The Issue Whether the application of Ronald J. Palamara (“Palamara”) for licensure as a yacht and ship broker under Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was previously a licensed yacht and ship broker in Florida, holding Yacht Broker License No.324. On April 28, 1999, the Petitioner’s prior license expired. The Petitioner reapplied for a Yacht Broker license on February 24, 2000. Robert Badger (Badger), at that time an investigator with the Division, investigated the application for form pursuant to Rule 61B-60.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, and found that there were no problems with the form of the application. Badger also reviewed the application for moral character of the applicant pursuant to Rule 61B-60.003(3), Florida Administrative Code. On the application, the Petitioner indicated that he had a criminal background, but failed to disclose the nature of the criminal background on the application. In a letter from the Division addressed to the Petitioner, additional information was requested regarding his criminal background. The Petitioner replied in a letter that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor for resisting an officer without violence. The Petitioner also disclosed on the application that he had a civil Final Judgment against him in the matter of Chinnock Marine, Inc. v. Barthelemy & Palamara, Case No. 98- 19512 (Fla. 17th Cir. 1999). He did not fully disclose the details relating to events that led to the judgment. Instead, he stated on the application that the claims were “unfounded” and that Chinnock Marine “misled the court.” The subject application is dated February 22, 2000. On that application, the Petitioner was specifically required to disclose any “pending” civil suits involving a yacht. At the time of his application, another civil matter was pending against the Petitioner in World Class Yachts v. Palamara, Case No. 99-12923 (Fla. 17th Cir. 2001), which was filed on July 22, 1999. The Petitioner failed to disclose the pending World Class Yachts civil suit.2 Subsequent to the filing of the subject application, a non-final order was entered against the Petitioner finding that he was in default and rendering judgment for World Class Yachts in the amount of $157,500. The Petitioner took an interlocutory appeal of the circuit court’s non-final order of default to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order of default. Palamara v. World Class Yachts, Case No. 4D01-3260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The Petitioner admits that the World Class Yachts case relates to a yacht. Although the circuit court had not entered a Final Judgment against the Petitioner in the amount of $157,500.00 at the time of the hearing in this case, the World Class Yachts civil litigation involving a yacht should have been disclosed on the application pursuant to Rule 61B-60.003(3)(a)6, Florida Administrative Code. In both Chinnock Marine and World Class Yachts, the Petitioner has moved to vacate the default judgments, alleging that he was not properly served. The Petitioner has worked in the yacht brokerage business in South Florida for many years. He has never had any disciplinary action taken against his license. In the community in which he lives and works he enjoys a reputation for being a person of integrity, honesty, and good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued in this case granting the license sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 3rd day of September, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondents were licensed real estate salesmen in the State of Florida, with Mr. Blanc's license being 0406481 and Ms. Kirkland's license being 0399466. The Division of Real Estate is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of real estate in this state. In November, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. William A. McKie were owners of Week 43 in Unit 1 of a time share condominium located at the Anchorage Resort and Yacht Club in Key Largo, Florida. About that time, they received a card issued by the Florida Bay Club to visit a time share condominium there. Because they were somewhat disappointed in the condition of their Anchorage unit, they went to see the Florida Bay Club facility and met with Respondent Kirkland who took them on a tour of the facility and the model apartment. Mrs. McKie was quite impressed with it, but indicated she could not afford it, because she and her husband already owned a time share unit at the Anchorage. When told that, Ms. Kirkland introduced the McKies to Respondent Blanc, who in the course of his sales presentation, suggested that the McKies use their ownership at the Anchorage as a trade-in worth $4,000 off of the in excess of $11,000 price of the Florida Bay Club unit. The McKies agreed and signed certain documents incident to the purchase including a worksheet, purchase agreement, disclosure agreement, and settlement statement, all prepared by Respondent Blanc. The worksheet reflected that the unit being purchased by the McKies, Week 44 in Unit A-5, had a purchase price of $6,500 toward which the McKies made a down payment of $650 by three separate charges to their Master Card and Visa cards, two for $300 each and one for $50. This left a mortgage balance to be financed of $5,850 payable for 7 years at 15 1/2 percent with monthly payments of $114.54. No reference was made in the worksheet to a trade in of the Anchorage unit. The purchase agreement also signed by the McKies and by Respondent Kirkland for the Florida Bay Club reflects a purchase price of $6,500 with a down payment of $650. The truth in lending form reflects that the amount financed would be $5,850 at 15.5% resulting in a finance charge of $3,771.36 with a total monthly payment amount of $9,621.36 which, when added to the $650 deposit, showed a total sales price of $10,271.36. The settlement statement signed by the McKies reflects a sales price of $6,500 with a $650 deposit. At no place, on any of the documentation, is the $4,000 trade-in for the Anchorage unit reflected. As a part of the transaction and at the suggestion of Respondent Blanc, the McKies were to sign a quitclaim deed to him as the representative of the seller to receive credit for the $4,000 trade-in. The documents, except for the quitclaim deed, were signed by the McKies on their first visit to Florida Bay Club on November 17, 1985. Mrs. McKie does not recall either Respondent signing the documentation, but there is evidence that Ms. Kirkland signed the purchase agreement and the worksheet and Mr. Blanc approved the worksheet. Neither the disclosure statement, the settlement statement nor the quitclaim deed, which was prepared by Respondent, Blanc, and furnished to the McKies on their second visit, was signed by either Respondent. The McKies went back to Florida Bay Club approximately a week later to sign for the prize they had been notified they had won and to sign the quitclaim deed, which had not been ready for them on their first visit. Respondent Blanc explained what the quitclaim deed was for and according to both McKies, they would not have purchased the property at Florida Bay Club had they not been able to trade-in their Anchorage unit. They definitely could not afford to pay for both units, a fact which was repeatedly explained to Respondents on both visits. Mrs. McKie believed that when she signed the quitclaim deed to the Anchorage unit, she would no longer be responsible for making payments there and in fact, the McKies notified the Anchorage Resort Club that Respondent Blanc had assumed their Week at the Anchorage, a fact which was confirmed by