Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During times material herein, Respondent, George May, was a licensed real estate broker (License No. 00056693) whose principal business address is 2300 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 202, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311. On April 24, 1980, George Aro, a licensed real estate salesman, was employed by Respondent and entered into an employment agreement whereby salesman Aro, while acting in his capacity as a real estate salesman, would receive a sixty percent (60 percent) share of commission fees paid when salesman Aro was the procuring cause of a realty transaction which resulted in the payment of a commission. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On August 29, 1980, salesman Aro discussed, negotiated, and obtained a contract for purchase whereby Peter Licato agreed to purchase a vacant lot in Palm Beach County, Florida. The transaction closed during September, 1980, with Respondent receiving a commission of approximately $300.00 on the Licato transaction. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Pursuant to the employment agreement entered between Respondent and salesman Aro, Messr. Aro demanded his pro-rata share of the commission paid, which was received by Respondent. Respondent refuses to account for, or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro any portion of the commission received from the Licato transaction. On August 9, 1980, salesman Aro, while acting in his capacity as salesman with Respondent, negotiated and obtained a contract of the sale of a vacant lot in Palm Beach County, Florida from seller, Mrs. Nicholas Deickmann to purchaser, Hooshang Abid. The transaction closed sometime during September of 1980, and Respondent received a commission of approximately $330.00. Pursuant to the party's employment agreement, salesman Aro demanded his pro-rata share of the commission received, and Respondent refuses to remit or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro his portion of the commission received. In this regard the Respondent does not dispute and stipulated that salesman Aro was the procuring cause of the above-referred-to transactions, and admits that the commissions were received. Respondent's Defense Respondent defended his failure to account for or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro commissions received from the above transactions on the theory that salesman Aro failed to attend the closings of the above transactions, or that salesman Aro obligated his firm to pay certain expenses which were connected with the closing, which were not authorized. Respondent's defense was considered by the undersigned and rejected for lack of proof. Moreover, the undersigned advised Respondent during the hearing herein that the proper procedure to seek redress from salesman Aro for those claims asserted herein, which were not a part of the subject administrative complaint, is through the filing of a written complaint properly executed, with the Board of Real Estate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's real estate broker's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1981, 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 25th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Huskins, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George May 2300 West Oakland Park Blvd. Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0500228. Respondent’s licensing cycle ends on March 31 every two years. He duly renewed his broker’s license prior to its expiration on March 31, 1994. During the ensuing two-year licensing term, Respondent executed on January 1, 1996, a Request for License or Change of Status and submitted the form to Petitioner. The purpose of submitting the form was to notify Petitioner that Respondent had adopted a corporate form of doing business as a real estate broker. Section A of the form contains a series of options. Respondent selected “other” and wrote in “change to corp.” Section B contains identifying information, and Respondent completed this section. Section C is irrelevant to the change that Respondent was making, and he did not fill in this section. The instructions for Section A direct the person filing the form as follows: “If this is a renewal of your license, it must be accompanied by the required fee and sign this: I hereby affirm that I have met all statutory and rule requirements regarding education for license renewal.” Respondent signed this statement even though he was not seeking a renewal of his license. The instructions for Section B told the person filing the form how to complete Section B. But these instructions required no representations. The next form generated in this case was another renewal notice, as Respondent’s license neared the end of its term, which expired March 31, 1996. This form states: “By submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department . . ., a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal.” By check dated December 30, 1995, Respondent timely submitted his license renewal fee of $95 in response to the renewal notice. He was unaware at the time that he had not met the continuing education requirement for relicensing, which called for 14 hours of education. In reliance on the implied representation that Respondent had completed the required continuing education, Petitioner renewed Respondent’s license. Later, during a random audit, Petitioner discovered that Respondent had not completed the necessary courses and commenced this proceeding. Respondent was cooperative during the audit. Upon discovering that he had not complied with the continuing education requirement, he promptly undertook the necessary coursework, which he completed by August 6, 1996.