The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Clifford Altemare (Mr. Altemare) was a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license BK-3062479. At all times material to this case, Respondent Altema Consulting Co., LLC (ACC), was a licensed real estate brokerage, holding Florida license CQ-1024239. Clifford Altemare was the owner, qualifying broker, and officer for ACC. On August 21, 2006, Mr. Altemare signed an agreement to represent for sale hotel property owned by Sweet Hospitality, LLC. The agreement stated that Mr. Altemare would receive an unidentified commission based on the sales price. On December 12, 2006, Mr. Altemare received an escrow deposit of $25,000 from Rakesh Rathee, who signed an agreement to purchase the hotel. The $25,000 deposit was transferred by wire from Rakesh Rathee into a corporate operating account of ACC. Mr. Altemare failed to place the $25,000 escrow deposit into an ACC escrow account. Apparently, because the seller decided not to sell the property, the proposed sale did not close, and the buyer demanded the return of the $25,000 deposit. There is no credible evidence that the seller has made any claim upon the deposit. Mr. Altemare has refused to return the $25,000 deposit to Rakesh Rathee. At the hearing, Mr. Altemare asserted that the deposit has not been returned to the buyer because of uncertainty as to whom the deposit should be refunded. There was no credible evidence offered at the hearing to support the assertion that someone other than Rakesh Rathee should received a refund of the $25,000 deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order, stating that the Respondents violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.010 and imposing a $15,000 administrative fine and a five-year suspension of licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Clifford Altemare Altema Consulting Co., LLC 1047 Iroquois Street Clearwater, Florida 33755 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, holding license number 0419502. Ms. Linton was the owner and qualifying broker for Respondent Key Realty Co. of Pensacola, Inc. (Key Realty). Key Realty was a licensed real estate brokerage company in Florida, holding license number 0244319. Both Respondents, and in particular Ms. Linton, have excellent character references from other active members of the real estate community. On November 7, 1989, Petitioner entered a Final Order against Respondents for escrow account violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Final Order required Respondents to submit monthly escrow account status reports. From November 7, 1989, through March 27, 1990, the Respondents did not file any escrow account status reports as required by the Final Order. Ms. Linton had turned the responsibility of filing those reports over to her accountant. However, Ms. Linton did not check to see if the escrow reports were filed by her accountant. Her accountant's full-time employment was as a contract auditor for the U.S. Navy. In October, 1989, the accountant was assigned to audit a contract in the Pacific and moved to the Pacific island which was the site of the contract. The accountant advised Ms. Linton that he would be leaving in October. After' October, 1989, the accountant no longer did any accounting work for Respondent. However, Ms. Linton did not make arrangements for the filing of the escrow account reports required by the Final Order after her accountant left the country. No sufficient excuse was offered by Ms. Linton for her failure to file or ensure the filing of these escrow reports. The Respondents' rental escrow account revealed a shortage of $2,008.14 as of March 21, 1990. The money to cover the shortage was placed in a desk drawer in the Respondent's office for deposit while the Respondent was on vacation. Her employees failed to make the deposit. Given these facts, the resultant shortage was a very minor transgression of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21-V, Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, Bank charges totaling $328 were debited from the rental escrow account from June 1989 to February 1990. The Respondent's bank, Barnett Bank of Pensacola, had erroneously charged the rental escrow account for these bank charges despite instructions from the Respondent not to do so. All of the debited bank charges were either replaced by the bank or Ms. Linton. Since it was the bank's actions which caused these charges to be made to Respondents' rental escrow account and not Respondents' actions, no violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, can be attributed to either Respondent. Several checks totaling $3,605.15 were written by Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, from the rental escrow account and later returned due to nonsufficient funds. The checks were returned for nonsufficient funds due to the bank's hold policy. Since Respondent had consummated numerous transactions with Barnett Bank of Pensacola in which the hold policy was not applied to her account, Respondent had no knowledge that the bank's hold policy would be applied to her account. No reliable evidence was presented that this set of facts constituted bad accounting methods on the part of Respondents or otherwise violated the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In the course of operating a rental management business, Respondents, on October 25, 1989, entered into a rental property management agreement with Richard and Susan Vigeant. The agreement called for monthly rental statements and disbursements. Respondents collected rental funds on behalf of the Vigeants from November, 1989, to February, 1990. However, Respondents did not provide monthly statements or deliver net rental funds to the Vigeants until March 6, 1990. Respondents were under the impression that the Vigeant's funds were to be held by the Respondents for minor repairs to the Lessor's property. The Vigeants were not under such an impression and, after numerous phone calls for more than a month, the Vigeants' requested disbursement of the net rental funds on February 20, 1990. The funds were disbursed to the Vigeants on March 6, 1990. Respondents failure to give the Vigeants monthly accounting reports as required by the rental management agreement violates Section 475.25 (1)(d), Florida Statutes. However, this violation, while not minor, is also not overly serious and should not receive severe discipline. None of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Linton or her business were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction. The evidence did show that Ms. Linton is not very good at maintaining the rental escrow account or at seeing that the rental escrow account was properly maintained. Respondents' recordkeeping is poor and in disarray. The evidence was clear that Ms. Linton does not have the inclination, desire, or capability to maintain her broker's escrow account. The strongest evidence to support this conclusion is that all of Respondent's latest difficulties with her escrow account occurred after she had already been disciplined for escrow account violations which occurred prior to the events under consideration here. 1/ Given this inability, Respondent cannot be entrusted to properly handle escrow funds given to her. Since Respondents are not competent to handle escrow matters Respondents' licenses should be revoked. The Respondent does not currently have the financial ability to pay any fines and such a penalty would not be appropriate in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Division enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of four violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker's licenses. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 24th day of September, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, allegedly committed by real estate brokers who are licensed in Florida. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Anglickis was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued licensed number 00001869 through the Division of Real Estate. Respondent American was a corporation registered as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0169478. Both licenses were issued to the following address: 102 East Leeland Heights Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936. Respondent Anglickis was the qualifying broker for Respondent American, and held the office of president within the corporation. On April 19, 1989, the Respondents' accounting records were reviewed in a random, routine audit conducted by an investigator with the Division of Real Estate as part of the agency's regulatory functions. During the audit, the investigator determined that Sun Bank Account No. 013684, which was maintained by the Respondents in order to hold funds entrusted to them in pending real estate transactions, contained an overage of $9,639.83. According to the real estate company's records that were presented to the investigator, these funds were not being held for the benefit of any parties to any pending real estate transactions. At hearing, the Respondents' presented evidence to show that the funds in question in this particular trust account had been deposited as part of a number of pending real estate transactions involving installment lot sales from May 1986 through December 1986. During this time period, Respondent Anglickis was handling the bookkeeping matters within the company. He undertook this responsibility until he was able to find a replacement for the previous bookkeeper, who left on short notice. All the disbursements of funds were made on behalf of the buyers and sellers in the installment lot sales transactions except for the commissions belonging to the Respondent American. These funds were left in the trust account by Respondent Anglickis. When the new bookkeeper was hired, she reconciled the accounts every month from the time she came to the real estate company. The $9,639.83 was carried forward every month, and was never discussed again once the bookkeeper learned the money belonged to Respondent American early in her employment. This resulted in the isolation of these funds in the pending sales escrow account even though the sales had been completed and the files were considered as closed files within the office. By the time the evidence was presented at the administrative hearing, the Respondents had gone through the closed accounts involved in the installment lot sales during the period in question during 1986. The overage was shown to be the amount due to Respondent American for commission from these sales. These funds were then removed from the pending sales escrow account. Interest Bearing Sales Escrow Account In addition to the sales escrow/trust account at Sun Bank, the Respondents maintained an interest bearing account for the same purpose at the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Myers, Account No. 101222355. Unless a real estate client specifically allowed the Respondents to place the funds involved in a pending sale into an interest bearing account, they were required to place the funds in a non-interest bearing escrow account. In order for the Respondents to receive the interest on the money, full disclosure in writing had to be presented to the client, and written consent had to be obtained and documented. During the review of the Respondents' files and records relating to funds within the interest bearing sales account during the audit, the investigator was unable to locate the necessary disclosure forms for three clients whose funds were placed in the interest bearing account. When the investigator informed Respondent Anglickis of the real estate company's failure to comply with the disclosure requirements on the three pending contracts, the Respondent Anglickis indulged in a verbal tirade. It appeared from the evidence that this tantrum was unsuccessfully staged in order to either dominate or intimidate the young female investigator. During his harangue, the Respondent Anglickis said he would have his friend Harry Powell sign and backdate the required disclosure that was missing from Mr. Powell's file. The Respondent planned to then conveniently "find" the document misfiled in another file. Once he proposed this course of misconduct, the Respondent taunted the investigator concerning her inability to do anything about it if he chose to solve the problem in this manner. On her return visit to the offices on May 3, 1989, the investigator was presented with a copy of the required disclosure form for Harry Powell. The Respondent Anglickis informed the investigator that the agreement had been misfiled and was located in another file belonging to Mr. Powell. Mr. Harry Powell signed the disclosure statement during the actual sales transaction, as set forth on the form. In spite of his ongoing business relationship with Respondent Anglickis, he never backdated this disclosure, nor was he asked to do so by anyone at anytime. Charles Tucker, the real estate salesman with Respondent American who handled Mr. Powell's real estate purchase, had the client sign the disclosure statement during the sales transaction. This is a required sales procedure within the company. The bookkeeper located the disclosure in another closed file belonging to Mr. Powell within the real estate company. Mr. Powell purchased distressed properties within Lehigh Acres on a routine basis and had a number of closed files within the office. One of the other disclosure forms for a different client was sent to the title insurance company along with other documents. It was returned to Respondent American after the audit and was placed in the proper location. This form had been timely signed by the clients and allowed the Respondents to place the funds in the interest bearing account. The third and final missing disclosure form was in the possession of the real estate salesman who had it signed by the client before the escrow funds were placed in the interest bearing account. While the sales personnel are required to maintain a duplicate file, the office file in this case had not yet received the disclosure form from the salesman when the audit occurred. The Respondent Anglickis did not participate in any misconduct in order to advance the scheme he had proposed to the investigator during his tantrum. The Department's decision to prosecute the Respondents in this proceeding was proper due to the way in which the Respondent Anglickis' proposed scheme to circumvent the findings of the audit coincided with the later presentation of the missing disclosure statements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent Anglickis and Respondent American be found not guilty of Counts I-VII as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and that the charges be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 26th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5414 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accept that during the audit, the records pur- portedly revealed an overage in the escrow account. See HO #4. The bookkeeper's statements are rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. Accepted. See HO #8 - #10. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Accepted. See HO #13. However, the investigator is not the ultimate trier of fact and did not have all of the evidence presented to the Hearing Officer which refuted that the proposed misconduct by Respondent Anglickis had occurred. See HO #19. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #15 - #18. Accepted. See HO #4 - #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert P. Henderson, Esquire 1619 Jackson Street Post Office Box 1906 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Chapter 475, Florida Statute, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Dean O. Vanderwoude is now a real estate broker and was at all times material hereto a real estate salesman in Florida having been issued license number 0432878 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On August 15, 1988, Respondent passed an examination to be licensed as a broker and was licensed as a broker on September 1, 1988. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a salesman and operated under the direction, control, or management of a licensed real estate broker, Anne M. Graffunder, and P.M.M. Properties under a 100 percent commission agreement whereby Respondent rented office space from his broker Graffunder. Respondent was affiliated with Graffunder and P.M.M. Capital, Inc., from approximately November 4, 1986, to October 16, 1987. When Respondent became affiliated with P.M.M., he had been licensed less than one year having first been affiliated with Security Realty Florida from December 20, 1985, to November 4, 1986. Under Graffunder's supervision, Respondent received little assistance in the form of guidance or instructions as to the methods and manner of presenting purchase contracts to sellers, little or no office support in the form of clerical assistance or technical training in the methods of handling escrow funds, no malpractice insurance coverage in the form of errors or omission's policy and no sales/training seminars. On approximately April 6, 1987, Respondent obtained a sales listing from Gary Alan Dahl (Dahl), a real estate investor, concerning real property, the record owner of which was Joe Belcik who had granted to Dahl equitable title to the property by Quit Claim Deed yet unrecorded. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The real property located at 2785 Adrian Avenue, Largo, Florida, had been purchased by Belcik from Dahl who had previously purchased the property from the Veteran's Administration. Respondent was aware of the condition of the title to the property listed by him for sale as he reviewed an abstract of the property. On April 6, 1987, prospective purchasers David and Donna A. Kiser (herein purchasers) viewed the real property at 2785 Adrian Avenue, Largo, Florida, and contacted Respondent at a telephone number observed on a "for sale" sign posted on the property. On that date, the purchasers executed a written offer to purchase the property, which offer was prepared by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In conjunction with the offer to purchase, the purchasers tendered an earnest money deposit to Respondent, by cashier's check number 703917, dated April 10, 1987, in the amount of $100.00 made payable to P.M.M. Properties. The cashier's check was deposited into the escrow account of P.M.M. Capital, Inc., Sun Bank of Tampa Bay account number 265-014-3405 on April 15, 1987. The transaction closed on April 22, 1987. Following the closing, Graffunder issued a check number 140 written on the escrow account of P.M.M. Capital, Inc., Sun Bank/Southeast, account number 265-014-3405, dated April 22, 1987, made payable to Respondent in the amount of $100.00. The check was received by Respondent with Dahl's full permission and consent. Respondent represented to the purchasers that the seller, Dahl, had accepted their offer and desired to close the transaction immediately. Toward that end, Dahl came to Pinellas County from Sarasota County and executed all documentation necessary to effectuate the transfer on or before April 15, 1987. On April 15, 1987, Respondent met with the purchasers and had them sign all closing documents. This included execution of a closing statement and the Kisers requested an extension in order to obtain the $4,900.00 closing proceeds from Mrs. Kiser's father. On April 22, 1987, Mrs. Kiser presented the closing proceeds check and the transaction was finalized. That proceeds check and the $100.00 deposit check were both placed in Graffunder's operating account and pursuant to instructions from Dahl, Respondent received the closing proceeds as agent for Dahl. Dahl and the purchasers completed the closing by executing an Agreement for Deed on April 15, 1987. That agreement provides, in pertinent part, that the purchaser's would pay Dahl the total purchase price of $65,000.00 which included a down payment of $5,000.00 and monthly payments of $557.07 commencing May 1, 1987, and continuing for twenty-nine (29) months at which time the remaining principal balance of $60,073.18 would be payable in the form of a balloon payment. Dahl agreed to carry fire insurance for the full insurable value of the property and the purchasers were to have their names added to the policy as additional insureds. Additionally, both parties agreed that a Memorandum of Interest would be filed in the records of Pinellas County at the time of entering into the Agreement for Deed. Finally, the Agreement for Deed represented that there was a first mortgage in favor of Chrysler First and stated the condition that should the purchasers fail to make payments required of them within thirty (30) days after the same becomes due, the seller may, at his option, declare the contract null and void and all monies paid may be retained as full satisfaction and/or liquidated damages. Respondent did not provide the purchasers a warranty deed until approximately June 27, 1988, when he first became aware that Dahl had not given one to the Kisers. Respondent acknowledges that given the opportunity to reconstruct that transaction, he would have ensured that the seller provided a Warranty Deed to the purchasers as agreed in the Agreement for Deed. Respondent did not follow-up to ensure that a Memorandum of Interest was filed in the public records of Pinellas County as the parties agreed. Within months following the Riser's purchase of the subject property from Dahl, they became disenchanted with the property and ceased making payments under the agreement for Deed causing a large arrearage to accumulate and a subsequent mortgage foreclosure action was initiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: The Petitioner enter a final order finding that an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed upon Respondent and his license number 0432878 be placed on probation for a period of sixty (60) days with the condition that the fine be payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of entry of the final order. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian E. Johnson, Esquire Brian E. Johnson, P.A. 7190 Seminole Boulevard Seminole, Florida 34642 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. Murata is a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license numbers BK 3266198, 3326041, 3330594, 3334183, 3338731, 3345773, 3346456, 3346845, 3350300, 3364670, 3366527, 3366441, 3368235, 3369788, 3372663 and 3378303. Ms. Murata is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner and subject to applicable statutes and rules. Ms. Murata is the owner of the Florida Qualifying Broker of Record Service and maintains the Internet website, http://floridabrokerofrecord.com, which states its business model to be an opportunity for Florida real estate sales associates to run their own real estate companies without having to share their commissions with the broker of record. Friendly International Realty, LLC ("Friendly"), was formed in June 2011. From March 3, 2016, to June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata was the qualifying real estate broker for Friendly. Ms. Murata agreed to receive a monthly fee of $289.00 in exchange for being the qualifying broker of record for Friendly. Ms. Murata did not physically visit the license location of Friendly, at 937 Northeast 125th Street, North Miami, Florida, 33161, during the time that she was the qualifying broker. Ms. Murata was not a signatory on any escrow account used by Friendly. Ms. Murata did not keep any of Friendly's brokerage records. From March 4, 2016, to November 21, 2016, Jean Berthelot was a registered real estate sales associate with Friendly. He acted as an independent contractor. Ms. Murata