the Anchorage to Mr. Blanc by letter dated February 13, 1986. It is further noted that on January 30, 1986, Ms. Berta, general manager of the Florida Bay Club, by letter of even date, notified Mr. Blanc who was no longer an employee of Florida Bay, that the McKies' payment book, invoices for taxes due on the Anchorage property, and the quitclaim deed were being forwarded to him as evidence of the change of ownership of the Anchorage Resort unit from the McKies to Respondent Blanc. In this letter, Blanc was requested to notify the Anchorage of the change so the McKies would not be dunned for continuing payments. At the closing of the Florida Bay unit, when Mrs. McKie and her husband signed the quitclaim deed, Respondent Blanc told her she would continue to get payment notices from the Anchorage while the transfer was being processed, but she should bring those payment notices to him at the Florida Bay Club and he would take care of them. When Mrs. McKie received the first notice, she brought it to the Florida Bay Club to give to Mr. Blanc, but he was no longer located there. On this visit, she spoke to Ms. Berta, who advised her that the Florida Bay Club did not take trades. Ms. Berta called Respondent Blanc at his new place of business by phone in Mrs. McKie's presence and Respondent indicated at that time that he would buy the Anchorage unit himself and assume the payments. As a result, Mrs. McKie sent the delinquent notices to him at his new place of business, Gulf Stream Manor. In the meantime, she continued to make her new payments at the Florida Bay Club. Notwithstanding Respondent Blanc's agreement to assume payments, Mrs. McKie continued to receive mortgage payment delinquent notices from the bank for the Anchorage unit. During later negotiations with the bank regarding this, Mrs. McKie was told that she would still be responsible for making the payments even if Respondent Blanc took over and didn't pay and as a result, in order to relieve herself from this impending burden, she made arrangements to pay off the entire amount due for the Anchorage unit. After that she made several efforts to get Respondent Blanc to pay her back for the amount paid. Respondent Blanc agreed to make the payments and said he would pay the taxes on the unit, but he never reimbursed the McKies for any of the amount they had to pay. The McKies now own the Anchorage unit and have worked out a settlement agreement with the Florida Bay Club to get out of the responsibility for the unit there. Review of the quitclaim deed in question, prepared by Respondent Blanc and signed by the McKies, reflects that the McKies are both the grantors and grantees of the property and that Respondent Blanc's name nowhere appears on the document. It is of no force and effect. Respondent contends that when the McKies indicated they were unable to purchase a new unit since they still had a prior unit to pay for, relying on his understanding that the marketing organization selling the Florida Bay Club units had in the past taken a unit in trade, he discussed the matter with his supervisor who advised that he could offer up to $4,000 in trade on the unit. In order to do this, Respondent Blanc had to price the new unit at $10,500 and credit the McKies with $4,000. However, none of the documentation shows this was ever done. At no place on any of the documentations is the $4,000 trade-in referenced. It is clear the offer of a trade-in was a sham to induce the McKies to purchase a unit at Florida Bay Club. Ms. Berta, who was manager at Florida Bay Club at the time in question, indicated that no trade-ins were ever taken by the club. The prior trade-in referenced by Mr. Blanc was a unit which was completely paid for as opposed the McKies' which still had a substantial outstanding balance on it. Respondent Kirkland who was not a party to any of the negotiations subsequent to her initial interview with the McKies indicates that she "probably" quoted the McKies a price of $10,500. When Mrs. McKie indicated that they could not afford such a high price, she turned them over to Mr. Blanc who thereafter handled the entire transaction. Respondent Blanc tells a somewhat different story about the reaction of the McKies when his failure to assume responsibility for the trade-in unit at the Anchorage Bay Club came to light. He indicates that it was never intended that he would take title to this unit at first. The trade in was to be absorbed by the marketing company, Resort Sales International, for whom he worked, and he assumed, when he left the following week to go to a different facility, the company would follow through with its agreement to assume the McKie's Week at the Anchorage. He was quite surprised, he contends, to learn that this had not been done and since he wanted a unit in the Key Largo area anyway, he agreed to then assume it personally after first offering Mrs. McKie the opportunity to back out of the purchase. When she said that she wanted to be at Florida Bay Club, he was sent the payment books and the deed. He called the bank to notify them that he was going to assume responsibility for the loan, but the bank would give him no information regarding it and the bank official, Ms. Brown, was adamant in her representation that the McKies could not quitclaim deed the property to him. No reason was given for this, however. Mr. Blanc claims he made a series of telephone calls between January 30 and March 31, 1986, in an attempt to straighten out the difficulty involved. These included sixteen calls to Ms. Berta, eight calls to his former supervisor at Resort Sales, four calls to the Anchorage, three calls to the bank and three calls to Mrs. McKie. Mrs. McKie denies receiving calls from the Respondent and contends that her numerous calls to him remained unanswered. In a call he made after she paid off the loan on the Anchorage and settled with Florida Bay Club for approximately $2,183, Mrs. McKie advised Blanc to forget about it, that they were tired of messing with him and with the property. As a result, he admittedly gave up and did and heard nothing more regarding the property until he was contacted by a DPR investigator. On January 30, 1988, Mr. Blanc offered to buy Mrs. McKie's unit at the Anchorage for $2,900 which was exactly the amount owed on the property when she paid it off. She refused to accept that offer since she had paid $6,800 for the unit initially.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Sandra Kirkland be dismissed and that Respondent Blanc's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be suspended for six months. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 19th day of April, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Darlene F. Keller Department of Professional Acting Executive Director Regulation DPR, Division of Real Estate Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Sandra S. Kirkland Post Office Box 9264 Panama City, Florida 32407 John G. Blanc 17501 West Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32407
