The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his real estate salesperson's license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Seeking to become a licensed real estate salesperson, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application on December 16, 1996. One of the questions on the application form asks: 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? . . . [Bold] If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. [End Bold] Respondent checked "yes," but failed to attach the details or otherwise describe them on the form. As alleged, Respondent pleaded no contest to driving under the influence in July 1991, and he was adjudicated guilty. He was placed on supervised probation for one year and lost his driving privileges for six months. As alleged, Respondent pleaded no contest to the traffic misdemeanor of reckless driving and misdemeanor possession of under 20 grams of marijuana in June 1995. He was adjudicated guilty of reckless driving, and adjudication was withheld as to possession of marijuana. He was fined $630 and court costs for reckless driving. In completing the application, Respondent realized that he would have to supply the details of the criminal offenses, of which he admitted when he checked the "yes" box. However, he set aside the application for a week or two, and, when he picked it up again to finish, he forgot about the need to attach a supplement. He thus sent it in incomplete and with a personal attestation that it was complete. Despite the obvious omission from the application, Petitioner issued Respondent a real estate salesperson's license without requesting further information concerning the criminal offenses. Respondent took the licensing examination on February 17, 1997. Passing the examination, he received his license shortly after it was issued on March 24, 1997. The next contact between the parties was when Respondent received a letter, dated February 25, 1998, from Petitioner noting that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement had informed Petitioner of an arrest for the latter criminal offenses. The letter states: "To clear any ambiguity regarding your 'YES' response to the relevant application question, we request additional information." The letter also requests an explanation regarding Respondent's failure to disclose this information on his application form. The letter concludes that Respondent's application would be held in abeyance until receipt of the requested information. By letter dated March 9, 1998, Respondent explained the circumstances surrounding the latter offenses, saying that he had not disclosed the information on the original application due to embarrassment. The letter does not mention the earlier criminal offense of driving under the influence. Respondent testified at the hearing that he claimed embarrassment because he did not think that it would sound as good to say that he had forgotten about the need to add the supplement to his application. This testimony is credited. It is impossible to infer an affirmative misrepresentation or attempt to conceal in the initial application. Respondent disclosed a criminal offense, and it was abundantly clear on the face of the short application form that he had failed to describe the disclosure, as requested to do so. Perhaps Petitioner's employees missed the box checked "yes" or, finding it, forgot to follow up on the matter. Clearly, though, Respondent sufficiently disclosed the matter to preclude a finding, on these facts, of any misrepresentation or intent to conceal. Respondent's March 9 response to the February 25 letter is a different matter. Although the February 25 letter focuses its inquiry upon the latter criminal offenses and does not request a comprehensive response to the question of criminal offenses, Respondent could have also mentioned the earlier offense. This would have negated any inference whatsoever of an affirmative misrepresentation or intent to conceal in the application or at this later stage. However, even considering the shortcoming of the February 25 response, the facts still do not support the finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent intentionally concealed the criminal offenses in his application. As to the omission from the February 25 letter as a basis for discipline in itself, the Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with anything arising directly out of the contents of his February 25 letter. Likewise, Petitioner's proposed recommended order does not even mention Respondent's February 25 response.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Warren Keith Babb, pro se 2310 Southwest 53rd Street Cape Coral, Florida 33914 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. From January 24, 1994, through the present, Respondent Ernest Eric Yeghian, has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number BK- 0583985, as well as the broker/officer of Vikon Realty Corp., a broker corporation located at 131 South F Street, Lake Worth, Florida. For the two-year period preceding his licensure as a broker or, stated otherwise, from 1992 to January 24, 1994, Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. Respondent's conviction In early 1996, Respondent pled guilty to one count of bank bribery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1), pursuant to a plea agreement reached in the matter of United States of America v. E. Eric Yeghian, United States District Court, District of Rhode Island, Case No. 1:95CR00021-004. Respondent resolved, in part, to enter such plea based on advise of counsel that the banker's coercion, discussed infra, would not constitute a legal defense to the offense charged. On March 20, 1996, judgment of conviction was entered on Respondent's plea and he was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment and fined $10,000.2 The judgment further provided that upon release from imprisonment, Respondent would be on supervised release for a term of 3 years. Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of the guilty plea or his conviction within 30 days of having pled guilty or having been convicted. Respondent voluntarily surrendered to the United States Bureau of Prisons (FPC Jesup, Georgia) on April 17, 1996, and was released to a halfway house (located in West Palm Beach, Florida) on or about December 17, 1996, to serve the last 60 days of his sentence. Respondent was released from custody on or about February 14, 1997, and will have completed his probation (supervised release) on February 14, 2000. The pending complaint At some point following Respondent's licensure as a real estate broker, the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) requested a criminal background check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). That investigation was completed on November 30, 1995, and revealed that Respondent had been arrested on March 30, 1995, on the charge of bank bribery. Subsequently, the Department learned of Respondent's plea and conviction, and on December 23, 1996, filed a Uniform Complaint Form which initiated an investigation to resolve whether cause existed to believe that Respondent had violated Section 745.