was aware that Mr. Berthelot was doing business on the Multiple Listing Service ("MLS"). After she became the broker for Friendly, Ms. Murata activated one sales associate to help Mr. Berthelot. Joan Feloney is the owner of the subject property. Audrey Flanders is a real estate broker acting on behalf of Ms. Feloney in her efforts to lease the subject property. Ms. Flanders received a contract to enter into a lease from Tamara Stanton, a real estate sales associate at Friendly, on behalf of Paul Allicock. Ms. Feloney accepted the offer. Mr. Allicock paid $2,350.00 to Friendly toward lease of the subject property in the form of signed money orders dated March 6 and March 18, 2016. The money was placed in a Friendly escrow account. These money orders were paid to engage the services of Friendly and Ms. Murata as broker in the rental of the subject property. Pursuant to a written statement signed by Ms. Feloney, $550.00 of this amount was to be paid to Friendly, and $1,650.00 was to be paid to Ms. Feloney. A lease agreement between Mr. Allicock as tenant and Ms. Feloney as landlord and owner of the subject property was executed on March 21, 2016. Mr. Berthelot wrote a check from the Friendly escrow account to Ms. Feloney for $1,650.00 on the same date. Ms. Feloney attempted to deposit the check, but on April 14, 2016, the check was returned to her marked "NSF," indicating that insufficient funds were in the account. She was charged a $15.00 return item fee. Under the agreement between Ms. Murata and Friendly, Mr. Berthelot was not authorized to have an escrow account or otherwise hold funds or assets on behalf of a third party. As for brokerage transactions, he was supposed to e-mail transactional records to Ms. Murata or place them in a dropbox. Neither Ms. Stanton nor Mr. Berthelot ever placed documents in the dropbox. But, as Ms. Murata told Investigator Percylla Kennedy, she did learn that Friendly was doing business on the MLS. Ms. Murata became aware of the Friendly escrow account on April 26, 2016, in connection with a complaint about a transaction unrelated to this Administrative Complaint. She discussed the escrow account with Mr. Berthelot on April 27, 2016. Ms. Murata requested that Mr. Berthelot close the escrow account, submit proof that he had closed the account, and turn over all contracts between Mr. Berthelot and current clients. Ms. Murata did not want to perform a reconciliation of the escrow account. As she testified in deposition: Q: When you learned that there were third party funds being held by Friendly International Realty, did you demand the records of that account so you could perform a reconciliation? A: No, because [sic] was to be closed, because I did not want to manage an escrow account. So when I discovered what he was doing, the agreement was that he was going to close it immediately. I was not going to manage an escrow account for him, so I demanded, what I demanded was proof that the account was closed and proof that he had engaged in a written agreement with a title company for all escrow funds. Q: Approximately when did you make that demand? A: The moment that Jessica Schuller came up and he confessed that he had kept the account from his previous broker. That he had not told me because he was going to close it. I threatened I was going to resign once he paid those funds to Jessica. But then I agreed to continue if he closed that account immediately. On May 10, 2016, a complaint was filed with the Department against Ms. Murata, as broker of Friendly, regarding the lease transaction involving the subject property. After Ms. Murata became aware that Friendly owed money to Ms. Feloney, she maintained regular contact with her brokerage in an attempt to ensure that the money owed to Ms. Feloney was paid. Ms. Murata cooperated with the Department's investigation. Ms. Feloney, through Audrey Flanders, requested on June 2, 2016, that the $1,650.00 and an additional service charge of $82.00 be paid within 15 days or a case would be filed with the state attorney's office. The parties stipulated that on June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata resigned from her position as broker of record for Friendly. She testified that she resigned because she had not received the documents or actions that she had requested of Mr. Berthelot. Ms. Murata did not write a check to Ms. Feloney to pay the amount Friendly owed her because, with an investigation underway, Ms. Murata did not want it to be construed as an admission that she had personally collected funds from Mr. Allicock. She also evidently believed that since she had resigned, she was not professionally responsible for obligations that arose during the time that she had been the broker. Ms. Murata convincingly testified that in another, unrelated, situation, she became involved as the broker to resolve a potential dispute by ensuring that the party entitled to funds was paid. On June 25, 2016, a Bad Check Crime Report was filed with the Broward County State Attorney's Office. By letter dated June 8, 2016, the Department requested that Ms. Murata provide copies of monthly reconciliation statements; bank statements and records; and sales, listing, and property management files of Friendly. As Ms. Kennedy testified, Ms. Murata never provided those accounts and records to the Department, saying she did not have them. While Ms. Murata insists that any failure was only because Mr. Berthelot actively kept information from her, the parties stipulated that Ms. Murata failed to maintain control of, and have reasonable access to, some of the documents associated with the rental of the subject property. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in real estate brokerages, reviewed chapter 475; Florida Administrative Code Rule Title 61J; the deposit paperwork of Mr. Allicock; the Bad Check Crime Report; the investigative report; and the Administrative Complaint. He prepared an expert report to the Department. As Mr. Trafton testified, the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to other parties. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. He also testified that a broker must maintain the records of the brokerage. Mr. Trafton testified that in his opinion, Ms. Murata failed to meet these standards. Ms. Murata failed to promptly deliver funds to Ms. Feloney that were in possession of the brokerage. Ms. Murata failed to manage, direct, and control Real Estate Sales Associate Berthelot to the standard expected of a broker of record. She did not actively supervise him, instead relying completely on Mr. Berthelot and other associates to provide her any information she needed to know. Ms. Murata failed to preserve accounts and records relating to the rental or lease agreement of the subject property. Petitioner did not clearly show that Respondent was guilty of either "culpable negligence" or "breach of trust." As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of this complaint through September 14, 2017, costs incurred by the Department were $1,443.75, not including costs associated with an attorney's time.