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner field applications for registration as a real estate salesman with respondent on October 10, 1977. Question 16 of the application reads as follows: 16. Have you, in this state, operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate salesman or broker, within one year next prior to the filing of this application without then being the holder of a valid current registration certificate authorizing you to do so? The petitioner answered "no" to Question 16. On December 8, 1977, respondent Florida Real Estate Commission issued an order denying the application based on its determination that the applicant had operated, attempted to operate or held himself out as a real estate broker or salesman within the one year period prior to filing his application. Petitioner thereafter requested a hearing in the matter. (Exhibit 1) Petitioner is the president of Marketing Institute Corporation of the Americas, Ltd. of San Jose, Costa Rica. (MICA) The firm operates as a real estate sales organization under the laws of Costa Rica, and is owned by Insco S.A., a Costa Rican holding company. (Testmony of McIntire, Figueredo) In 1975, petitioner became associated with William W. Landa, president of Costa del Sol, a condominium project in Miami, Florida. His function was to produce sales of condominium units as a result of sales efforts in Latin America. Part of the informal arrangement was the petitioner occupied a rental villa at the condominium project. His success in producing sales was limited and, as a result, the association was terminated sometime in 1976. In a letter to Lands, dated January 21, 1977, petitioner sought an accounting of expenses incurred in the operation and stated that he had produced three purchasers for which commissions were payable at the rate of "10% for foreign sales and 5% on domestic sales." Although no explanation of the terms "foreign sales" and "domestic sales" was presented, Landa testified at the hearing that petitioner did not sell in Florida for Costa del Sol. (Testimony of Landa, Figueredo, Exhibits 2-3) On December 1. 1976, the receiver in bankruptcy of the estates of Grandlich Development Corporation and Fisher Development Corporation, Fred Stanton Smith, president of the Keyes Company, Miami, Florida, Wrote petitioner and offered to pay his firm a 10% commission on "all sales closed by you of all Commodore Club Condominiums sold to your prospects." The commission was to be payable to MICA through its agent in the United States, Transcontinental Properties, Inc. of Miami, Florida, a corporate broker, The Commodore Club is a condominium project located at Key Biscayn, Florida. Hemisphere Equity Investors, Inc. was the registered broker for the sales of the condominiums and kept sales agents on the premises. Smith instructed Hemisphere to cooperate with foreign brokers in the sales of the properties. Petitioner proceeded under this arrangement to obtain and refer prospective foreign purchasers to Transcontinental who arranged to show the condominium units to the clients and consummate any resulting sales. Although petitioner had desk space in the Transcontinental office from September, 1976, to August, 1977, he was not supposed to show properties to clients or be involve in any real estate sales functions. In September, 1976, the president of Transcontinental placed a telephone call to respondent's legal office at Winter Park, Florida and ascertained that commissions could be paid to a foreign broker. However, he was informed by the Commission representative that it was a "gray" area and, although the foreign representative could serve as an interpreter for foreign clients during transactions in the United States, he could not perform any of the sales functions himself in Florida. Sales were made in this manner and commission checks were paid to petitioner's firm during the period January - September, 1977. (Testimony of Smith, McIntire, Figueredo, Exhibits 4, 5, 12, 13, 15) On July 1, 1976, Alexander Sandru purchased a condominium at the Commordore Club through the Keyes Company as broker. He was a friend of petitioner's from Caracas, Venezuela, and the latter had recommended his purchase of the condominium. However, petitioner was not in the United States at the time Sandru viewed the property and purchased it. Petitioner claimed a commission on the sale and it was paid to his firm through Transcontinental's predecessor company. A dispute arose over the payment of the commission because a saleswoman of Hemisphere Equity Investors, Inc. had shown the property to Sandru and assumed that she would earn the commission on any resulting sale. (Testimony of Lundberg, Nelson, Murragy, Exhibits 8-11) On several occasions in 1976 and 1977, petitioner accompanied Latin American individuals to the Commodore Club where a representative of Hemisphere showed them various condominium units. During this time, petitioner would inquire concerning maintenance charges and the like and transmit such information to the individuals in Spanish. Several of these persons were connected with petitioner's foreign firm and were not prospective purchasers. (Testimony of Lundberg, Figueredo, Exhibit 7) On January 30, 1977, Insco S.A. entered into a purchase agreement for a Commodore Club condominium unit. Petitioner signed the agreement on behalf of his firm MICA as broker for the transaction. However, the deal was never consummated. (Testimony of Figeredo, Exhibit 14)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of March, 1978. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard J. Mandell, Esquire 748 Seybold Building Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Notice to Show Cause dated March 30, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating yacht and ship brokers in Florida. Section 326.003, Florida Statutes (1997). Nivardo Beaton is a resident of Miami, Florida. He is not now, and never has been, licensed as a yacht broker or salesperson. The Division has no record of any prior enforcement or disciplinary actions against Mr. Beaton. At the times material to this action, Mr. Beaton worked at Avanti Powerboats, where he did assembly, electrical installation, and motor installation work on the boats built by Avanti Powerboats. Although he was originally a salaried employee of Avanti Powerboats, at the times material to this action, Mr. Beaton worked on a "piece work" basis and was paid a flat fee when he completed rigging a boat. Mr. Beaton also had a verbal agreement with Raul Rodriguez, the owner of Avanti Powerboats, whereby he was to be paid a five-percent commission for each direct sale of an Avanti boat and a one-and-one-half- percent commission for each Avanti boat sold by a dealership he had recruited as an Avanti distributor. An advertisement appeared in the October 17, 1997, edition of South Florida Boat Trader in which "Beaton Boat Sales and Service - Nivardo Beaton" offered three new boats and three used boats for sale. The three new boats were all Avantis; the three used boats were a twenty-one-foot Corona, a thirty-five- foot Contender, and a thirty-three-foot Avanti. Mr. Beaton owned the Corona; the Contender was owned by a friend, and Mr. Beaton did not expect any compensation from the sale of this boat; and the Avanti, an open-decked fishing boat, had been taken in trade by Mr. Rodriguez and was owned by Avanti Powerboats. Pursuant to a verbal agreement with Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Beaton was to receive a five percent commission on the sale of this used thirty-three- foot Avanti. The advertisement was seen by an employee of the Division, and, when the Division's records revealed that neither Mr. Beaton nor Beaton Boat Sales and Service were licensed to offer yachts for sale, an investigation was initiated. Peter Renje, the Division's investigator, contacted Mr. Beaton on November 19, 1997, and informed him that he could not offer for sale used boats over thirty-two feet in length with the expectation of compensation unless he was licensed as a yacht broker. After Mr. Renje's first visit, Mr. Beaton immediately contacted the South Florida Boat Trader and discontinued the advertisement. He also provided Mr. Renje with the materials he requested to assist him in his investigation. Mr. Beaton