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Andrea D. Perkins Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen Frederick H. Wilsen & Associates, P.A. Law Office of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.010(1) and section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, by failing to place immediately into escrow a security deposit of $5482; violated section 475.25(1)(u) by not being involved with the daily operations of Advantage International Realty, Inc. (AIR), by being hired to qualify AIR and receiving payment from AIR, and failing to direct, control or manage Jennifer Briceno, a sales associate employed by Respondent, while she provided real estate services to two individuals; and violated section 475.25(1)(d)1. by failing to refund $5308 upon demand by Mr. Mansour and Ms. Haddad on December 20, 2011. If so, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license numbers 69234 and 3093422. He has never been disciplined. Licensed as a sales associate since 2000, Respondent served as a sales associate with three brokers. Licensed as a real estate broker in 2002, Respondent served as a broker associate with two brokers until, in August 2002, Respondent served as the broker for his first real estate brokerage. He served as a broker for two brokerages, much of the time simultaneously, from 2002-05 and 2007-09. For the last five months of 2008, Respondent worked as a broker sales associate for a third brokerage, and, from 2009-11, Respondent was registered as a sole proprietorship broker. From November 14, 2011, through January 6, 2012, Respondent served as the broker for AIR. On November 7, 2011, Respondent was listed as a director of AIR with the Department of State, Division of Corporations. AIR became licensed as a Florida real estate brokerage on November 14, 2011, holding license number 104302. Respondent was the qualifying broker of AIR from November 14, 2011, to January 6, 2012. No longer a brokerage after Respondent resigned as its qualifying broker, AIR resumed operations as a brokerage on March 1, 2012, when Jennifer Briceno served as the qualifying broker. She served in this capacity until March 4, 2013, at which point Petitioner suspended the licenses of AIR and Ms. Briceno by separate emergency orders. Ms. Briceno was first licensed as a sales associate in 2008. She served as a sales associate with an unrelated corporation in Tamarac, Florida from May 28, 2008, to October 24, 2011. Her license was inactive until November 14, 2011, on which date she became a sales associate with AIR. On February 17, 2012, she became licensed as a broker and served as a broker associate with AIR until March 1, 2012, at which time she served as its qualifying broker. As noted in paragraph four, from January 6 to March 1, 2012, AIR's brokerage license became invalid due to the lack of a qualifying broker. As noted in paragraph five, Ms. Briceno served at AIR as a sales associate from January 6, 2012, and then as a broker associate from February 17, 2012, until March 1, 2012--an eight-week period during which AIR's brokerage license was invalid due to its lack of a qualifying broker. On November 7, 2011, Respondent was listed as a director of AIR with the Department of State, Division of Corporations. At no time was Respondent ever a signatory on the operating account of AIR. Jackie and Sam Haddad and Morris Mansour are residents of Canada and friends. They decided that they wanted to enter into a lease of a residence in Fort Lauderdale for a vacation during the winter of 2011-12. They agreed that Mr. and Ms. Haddad would occupy the residence for two months, and Mr. Mansour would occupy the residence for the ensuing two months. For the sake of simplicity, they agreed that Mr. Mansour would take in his name the lease for the entire four months, which was to run from December 15, 2011, through April 15, 2012. Ms. Haddad found the subject property on the Internet and got in touch with Ms. Briceno at an unspecified point in time. At some point, Ms. Briceno sent to Mr. Mansour a blank Agreement to Enter into a Lease and asked him to complete, sign, and return the form to her with a check for the entire rent. Mr. Mansour objected to paying the entire rent and asked that he be allowed to pay half at that time and half upon occupancy. Ms. Briceno agreed. Accordingly, on November 12, 2011, Mr. Mansour wired $5500 to AIR and faxed to Ms. Briceno a completed Agreement to Enter into a Lease. AIR did not have an escrow account. Although there was a listing broker for the rental property, Ms. Briceno did not give the deposit check to her. Nor did Ms. Briceno present the funds to AIR's qualifying broker. It appears that Ms. Briceno conducted this real estate business and received the funds prior to AIR's obtaining a qualifying broker. In any event, it appears that Ms. Briceno deposited the funds in AIR's operating account. However, on November 12, 2011, Ms. Briceno faxed the signed Agreement to Enter into a Lease to a sales associate of the listing broker. The net of $5482 posted on AIR's general operating account on November 16. On the same day, AIR's bank statement shows a "counter debit" of $5010. From November 16 through the end of January 2012, this account never had sufficient funds to repay the $5500 or net $5482. After receiving the offer to lease from Ms. Briceno, the sales associate of the listing broker spoke with the owner and learned that the cost of short-term insurance precluded a lease for less than one year. By email dated December 1, the sales associate informed