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Finding Maria Camila Murata in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), and 475.25(1)(e) as charged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00; imposing license suspension for a period of two months; and imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' licenses as real estate broker and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Florida Real Estate Commission was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of real estate salespersons, brokers, and brokerage operations in Florida. The Respondents, Arthur B. Karns and Karns Real Estate Inc., were a licensed real estate broker and brokerage corporation, respectively. Sharon Thayer has been an investigator with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation's Division of Real Estate for over 3 1/2 years. As a part of her duties, she is required to conduct random, no-notice inspections of real estate brokerage offices in Florida. As a part of these inspections, she conducts audits of the broker's escrow account and over time has conducted approximately 1,000 audits. In her audits, she follows a standard audit procedure to reconcile the trust liability of the broker with the escrow account bank balance. In early September, 1991, Ms. Thayer conducted an escrow audit and office inspection of the Respondent's company. During her initial visits, on September 3 and 5, 1991, she requested he furnish her with the office records pertinent to his trust escrow account. Respondent promptly provided most of the records excepting only the account reconciliation forms required by the Commission. When Respondent provided Ms. Thayer with the records, including what he felt were the reconciliations, she reviewed them and then discussed them with him, indicating wherein they were deficient and what, in addition, she would need. In her initial report, completed on the conclusion of the initial visit, she indicated there was an overage of $3,452.75 in the Respondent's escrow account. This figure was in error. She also noted that Respondent was not accounting for his trust liability and indicated he had 5 days in which to take corrective action and provide documentation of the action taken. When she returned for a follow-up visit on September 20, 1991, Ms. Thayer noted that the original note of overage had been in error and that the account now balanced. To achieve balance, however, she referred to the original $500.00 in seed money Respondent had used to open the escrow account. This covered errors in the account as of December, 1990 and service charges. Without this, she noted, the account would have been short by $446.45. Ms. Thayer determined that the Respondent had opened his escrow account with $500.00 of his own funds as seed money. She contend this was improper as the Department allows only $200.00 of seed money which is to be reported each month on the account reconciliation. The $200.00 "limit" is relatively recent. At the time in issue, she claims, the "limit" was set, by unwritten, unpublished Department policy, at $100.00. The only evidence of the existence of such a policy is an article in the Fall, 1991 FREC newsletter, written by Howard M. Gunter, Jr., then Chairman, which notes: There is an unwritten rule that currently allows a broker to keep a minimum amount in his escrow account to cover bank charges, .... The April, 1992 edition of the Central Palm Beach County Association of Realtors' Realtor Review advises of new FREC rules, one of which allows a broker to maintain up to $200.00 of his own or the company's funds in the escrow account to keep it open or to pay for bank monthly service charges. Ms. Thayer's investigation also appeared to indicate that in January, 1991, Respondent disbursed an $850.00 security deposit to lessors of a rented unit when the actual deposit collected was only $500.00. This was also determined to be in error. The evidence demonstrates that on January 3, 1991, Respondent drew check number 1040 on his escrow account to open an escrow account for the Alexandre to Livingston rental. The deposit of $1,700.00 in that case included an $850.00 security deposit. This money was not disbursed to the client, however, as it was placed in an escrow account for that lease. In any case, the security deposit should have been only $500.00 as that was all that had been collected by the prior agent and transferred to the Respondent. When the deposit was made here, Respondent, whose practice was to collect the first and last month rent in advance, along with a security deposit of one month rent, mistakenly assumed the prior agent had done the same. When he learned of his mistake, by letter dated September 13, 1991, he notified the Alexandre's of the mistake and noted the excess $350.00 would be paid back to Karns Real Estate, Inc. Therefore, the extra $350.00 in the trust account had been placed there by Respondent from his own funds, not from any client funds and was due back. Since the $96.45 in bank charges were also accounted for previously and deducted, there was in actuality no shortage. Ms. Thayer also discovered that with regard to two contracts for the sale of real property, both dated in early May, 1991, between E. Buwalda as seller and Ronald Cecere as buyer on one, and Cecelia Barraclough as seller and Jeanne Cecere as buyer on the other, $100.00 in cash was accepted as a partial down payment on each, with each contract calling for an additional deposit of $2,900.00. A special clause in each contract provided: The purchaser will post a Certificate(s) of Deposit with a face amount of at least $3,000.00 with Karns Real Estate, Inc. to be held in escrow as and for the $2,900.00 additional deposit. The Certificate(s) of Deposit can be returned to the Purchaser if and when the Purchaser posts $2,900.00 in cleared funds to cover the additional deposit. In fulfillment of that clause requirement, the Ceceres deposited with the Respondent CD Numbers 020002358756 and 020002359408, from Nova Savings Bank, each in the amount of $2,000.00, the former dated October 24, 1990 and the latter dated December 3, 1990, both showing Jeanne A. Cecere as trustee for Patrick J. and Ronald P. Cecere. The certificates also reflected they were "Not Transferable except on the books of Nova Savings Bank." By his own admission, at no time did Respondent notify either of the sellers that the certificates he held on their behalf as additional deposit were not transferable outside the Nova Savings Bank. At the same time he received the certificates as deposit on the Barraclough property, Respondent also received an additional $1,000.00 in cash to constitute the balance of the $3,000.00 deposit called for in the contract. Aside from a letter from the Ceceres' chastising the Department for its action against Respondent and expressing outrage that the agency should have a negative opinion as to the propriety and legality of the Respondent's activities, there is no independent evidence of any additional deposit placed with regard to the Buwalda contract. In any event, when the matter was noted by Ms. Thayer, the Ceceres, by checks dated September 5, 1991 in the amounts of $1,900.00 each, made payable to Karns Realty, Inc., replaced the two certificates. When Ms. Thayer discussed this matter with Mr. Karns, he seemed surprised at her concern. He indicated he felt accepting the certificates was the same as taking jewelry as security. However, he promised to get replacement security and, as was seen, did so immediately. Ms. Thayer was also concerned about the Respondent's apparent inability to properly reconcile his escrow account with the related bank balance. Her audit revealed he was using a lengthy, self-developed form to balance the checking account statement but this is not enough. There is no requirement that any particular form be used, but the Commission had developed a sample form which contains all the information required in a proper reconciliation and Department rules set out those requirements. On May 13, 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation, in a letter to all real estate brokers, indicated the concern of the Commission that brokers be aware of and comply with their responsibilities regarding monthly escrow account reconciliation. The letter cited the provisions of Commission Rule 21V-14.012 which, while noting there is no official form to be used, reminds brokers the reconciliation must contain certain required information. The sample form, referenced above, requires a bank reconciliation and, in addition, a trust liability reconciliation. Ms. Thayer concluded Respondent had, indeed, completed a full bank reconciliation, but had not completed the additionally required trust liability reconciliation and merged the two. Notwithstanding Respondent's