abandoned the idea of doing business under the name of Beaton Boat Sales and Service. Mr. Beaton never sold a boat or transacted any other commercial transaction through this business. The only action Mr. Beaton took under the name of Beaton Boat Sales and Service was placing the advertisement in the October 17, 1997, issue of the South Florida Boat Trader. Mr. Beaton has worked in the management and production areas of the boat-building industry for over twelve years; he began working in sales in 1997. Before working for Avanti Powerboats, he worked for a short time selling Boston Whalers, Zodiac Inflatables, and Key West Boats. He also was employed as a full-time salesman by Fisherman's Paradise, Inc., a division of Warren Craft Distributing, Inc., from January to June 1997. Mr. Beaton was aware at the time he placed the advertisement in the South Florida Boat Trader that a person must have a broker's license in order to sell used yachts. He was not aware at the time he placed the advertisement that he needed to have a broker's license to offer for sale the thirty-three-foot Avanti open fishing boat. The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish that Mr. Beaton, doing business as Beaton Boat Sales and Service, offered for sale a used boat over thirty-two feet in length and that he expected to earn a commission if he sold the boat. The evidence is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Beaton worked with Avanti Powerboats as an independent contractor, that he cooperated with the Division in its investigation, that he immediately cancelled the subject advertisement, and that he did not do any business as Beaton Boat Sales and Service. Mr. Beaton's testimony that he was not aware that a thirty-three-foot open-decked fishing boat fell within the statutory definition of a yacht is accepted as credible. Although Mr. Beaton had a few months' experience in boat sales, there is no evidence to establish that he engaged in the sale of used boats or that he sold boats in excess of thirty-two feet in length. The evidence presented by the Division is, therefore, not sufficient to permit the inference that Mr. Beaton knew or should have known that offering for sale a used boat over thirty- two feet in length without a broker's license violated Chapter 326. Likewise, the evidence presented by the Division is not sufficient to permit the inference that Mr. Beaton intended to violate Chapter 326. There was no evidence presented by the Division to establish that any member of the public suffered any injury as a result of Mr. Beaton's action in advertising for sale the used Avanti.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, enter a final order finding Nivardo Beaton guilty of violating Section 326.004(1), Florida Statutes (1997); ordering Mr. Beaton to cease and desist from any other violations of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder; and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $250. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 13th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William Oglo, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Nivardo Beaton, pro se Beaton Boat Sales and Services 14812 Southwest 81 Street Miami, Florida 33193 Philip Nowicki, Ph.D., Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1030 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, properly rejected the application filed by the Petitioner, Miami Sunset Bay Apartments, Limited Partnership, for State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) funds during the 2001 Combined Cycle. In rejecting the application the Respondent concluded that the bond closing of December 15, 2000, constituted "permanent financing" such that the Petitioner was not entitled to participate in the allocation of SAIL funds.
Findings Of Fact On February 26, 2001, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for SAIL funding for the 2001 Combined Cycle. The Petitioner seeks funding for the construction of Sunset Bay Apartments, a 308-unit residential housing development, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner's application for funding was designated Application No. 2001-007S. It is undisputed that the Petitioner's project is the type eligible for SAIL funding. The Respondent determined the Petitioner's application did not meet threshold requirements for consideration. The Petitioner timely challenged the rejection of its application. The Respondent is a public corporation organized to provide and promote funding for decent, safe, and sanitary housing for persons and families of low, moderate, and middle incomes. The Respondent receives its funds for the SAIL program from an allocation of documentary stamp tax revenue. When such funds are available, the Respondent processes applications for entities seeking to participate in the SAIL funds. On December 22, 2000, the Respondent published a Notice of Fund Availability that represented $36,470,000.00 was available for the SAIL 2001 Combined Cycle. In response, the Respondent received requests for SAIL funding that totaled $65,565,926.00. The Respondent is obligated by law to apportion the SAIL funds among counties and to competitively award the funds based upon the statutory and rule criteria. Each applicant for SAIL funds is reviewed to assure compliance with the threshold requirements and to assign a score based upon review criteria. In this instance, the Petitioner was initially approved and scored. Such approval was challenged and a Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE) was filed. The Respondent was then obligated to investigate the allegations of the NOPSE. Accordingly, the Respondent determined that the Petitioner had failed to meet the threshold requirement found in Rule 67- 48.002(97)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain its apparent non-compliance and to submit additional documentation regarding the issue. All applicants considered for funding had the opportunity to review the information submitted by the Petitioner. Thereafter, any applicant could submit a Notice of Alleged Deficiencies (NOAD) to the Respondent. In fact, the Respondent received NOADs challenging this Petitioner's application. After reviewing the matter further, the Respondent determined that the Petitioner failed to meet threshold requirements because it had closed on its permanent financing prior to the submission of the SAIL application. The Petitioner closed on a $13,335,000.00 Housing Finance Authority of Miami-Dade County, Florida Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Series 2000-5A, and a $740,000.00 Housing Finance Authority of Miami-Dade County, Florida Taxable Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Series 2000-5B on December 15, 2000. Thereafter, the Petitioner began construction of the project. The financing described in paragraph 17 constituted a substantial portion of the financing for the construction of this project. It was not, however, the only source of financing for the development. On June 27, 2001, the Petitioner closed on a Surtax Loan from Miami-Dade County that provided financing in the amount of $281,000.00 for the subject development. Additionally, the Petitioner has applied to Miami-Dade County for an additional surtax loan in the amount of $719,000.00 for the 2002 cycle for this development. The Respondent maintains that the bond closing of December 15, 2000, constituted "permanent financing" such that Petitioner is not entitled to participate in the SAIL funds. Unlike conventional financing that may require two closings (one for the construction phase, one for the mortgage phase), the