Ms. Briceno that the owner would not accept the offer. After not hearing from Ms. Briceno for some time, Ms. Haddad and Mr. Mansour tried to reach Ms. Briceno, but repeated calls to her business and cellphone numbers went unreturned. Mr. Mansour, who intended to occupy the subject property first, finally contacted the sales associate of the listing broker and learned that the offer had not been accepted. At some point, Darwin Briceno, Ms. Briceno's husband, became involved. By email to Ms. Mansour dated November 29, 2011, Mr. Briceno sent a release covering a refund of $5308, net wire fees and an application fee. On December 8, Ms. Haddad sent an email to someone at AIR stating that they were still waiting for their refund of $5308. Getting no response and having learned Respondent's name in the interim Ms. Haddad re- sent the December 8 email to the administrator of AIR-- attention: Respondent--and warned that they would retain counsel if they did not hear from Respondent within 24 hours. No one heard from Respondent, who cashed AIR checks on January 31 and May 1 in the amounts of $1610 and $3225, respectively. On February 24, 2012, Mr. Briceno sent Mr. Mansour an AIR check in the amount of $5308, but it bounced. The Haddads and Mr. Mansour have never recovered any of their deposit. During the investigation, Respondent admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he was not involved with the day- to-day operation of AIR, and he did not know anything about how AIR had handled the money that Mr. Mansour had sent. Respondent specifically admitted that he was a "broker for hire" at AIR, meaning that he had rented his broker's license to qualify AIR as a real estate brokerage. Respondent's lack of involvement in the business of AIR is confirmed by Karrell Brett, whom Mr. Briceno hired, on behalf of AIR, as a sales associate, as of December 9, 2011, Ms. Brett interviewed with Mr. Briceno, not Respondent. While employed by AIR, Ms. Brett did not know Respondent and believed her broker was Mr. Briceno. Although Ms. Brett decided on her own to advise her clients to deposit any escrow funds with a title company, she never received any instruction from Respondent to deposit escrow funds with a title company. Respondent never made any attempt to supervise any sales associate or other employee of AIR in the conduct of real estate business on behalf of the corporation that Respondent had qualified as a real estate brokerage. Respondent had been the qualifying broker for two days when the deposit was posted to AIR's account; he was responsible for AIR's failure to account for this money from the point of deposit forward until his resignation. Likewise, Respondent had been the qualifying broker for about six weeks when he received the latter of Ms. Haddad's emails demanding a refund of the deposit. Respondent did not ensure that AIR refunded the deposit at that time.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts 2, 3, and 4, dismissing Count 1 as duplicative of Count 2, and revoking Respondent's real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 10th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Pico Campiglia, Esquire Your Towne Law, P.A. 5465 Lake Jessamine Drive Orlando, Florida 32839 Daniel Brackett, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of July, 1987.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, committed acts of dishonest dealing or culpable negligence in a business transaction; failed to account for and deliver trust funds; failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; intermingled personal funds with trust funds; obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigator in an official investigation; or committed any of these offenses, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then an additional question will arise, namely whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Ramirez Transaction On or about September 9, 2003, Toirac, in her individual capacity, entered into a Sale and Purchase Contract (the "Contract") with Andres Ramirez ("Ramirez"), whereby Toirac agreed to sell, and Ramirez to buy, certain real estate then owned by Toirac. The Contract called for Ramirez to make several deposits toward the purchase price. Accordingly, Ramirez tendered to Toirac a total of $14,000 in pre-closing payments. Toirac accepted these payments, which were deposited in HCIC's operating account. At some point, Toirac withdrew Ramirez's deposits from HCIC's operating account, taking the money in cash. She brought the $14,000 in cash to her attorney, Alix Montes, who agreed to hold the money in escrow pending the closing of the sale to Ramirez. Mr. Montes placed the cash in a safe located in his home. The sale to Ramirez fell through after Ramirez failed to obtain acceptable financing and exercised his right to cancel the Contract in consequence thereof. Ramirez requested that his deposits be returned. Within a short time (not more than about two weeks), Toirac gave Ramirez his money back——in cash. The parties dispute whether Toirac properly handled Ramirez's deposits. Petitioner asserts that the $14,000 should have been held in an escrow account maintained at a financial institution such as a bank or title company. Toirac responds that she complied with a "Financing and Deposit Addendum" (the "Addendum") to the Contract. The Addendum, which is part of the Contract that Petitioner offered into evidence (as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), provides in pertinent part as follows: Seller acknowledges that in the event that the Buyer is not approved for a mortgage loan or the terms and conditions of said mortgage loan are not acceptable