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by having failed to notify FREC of his plea of guilty or conviction. By letter of December 27, 1996, the Department advised Respondent of the pendency of the complaint and investigation, and proposed to schedule a meeting to discuss the complaint. The letter further provided that "[y]ou may submit a written response to the information contained in the complaint within 20 days after receipt of this letter." Respondent was interviewed by the Department's investigator on December 30, 1996, and by letter of January 3, 1997, he submitted a written response to the complaint, as well as an excerpt from court documents that explained his version of events (Respondent's Exhibit 4), and character reference letters that had been submitted to the federal judge (Respondent's Exhibits 6-13). Respondent's response to the complaint included the following explanation regarding his arrest and conviction: In 1983, I graduated from high school. I had been accepted by the University of Massachusetts and began my studies there in the fall of that year. It soon became apparent to me that even though I was doing well at school, I had to drop out . . . to assist my family financially. . . . I began to work full time as a laborer in a scrap metal yard in the winter of 1983. As I continued to work as a laborer and save my earnings, I began to learn as much as I could about the real estate business. In 1984, a friend and I pooled our savings and purchased our first property, and [sic] abandoned tenement in Providence's Armory district. I moved in and completely renovated the building from top to bottom myself. I then advertised and sold the home. We reinvested the profit into two similar properties. Fortunately, these properties also were sold at a profit. We continued to repeat this process many times over the next 3-4 years, also doing all the work ourselves. * * * In early to middle 1987, it became apparent to me that, due to the rapidly rising prices of real estate in Rhode Island, attractively priced existing properties would continue to be more and more scarce. I decided that it would be more cost effective to begin building new properties. However, since I was inexperienced at this type of development, I decided to associate with partners who were older and more seasoned. A partnership was formed to build 48 condominiums in North Providence. We agreed that my role would be to supervise the day to day construction and that they would secure the bank financing for the project. The construction began in early 1986. Most everything went well and soon we were selling the condominiums at a profit. Around that time, one of my partners introduced me to a college friend of his, an attorney named George Marderosian. Mr. Marderosian began to do work for the partnership as well as becoming my personal attorney. Early in 1987, Mr. Marderosian became aware of [a] piece of property, selling at a reasonable price, which was suitable for the same type of condominium development. Because the first project was going well, it seemed a [sic] natural to proceed and do this project as well. . . . In early 1987, . . . [my partner and I] decided to put a deposit on the land. I then spent the next 8-10 months verifying the zoning, getting permits for water and sewer service, having engineering and construction plans prepared, etc. This along with the eventual supervision of the construction was my usual role. In the course of this work, I provided all of this development information to Mr. Marderosian, who was preparing the application for the bank loan. The application was made for the loan in the fall of 1987. I learned in late 1987 that the loan was approved and was gratified because I had invested the better part of one year in preparing the project. . . . After I was told our loan was approved (and only several days before the closing) Jay Moore, my partner in both the old and new projects, explained to me that he had been approached by our loan officer, Kenneth Annarummo, who was looking for money. I am not entirely sure about the exact circumstances. However, I am sure that this first approach was not to me personally. My best recollection is that Mr. Moore explained to me that Mr. Annarummo told him he wanted $20,000 and that he had reluctantly agreed to give it to him. I do recall discussing the matter with our attorney. He told us that he, not being a customer of the bank himself, could give money to Mr. Annarummo. He instructed Mr. Moore and me to give him $10,000 and he would take care of the rest. With so much at stake and so much already invested, I simply wanted to put the problem behind us. I rationalized that it was just part of doing business. However, while I could not say exactly what law was being broken, I realized paying Mr. Annarummo was wrong. In early 1988, I found another property I felt was an excellent value. . . . I spent the first 7-8 months of 1988 doing all the due diligence work on the site. I put down a deposit on the land, spent money on engineering, environmental tests, wetlands studies, etc. By summer 1988 all the research and 3 separate appraisals seemed to indicate the property was an excellent value. In approximately August, 1988 I applied for the loan for this property. About a month later, while I was home during the work week with a broken arm I called to my office to check my messages. There was a message to call Mr. Annarummo at his bank in reference to my loan application. I called Mr. Annarummo and he told me that the loan committee had approved my loan and that the loan could close within several weeks. About one week later during the early evening I was home, again, with the same broken arm. I was not expecting anyone. There was a knock on my door, It was Mr. Annarummo and his wife. He had never been to my home before and he was not invited on that occasion. At first, I did not know why he was there. He stepped inside and told me that he wanted to speak to me about something. He said he had a car loan that he wanted to "get rid of." I genuinely did not know what he was talking about and I asked him what he meant. In response he bluntly stated that he wanted me to pay off his car loan. I did not know what to say. I responded that I would have to get back to him and, with little else said, he and his wife left. After he left, I tried to put the approach out of my mind and pretend it never happened. I thought perhaps he wouldn't bother me anymore or be too embarrassed to bring it up ever again. A few days passed and I was back at work and I got a phone call from Mr. Annarummo. He started to press me for an answer. Again, I told him I'd have to get back to him. Quite plainly, I did not want to pay him money, but I also did not know what to do. I told him I had a customer in my office and I'd have to get back to him and hung up. By then it was obvious to me that he was not going to drop the issue. I contacted Mr. Marderosian and told him what had happened and I asked him how I should handle it. Mr. Marderosian said to me that it was unfortunate that Mr. Annarummo was doing this to me but if he handled the situation for me that would solve the problem for the time being. We agreed that in future projects I should develop a relationship with another bank so I would not be placed in such a tight position. (At the time, Mr. Annuarummo also controlled the day to day funding of the two