Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joyce Chandler, prior to February 2, 1982, was a real estate salesman employed by Frank Ambrose, a real estate broker. On February 2, 1982, Chandler became licensed as a real estate broker with the State of Florida, and holds license number 0348072. On February 8, 1982, the Respondent drafted an offer to purchase for herself property located at 811 Perrine Avenue in Miami, which belonged to Dr. Harry Moskowitz. The purchase price of the offer was $140,000. The Respondent took the offer to Carol Rebhan, the listing salesman of the property who was employed by Tauber-Manon Red Carpet Realty. The offer provided that an earnest money deposit of $100 would be placed in the escrow account of Roberta Fox, the Respondent's attorney, with an additional $5,000 to be deposited in Roberta Fox's escrow account within three working days of acceptance of the offer. The contract also called for a ten percent brokerage fee to be divided equally between the Respondent and Tauber-non Red Carpet Realty. Carol Rebhan and the Respondent presented the offer to Eugene Lemlich, attorney for the seller Dr. Harry Moskowitz. After contacting Dr. Moskowitz in Texas, Lemlich accepted the offer on his behalf. Three working days after the offer was accepted, Carol Rebhan called Roberta Fox's office repeatedly to determine whether the additional $5,000 deposit had been placed in escrow. Fox's office advised Rebhan that they did not have the $5,000 deposit. Rebhan confronted the Respondent with this information, and the Respondent stated that she was going to deposit the monies with Frank Ambrose at Landmark Title. The next day, Rebhan contacted Landmark Title and was informed that they did not have the deposit in escrow. On or about the 14th of February, 1982, Rebhan contacted Frank Ambrose personally and inquired about the $5,000 deposit. Ambrose told Rebhan that Landmark Title was in possession of the deposit. This was not true. Rebhan requested that Ambrose send her an escrow letter acknowledging possession of the $5,000 deposit. By letter dated February 18, 1982, Ambrose informed Rebhan that Landmark Title was in possession of the $5,000 deposit. On February 18, 1982, the Respondent gave Ambrose a $5,000 check payable to Landmark Title Company. The check was for the additional deposit on the Moskowitz property and was post-dated to February 28, 1982. The check was deposited on February 19, 1982. On February 25, 1982, Ambrose was informed that there were insufficient funds in the Respondent's account to pay the check. Ambrose notified the Respondent that the check had been returned unpaid. She advised him that she was expecting some funds, and would make the check good within a few days. Ambrose took no action to notify the parties at this time. In the first week of March, 1982, when Ambrose had still not received funds from the Respondent to cover the check, he contacted Carol Rebhan and informed her of the series of events which had occurred with regard to the deposit check. When Rebhan subsequently contacted the Respondent and told her that her $5,000 check had bounced, the Respondent seemed shocked at the news. The Respondent has not made good the check returned to Landmark Title Company, nor has she placed the $5,000 deposit in escrow in accordance with the terms of the contract with Dr. Moskowitz. Throughout the entire transaction, the Respondent misled the parties involved with regard to the location and existence of the earnest money deposit, she represented that she would replace the dishonored check or make it-good but has not done so, and she has thereby breached her contract to purchase the subject property from Dr. Moskowitz. The Respondent contends that she informed all parties that the $5,000 check would be post-dated, but there is not sufficient evidence to support this assertion. Nevertheless, the post-dated check given by the Respondent has never been made good, so the Respondent's contention that she advised the parties at the outset that the $5,000 check would be post-dated, is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, Joyce A. Chandler, be suspended for a period of one year. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Joyce A. Chandler 11231 S.W. 201st Street Miami, Florida 33189 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ed Rich, is a registered real estate salesman, holding license number 0073256. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate is an agency of the State of Florida, having as its duty the regulation of matters pertaining to real estate brokers and salesmen within the state, including regulation of their licensure status. From approximately April 16, 1977, through November 17, 1977, the Respondent participated in a scheme to sell parcels of undeveloped land in Cochran County, Texas. The land was owned by Agriland, Inc. The Respondent acted as a salesman for a "sub-broker" by the name of Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation, all of Miami, Florida. That entity, with Broker Kane, was involved in the advertising, promotion and sales of these five acre parcels of unimproved west Texas land. The Respondent participated in the scheme by making long distance phone calls to prospective purchasers, attempting