Petitioner sought bond financing that was completed with one closing. Thus, all loan documents (Joint Exhibits 8 through 23) were brought to closing and executed on December 15, 2000. The bond documents recognized the construction phase of the project as well as the permanent terms that would govern the repayment of the monies. The bond documents provided for a draw process during the period of construction similar to conventional financing. A second closing after the construction phase is completed is not necessary as the bond documents have pre-determined how the indebtedness is to be calculated and repaid. The Petitioner fully and accurately disclosed bond financing on its application for SAIL funds. As of the date of its application, the Petitioner had begun construction of its development. Moreover, all SAIL funds sought in this cause were to be used for construction of the project, its various amenities, and were not for the refinancing of the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that approves the Petitioner for consideration of SAIL funds as it has demonstrated compliance with the threshold requirements of Rule 67- 48.002(97)(b), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 30th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret-Ray Kemper, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew T. Price, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Mark Kaplan, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether Petitioner carried his burden of proving his good moral character and entitlement to a yacht salesperson's license under chapter 326, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Stipulated Facts Respondent is the state agency charged with enforcing chapter 326, the Yacht and Ship Brokers Act, and the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. On June 8, 2016, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an application for a yacht salesperson's license. On Petitioner's application, the application question, number 14, relating to criminal history, was answered "yes." Petitioner failed to attach a complete and signed statement of the charges and facts, together with the dates, names, and location of the court in which the proceedings were held or were pending, as required by the application for the yacht salesperson's license. On October 12, 2012, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, a felony, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, in case number 1:1220156CR-UNGARO. On October 12, 2012, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud in case number 1:1220156CR-UNGARO. On October 12, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to 57 months' incarceration in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons in case number 1:1220156CR-UNGARO. On October 12, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to three years of supervised release following incarceration in case number 1:1220156CR-UNGARO. On October 12, 2012, Petitioner was ordered to pay $6,567,496.00 in restitution in case number 1:1220156CR-UNGARO. On April 22, 2016, Petitioner was released from incarceration and placed under supervised release, set to expire on or about April 21, 2019. Petitioner failed to certify to Respondent that Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony in Petitioner's application for a yacht salesperson's license. Petitioner timely received a copy of Respondent's Notice of Intent to Deny License Application on July 19, 2016. Petitioner completed programs in Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program, the Wellness Program, and the Community Treatment Services Program at Dollan Mental Health Clinic. Petitioner served his time without issue. Petitioner has been sponsored by a South Florida yacht broker who is going to supervise his activity as a yacht salesman. Facts Adduced at the Hearing Pursuant to chapter 326, Respondent has regulatory jurisdiction over yacht and ship licensees and is responsible for the approval or denial of applications for licensure for yacht salespersons and yacht brokers. Petitioner's younger sister, Beatriz Llorente, who is a practicing real estate and criminal defense attorney, testified. She described Petitioner as a "father figure" to her. She testified that Petitioner's conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud "devastated" her, because she felt that her reputation was being questioned.1/ When she drove him to federal prison, Petitioner "asked her for forgiveness." She was familiar with his prison experience. As far as she knew, Petitioner had no disciplinary problems in prison and was awarded maximum gain time. Furthermore, his 57-month sentence was reduced to less than two and one-half years. Despite his incarceration and current probation status, she stated that he is very active with his children and shares a great deal of time with them. He told her, "I will work for the rest of my life to regain your trust." His sister is convinced that Petitioner has overcome his faults, and she emphatically stated he is of good character. On cross-examination, she testified that Petitioner had no drug or alcohol problems when he was growing up, but they arose during the years preceding his conviction. An attorney friend of Petitioner's, Francisco Pines, testified. Pines has known Petitioner since 1988. They attended school together. More recently, their families have interacted and spent time together. They participated together in recreational activities, such as boating and fishing, before Petitioner's incarceration for the federal crime. Since Petitioner was released from prison, Pines has had contact with him three or four times. Pines was also asked about Petitioner's character. In his view, Petitioner knows that what he did was wrong and has made changes to get his life in order. Pines testified that Petitioner is very loving, caring and nurturing with his children. The witness has seen a "change for the better." According to him, Petitioner has always demonstrated a strong work ethic, more so now than before the criminal incident. A licensed mental health counselor, Sandra Rico, was also called by Petitioner. Beginning in 2011, she provided mental health therapy and counseling to Petitioner related to his anxiety due to a crisis in his marriage. She determined that he used and abused alcohol to relieve this anxiety. She treated him on and off until 2013. She also emailed him while he was in federal prison to make sure that he was getting continued treatment for his anxiety and alcohol abuse issues. After he was released from prison, Rico counseled him once a month from July 2016 through the fall of 2016. Her current treatment with him is more in the nature of prevention and maintenance, and to help him develop coping skills. She testified that the therapy he received in prison helped him and that Petitioner changed while in prison. As examples, she cited that he is more involved and willing to do more of her treatment assignments and that he now journals his feelings. Rico related that she is surprised by Petitioner's progress and that she believes he is no longer drinking. He is making better choices and being more careful. She opined that he gathers his thoughts more deliberately now, primarily because he wants to impress his children and reach "goals" he has set for himself. In her opinion, he is of good character now. His treatment with her continues "as needed." Lazaro R. Navarro is the chief executive officer at Florida Yachts International and manages approximately ten sales associates. He has known Petitioner's family for over 15 years. When Petitioner was released from federal