major projects in which I was involved) I agreed to give him the money. Inherently, I knew then and clearly know now that what Mr. Annarummo was demanding and what George Marderosian helped me to do, was wrong. At those particular moments I felt I had only two choices. to give him the money or to refuse to do so. I did not want to give him the money because he had no right to it. Besides, I knew it was wrong and probably illegal. I did not want to refuse because I felt Mr. Annarummo had the power to ruin or at the very least severely disrupt everything I had been working to build my whole life and most importantly the livelihood and support of my family. I felt stuck in the middle with only two bad choices. Eventually, my fear of the potential ramifications of not appeasing Mr. Annarummo in conjunction with Mr. Marderosian offering an apparent way out led me to make the decision I made. It was a wrong decision. With the benefit of hindsight, I now see that there was a third choice. I could have brought Mr. Annarummo's approach to the attention of his superiors at the bank and/or the appropriate authorities. This experience is indelibly burned into my consciousness. I am older, wiser and more secure in my judgement. If ever I were to find myself confronted with this type of situation again, my reaction would be completely contrary to what I have done in the past. . . . (Respondent's Exhibit 14.) Respondent explained his failure to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of his plea or conviction within 30 days of having pled guilty or having been convicted, as follows: . . . it was my absolute intention to address this issue with the F.R.E.C. upon returning home (which I did just 12/17/96). I clearly am in error in terms of the timetable for notification which I now understand should have been within 30 days of the plea or conviction. I, wrongly, was under the impression that notification was required prior to resuming the use of ones' license. I should have known the notification procedure and I am clearly at fault for not doing so in the required time frame. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, at page 3.) Thereafter, on April 18, 1997, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which charged that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, "by having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate salesperson or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing" (Count I), and Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by "not having informed the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty (30) days of having pled guilty or having been convicted of a felony" (Count II). According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought for such violations was stated to be as follows: . . . The penalty for each count or separate offense may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 3 At hearing, Respondent offered testimony consistent with the explanation he had previously offered the Department, discussed supra. Respondent also observed that, at the time, he was fearful that if he refused the banker's demands, the banker would interrupt the funding that had been obtained for the projects. Respondent further testified that he fully disclosed the circumstances to his attorney and on the attorney's advice delivered the funds (to the attorney) for delivery to the banker. Finally, Respondent averred that he never misrepresented or withheld any material facts regarding the projects during the loan process; had no involvement in structuring the loan transactions; and only agreed to pay the banker (on advice of counsel) to avoid disruption of the previously approved funding. In Respondent's view he was not offering money (a bribe) for something he was not entitled to, but was being extorted by the banker to receive that to which he was entitled (the approved funding). Respondent's explanation regarding the circumstances surrounding the events which led to his conviction is credited. Respondent also offered credible proof that he cooperated fully with the government; that he accepted responsibility for his actions; and that he suffered a significant penalty for his misjudgment. The proof further reveals that the events which led to his conviction occurred over 11 years ago (when Respondent was 22-23 years of age); that in the 7 years Respondent has been licensed in Florida (as a salesperson or broker) no complaints have been filed against him; that among those who know of him, Respondent is considered honorable and trustworthy; and that his involvement in the events leading to his conviction was more likely attributable to naivete than guile. Finally, the proof demonstrates that Respondent continues to provide financial support for his parents and that loss of licensure would impose a severe financial hardship on Respondent and his family.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds the Respondent not guilty of the offense charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of the offense charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and that for such offense Respondent receive a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 9th day of July, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Marcus J. Brown f11ed an application for the issuance of a Class "C" license on Apr11 8, 1982 with Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing. That license authorizes a licensee to Perform private investigative work. After reviewing the application, Respondent denied the same on June 26, 1982 on the ground Petitioner did not possess the requisite experience required by Subsection 493.306(4), Florida Statutes, The denial Precipitated the instant proceeding. Petitioner is a licensed real estate salesman, He supports himself through his activities as a real estate salesman and "Personal business activities." Between 1979 and Apr11, 1982, Petitioner performed investigative work on three cases involving real estate transactions. The work wad performed on a Part-time basis on behalf of two attorneys and a real estate broker in the Miami area. One of the cases is st11l pending. The work involved, inter alia, interviewing witnesses, researching corporate records, and securing documents for use at trial. Petitioner had a personal interest in the outcome of all three cases, and at least one involved an effort by him to secure an unpaid real estate commission due him. He has received no compensation for his services as an investigator to date. Petitioner has no college course work related to private investigation nor has he worked as a licensed intern.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it RECOMMENDED that the application of Marcus J., Brown for licensure as a private investigator be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December,1982.