to induce them to buy these parcels of land. In this telephone sales campaign, the Respondent used a script prepared for him by Irwin Kane, his broker and employer. That script extolled the virtues of the subject unimproved property in an arid region of Texas, representing, for instance, that the land was possessed of an ideal climate, abundant water supply and rich soil conditions and was ideal agricultural acreage. The land was represented to be "a few miles west" of Lubbock, Texas, when in fact it was 72 miles from Lubbock, Texas, in a region characterized by sand dunes, weeds, poor soil, shifting sand and high winds. It was also represented that in addition to favorable agricultural and climatic conditions, that "the existence of oil in Cochran County should lead to a strong growth pattern and that oil companies were interested in the area surrounding the property." The charges in the Administrative Complaint concern alleged preparation of various written literature containing the subject misrepresentations and the communication by the Respondent of these misrepresentations through placement in the mail. The Respondent, by an indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, was charged with use of the United States mails in a scheme to defraud in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 1341 and 1342, as well as the use of wire communication in a scheme to defraud in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343. There is no allegation in the Administrative Complaint herein concerning the commission of any crime involving the use of wire communication in a scheme to defraud. The Administrative Complaint only concerns fraudulent use of the mail. The charges against the Respondent concerning Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 1341 and 1342 involving the use of the mails to defraud were dropped, the Respondent ultimately pled nolo contendere on November 17, 1978, to the charge involving a wire communication scheme to defraud in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343, was found guilty, with imposition of a sentence of imprisonment being suspended, with the Respondent placed on probation for three years. The Respondent's testimony was not contradicted and establishes that he had no part in the preparation of any written materials or script which he used in making the telephone conversations representing the above described attributes of the property he was attempting to sell on behalf of his broker. The written "script" which he read from or consulted as he was communicating with prospective purchasers was prepared by his broker or others. The Respondent established that he had no knowledge of the truthfulness or falsity of the representations concerning soil, water, the alleged advantageous location or the interest of oil companies in the adjoining parcels of property. The Respondent did not, however, inquire regarding the truthfulness or veracity of the statements in the script he was ordered to follow in making the telephone calls. The Respondent's uncontradicted testimony establishes that he had no part, however, in preparing any written materials, literature, brochures or written communications of any kind, nor in transmitting such through the mails in an attempt to defraud the prospective purchasers of the land. He made no representations by verbal communication which he knew to be false when he made them. The Respondent has never been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings by the petitioner in the past.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Ed Rich be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 19th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Colodny, Esquire 626 Northeast 124 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Mr. Ed Rich 1950 South Ocean Drive Hallandale, Florida 33009 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. "Joe" Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent Santaniello holds real estate broker license number 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Santaniello is the active broker for Respondent, Sunair Realty Corporation, which holds license number 0213030. Mr. Don M. and Mrs. Agnes C. Long own two lots in Port Charlotte which they purchased as investments. By letter dated June 8, 1981, Respondents forwarded a "Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase" on each of these lots to the Longs. The documents established that Anni Czapliski was the buyer at a purchase price of $1200 per lot. Respondent Sunair Realty Corporation was to receive the greater of $120 or ten percent of the felling price for "professional services." The letter and documents were signed by Respondent Santaniello. Anni Czapliski was Bernard Santaniello's mother-in-law at the time of the proposed sale. This relationship was not disclosed by Respondents and was not known to the Longs at the time they were invited to contract with Respondents for sale of the lots. The Longs rejected the proposed arrangement for reasons not-relevant here.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining each $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert J. Norton, Esquire Suite 408 First National Bank Building Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Mr. C.B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R.T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of April.