prison, the family asked Navarro if he would consider employing Petitioner and sponsoring him. He gave Petitioner a job doing "online marketing," which involved managing leads and performing back office work. Navarro characterized Petitioner as a great asset to his company and trustworthy. He has no doubts about Petitioner and his work habits. Petitioner arrives at work early and is usually the last one to leave. Petitioner has exceeded all of his expectations, and is a very dedicated employee. As the employing yacht broker, Navarro supervises Petitioner and ensures that all of his work is done correctly. Although no details were offered, Navarro testified that Petitioner has accepted full responsibility for his criminal conduct and is a great father. Based upon the financial procedures and protocols used at Navarro's yacht company, he testified that Petitioner would not need to handle or accept any cash as a part of his sales responsibilities. Instead, finances and money exchanges are handled and processed by a closing specialist and the chief financial officer.2/ Navarro commented that he would trust Petitioner with money handling, if that occasion arose. Petitioner offered his own testimony. He received a Florida real estate license in February 2005 and worked for his cousin as a real estate salesperson until 2008. He was indicted for conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud in March 2012. This federal indictment stemmed from activities in 2006 while he worked as a licensed real estate salesperson. He confirmed that he visited with Rico for mental health counseling related to problems with his wife, as well as anxiety related to the government's criminal investigation of him in 2009. Although his prison sentence did not include mandatory alcohol or drug treatment, he followed the advice of a psychiatrist at the prison and voluntarily enrolled in a residential drug and alcohol abuse treatment program. He also participated in a health and nutrition wellness class for nine weeks. He completed both programs successfully. While in prison, he took several foreign language classes, thinking they would be useful for the yachting business. He also participated in a hazmat (hazardous materials) program outside the prison on a naval base. Apparently, a Navy Admiral retained him for the program. Also, while in prison, he was hired on the naval base to provide cleaning and maintenance services at a dormitory. He was allowed to serve a reduced prison sentence-- 32 months of his 57-month sentence, and he was released six months early to go to a halfway house. While there, he became eligible for home confinement. He was released from home confinement in April 2016. Although he is still under supervised release (probation), he is no longer required to make personal visits and can report to his probation officer remotely through the Internet. He is jointly and severally liable for over $6 million in restitution with the other defendants in his criminal case. It was undisputed that he is current with his restitution payments of $151.00 each month. Petitioner is active in his Catholic Church and gave "his testimony" at a recent church retreat. He characterizes his relationship with his children as being one of honesty and emphasized that it is important to have God in his life. When Respondent called requesting additional information for his application, he promptly provided his federal Termination Report and Certificates of Completion. Pet. Exs. 3, 4, and 5. Petitioner expressed a passion for boating and believes he is good at sales. He wants the yacht salesperson's license, in part, so that he can pay off the criminal restitution more quickly. He claims to no longer act impulsively and believes that his children are the most important thing in his life. On June 8, 2016, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an application for a yacht and ship salesperson's license. On Petitioner's application, he answered question number 14 "Yes," indicating that he had a criminal history.3/ Applicants who answer "Yes" to question number 14 on the application are directed to attach a complete and signed statement of the charges and facts, together with the dates, names, and location of the court in which the proceedings were held or are pending.4/ However, Petitioner failed to submit this statement. When asked about this omission, Petitioner testified, "I turned back for the next one (question), and I didn't bother looking. It shows part of impulsive behavior." Petitioner thought the information request at the bottom of the page he overlooked was simply a part of the next question.5/ Respondent obtained a Florida Department of Law Enforcement criminal background check on Petitioner, which indicated that, on October 12, 2012, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. Resp. Ex. 4. Certified court records obtained by the Division indicated that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, a felony, and sentenced to 57 months' incarceration in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons with three years of supervised release following incarceration. Petitioner was ordered to pay $6,567,496.00 in restitution.6/ Notably, Petitioner's federal "Judgment In A Criminal Case" included Special Conditions of Supervision. This included a "Related Concern Restriction." Petitioner testified that this provision prohibited him from "touch[ing] funds" while under supervised release. His employer at Florida Yacht International wrote a letter, ultimately filed with the probation office, that Petitioner "would not be dealing with any funds." Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 1-7.7/ Petitioner certified on his application that, in February 2005, he was licensed as a real estate sales associate in the state of Florida, having been issued license number SL3111375. Petitioner testified that, in order to become a real estate sales associate, he completed a pre-licensing course; applied with and was approved to take the state licensing exam by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation; and passed the Florida Real Estate Sales Associate Examination. Petitioner stated that, at the time, he was familiar with the laws regulating the profession of real estate contained in chapter 475, Florida Statutes.8/ Petitioner testified that between 2005 and 2008, he worked as a real estate sales associate for Llorente Realty Group, under a supervising broker, Petitioner's cousin. While employed there as a Florida licensed real estate sales associate, Petitioner engaged in an illegal real estate fraud scheme which lead to his 2012 federal criminal conviction. On several occasions, Petitioner provided up to $150,000.00 of his own funds to make seven or eight improper short-term loans of approximately ten to 15 days each. Petitioner made a profit of approximately eight to ten percent per loan.9/ Petitioner testified that these transactions involved buying houses under an individual's name (the straw buyer) and, after closing, executing a quitclaim deed to transfer title of the property to one of the co-conspirators, to whom Petitioner had made the loan. The property was subsequently transferred to the co-conspirator's family trust, leaving the outstanding mortgage in the name of the straw buyer. When the straw buyer failed to pay the outstanding mortgage, the lender would initiate foreclosure proceedings against the straw buyer who was no longer in possession of the property. This fraudulent scheme was carried out against several lending institutions. After the lenders became aware of the scheme, a criminal investigation was initiated. The government