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner and, if so, whether Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes; and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Jared A. White T/A Jerry White Realty was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0187087 pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker with an address of 231 Skiff Pt. 7, Clearwater, Florida 34630. TITLE TO THE PROPERTY The matters at issue began with Respondent's retention as a real estate broker to bid at a foreclosure auction for a beachfront house and lot at 235 Howard Drive in Belleair Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was hired to submit the bid on behalf of Dr. Moshe Kedan and/or his wife, Ella Kedan. Prior to the auction on August 17, 1995, Respondent had no contact with the Kedans. Kathy MacKinnon of Viewpoint International Realty in Clearwater was Respondent’s point of contact with the Kedans. It was Ms. MacKinnon who obtained Respondent's services to bid on behalf of the Kedans, and Ms. MacKinnon who negotiated with Dr. Kedan as to the financial arrangements for both the bid and any ensuing commissions for Respondent. Neither Ms. MacKinnon nor Dr. Kedan was called as a witness in this case. Respondent attended the foreclosure auction and tendered the winning bid on the property. Respondent bid in his own name. Respondent testified that he had bid at several similar sales in the past, and his practice was to bid in the name of the person who would hold title to the property. Respondent did not follow his usual practice here because Ms. MacKinnon failed to instruct him as to whether the property would be titled in the name of Dr. Kedan, Mrs. Kedan, or one of their corporations. Ms. MacKinnon told Respondent she would know on August 18 how the property was to be titled. Respondent's testimony regarding the initial titling of the property is supported by a handwritten note faxed by Ms. MacKinnon to Dr. Kedan on August 17, shortly after the auction. Ms. MacKinnon's note provides instructions regarding payment of the purchase price, indicating that the money must be submitted to the Clerk of the Court no later than 10:30 a.m. on the morning of August 18. The note specifically asks, "Also, whose name do you want the house in?" Respondent testified that on August 18, he went to Atlanta on business, with the understanding that Ms. MacKinnon would handle the payments to the Clerk of the Court and the titling of the property on that date. This testimony is consistent with the handwritten note in which Ms. MacKinnon indicates that she will take the Kedans' checks to the court. The record evidence shows that the payments were made to the Clerk of the Court and that title insurance on the property was timely issued. However, the title and the title insurance policy listed Respondent as owner of the property. Respondent was unaware the property had been titled in his name until he received the certificate of title in the mail, approximately two weeks after the auction. Upon receiving the incorrect certificate of title, he went to the title company and signed a quitclaim deed, effective August 17, 1995, in favor of Ella Kedan. Respondent testified that he had learned from Ms. MacKinnon that the property would be titled in Ella Kedan’s name at sometime during the two-week period after the auction. The quitclaim deed was not notarized until October 9, 1995, and was not recorded until October 10, 1995. However, the face of the deed states that it was made on August 17, 1995. It is plain that the signature line of the notary statement on the quitclaim deed has been altered from August 17, 1995 to October 9, 1995. Respondent had no knowledge of how the quitclaim deed came to be altered. Respondent also had no clear recollection as to why he dated the quitclaim deed August 17, 1995, in light of his testimony that he signed it approximately two weeks after that date. A reasonable inference is that Respondent so dated the quitclaim deed to clarify that Mrs. Kedan's ownership of the property commenced on August 17, the date on which Respondent submitted the winning bid. Respondent also had no knowledge of why the title company failed to record the quitclaim deed at the time he signed it. He testified that on or about October 9, 1995, he checked the Pinellas County computer tax records and discovered that he was still the owner of record. At that time, he returned to the title company to make sure the quitclaim deed was recorded the next day. Petitioner offered no testimonial evidence regarding the events surrounding the titling of the property. Respondent's uncontradicted testimony is credible, consistent with the documentary evidence, and thus credited as an accurate and truthful statement of the events in question. THE CONTRACT FOR REPAIRS Shortly after the auction, Respondent began discussing with Dr. Kedan the possibility of Respondent’s performing repairs on the just-purchased property. Because Dr. Kedan did not testify in this proceeding, findings as to the substance of the negotiations between Respondent and Dr. Kedan must be based on the testimony of Respondent, to the extent that testimony is credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. Respondent testified that Ms. MacKinnon approached him after the auction and asked him if he would be interested in fixing up the house for the Kedans. Respondent testified that he was agreeable to contracting for the work because his carpenter was between jobs and could use the money. Respondent thus met with Dr. Kedan at the doctor’s office to discuss the repairs. Dr. Kedan explained to Respondent that his ultimate plan was to demolish the existing house on the property and to build a more elaborate residence. Dr. Kedan wanted to rent out the house for five years before tearing it down, and wanted Respondent to affect such repairs as would make the house rentable for that five-year period. Respondent testified that Dr. Kedan expressly told him he did not want to spend a lot of money on the repairs. Respondent quoted Dr. Kedan a price of $20,000.00, which was the price it would take to pay for the repairs, with no profit built in for Respondent. Respondent testified that he sought no profit on this job. He had made a substantial commission on the purchase of the property, and anticipated doing business with Dr. Kedan in the future, and thus agreed to perform this particular job more or less as a “favor” to Dr. Kedan. After this meeting with Dr. Kedan, Respondent walked through the house with Irene Eastwood, the Kedans’ property manager. Ms. Eastwood testified that she and Respondent went from room to room, and she made notes on what should be done, with Respondent either concurring or disagreeing. Ms. Eastwood typed the notes into the form of a contract and presented it to Respondent the next day. On September 21, 1995, Respondent signed the contract as drafted by Ms. Eastwood. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent represented himself as a licensed contractor in the negotiations preceding the contract. Respondent testified that he never told Dr. Kedan that he was a contractor, and that he affirmatively told Ms. Eastwood that he was not a contractor. Ms. Eastwood testified that she assumed Respondent was a licensed contractor because Dr. Kedan would not have hired a nonlicensed person to perform the contracted work. She denied that Respondent ever told her that he was not a licensed contractor. The weight of the evidence supports Respondent to the extent it is accepted that Respondent never expressly represented himself as a licensed contractor to either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood. However, the weight of the evidence does not support Respondent’s claim that he expressly told either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s subcontractors commenced work immediately upon the signing of the contract. Ms. Eastwood was in charge of working with Respondent to remodel the house, and she visited the site every day, often two or three times. She only saw Respondent on the site once during the last week of September, and not at all during the month of October. She did observe painters and a maintenance man regularly at work on the property during this period. Respondent concurred that he was seldom on the property, but testified that this was pursuant to his agreement with Dr. Kedan that he would generally oversee the work on the property. Respondent testified that he was on the property as often as he felt necessary to perform his oversight duties. Ms. Eastwood testified as to her general dissatisfaction with the quality of the work that was being performed on the property and the qualifications of those performing the work. She conveyed those concerns to the Kedans. Respondent testified that he did not initially obtain any permits to perform the work on the house, believing that permits would not be necessary for the job. On or about October 11, 1995, officials from the City of Belleair Beach shut down Respondent’s job on the Kedans’ property for lack of a construction permit. Respondent made inquiries with the City as to how to obtain the needed permit. City officials told Respondent that a permit could be granted to either a licensed contractor, or to the owner of the property if such property is not for sale or lease. Respondent checked the City’s records and discovered that, despite the fact that he had signed a quitclaim deed on August 17, he was still shown as the owner of the property. Respondent then proceeded to sign a permit application as the homeowner, and obtained a construction permit on October 11, 1995. Respondent testified that because the City’s records showed him as the record owner of the property, he committed no fraud in obtaining a construction permit as the homeowner. This testimony cannot be credited. Whatever the City’s records showed on October 11, 1995, Respondent well knew he was not the true owner of this property. Respondent cannot be credited both with having taken good faith steps to correct the mistaken titling of the property and with later obtaining in good faith a construction permit as the record owner of the property. Respondent testified that in obtaining the construction permit under false pretenses, his main concern was to keep the job going and to finish it in a timely fashion. He testified that there was no financial advantage to him in having the property in his name: he was making no profit on the job, and actually lost money because he had to pay for another title policy in the name of the Kedans. While there may have been no immediate financial advantage to Respondent, he was clearly motivated by the prospect of future profits in projects with Dr. Kedan. The City’s closing down this project jeopardized Respondent’s anticipated continuing relationship with Dr. Kedan, and Respondent took the improper step of obtaining a construction permit as the property owner to maintain that relationship. The Kedans ultimately dismissed Respondent from the job. A claim of lien was filed against the property by the painter hired by Respondent, and the cabinet maker sent the Kedans a lawyer’s letter threatening to file a claim of lien. Mrs. Kedan testified that she paid off both the painter and the cabinetmaker in full. Ms. Eastwood estimated that the Kedans ultimately had to pay an additional $20,000 to $50,000 to complete the repairs to the house, some of which included correctional actions for the improper repairs performed by Respondent’s workers. ALLEGED PRIOR DISCIPLINE Respondent has been the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In that prior proceeding, the Division of Real Estate's Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent was guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(k), Florida Statutes. On September 25, 1995, Respondent and the Division of Real Estate entered into a Stipulation disposing of the Administrative Complaint. Under the terms of the Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1,000, and be subject to one year of probation, during which he would complete 30 hours of post-license education for brokers. The Stipulation expressly stated that Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. The Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order approving the Stipulation on November 14, 1995. Respondent's broker license was suspended by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 24, 1996. The cause for this suspension was Respondent's failure timely to pay the $1,000 fine imposed by the Stipulation. Respondent paid the fine on February 19, 1996, and late renewed his license on April 24, 1997. In the instant proceeding, Respondent testified that by entering into the Stipulation, he had no intention of pleading guilty to any of the allegations, and that he would never have entered into the Stipulation had he known it would be construed in any way as a guilty plea.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts One and Three of the administrative complaint, and finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two of the administrative complaint, and suspending Respondent’s real estate license for a period of three years and fining Respondent a sum of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 John Bozmoski, Jr., Esquire 600 Bypass Drive, Suite 215 Clearwater, Florida 34624-5075 Jared White White Realty 231 Skiff Point, Suite Seven Clearwater, Florida 34630 Henry M. Solares Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate sales person under license number 0466167. Respondent's real estate license was invalid during the dates at issue in this proceeding. The license expired on September 30, 1993, and was activated on February 1, 1994. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a voluntary inactive sales person at 171C Springwood Boulevard, Longwood, Florida. On October 28, 1993, Mr. Frank Canty, terminated Respondent from employment at Frank G. Canty Realty ("Canty"). Mr. Canty notified Respondent of the termination by telephone on or about the same day and immediately filed the form required to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") of Respondent's change in status. 