to Seller, Seller within thirty (30) days from the date Seller receives Buyer's written request for the return of its deposit, shall refund Buyer's deposit in full. Upon Seller's refund of the deposit, this contract will terminate and all parties will be relieved from the obligations and liabilities. Buyer acknowledges that the Seller herein is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the state of Florida and That Home Center International Corp. will not be the "Escrow Agent" in this transaction nor will Home Center International Corp. or any of its affiliates, officers, directors, agents and/or employees will receive a Real Estate Brokerage fee in connection with this transaction. Buyer authorizes Home Center International Corp. to place any and all deposits herein in its operating account. Buyer further authorizes Home Center International Corp, at any time to withdraw and/or transfer Buyer's funds from the operating account. In the event a transfer of any and all funds is effected, such funds shall be held by Alix J. Montes, Esq., Attorney for the Seller. This Addendum supercedes the provisions of paragraph 2 (A)2(B)(1), 16(A)(B)(C), 17, 18, and 19 of the "As Is" Sale and Purchase Contract signed by all parties herein. (In the original, the text is written in all capital letters.) The Addendum is dated September 9, 2003, and bears the purported signatures of Ramirez and Toirac. Petitioner alleged in its Administrative Complaint that Ramirez had denied executing the Addendum. At hearing, however, Petitioner failed to offer any proof——such as Ramirez's testimony or the testimony of an expert disputing the authenticity of Ramirez's purported signature on the Addendum—— to establish this allegation. In contrast, Toirac testified that both she and Ramirez had, in fact, signed the Addendum. As a result, on this record, the undersigned is not clearly convinced that the Addendum is fraudulent. Moreover, the Addendum and Toirac's testimony, taken together, are sufficiently persuasive (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) to prevent the undersigned from being clearly convinced that Toirac mishandled Ramirez's deposits or otherwise dealt dishonestly or improperly with him. The January 2004 Audit On January 20, 2004, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt of a complaint from Ramirez.) During the audit, Toirac reported to Ms. Morales that she no longer maintained an escrow account but instead relied upon her attorney to act as escrow agent for funds entrusted to her. Toirac also told Mr. Morales that Ramirez's deposits initially had been held in HCIC's operating account, before being handed over to Mr. Montes for safekeeping. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to produce bank statements for HCIC's operating account, and apparently a listing agreement that should have been in the broker's file was not there. Toirac agreed to provide the missing documentation. By letter dated January 20, 2004, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that she would forward requested documentation within 10 days. For reasons unknown, Toirac failed to follow through with this, prompting the instant disciplinary action. The Charges In Counts I and VII, Petitioner alleges that Respondents are guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction, either of which is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents mishandled Ramirez's deposits and misled him into believing that the money would be held in trust by HCIC as an escrow agent.1 In Counts II and VIII, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Respondents returned Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after his demand therefor. In Counts III and IX, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In Counts IV and X of its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having intermingled personal funds with funds being held in escrow. Petitioner's position is that by initially depositing Ramirez's deposits in HCIC's operating account, Respondents failed to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.008(2), and hence violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts V and XI, Petitioner asserts that Respondents obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents willfully interfered with Morales's investigation by failing to provide documentation as promised.2 Ultimate Factual Determinations Toirac handled Ramirez's deposit money in accordance with the unambiguous terms of the Addendum. Petitioner failed to prove that the Addendum is fraudulent. Thus, the Addendum, when considered in conjunction with Toirac's unrebutted testimony that she and Ramirez signed the instrument, is fatal to Counts I, III, IV, VII, IX, and X of the Administrative Complaint. Respondents are not guilty of the offenses charged therein. Toirac did, in fact, return Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after he demanded a refund. Respondents therefore are not guilty of the offenses charged in Counts II and VII of the Administrative Complaint. When Ms. Morales interviewed Toirac in January 2004 in response to Ramirez's complaint, Toirac admitted most, if not all, of the material facts pertaining to the circumstances under which Ramirez's deposits had been held. Further, the documents that Toirac neglected to provide Ms. Morales, i.e. HCIC's bank records and a listing agreement that had gone missing, were claimed by Toirac to be corroborative of her statements to the investigator. Toirac's failure to produce such documents cost Toirac an opportunity to bolster her credibility——and enabled Petitioner to draw adverse inferences against Toirac, e.g. that the questioned listing agreement did not exist after all.3 Given these facts, the undersigned is not convinced that Respondents obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigation. Consequently, Respondents are not guilty of the charges set forth in Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondents not guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2005.