continuing protestations that he had done a complete reconciliation, the evidence indicates rather that he has not. As Respondent's own exhibit, an extract from the 1991 Gaines & Coleman continuing education book points out at paragraph 23 on page 7, the provisions of the rule on escrow reconciliation "is much more than a mere balancing of checkbook accounts." The evidence demonstrates Respondent did no more than that and his reconciliations were not adequate. Mr. Geil, who assisted Ms. Thayer in the audit, has reviewed between 100 and 150 offices in addition to Respondent's office. Of all of these, he would rate Respondent among the 5 or 6 brokers who did the most detailed reconciliations, but he cannot say, from what he saw of Respondent's records, whether Respondent was making a bona fide effort to do an accurate reconciliation. It is clear, however, that, as Respondent repeatedly asserted at hearing, everyone makes mistakes, and Respondent's delicts, established by the evidence, do not show any fraudulent or criminal intent. As Ms. Thayer noted, she found no evidence of fraud, theft or an abuse of trust money for Respondent's own purposes, and the Commission has received no complaints about him from any of his clients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing Counts I through VI of the Administrative Complaint, but placing the licenses of Respondents, Arthur B. Karns and Karns Real Estate, Inc. on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions, specifically including post licensure education, as the Commission may require, and imposing a reprimand on the Respondent, Arthur B. Karns. RECOMMENDED this 21 day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 23 day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-1266 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated except for the word shortage which should be prefaced by the work "apparent." Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First three sentences accepted. Balance is a comment on the evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and resolved in favor of Respondent. Accepted and resolved in favor of Respondent. 6A -C. Accepted and discussed within the body of the Order. 6D. Not a Finding of Fact but a discussion of the evidence. 6E & F. Not relevant. 7A - C. Not a Finding of fact but a statement of evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate Hurston Building, N-308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Arthur B. Karns,. pro se Karns Real Estate, Inc. 6346-63 West Lantana Road Lake Worth, Florida 3343 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact On September 4, 1984, Idus B. Bowen and his wife, Jean, were shopping for a lamp in Respondents' furniture store in Palatka, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Bowen had recently retired and moved to Palatka where they intended to settle. The clerk they dealt with at the furniture store, who happened to be the Respondents' daughter, in the course of conversation regarding the Bowens' move, indicated that her father had a place for sale on the water. When the Bowens indicated some interest, she got some of the details as to size, location, and price from her father and discussed the matter with the Bowens. As they seemed to show some interest, she introduced them to her father, Respondent Richard Woodall, who discussed it with them and, that same day, took them out to see the property which was, at the time, occupied by his wife and him. When Woodall first talked with the Bowens about the property in his office at the furniture store, he advised the Bowens that he was a real estate broker but that he was selling this property, his personal home, as the owner and not the broker. Several times that day, both on the way to the house and at the house, he advised the Bowens he was selling as an owner and not as a broker. On the first visit to the house, Mr. Woodall showed the Bowens both the inside and the outside. They stayed approximately an hour and a half and the Bowens got a full view of the house and the property on which it was located and Mr. Woodall gave Mr. Bowen a plat of the property. No agreement was reached that day, however. Two days later, on September 6, 1984, Mr. Bowen again went to the furniture store to talk over the terms Mr. Woodall was offering on the sale. At this time he was advised by Mr. Woodall that there was an outstanding loan on the property of approximately $39,400.00 at 8 1/2% interest. This figure was determined by Mr. Woodall through a call to the lending institution and he received a tentative approval for the Bowens to assume this loan at a rate of 11 7/8%. Mr. Woodall passed this information on to the Bowens but in doing so, mistakenly stated the assumption percentage rate as 11.78%. In reality, the figure was 11 7/8% which, when converted to a decimal presentation, is reflected as 11.875%. Mr. Bowen did not realize this difference, however, until some time after the contract was signed. On this same date, September 6, 1984, after receiving the financing information from the lending institution, Mr. Woodall suggested that the Bowens again go out to the house so that his wife could show the property from a woman's point of view. When the Bowens agreed, an appointment was made for the showing by Mrs. Woodall for the next day, September 7, 1984. On the 7th, Mrs. Woodall showed the Bowens the house in detail. After doing so, she suggested that the Bowens stay for coffee and refreshments and when the Bowens agreed, called her husband to come home and join them. Before Mr. Woodall got there, however, Mrs. Woodall asked if the Bowens were ready to sign a contract. The Bowens indicated they were not. When Mr. Woodall arrived, he and Mr. Bowen went out for a walk around the property during which Mr. Bowen asked about the need for a fence around the swimming pool. Mr. Woodall assured him that since the house was located on the water, it was not necessary to fence the pool area all the way around. Mr. Woodall, while admitting Mr. Bowen asked about the water level in the canal, states there was no discussion of flooding and he further contends that Mr. Bowen did not discuss the issue of the fence until after he went to the County office subsequent to signing the contract. No doubt Mr. Woodall answered the questions asked by Bowen to the best of his knowledge and belief. Based on this information they went back to the house where Mr. Bowen agreed to sign a contract for the purchase on Saturday morning, September 8, 1984, in the Respondents' office in the furniture store. On September 8, 1984, both the Bowens and the Woodalls signed a contract for the sale of the Woodall's property for a purchase price of $125,000.00 with $5,000.00 to be placed in escrow in Respondent, Rich Hill Realty's escrow account. The contract also called for the Bowens to assume a mortgage in the amount of $39,400.00 at 11.78% and the balance due was to be paid in cash at closing to be held as soon as possible. The contract was conditioned upon the purchaser obtaining a firm assumption commitment within 15 days. At the time of signing the contract, Mr. Bowen gave the Woodalls a check for $5,000.00. When the Bowens arrived, the contract had already been prepared and signed by Mrs. Woodall. Once all remaining parties had signed, Mr. Woodall had it witnessed. The contract called for the deposit of $5,000.00 to be placed in escrow and Mr. Bowen assumed that it would be so placed because the sellers were both real estate professionals. He contends that if he had not thought the deposit would be placed in escrow, he doubts he would have paid a deposit to the Woodalls at that time. In all his previous real estate purchases, the money was placed into escrow and not drawn out until later. On September 10, 1984, after further consideration of the purchase and based on the fact that the pool was the same depth from one end to the other, a depth beyond the height of his