2/ Mr. Robert Sirianni and Respondent are long time friends. Mr. Sirianni is the broker and owner for Bay Hill Realty, Inc ("Bay Hill"). Mr. Sirianni hired Respondent as a real estate sales person for Bay Hill on November 22, 1993. Mr. Sirianni signed the completed form required to notify the Commission that Respondent had placed his license with Bay Hill. Mr. Sirianni gave the completed form to Respondent to hand deliver to the Commission. However, Respondent failed to deliver the form to the Commission. On November 22, 1993, Respondent showed a condominium to prospective buyers. Respondent represented that he was an employee of Canty. Respondent delivered a written offer of $36,000 to Watson Realty Corporation ("Watson"), the listing office. Respondent used his Canty business card in the transaction. A representative of Watson contacted Mr. Canty to discuss some problems in the transaction. Mr. Canty informed the representative that Respondent was terminated from Canty on October 28, 1993. Watson caused a new contract to be executed between the buyers and sellers showing Watson Realty as the listing and selling office. The transaction closed on the new contract. On December 13, 1993, Mr. Sirianni faxed a memorandum to Watson claiming the sales commission purportedly earned by Respondent. Mr. Sirianni withdrew the demand after learning of the facts and circumstances surrounding the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order: finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.42(1)(b); authorizing the issuance of a written reprimand; placing Respondent on probation for one year; and imposing a fine of $1,000 to be paid in accordance with this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 9th day of May 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On approximately April 1, 1981, Petitioner, Dana Wilson, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. By letter dated July 23, 1981, the Board of Real Estate, through its counsel, advised Petitioner that at its duly noticed meeting of July 21, 1981, the Board of Real Estate Denied his application for licensure based on the answer to question No. 6 of the licensing application submitted by Petitioner which reflects that he has been convicted of a crime involving honesty. Petitioner was advised that, pursuant to Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes, an application for licensure as a salesman must be "honest, truthful, trustworthy and of good character and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing " Accordingly, the Board of Real Estate, after a review of Petitioner's application considered that he did not have the necessary qualification for licensure pursuant to the above-cited statute. As noted, herein, Petitioner did not appear at the subject hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, deny Petitioner's (Dana Wilson) application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of April, 1982, 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 9th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at final hearing was whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In October 1992, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent for licensure as a real estate salesperson, together with the required fee. The application asked several questions, including in pertinent part: Question 9: if Petitioner had been "convicted of a crime, found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld," and Question 13: if Petitioner had had a license to practice any regulated profession revoked upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law. Petitioner responded in the affirmative to both questions and provided written documentation and statements regarding the questions. Petitioner attached to her October 1992 application for licensure various letters to support her application. The letters included one from her probation officer indicating her compliance with her probation; from the local board of realtors indicating that no complaints had been registered against Petitioner during her membership with them, which was from 1979 to 1982 and 1990 to 1992; and from her present employer who is a licensed real estate agent and has employed Petitioner since 1989. On October 21, 1992, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. The denial was based upon her response to questions 9 and 13 on the application, specifically her 1991 conviction and sentence and the 1992 revocation of her real estate salesperson license. On May 29, 1991, Petitioner plead nolo contendere to three felony counts of grand theft in the third degree. She was placed on probation for five years with special conditions, and adjudication of guilt was withheld. The special conditions of Petitioner's probation were that she would make restitution in the amount of $19,864.52, that she would perform 500 hours of community service, that she would fully cooperate with the State Attorney's Office in the investigation of the criminal activity in which she was involved, and that the probation may be terminated, upon motion, after 30 months. The theft involved a scheme devised by Petitioner's "boss" to obtain funds, beyond entitlement, from the City of Miami. Petitioner was employed as a bookkeeper by an elderly center from 1986 to 1988, which provided transportation, lunches and recreational activities for senior citizens. The center received funds from the City of Miami to operate by being reimbursed for monies paid to vendors. From 1986 to 1988, the center was performing poorly economically. In order to obtain additional monies, the invoices of vendors who did business with the center were inflated or increased and submitted by the center to the City of Miami for reimbursement. As bookkeeper, Petitioner was instrumental in the scheme. The difference between the actual cost and the inflated cost was retained by Petitioner and her boss and distributed at the end of the year to the center's employees, including Petitioner and her boss. Petitioner and her boss controlled the illegally obtained funds. At the end of the center's budget year, which was June 30th of each year, the center was withholding back payments to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), using the funds held to pay salaries. As a result, a debt to IRS was created, and when IRS attempted to collect on the debt in 1988, the scheme was discovered and stopped. Petitioner cooperated fully with the State Attorney's Office. At the time of her conviction, Petitioner was licensed by Respondent as a real estate salesperson. Less than a month after her plea of nolo contendere to the grand theft charge and sentence, in June 1991 Petitioner notified Respondent of her conviction and sentence in accordance with statutory provisions regulating the practice of her profession as a licensed real estate salesperson. No evidence of any other conviction was presented. Subsequently, on or about October 30, 1991, an administrative complaint was filed by Respondent against Petitioner based upon her conviction. Petitioner admitted the allegations contained in the administrative complaint. She saw no need to deny the allegations, since she had reported the incident to Respondent. To Petitioner's shock and surprise, in a Final Order dated February 14, 1992, Petitioner's license as a real estate salesperson was revoked by Respondent. Petitioner had been licensed for 13 years without a complaint being filed against her. On February 13, 1992, Petitioner's probationary terms were modified by the court due to her inability to pay the $19,864.52 restitution. The modification included, among other things, that Petitioner was only required to pay monthly the restitution to individuals, which totaled $1,700, that the restitution to the City of Miami could be paid through community service at $10.00 per hour for each month that Petitioner was unable to pay, and that probation could be terminated early after 30 months if restitution was paid in full. By March 9, 1993, Petitioner had completed 500 hours of community service in accordance with the original court order, and for compliance with the