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
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Lynton Oliver Thomas, was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0504596 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent Thomas was as a broker-salesperson at Pagliari Realty, Inc., 323 Northeast 167 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, L T Express Realty Corp., was a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273473 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Thomas was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. The office for this corporate entity was located at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. There was no evidence that Respondent Thomas operated his corporate entity from any other office. On May 7, 1995, Respondent Thomas, a licensed real estate broker, d/b/a L T Express Realty Corp., negotiated a contract for the sale of a house between Bruce and Ann McCormick (as sellers) and Marie S. Saintel and Carita Luc (as buyers). The buyers gave Respondent Thomas an earnest money deposit in the amount of $5,528.00. The transaction failed to close. The sellers, through their agent, attempted to make a demand upon Respondent Thomas for delivery of the earnest money deposit. The sellers' agent was unable to serve the demand on the Respondents because the Respondents had closed their offices and could not be located. Respondents had, or should have had, a good faith doubt as to the proper way to disburse the escrowed funds. Respondent Thomas, without authorization from the sellers, returned $3,000.00 of the original $5,528.00 deposit to the buyers. The balance of the earnest money deposit, in the amount of $2,528.00, has not been recovered from the Respondents. Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides the procedure real estate brokers are required to follow when competing demands are made for funds that have been received in escrow or when a broker has a good faith doubt as to how escrowed funds should be disbursed. At no time did Respondents attempt to invoke those procedures. Kenneth G. Rehm, Petitioner's investigator, visited Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. and discovered that Respondent Thomas had abandoned his registered office. Respondent Thomas failed to notify Petitioner that he closed his real estate office at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered that finds Respondents guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I-VIII of the Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for these violations, the Final Order should revoke all licenses issued by Petitioner to Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Mr. Lynton Oliver Thomas L T Express Realty Corp. 10810 Northeast Tenth Place Miami, Florida 33161 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 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 committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the "formal hearing," and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October of 2000, a licensed real estate sales associate in the State of Florida, holding license number 695252. He is currently associated with AAA Realty, Inc., a broker corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida. From March 1, 2001, through June 26, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Allen Real Estate, Inc. (Allen), a broker corporation doing business in St. Lucie County, Florida. From June 27, 2001, through August 13, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Realty Unlimited, Inc. (Unlimited), a broker corporation (affiliated with GMAC Real Estate) with offices in Port St. Lucie and Stuart, Florida. Unlimited is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, owned by Kevin Schevers, a Florida-licensed real estate broker. Gary Sprauer is a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate. He is currently associated with Unlimited. Like Respondent, Mr. Sprauer began his association with Unlimited on June 27, 2001, immediately after having worked for Allen. Respondent and Mr. Sprauer worked as "partners" at both Allen and Unlimited. They had an understanding that the commissions they each earned would be "split 50-50" between them. On February 7, 2001, Allen, through the efforts of Respondent and Mr. Sprauer, obtained an exclusive listing contract (Listing Contract) giving it, for the period of a year, the "exclusive right to sell," in a representative capacity, commercial property located at 3800 South Federal Highway that was owned by Vincent and Renee Piazza (Piazza Property). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Listing Contract addressed the subjects of "compensation," "cooperation with other brokers," and "dispute resolution," respectively, and provided, in pertinent part as follows as follows: COMPENSATION: Seller will compensate Broker as specified below for procuring a buyer who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property or any interest in the Property on the terms of this Agreement or on any other terms acceptable to Seller. Seller will pay Broker as follows (plus applicable sales tax): 8% of the total purchase price or $15,000 maximum, no later than the date of closing specified in the sales contract. However closing is not a prerequisite for Broker's fee being earned. * * * (d) Broker's fee is due in the following circumstances: (1) If any interest in the Property is transferred . . . , regardless of whether the buyer is secured by Broker, Seller or any other person. * * * COOPERATION WITH OTHER BROKERS: Broker's office policy is to cooperate with all other brokers except when not in the Seller's best interest, and to offer compensation to: Buyer's agents, who represent the interest of the buyer and not the interest of Seller in a transaction, even if compensated by Seller or Broker Nonrepresentatives Transaction brokers. None of the above (if this box is checked, the Property cannot be placed in the MLS). * * * 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: This Agreement will be construed under Florida law. All controversies, claim and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be settled by first attempting mediation under the rules of the American Arbitration Association or other mediator agreed upon by the parties. . . . Shortly after they left the employ of Allen and began working for Unlimited, Respondent and Mr. Sprauer showed Nicholas Damiano the Piazza Property. Mr. Damiano thereafter made a written offer to purchase the Piazza Property, which the Piazzas accepted, in writing, on July 4, 2001. The sales price was $165,000.00. Mr. Damiano put down a $10,000.00 deposit, which, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the contract between Mr. Damiano and the Piazzas (Sales Contract), was "held in escrow by [Unlimited]." The obligations of Unlimited, as escrow agent, were described in paragraph 6 of the Sales Contract, which provided as follows: ESCROW. Buyer and Seller authorize GMAC, Realty Unlimited Telephone: . . . Facsimile: . . . Address: . . . to receive funds and other items and, subject to clearance, disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Escrow Agent will deposit all funds received in a non- interest bearing account. If Escrow Agent receives conflicting demands or has a good faith doubt as to Escrow Agent's duties or liabilities under this Contract, he/she may hold the subject matter of the escrow until the parties mutually agree to its disbursement or until issuance of a court order or decision of arbitrator determining the parties' rights regarding the escrow or deposit the subject matter of the escrow with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the dispute. Upon notifying the parties of such action, Escrow Agent will be released from all liability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow. If a licensed real estate broker, Escrow Agent will comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In any suit or arbitration in which Escrow Agent is made a party because of acting as agent hereunder or interpleads the subject matter of the escrow, Escrow Agent will recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at all levels, with such fees and costs to be paid from the escrowed funds or equivalent and charged and awarded as court or other costs in favor of the prevailing party. The parties agree that Escrow Agent will not be liable to any person for misdelivery to Buyer or Seller of escrowed items, unless the misdelivery is due to Escrow Agent's willful breach of this Contract or gross negligence. Paragraph 12 of the Sales Contract addressed the subject of "brokers" and provided as follows: BROKERS. Neither Buyer nor Seller has utilized the services of, or for any other reason owes compensation to, a licensed real estate broker other than: Listing Broker: Allen Real Estate, Inc. who is a transaction broker and who will be compensated by x Seller _ Buyer _ both parties pursuant to x a listing agreement _ other (specify) Cooperating Broker: GMAC Realty Unlimited who is a transaction broker who will compensated by _ Buyer x Seller _ both parties pursuant to _ an MLS or other offer of compensation to a cooperating broker _ other (specify) (collectively referred to as "Broker") in connection with any act relating to the Property, included but not limited to, inquiries, introductions, consultations and negotiations resulting in this transaction. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify and hold Broker harmless from and against losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees at all levels, and from liability to any person, arising from (1) compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this Paragraph, (2) enforcement action to collect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10, (3) any duty accepted by Broker at the request of Buyer or Seller, which duty is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475, F.S., as amended, or (4) recommendations of or services provided and expenses incurred by any third party whom Broker refers, recommends or retains for or on behalf of Buyer or Seller. The Damiano/Piazza transaction was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2001. At the request of the Piazzas, the closing was rescheduled for August 7, 2001. A few days before August 7, 2001, Mr. Sprauer asked Respondent "where the closing was going to take place" and "what title company" would be handling the matter. Respondent replied that the closing was "going to be delayed again because Mr. Damiano . . . was going to have to have some type of cancer surgery." It turned out that the closing was not "delayed again." It took place on August 7, 2001. At the closing were Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, Respondent, and the closing agent from the title company, First American Title Insurance Company (First American).3 Neither Mr. Schevers, nor Mr. Sprauer, was in attendance. Mr. Sprauer