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Larry C. Abramson, held real estate salesman license number 00400601 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. He currently resides at 830 Southeast Fifth Terrace, Pompano Beach, Florida. On or about July 19, 1984, respondent entered into a negotiated plea of guilty to a one-count information charging a conspiracy to commit securities fraud and mail fraud arising from an insider trading scheme in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. A violation of the foregoing section carries a maximum sentence of five years and a $10,000 fine. When the violation herein occurred, Abramson was employed as a plant superintendent and manufacturing supervisory staff member for a New York financial printing concern. Documentation received in evidence concerning the charge are (a) a letter of June 15, 1984 executed by respondent and the prosecuting attorney outlining the nature of the plea and Abramson's requirement to fully cooperate with the government, (b) a news release issued by the United States Attorney outlining the guilty plea, (c) a certified copy of Abramson's docket sheet in the U. S. District Court in New York City, (d) a copy of the information filed against respondent, and (e) a certified copy of respondent's waiver of indictment and consent to information. However, respondent has not yet been sentenced by the court, and there is no evidence of record that the plea of guilty has been accepted by the court.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate brokers and holds license No. 0002997. On May 7, 1979, Respondent acted in the capacity of a real estate broker in the transaction of the sale of a parcel of real property located in Polk County, Florida. The purchaser in that transaction was Margaret Rhoden, and the seller was June Davis, who was represented in the transaction by a relative, Henry Goodwin. On May 7, 1979, Margaret Rhoden entered into a Contract for Sale of Rea1 Estate for the purchase of a piece of property Frostproof, Florida, from June Davis. The full purchase price of the property was $3,500, which Ms. Rhoden paid to Respondent in cash on May 7, 1979, and obtained a receipt from Respondent for that amount. At the time the contract was entered into, Ms. Rhoden was advised that a deed should be forthcoming from the seller within two to four weeks. A date of June 20, 1979, was established to close the transaction, subject to a 120-day curative period should any cloud on the title be discovered. The contract between the parties provided that should any such cloud appear of record, the seller would have a period of 120 days after receipt of written notice prior to the date set for closing in which to attempt to cure the defect. The contract further provided that if title defects were not cleared within the l20-day period, the deposit would be returned to the buyer, or, at the buyer's option, the transaction should be closed in the same manner as if no defect had been found. A warranty deed purporting to transfer the property from the seller to the buyer was executed on June 7, 1979, and a title binder was issued on that same date. The title binder indicated an outstanding mortgage on a larger piece of property of which the parcel purchased by Ms. Rhoden was only a part. When efforts to clear this cloud on the title took longer than expected, Ms. Rhoden asked, and was granted, permission by the seller's agent to commence construction on the improvements on the property notwithstanding the fact that she knew that a cloud remained on the title to the lot, and the transaction had not been closed. Construction was not completed on the improvements because Ms. Rhoden ran out of cash during the course of construction. She moved into the dwelling while it was still in a partially completed condition and, on September 8, 1979, with the permission of the seller's agent, received a loan of $3,000 from the $3,500 deposit she had placed with Respondent, Ms. Rhoden executed a promissory note dated September 8, 1979, in which she agreed to repay the $3,000 loan when clear title to the property was issued. Ms. Rhoden used the proceeds of this loan to make additional improvements on the property. On October 26, 1979, Respondent received both the warranty deed dated June 7, 1979, and the title binder issued on that date from the attorney for the seller. When approached by Ms. Rhoden, Respondent agreed to lend her the deed and title binder to attempt to obtain additional financing to complete construction on her home. The clear inference from the record in this proceeding is that there was never any understanding between Respondent and Ms. Rhoden that this deed could be recorded at this or any other juncture in this transaction. In fact, the contract entered into between the buyer and seller clearly called for the payment of the full purchase price of the property at closing, and the note subsequently executed by Ms. Rhoden conditioned the issuance of a warranty deed to her on the payment of the $3,000 face value of the note. Ms. Rhoden was unsuccessful in obtaining additional financing to complete construction