modified court order, she had completed 235 hours of community service and paid $125.00 restitution to individuals. Prior to her conviction and license revocation, in 1989. Petitioner was employed with a real estate broker at Allied Associates of the South, Inc. (Allied Associates), in Miami Springs, Florida, as a sales associate, and continued in that position until sometime in 1991 when, due to economic constraints on Allied Associates, the broker cut her staff, choosing a more experienced salesperson over Petitioner. During her employment as a sales associate, no complaints were received by Allied Associates against Petitioner, and no money which was entrusted to her was reported missing. Allied Associates received many complimentary remarks from clients and real estate brokers alike. Subsequently, in November 1991, the broker re-employed Petitioner as a sales manager at Allied Associates. Petitioner informed the broker of her conviction and the circumstances of her conviction. The broker has allowed Petitioner to manage the financial books of the business with no problems. And Respondent has audited Allied Associates' financial books without citing a problem. Furthermore, Petitioner has handled escrow deposits and cash without any problems. Since October 1992, Petitioner has been working with Allied Associates as a sales manager on a part-time basis due to financial constraints experienced by Allied Associates. She has continued to handle escrow deposits and cash without any problems. Moreover, the broker/owner of Allied Associates has no hesitation in putting Petitioner in a position of trust. Further, Petitioner has assisted in the guidance of Allied Associates' sales associates.
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 allowing Petitioner to take the real estate salesperson's examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of October 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7368 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact consists of one paragraph with several sentences. 1. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 2, 4, 5, and 7-14; but rejected, regarding the second sentence, as unnecessary to the determination of the issues of this case and rejected, regarding the sixth sentence, as constituting argument, conclusions of law, or recitation of testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 1. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 1 and 4. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 4. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 10. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 10. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 11. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9; but rejected, regarding notice and failure of Petitioner to appear at the informal hearing, as unnecessary to the determination of the issues of this case. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 5; but rejected, regarding the first sentence, as constituting argument, conclusions of law, or recitation of testimony and rejected, regarding the last sentence which indicates that only Petitioner received and used the monies, as contrary to the evidence present. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 8. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 12-14. Note: Respondent proposed finding of fact is very close to constituting recitation of testimony. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 13. Note: Respondent proposed finding of fact is very close to and constituting recitation of testimony. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Marina P. Cintron 151 Fairway Drive #2301 Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Manuel E. Oliver Assistant Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 107 South Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate broker, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's responsibilities include the prosecution of administrative complaints. Prior to February 1993, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. In February 1993, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for licensure as a real estate broker. The application provided the applicant with two boxes, one marked "yes" and the other marked "no" to the following question, instructions, and caveat: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "YES," attach the details and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could result in denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney of the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered Question 9 in the negative. Respondent thereafter signed the application, including the following affidavit: The above named and undersigned applicant for licensure as a real estate broker under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn deposes and says that s(he) is the person so applying, that s(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information, an records permit, without any evasion or mental reservations whatsoever; that s(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and s(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications, whether and additional oath thereto shall be administered or not. On the evening of September 28, 1986, Respondent and her husband became involved in a loud argument at their home after having consumed too much alcohol. As a result, someone called the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with disorderly intoxication. On November 20, 1986, Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of disorderly intoxication in Broward County, Florida. Respondent was fined, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Katherine [sic] Lawand, which is her married name, and Kay Starr, which is the name Respondent uses for business purposes. On the evening of April 25, 1992, a virtual repeat of the incident of September 28, 1986, occurred. Again, as the result of a loud, drunken argument between Respondent and her husband, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was called. As a result of her behavior, Respondent was arrested on the charge of disorderly conduct. On May 21, 1992, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of disorderly conduct in Broward County, Florida. The court records reflect Respondent's name entered on this plea as Kathline [sic] Starr. Respondent testified that she thought Question 9 on the application for a broker's license only pertained to felony crimes. Respondent testified that she does not consider herself to be a criminal and that she did not intend to mislead or deceive the licensing agency. On May 3, 1993, Respondent passed the broker licensure examination. On May 23, 1993, Respondent was issued her initial license as an inactive broker. The license number was BK0459569. Since September 24, 1993, Respondent has been actively licensed as either a broker or a broker/salesperson. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was licensed as an individual broker with an office at 120 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Following an automobile accident in Broward County, Florida, on December 12, 1994, Respondent was charged with "DUI/ Blood Alch Above 0.20" (Count I); "Driving Under the Influence" (Count II); and "Disobey Stop/Yield Sign" (Count III). On October 3, 1995, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (Count II). Count I was nolle prossed and Count III was dismissed. As a result of the plea entered on October 3, 1995, Respondent was adjudged guilty of D.U.I. She was fined, placed on probation for six months, and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. Her driver's license was suspended for six months. As a condition of her probation, she attended a Court Alcohol Substance Abuse Program D.U.I. School. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Kay Starr Lawand. There was only minor property damage as a result of the accident involving Respondent on December 12, 1994. No person was injured.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be adopted that finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and orders that all licenses issued to her by Petitioner be revoked without prejudice to her right to reapply for licensure. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count II of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1998