did not even know that the closing was taking place. He was under the impression, based on what Respondent had told him, that the closing had been postponed. Had he not been misinformed, he would have attended the closing. Respondent did not contact Mr. Sprauer following the closing to let him know that, in fact, the closing had occurred. Mr. Schevers, on the other hand, was made aware that closing would be held on August 7, 2001. He was unable to attend because he had "prior commitments." It was Respondent who informed Mr. Schevers of the August 7, 2001, closing date. The morning of August 7, 2001, Respondent went to Unlimited's Stuart office and asked Mr. Schevers for the $10,000.00 Unlimited was holding in escrow in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction, explaining that he needed it for the closing that was going to be held later that day. Before complying with Respondent's request, Mr. Schevers contacted First American and asked that he be faxed a copy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement (HUD Statement) that First American had prepared for the closing. As requested, First American faxed a copy of the HUD Statement to Mr. Schevers. Upon reviewing the document, Mr. Schevers "immediately noticed that [it indicated that] the entire commission [of $7,000.00] was going to Allen." Mr. Schevers "then proceeded to call First American" and asked why Unlimited was not "reflected on this settlement statement." Mr. Schevers was told that a First American representative "would get right on it and get back to [him]." Mr. Schevers did not wait to hear back from First American before handing an "escrow check" in the amount of $10,000.00 to Respondent. He instructed Respondent, however, to "not give anybody this check unless that statement [the HUD Statement] [was] changed and reflect[ed] [Unlimited's]" share of the commission earned from the sale of the Piazza Property. He further directed Respondent to telephone him if this change was not made. Respondent did not follow the instructions Mr. Schevers had given him. He delivered the $10,000.00 "escrow check" to the closing agent at the closing, even though the HUD Statement had not been changed to reflect Unlimited's sharing of the commission. At no time during the closing did Mr. Schevers receive a telephone call from Respondent. According to the HUD Statement that Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, and the closing agent signed at the closing, Allen received a commission of $7,000.00 "from seller's funds at settlement." The document makes no mention of any other commission having been paid as part of the closing. On or about August 9, 2001, Respondent received a "commission check" from Allen. The check was made payable to Respondent and was in the amount of $3,000.00. Under the "DOLLARS" line on the check, the following was typed: 4200 Total Comm[4] 1200 ADVANCE[5] Typed next to "MEMO" on the bottom left hand corner of the check was "DAMIANO-PIAZZA 165,000 S&L." It has not been shown that the "commission check" Respondent received from Allen was for anything other than the commission Allen owed Respondent for services performed when Respondent was still employed by Allen. Mr. Schevers' consent to Respondent's receiving this $3,000.00 "commission check" was neither sought nor given. Less than a week after the closing, having spotted Mr. Damiano mowing grass on a vacant lot that Mr. Damiano owned, Mr. Sprauer walked up to him and asked "how his surgery [had gone]." Mr. Damiano "acted very surprised [like] he didn't know what [Mr. Sprauer] was talking about." Mr. Damiano's reaction to his inquiry led Mr. Sprauer to believe "that the closing had probably taken place." He "immediately contacted [Mr. Schevers] and asked him to check into it." Mr. Schevers subsequently learned from First American that Allen "had gotten all of the [commission] check" at the closing. Mr. Schevers then telephoned Respondent. This was the first communication he had had with Respondent since before the closing. Respondent told Mr. Schevers that "he got the check" and "he would be right over with it." Respondent, however, did not keep his promise. After his telephone conversation with Respondent, Mr. Schevers discovered that Allen "had cut [Respondent] a check and [Respondent] had gone immediately and deposited it." This discovery prompted Mr. Schevers to place another telephone call to Respondent. This telephone conversation ended with Mr. Schevers telling Respondent "he was terminated." Mr. Schevers thereafter notified Petitioner in writing that Respondent was no longer associated with Unlimited. He also filed with Petitioner a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction. Mr. Schevers had expected Unlimited to receive, for the role it played in the Damiano/Piazza transaction, "50 percent of the total commission," or $3,500.00, in accordance with the provisions of the "multiple listing service for St. Lucie County."6 He holds Respondent responsible, at least in part, for Unlimited's not receiving these monies.7 At the time of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, Unlimited had contracts with its sales associates which provided that the associates would receive "70 percent of the net" of any commission Unlimited earned as a result of the associates' efforts. Had Unlimited received a commission as a result of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, it would have "split" it with Respondent and Mr. Sprauer as required by the contracts it had with them.8
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in the instant case in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of July, 2004.