on her home, probably due to the fact that when she sought that financing the outstanding mortgage on the property had still not been satisfied. When Respondent advised the seller's attorney that he had loaned the warranty deed to Ms. Rhoden for the purposes outlined above, he was advised that there was nothing to keep Ms. Rhoden from recording the deed, at which point Respondent apparently determined that it would be prudent for him to retrieve the deed from Ms. Rhoden's possession. Ms. Rhoden had her mother return the deed to Respondent in February of 1980. According to the testimony of both Ms. Rhoden and her mother, they felt the purpose for the returning of the deed was to have it recorded. Respondent denies any such understanding. In resolving this conflict in testimony, the clear inference from the circumstances involved in this transaction, including the wording of the contract of sale and the note executed by Ms. Rhoden, supports a finding that all of the parties to this transaction either knew, or should have known, that the recording of the deed at this juncture in the transaction would have been improper. Although the outstanding mortgage had been satisfied in January of 1980, Ms. Rhoden had not Performed her obligation under the contract of sale by paying the full purchase price. When Respondent had recovered the deed from Ms. Rhoden, he was advised by the attorney for the seller not to record the deed until he had received payment from Ms. Rhoden in accordance with the contract and the promissory note. As indicated above, the outstanding mortgage on the property was satisfied in January of 1980. On February 6, 1980, Respondent Prepared a closing statement reflecting the purchase price of the property as $3,500. From this amount he deducted a total of $478 for state documentary stamps, title insurance, Preparing the deed, and amount of real estate commission leaving a the apparently forwarded the note from Ms. Rhoden for $3,000, together with the $22.00 cash balance remaining from her initial $3,500 deposit to the seller along with the deed which the seller had earlier executed. Ms. Rhoden apparently never made or tendered payment of the $3,000 note, the transaction never closed, and at the time of final hearing in this cause an eviction action was apparently pending between the seller and Ms. Rhoden. Paragraph seven of the contract of sale executed between the seller and Ms. Rhoden Provides as follows: If Buyer fails to perform this contract, the deposit this day paid by Buyer as aforesaid shall be retained by or for the account of Seller as consideration for the execution of this agreement and in full settlement of any claims for damages.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth M. Olson, Jr., is a registered real estate broker with the FREC and Active Firm Member of Olson and Associates Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker registered with the FREC. A copy of the Administrative Complaint was forwarded to the last address of Defendants registered with the FREC by certified mail numbers 4747 and 4748 and the notice of hearing was forwarded to the same address by certified mail numbers 4613 and 4614. Accordingly the Hearing Officer had jurisdiction over the Defendants and the offenses. By contract dated September 17, 1975 (Exhibit 6) Joseph J. Pillucere contracted to purchase real property from Paul L. Nave. The contract provided, inter alia, for a $500 earnest money deposit, $9500 down payment at closing with purchaser to assume existing first mortgage of approximately $28,000; and the seller taking back a purchase money second mortgage in the amount of $17,000. Thereafter, at the time scheduled for closing, the purchaser failed to produce the additional down payment required, execute the second mortgage and assume the existing first mortgage. After receiving conflicting demands from buyer and seller for the return of the earnest money deposit Defendant requested an advisory opinion from the FREC in accordance with Section 475.25(1)(c) FS. On May 13, 1976 an advisory opinion (Exhibit 5) was given by FREC to the Defendant, with copies to both parties to the contract, advising Defendant that the earnest money deposit should-be disbursed to the seller. The deposit has been disbursed to neither party to the contract.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of failing to keep money entrusted to her by a person dealing with her as a broker in her escrow account until properly authorized to disburse those funds. Whether Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, culpable negligence, breach of trust in a business transaction and violation of a duty imposed by law and under the terms of a real estate contract by failing to advise, inquire, or otherwise obtain proper authorization from the Buyers prior to disbursing $10,000 from her escrow account, which funds had been entrusted to her by the Buyers under the terms of a real estate contract. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner called John Maxwell, Judith Maxwell, Janet Johnson, and Albert M. Johnson as its witnesses. Petitioner offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 7, which were received into evidence. Respondent testified in her own behalf and called Charles R. Frost as a witness. Respondent offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 3, which were received into evidence. Both Petitioner and Respondent have offered proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues involved in this cause, or as having been unsupported by the evidence of record.