepted, notified Mr. Ellis that the offer had already been accepted. Believing that the offer had been accepted by a bona fide purchaser, Mr. Ellis requested a copy of the signed contract. Due to the fact that the Respondent did not have a contract signed by a bona fide buyer (Catherine A. Griffin) but believing that one would be obtained in the very near future because Donald Griffin had signed the second contract and because Donald Griffin had indicated that he could finance the entire operation by himself, the Respondent caused a photo copy of the signature of Catherine A. Griffin to be placed onto the second contract without the permission , consent, or knowledge of either Donald Griffin or Catherine Griffin. The altered copy of the second contract is apparently no longer in existence and did not come into evidence. The only real point of contention in the parties' respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is concerning what representation was made by Respondent to Mr. Walther Ellis concerning who had accepted the second contract. Respondent admits he represented to Mr. Ellis that Mr. Griffin, controlling the transaction for buyers, had accepted the second contract. Mr. Ellis maintained that Respondent represented to him that the second contract had been accepted on his terms but he is not clear·whether Respondent told him Mrs. Griffin accepted it or who accepted it. (Walther Ellis Deposition Page 22). Mrs. Ellis's testimony presents no independent confirmation of any of this as her information in all respects is second-hand. Mr. Brodersen's testimony is that the Respondent's representation to him was that "the Griffins" had accepted the second contract for purchase and sale and that Respondent told Mr. Ellis the same thing in Brodersen's presence and also told Brodersen that the last copy of the signed contract had been mailed to Mr. Ellis by Respondent the day previous to this three-way conversation. Mr. Brodersen thought Mr. Ellis never got the fraudulent contract but testified further that Respondent later admitted to Brodersen that he had altered this copy of the second contract so as to fraudulently reflect Mrs. Griffin's signature and further admitted to Brodersen that he, Respondent, had mailed that fraudulent copy to Mr. Ellis. Mr. Brodersen never saw the fraudulent contract. Mr. Ellis testified to receiving in the mail a copy of the second contract with a suspicious-looking set of signatures which he turned over to his attorney. The parties stipulated the attorney does not now have the contract copy. By itself, the testimony of Investigator Jacobs that Respondent by telephone admitted falsifying Mrs. Griffin's signature onto a copy of the second contract for purchase and sale and further admitted destroying one copy of the fraudulent contract would fail as not having the proper predicate for voice identification. However, in light of Mr. Ellis's and Mr. Brodersen's testimony, Mr. Jacobs' testimony on Respondent's creation of the fraudulent document is accepted as corroborative pursuant to Section 120.58 Florida Statutes. The remainder of his testimony is rejected. At no time did Catherine A. Griffin and/or Donald Griffin as her agent or on his own behalf accept the Ellis' offer contained in the second contract for sale and purchase nor did Catherine A. Griffin nor Donald Griffin ever execute the second contract as a buyer. The transaction was never closed and Mrs. Griffin was returned her deposit money when she requested it in September 1984. Mr. Ellis admits having told Respondent he was not anxious for the deal to close and did not care if the deal failed to go through. Mr. Griffin spoke at length and with considerable feeling at the hearing of his desire that Respondent not receive a permanent record as a result of a single mistake committed while under stress from Respondent's father's medical condition. That Respondent was under such stress when all this occurred was confirmed by Mr. Brodersen.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered whereby Respondent Thomas F. Steffan Jr.'s licenses as a real estate salesman and broker be suspended for a period of one year and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 8th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Mitchell, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation-Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas F. Steffan Jr., Pro Se 18645 Sandpiper Road Ft. Myers, Florida Harold R. Huff, Director Department of Professional Regulation-Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