characterized his involvement as a breach of his fiduciary duty. In mid-2009, Petitioner was notified that he was under federal investigation for his involvement in the "straw buyer" scheme. After finding out about the investigation, Petitioner began to have relationship problems with his wife and to abuse alcohol. This prompted him to see Rico, a licensed mental health counselor. On March 8, 2012, Petitioner was indicted on eight counts related to the bank fraud scheme. On October 12, 2012, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty and was adjudicated guilty of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, a felony, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, in case number 1:1220156CR-UNGARO. Resp. Ex. 1. Petitioner was incarcerated at Pensacola Prison Camp beginning March 1, 2013. Petitioner earned eight months' "gain time" off of his sentence. Additionally, while incarcerated, Petitioner completed the RDAP, Residential Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program, which qualified Petitioner for a 12-month reduction in his sentence. Due to these reductions and good behavior, Petitioner served only 32 months of his 57-month sentence in federal prison. During his incarceration, Petitioner also completed a nine-week wellness course on various subjects such as nutrition and exercise and worked at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Corry Station Naval Technical Training Center, and the Pensacola Prison Camp. On October 27, 2015, Petitioner was released to a halfway house and shortly thereafter began working for Navarro at Florida Yacht International as a clerk. On November 10, 2015, Petitioner became eligible for home confinement, and, by April 18, 2016, Petitioner completed TDAPT, a transition recovery program. On April 21, 2016, Petitioner was released from custody, and, on April 22, 2016, he was placed under supervised release, currently set to expire on April 21, 2019. Petitioner testified that he has paid $6,000.00 towards the restitution he owes in the amount of $6,567,496.00. As previously mentioned, this restitution is owed with several co- conspirators who are jointly and severally liable with him. Resp. Ex. 1, p. 5. Petitioner testified that he is up to date on required payments pursuant to the order of restitution. Navarro monitors and supervises Petitioner's work and is ultimately responsible for Petitioner under his own yacht broker license. Petitioner is also currently employed as a part- time driver for Uber. In compliance with the Related Concern Restriction of his criminal conviction, Petitioner has not been placed in a position of trust or responsibility over sums of money at Florida Yachts International. Petitioner stated that upon obtaining a job as a clerk with Florida Yachts International, Navarro was required to certify to Petitioner's supervisors through the halfway house that Petitioner "would not be dealing with any funds," pursuant to the "Related Concern Restriction" of Petitioner's Special Conditions of Supervision.10/ Resp. Ex. 1, p. 4; Resp. Ex. 4, p. 51. Following his release from incarceration, Petitioner continues to see Rico for therapy sessions on a monthly basis. Rico provided a letter of recommendation for Petitioner. As mitigation and in an effort to show his good moral character, Petitioner testified that he is not abusing alcohol anymore, has made substantial efforts to reconnect with his children, and has maintained a close relationship with his sister both before and after his incarceration. Licensed yacht salespersons are not restricted and may work under any licensed yacht broker. They may also switch their registered broker if they wish to work for someone else. Additionally, salespersons become eligible to apply for their own yacht and ship broker license after two years as a salesperson. A representative of Respondent, Chelisa Kirkland, testified for Respondent. A yacht salesperson's license is only required for the sale of used or pre-owned vessels in excess of 32 feet. Vessels less than 32 feet and new vessel sales of any size do not require a license. Kirkland confirmed that Petitioner's probation, or court supervision, does not end until April 2019. Applying the statutory and rule criteria, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for a yacht salesperson's license. More specifically, Respondent was concerned about the nature and seriousness of the federal crime, particularly because Petitioner held a professional real estate license at the time the criminal bank fraud offenses were committed. Additionally, as of the date of the application, Petitioner's government supervision and probation had not been completed, and there was a very significant amount of restitution still owed, in excess of $6,000,000.00. Finally, Respondent felt that there had not been a significant passage of time since the conviction in 2012. As a result of the totality of these circumstances, Kirkland recommended that Petitioner's application be denied. She acknowledged that her recommendation was based solely on the conviction for conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. She conceded that Florida law does not impose an "automatic" denial just because Petitioner owes restitution, is still under supervision, or was convicted of a federal crime.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes, confirm its previous denial and enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a yacht salesperson's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 13th day of February, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission is charged under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, with the licensure of real estate salesmen. The Petitioner's application for licensure was denied by the Florida Real Estate Commission. The Petitioner requested a formal hearing to review the Commission's action in denying his application. Notice of the formal hearing in this master was provided to Alan Michael Lopez at 3325 Bayshore Boulevard, Apartment D-11, Tampa, Florida 33609, and to the Department of Legal Affairs at 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212, Orlando, Florida 32801. The Petitioner did not appear and did not present any evidence in support of his application for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the action of the Florida Real Estate Commission in denying the application for licensure of Alan Michael Lopez be affirmed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 3rd day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Alan Michael Lopez 3325 Bayshore Boulevard, D-11 Tampa, Florida 33609 Ralph D. Armstead, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Swiss national, who resides in Jamaica. His business in Jamaica involves water sports and vacation tours, primarily for European tourists. Petitioner attended a boat show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in order to locate a suitable boat for entertainment and tour purposes for use by his business in Jamaica. There, he saw The Lady, a vessel being brokered by Anchorline Yacht and Ship Brokerage, Inc., of St. Petersburg, Florida. On February 28, 1980, Petitioner purchased The Lady from Anchorline for $120,000. Prior to that date, a survey was conducted by Wilkinson Company, marine surveyors, and repairs indicated by that survey were completed at South Pasadena Marina, Inc. At the time that Petitioner purchased The Lady from Anchorline, he advised the broker that he was taking the vessel out of the country. Accordingly, the broker required Petitioner to sign an affidavit that Petitioner had read the provisions of Section 