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered and licensed real estate broker, having been issued license No. 0029188. On August 21, 1981, John A. and Judith E. Maxwell ("Buyers") entered into a contract for the purchase of a home located at 2017 Howard Drive, in Orlando, Florida, owned by Albert M. and Janet T. Johnson ("Sellers"). The Contract for Sale and Purchase was accepted by the Sellers on August 22, 1981. Under the terms of the contract, the Buyers paid a $500 deposit to Respondent's escrow account, and paid an additional $9,500 into Respondent's escrow account upon acceptance of the contract by the Sellers. Paragraph 9 of the Contract for Sale and Purchase under the heading "Special Clauses," provided, in part, as follows: This offer is subject to Buyers selling their home in Austin, Texas, within twelve months from date of this executed contract. Buyer will close on this property upon closing of that property. Buyer will pay a monthly rent to the Seller at $500 per month until closing, and apy[sic] utility bills dur- ing that time. Buyer will occupy premises upon execution of this contract. . . In addition, under the heading STANDARDS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, the contract provided as follows: DEFAULT BY BUYER: If the Buyer fails to perform any covenants of this con- tract within the time specified, the deposit this date paid by the Buyer aforesaid may be retained by or for the account of the Seller as consideration for the execution of this contract and in full settlement of any claims for damages and all parties shall be relieved of all obligations under this con- tract, and each party shall execute a separate release of the other party at this time; or the Seller, at his option, may proceed at law or in equity to enforce his legal rights under this contract, including, but not limited to, the right to bring a suit for specific performance. DEFAULT BY SELLER: If the Seller fails to perform any of the covenants of this contract other than the failure of the Seller to render his title marketable after diligent effort, the aforesaid deposit shall at the option of the Buyer be returned to the Buyer on demand and all parties shall execute a release of the other party of their rights and obligations under this contract; the Buyer, however, at his option may proceed in law or equity to enforce his legal rights under this contract, including, but not limited to, the right of specific performance. OTHER AGREEMENTS: No agreements or representations, unless incorporated in this contract shall be binding upon any of the parties. APPLICATION OF DEPOSIT ON DEFAULT: In the event Buyer fails to perform and the deposit aforesaid is retained, the amount of such deposit shall be divided equally between the Realtor and the Seller; provided, however, that the amount to be retained or received by the Realtor shall not exceed the full amount of the commission and any excess shall be paid to the Seller. If the trans- action shall not be closed because of the failure of the Seller to perform, then Seller shall pay said commission in full to the Realtor on demand. The Sellers were in immediate need of cash and, unknown to the Buyers, advised Respondent that they required that any down payment received pursuant to the contract be disbursed immediately to them. Before the Sellers accepted the contract submitted by the Buyers they received an assurance from Respondent that Respondent had fully informed the Buyers that the money was to be paid to the Sellers upon acceptance of the contract. The Sellers made it clear to Respondent that they could not wait for the closing of Buyers' home in Texas to receive the money. Respondent told Sellers that the Buyers were aware that the money was to go to them and that it was nonrefundable. Notwithstanding Respondent's representation to the Sellers, the Respondent, in fact, never informed the Buyers that the Sellers were expecting the money paid upon execution of the contract to be paid over to them immediately. Further, Respondent never advised the Buyers that either the $500 deposit or the $9,500 payments required by the contract would be nonrefundable absent a total default on the contract. The Buyers never had any direct conversations with the Sellers and, accordingly, were never advised by them that the Sellers expected to immediately receive the moneys paid by Buyers upon execution of the contract. The contract was prepared by Respondent's husband. The only parties present during the preparation of the contract were Respondent, her husband, and the Buyers. At no time during the preparation of the contract was the Sellers' financial condition discussed, nor the fact that the Sellers were immediately in need of the moneys deposited by the Buyers with Respondent. As required by the contract, the Buyers paid the $500 deposit to Respondent on August 21, 1981. On August 24, 1981, upon acceptance of the contract by the Sellers, an additional payment of $9,500 