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0073256 authorizing his practice in such a capacity in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, for realtors in the State of Florida. From approximately April 16, 1977, through November 17, 1977, the Respondent, acting in the capacity of a real estate salesman, was employed by a broker by the name of Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation of Miami, Florida. That entity with Broker Kane was involved in the advertisement, promotion and sale of parcels of unimproved land in west Texas. The Respondent's duties involved making long-distance telephone calls to prospective purchasers of that land (in Cochran County, Texas), attempting to induce them to buy one or more parcels. In the course of this telephone sales campaign, in which the Respondent participated with approximately 20 salesmen making such phone calls, the Respondent used a script prepared for him by Irwin Kane, his employing broker. The script, in general, extolled the attributes of the unimproved property in an arid region of west Texas, representing that the land possessed favorable climatic conditions, water supply and soil conditions for agricultural purposes and was near property in which oil companies were interested. The Respondent contacted a potential buyer by phone who lived in Wisconsin and attempted to persuade the buyer to purchase a parcel of the property through use of the prepared "script" given him by his broker. That potential customer apparently became suspicious of the sales method, manner or assurances given by phone and ultimately was instrumental, along with the United State Attorney, in the filing of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, charging the Respondent (along with his broker, principals of the corporation and other salesmen) with the use of wire communication in furtherance of a scheme to defraud potential purchasers of real estate in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. In that proceeding, the Respondent initially professed his lack of knowledge of the truth or falsity of the representations made in the prepared script his broker gave him and required him to use concerning the attributes of the west Texas land involved. Due in part to a dearth of financial resources to devote to litigation, the Respondent ultimately pled nolo contendere on November 7, 1978, to the charge involving using wire communication in a scheme to defraud. He was ultimately found guilty and was placed on probation for three years, with imposition of a sentence of imprisonment being suspended by the court. The Respondent had no part in the preparation of any written materials or "script" which he employed in making the telephone conversation and representations describing the supposed attributes of the property he was attempting to market on behalf of his employer, Broker Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation. That script was prepared by his broker or others and the Respondent read or consulted from it as he was communicating with prospective purchasers, but had no actual knowledge of its truthfulness or falsity with regard to the representations contained therein. He was shown to have made no representation or verbal communication which he knew to be false when he made it. The Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding involving the same factual transaction in the past which culminated in a final order dismissing that administrative complaint. 1/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Ed Rich, be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(i)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a two (2) year suspension of licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel S. Fass, Esquire 626 Northeast 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Mr. Ed Rich 1950 South Ocean Drive Hallendale, Florida 33009 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the respondents, Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate , Inc., should be disciplined on charges filed in a six-count Administrative Complaint, three counts for each respondent, and alleging that the respondents: (1) were culpably negligent in allowing their escrow account to have a negative balance, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989); (2) failed to maintain trust funds in a properly maintained escrow account, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1989); and (3) failed to maintain a proper office sign, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-10.024 and Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.22, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida. Dorothea L. Prisament was the active real estate broker for the corporate broker, Warricks Real Estate. On or about August 16, 1989, investigator Marjorie G. May conducted an office inspection and audit of the escrow accounts of the respondents. Ms. May also reviewed the outer office of the respondents. The entrance sign did not have the name of Dorothea L. Prisament on it; however, the sign did have Warricks Real Estate correctly identified and identified as a licensed real estate broker. Ms. May advised Ms. Prisament of the fact that Ms. Prisament's name needed to be on the sign and identified as a real estate broker. Ms. Prisament had a new sign made which fully complies with the statutes and rules. There was no evidence introduced at hearing to show that the escrow account of the respondents had a shortage in any amount; directly to the contrary, both the Department of Professional Regulation investigator and Ms. Prisament agreed that there was no shortage in the account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in light of the fact both that the respondents' violation was a very minor and technical one which was immediately corrected and that the respondents had to undergo the costs of defense of this case and suffer the mental duress of defending this case, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and reprimanding the respondents for a minor and technical violation under Counts V and VI. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine A. Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