212.05, Florida Statutes, and no tax was collected on the sale and purchase of The Lady. As The Lady was journeying from St. Petersburg across the State of Florida to West Palm Beach in order to reach Jamaica, she started taking on water. She was taken to Lantana Boatyard, where another marine survey was conducted. That survey concluded that The Lady was not seaworthy and, therefore, could not be taken to Jamaica at that time. As one of the required repairs, her engines needed to be overhauled by Cummins in Miami. Accordingly, after the repairs to be made at the Lantana Boatyard were completed, The Lady was taken to the Keystone Point Marina in North Miami, Florida, so that the work on her Cummins engines could be undertaken. During this time, Petitioner attempted to register The Lady in Jamaica; however, the Jamaican Government refused to license or register the vessel since she was not in Jamaica but was still physically located within the State of Florida. As a result of discussion between Petitioner and a Mr. Mathews at Anchorline, on September 18, 1980, the Petitioner made application for a Florida boat Certificate of Title at a tag agency. He reported the purchase price as ten dollars and, accordingly, paid forty cents tax on the transaction. Cummins started the repair work necessary on The Lady's engines while she had been docked at the Keystone Point Marina. On occasion, Petitioner has stayed overnight on The Lady for security purposes. He has had a telephone attached to the vessel for his personal use while on board. On January 7, 1981, Respondent Department of Revenue issued a Warrant for Collection of Delinquent Sales and Use Tax against the Petitioner in the total amount of $9,967.37, representing the follows: Tax $4,799.60 Penalty 4,799.60 Interest 350.17 Filing Fee 18.00 $9,967.37 On January 19, 1981, Petitioner made payment to Respondent Department of Revenue in the amount of $5,167.77, which payment was made under protest and which payment represents the amount of tax, interest, and filing fees, but does not include the amount of penalty. Pursuant to its warrant, the Department of Revenue has chained The Lady to the dock at the Keystone Point Marina. Accordingly, the work being performed by Cummins on her engines has not been completed, and no sea trial can be conducted. As stipulated by the parties, since the Petitioner purchased The Lady, she has been under repair and has never left Florida waters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered denying Petitioner's claim for a refund, finding the Petitioner liable for a sales tax equal to four percent of the purchase price, together with interest and filing fees, but finding the penalty assessed against Petitioner to be erroneous and therefore invalid. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Lechtman, Esquire 801 N.E. 167th Street, Suite 301 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 John Browdy, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Randy Miller Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined based on conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail, which is specifically alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed herein dated June 24, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. At all times pertinent to the charges herein, Respondent was the holder of a Florida Real Estate license and operated as a real estate broker. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 and Stipulation of the parties). On October 17, 1985, Respondent obtained four exclusive listing agreements from John S. Blosnick (Blosnick) for warehouses he owned located in Miami, Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2). Respondent was unable to find a buyer for the units and instead leased them to Jim Gardner and V.I.P Car Care pursuant to a business lease entered into on July 22, 1986. During the time, Blosnick was experiencing financial difficulties and needed someone to either purchase or lease the premises. The lease specified that Mr. Gardner would use the premises for the manufacture and repair of cars and boats. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). During the fall of 1986, a company that Respondent was affiliated with and served as President, Reaction Marine, Inc., took over the rental units and began constructing boat hulls from fiberglass resin. At this time, Reaction Marine erected a sign outside the warehouses where it remained during the time of the instant hearing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 6, 1987, Respondent's bookkeeper, a Mrs. Bryant, issued a check for payment of rent drawn on the account of Reaction Marine, Inc. to John Blosnick for $945.00. The check was subsequently returned for insufficient funds. That check remains unpaid as of the date of hearing. After Reaction Marine began occupancy of the Blosnick warehouses, Respondent and Jim Gardner had a dispute and Gardner is no longer affiliated with Reaction Marine. Respondent who owned the molds for boat manufacturing, continued to store the molds in the leased warehouses. During the time when Respondent obtained the exclusive listing agreement to sell the warehouses for Blosnick, they were good friends and Blosnick frequented Respondent's office and home two to three times per week. Respondent is an entrepreneur of sorts and owns three bars and various and sundry other businesses in the Miami area. Respondent and Blosnick often talked about different business ventures as Blosnick was interested in pursuing business ventures with Respondent. As early as the fall of 1986, Blosnick was aware that Respondent was affiliated with Reaction Marine, Inc., and that Reaction Marine thereafter occupied the subject warehouse. Respondent has offered to make good on the check which was returned for insufficient funds against the account of Reaction Marine, Inc., however that offer is contingent upon Blosnick's tender of the check to Respondent upon payment. Blosnick has requested that payment be made to a third party and has not offered to tender the check to that third party simultaneous with Respondent's tender of payment to make good on the returned check. Respondent has attempted to clean the floors of the warehouses by removing the resins, epoxys, and gel coats caused by Reaction Marine, Inc. This was done during January and February, 1987 by Respondent using the assistance of an acquaintance, Heather Rockcastle, who was involved with the cleaning of the warehouse and restoration of the floors to their original condition. The cleanup process took more than one day. In Respondent's second attempt to gain entry to the warehouses, Blosnick had hired a locksmith to change the locks and thereby prevented Respondent from gaining entry. The lease agreement entered into by Blosnick and VIP Car Care specifies that the property was to be used and occupied as a place for car and boat manufacture/repair. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). Pursuant to the terms of that business lease, VIP Car Care was authorized to assign or sublet the premises for the usage here which was consistent with the usage for which VIP Car Care leased the premises. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3, first stipulation and condition of the business lease).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of May 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Contract Attorney DPR-Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mark Weissman, Esquire Katz and Weissman 300 Aragon Avenue Suite 330 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William O'Neil Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