was made to Respondent. This latter sum was paid by check from the Buyers made payable to Respondent's escrow account at the request of Respondent. On August 25, 1981, Respondent disbursed $7,000 to the Sellers and $2,000 to herself as partial payment of her real estate commission. Respondent did not obtain the Buyers' authorization or permission to disburse either the $500 deposit or the $9,500 payment. It was not until the middle of September, 1981, that the Buyers learned that the $10,000 paid by them had been disbursed by Respondent. At that time the Buyers called Respondent to request that the total payment of $10,000 be placed in an interest-bearing account. When this request was made, Respondent at first advised the Buyers that she would not tell them where the money was, but the Buyers were later informed by Respondent's husband that the funds had been disbursed to the Sellers. The Buyers immediately requested that the funds be returned to Respondent's escrow account, but, as of the date of final hearing in this cause, none of the funds had been redeposited in that account.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In May 1988, he was working as a broker-salesman with G.V. Stewart, Inc., a corporate real estate broker whose active broker is G.V. Stewart. On April 20, 1989, Respondent submitted a Contract for Sale and Purchase to the University of South Florida Credit Union who was attempting to sell a house at 2412 Elm Street in Tampa, Florida, which the seller had acquired in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. This offer reflected a purchase price of $25,000 with a deposit of $100 (Exhibit 2). The president of the seller rejected the offer by striking out the $25,000 and $100 figures and made a counter offer to sell the property for $29,000 with a $2000 deposit (Exhibit 2). On May 9, 1989, Respondent submitted a new contract for sale and purchase for this same property which offer reflected an offering price of $27,000 with a deposit of $2000 held in escrow by G.V. Stewart (Exhibit 3). This offer, as did Exhibit 2, bore what purported to be the signature of William P. Murphy as buyer and G. Stewart as escrow agent. In fact, neither Murphy nor Stewart signed either Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3, and neither was aware the offers had been made at the time they were submitted to the seller. This offer was accepted by the seller. This property was an open listing with no brokerage firm having an exclusive agreement with the owner to sell the property. Stewart's firm had been notified by the seller that the property was for sale. Respondent had worked with Stewart for upwards of ten years and had frequently signed Stewart's name on contracts, which practice was condoned by Stewart. Respondent had sold several parcels of property to Murphy, an attorney in Tampa, on contracts signed by him in the name of Murphy, which signatures were subsequently ratified by Murphy. Respondent considers Murphy to be a Class A customer for whom he obtained a deposit only after the offer was accepted by the seller and Murphy confirmed a desire to purchase. Respondent has followed this procedure in selling property to Murphy for a considerable period of time and saw nothing wrong with this practice. At present, Respondent is the active broker at his own real estate firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that William H. McCoy's license as a real estate broker be suspended for one year. However, if before the expiration of the year's suspension Respondent can prove, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Commission, that he fully understands the duty owed by a broker to the seller and the elements of a valid contract, the remaining portion of the suspension be set aside. ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Alexander, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley 400 West Robinson Street General Counsel Orlando, Florida 32802 Department of Professional Regulation William H. McCoy 1940 North Monroe Street 4002 South Pocahontas Avenue Suite 60 Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tampa Florida 33610 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman and broker-salesman, license number 0326235. In 1983, Dorothy Nutt and Diane Falstad were the owners of a house located at 608 Hillcrest Street, Orlando, Florida. In December of 1983, Ms. Nutt and Ms. Falstad placed this house for sale with real estate broker Frank Daley. The listing was an exclusive listing except as to the Respondent and another individual, for which no commission would be paid, if a contract submitted by the Respondent was accepted by Nutt and Falstad prior to December 26, 1983. On December 25, 1983, the Respondent, along with his parents, Barbara Okoniewski and Louis Okoniewski, Jr., submitted a written contract to Diane Falstad and Dorothy Nutt for the purchase of the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The contract was accepted by the sellers on December 26, 1983. The contract, as executed by the Respondent and his parents, specified that a $1,000 deposit was to be held in escrow by "Closing Agents." Additionally, Respondent represented to Ms. Falstad that the $1,000 deposit was being maintained in an escrow account. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Respondent applied for a V.A. mortgage loan, but was later determined to be ineligible. Subsequent thereto, on or about February 8, 1984, application was made with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC), to obtain financing to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The application was in the name of the Respondent's parents, with Respondent handling the matter on their behalf. Thereafter, the Respondent requested that the loan officer (Charlyne Becker) at RFC not submit the loan application for approval to the underwriters. Pursuant to his request, the application was not submitted for approval. The transaction did not close. Subsequent to the scheduled date of closing both Ms. Falstad and Ms. Nutt made demands of the Respondent for forfeiture of the $1,000 deposit, due to their belief that, he had breached the contract by failing to secure financing. It was not until after the scheduled closing date that the sellers learned the $1,000 was not in escro. To date, Respondent has neither deposited the $1,000 in any trust account nor paid any money to the sellers. Respondent admits through his own testimony, that he did not make the deposit, nor was the deposit placed in any escrow account by his parents. Respondent's testimony, which was not rebutted, established that he and his parents sought to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property and that adjacent to it for rental purposes. However, they were advised by the RFC loan officer (Charlyne Becker) that the applications were not likely to be approved by RFC. Respondent did not thereafter pursue any of the loan applications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent $500. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 12th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esq. Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis S. Okoniewski 730 Lake View Avenue, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Harold Huff. Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Peter Thomas Roman. By application dated April 28, 1988, he sought licensure as a real estate salesman. By letter dated October 24, 1988, counsel for Respondent informed Petitioner of Respondent's intent to deny licensure to Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's 1985 arrest and subsequent plea in 1986 to a charge of grand theft, as well as Petitioner's suspension from membership in the Florida Bar. Question number six of the application completed by Petitioner requires a "yes" or "no" answer to the question: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? Petitioner responded to question number six by disclosing his entry of a plea of nolo contendere in the circuit court for Pinellas County, Florida, on December 29, 1986, to a charge of grand theft. Petitioner related that the incident alleged had taken place in November of 1979. Petitioner further stated that the sentencing court had withheld formal adjudication of guilt and had placed Petitioner on probation. Petitioner, a licensed attorney at the time of the alleged incident, was disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida in an opinion issued on June 2, 1988. The Fla. Bar v. Peter T. Roman, 526 So.2d 60 (Fla. 1988). Petitioner's disbarment was based on the same acts which resulted in the grand theft charge. In addition, the Supreme Court found that "[t]his case involves not only theft, but fraud on the court which strikes at the very heart of a lawyer's ethical responsibility." Fla. Bar v. Roman, p. 62. The essential facts of the grand theft charges against Petitioner were that Petitioner falsified the name of an heir in an estate where Petitioner was serving as the personal representative. Funds paid from the estate to the falsified heir were converted by Petitioner to his own use. These matters occurred between January 1978 and January 1980. Petitioner was charged with grand theft in June of 1985. He pled no contest to that charge in 1986. Thereafter adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was sentenced to five years probation a $220 fine and nine months in the Pinellas County Jail. Since the incident which is the basis for the grand theft charges filed against Petitioner, he has not been involved in any incidents or episodes of misconduct. Petitioner has been offered a job as a sales person with a local real estate firm if he is permitted to hold a real estate license. Testimony of character witnesses offered by Petitioner establishes their belief that his reputation in the community is good, despite the one criminal incident in his past, and that they believe neither the public or investors would be endangered by the granting of licensure to the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5432 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-9. Adopted in substance. Unnecessary to result. Adopted in substance. Unnecessary to result. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-8. Adopted in substance. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Roman, Esquire 2340 Main Street, Suite L Dunedin, Florida 34698 Lawrence Gendzier, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Real Estate Legal Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