non-swimming wife, Mr. Bowen went to Mr. Woodall to see if he would release him from the contract. When Mr. Woodall refused, however, he accepted the refusal. He immediately made application to assume the Woodall's loan with Security 1st Federal Savings & Loan Association, which, on September 18, 1984, furnished him a good faith estimate of settlement charges which reflected the interest rate at 11.875%. Just about this time, Mr. Bowen also became concerned as to whether the property was in the flood zone and called the Putnam County Zoning Board where he was advised that the property in question was in fact in the flood plain. When he also asked if the pool needed to be fenced, he was told that where there was a pool, it was required to be fenced a],1 around with a four foot high fence with lockable gates. When Mr. Bowen received this information, he immediately reported it to Mr. Woodall who said he would check with the County and get it straightened out. Mr. Woodall thereafter called Mr. Bowen back and told him that the property was declared to be in the flood plain sometime in 1983 and that the pool regulation became effective sometime before that, but that since the house was built before either regulation came into effect, it was grandfathered in and the rules would not apply. In the meantime, Mr. Bowen's application to assume the Woodall's loan was approved. No assumption agreements were ever signed by the Bowens because by this time Mr. Bowen had determined that the deal was not good for him and he had decided that he would not go through with it. Mr. Bowen consulted an attorney who discovered some additional minor discrepancies in the transaction such as (1) the legal description of the property was incorrect, and (2) the estimate of closing costs had not been furnished by the seller. Neither of these discrepancies are relevant to the issues for consideration at this hearing, however. On the basis of what he had already discovered and this additional information, Mr. Bowen refused to close on the contract as called. for on September 25, 1984, and requested a refund of the $5,000.00 deposit by a letter from his attorney to the attorney for the Woodall's. Mr. Bowen did not receive an answer to his demand for refund of the deposit and despite several subsequent requests, the money has never been refunded. No action has been filed in court to force return, however. On November 28, 1984, Respondents notified the Bowens their deposit had been forfeited for failure to close. Mr. Bowen admits that Mr. Woodall advised him on their first trip to the property that he was a real estate broker but that he did not deal ,with the public. He only dealt in real estate for his own investments. Mr. Bowen also admits that he did not read the contract in full before he signed it. He admits that there were no special clauses inserted in the contract at his request nor did he request that any comments be made in the contract regarding the flood plain or the pool. When he signed the contract, however, he claims he was relying on the representations made to him by Mr. Woodall which he checked out only after affixing his signature to the contract. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bowen declined to sign the contract contending they felt the property had been misrepresented by Mr. Woodall in the particulars regarding the alleged misrepresentation dealing with the fence around the pool, the fact that the property is located on the flood plain, and the fact that there is a discrepancy in the interest rate. The $5,000.00 deposit was in fact placed into the Rich Hill Realty escrow account by Mr. Woodall. However, on January 31, 1985, more than three months later, Mrs. Woodall, an officer of Rich Hill Realty, drew the amount out of the escrow account and purchased a certificate of deposit with the Citizen's 1st National Bank of Crescent City with it. This certificate has been rolled over upon maturity since that time. With regard to the state of the County Ordinances concerning fences around swimming pools in this County, according to Peter M. Christensen, the Codes Administrator for Putnam County, pools built before 1975 would not require fencing. The requirement for a four foot fence was enacted by the County Commission in 1976. With regard to the flood plain situation, the area where the property in question is located is classified A- 3,which means that the first floor of any dwelling must be at least six feet above mean sea level. Mr. Christensen cannot say for certain whether this particular property is located in the flood plain because he did not have the maps available to him at the hearing. However, the majority of the property in the area where the Woodall property is located is within the flood plain. According to Ms. Ann Keele, a specialist in the residential lending service of the Security 1st Federal Savings & Loan Association, which holds the mortgage on the Woodall property, at the time the Woodalls secured their loan, there was no requirement for flood insurance because there was no flood plain regulation in effect. She recalls the flood insurance program as coming into effect sometime in 1980 and her bank's policy is to require flood insurance if (1) the community is participating in the flood insurance program, or (2) if the area is prone to flooding. When the flood insurance program went into effect, the bank did not notify existing borrowers of the need to take out flood insurance. Since the Woodalls purchased their property and got their mortgage prior to 1980, they well may not have known of the change in the law and the requirement for flood insurance. As a matter of fact, had the Woodalls kept their property, they would not have had to purchase flood insurance. Upon assumption, however, a new purchaser would have to buy it. To determine those properties requiring flood insurance, the bank uses flood maps provided by a governmental agency. Most real estate agencies use the same maps but Ms. Keele cannot be sure whether Respondent had one or not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents here be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 7th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX The Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact have been considered and are, as to each: Paragraphs 1-6 Accepted 6 Accepted except that portion of the Finding which states the Buyer had relied upon Woodall's assurances that the 11.78% interest rate could be assumed. The evidence, while reflecting that the Bowens believed the rate was 11.78%, fails to establish that this was a major fact on which they relied. 8-10 Accepted 11 Accepted except for the term "neglected." The evidence clearly shows the refusal to return was based on full knowledge of the situation and not a matter of neglect. 12-13 Accepted. Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact have been considered and are, as to each: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted in part and denied in part. The evidence does reflect some conflict as to whether the Bowens were advised the property was in the flood plain or not and whether they were advised the pool had to be fenced. It has been found by the undersigned that Respondents' information given to the Bowens was in error but from ignorance rather than from design and that said negligence was simple and not culpable. 3-4 Accepted 5 Accepted as to the preparations for and failure of closing. Rejected as to the course of conduct attributed to the Bowens for the reasons implied and rejected as immaterial to the Findings Of Fact as to the availability of the courts to rectify a dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur Shell, Jr., Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Earl Nicholson, Esq. 407 St. John's Avenue Palatka, FL 32077 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director. Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent violated the real estate licensing law, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to account and deliver a deposit; failing to maintain a deposit in a real estate brokerage escrow account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; and/or being guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and/or breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0360741. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Consolidated American Realty Services, Inc., in Tampa, Florida. From June 6, 1983, through June 25, 1984, Respondent was licensed and operating as a real estate broker under the trade name, "Benjamin Realty," in Tampa, Florida. For sometime prior to June 2, 1984, Eileen Cumbie attempted to sell a lot owned by her located at 1102 26th Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On June 2, 1984, the Respondent contacted Ms. Cumbie and informed her that he had a client interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie informed the Respondent that as long as she netted a certain amount, she would be willing to sell the property. Ms. Cumbie allowed the Respondent to put together a contract for the sale of the lot. In connection therewith, the Respondent prepared a sales contract with Danilo Castellanos, as purchaser, and Eileen W. Cumbie, as seller, for the purchase and sale of the property. Pursuant to the purchase and sales agreement, the Respondent received in trust from Mr. Castellanos a $500 earnest money deposit via check dated June 2, 1984. On June 5, 1984, the Respondent deposited the check into his real estate brokerage account maintained at the Central Bank of Tampa, 2307 W. Rennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Castellanos entered into the contract for the benefit of his son and daughter-in-law who resided in New Jersey but were planning to relocate to the Tampa area. Mr. Castellanos' daughter-in-law went to look at the lot on June 10, 1984 and decided that she did not like the area in which it was located. The closing of the transaction was set for June 15, 1984. On approximately June 13, 1984, Mr. Castellanos' daughter- in-law informed the Respondent that they were no longer interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie was out of town during the time of the scheduled closing, but had prepared and signed all of the paperwork in advance. When she returned after June 15, 1984, she called Respondent to find out how the closing went. The Respondent informed her that the buyers failed to go through with the transaction. The contract provided in part as follows: ". . . If the buyer fails to perform this contract within the time specified herein, time being of the essence of this agreement, the deposit made by the buyer shall be disposed of in the following manner: To the Broker an amount equal to his earned commission, but not to exceed 1/2 of the deposit which shall discharge the sellers obligation to him for that service; remainder to the seller to be credited to him against his damages accrued by reason of the breach of contract. " After the transaction failed to close, Ms. Cumbie requested that Respondent give a portion of the deposit to her. The Respondent told Ms. Cumbie that he would give her the entire deposit because she had paid for the survey and a few other items to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Over the next several months, the Respondent, on several occasions, promised to deliver a check to Ms. Cumbie. However, the Respondent never delivered any such check to Ms. Cumbie. Because the Respondent failed to provide Ms. Cumbie with a share of the earnest money deposit, she initiated a civil action in the County Court of Hillsborough County. On October 15, 1985, Ms. Cumbie was awarded a final judgment in the amount of $250 against Respondent for her share of the forfeited earnest money deposit. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent had not satisfied the judgment and Ms. Cumbie had not received any proceeds from the forfeited earnest money deposit. Shortly after the transaction failed to close, the purchasers requested that the Respondent return the earnest money deposit to them. However, the Respondent informed them that they were not entitled to the return of the earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit was never returned to the purchasers. On July 31, 1984, the balance in Respondent's escrow account was $568.83. However, on September 1, 1984, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account fell to S18.83. From October 31, 1984 to January 1, 1986, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account remained $3.83.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the registration of Fortunato Benjamin- Pabon as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fortunato Benjamin-Pabon 2729 N. Ridgewood Avenue, #1 Tampa, Florida 33602 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed yacht and ship broker salesman. He has been licensed since 1990. In December 1990, Respondent was issued license number 1322, as a yacht and ship broker salesman for Seafarer Brokerage, Inc. (Seafarer). In October 1998, he renewed his license, which had an expiration date of October 28, 2000. On July 31, 1997, Lorraine Woods, the President of Seafarer, wrote to Peter Butler, section head of the yacht and ship section of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, notifying him that Respondent was the broker of record for Seafarer. Ms. Woods' license had been suspended, and Respondent knew that her license had been suspended prior to his becoming broker of record for Seafarer. As the broker of record, Respondent knew that he was solely responsible for safeguarding the money of all clients in the brokerage's escrow account. Respondent did not know the details involving the suspension of Ms. Woods' license. He was not aware that Ms. Woods had abused the control of Seafarer's escrow account for her own benefit by taking client funds from the escrow account to pay for Seafarer's operating expenses. Mr. Butler was very concerned with the abuse of Seafarer's escrow account committed by Ms. Woods. He demanded assurance from Respondent that Ms. Woods would not have access to the escrow account, and Respondent provided that assurance. On August 4, 1997, Respondent wrote to Mr. Butler confirming that he (Respondent) was the broker of record for Seafarer. In his written communication, Respondent confirmed certain details of the escrow account of Seafarer, including that he was broker of record and that the account was located at First Union National Bank of Florida, with the address and account number listed. Moreover, Respondent indicated that, as of July 30, 1997, he became the sole signatory on the account. Respondent personally provided the signatory card, showing that he was the sole signatory on the account, to the bank. Even though the bank did not have a record of such a signatory card, the undersigned is persuaded that Respondent's testimony is credible and that he provided the signatory card to the bank. Even though Respondent was the broker of record for Seafarer, Respondent looked upon Ms. Woods as the employer and himself as the employee, resulting in an employer-employee relationship. Seafarer consisted of two persons, Respondent and Ms. Woods. If Respondent was unavailable for a situation in which a check had to be written and executed, he would prepare a blank check with his signature on it and give it to Ms. Woods. She continued to maintain the business records. Ms. Woods maintained all the operating and escrow records, checks, and bank statements in a locked drawer for which she had the only key; Respondent did not have free and unobstructed access to these documents even though he was Seafarer's broker of record. Respondent and Ms. Woods continued this procedure for over a year without incident. On April 2, 1999, Warren Scott made an offer on a 1974 CAL2-46, a 46-foot yacht, with Seafarer. He placed a $6,000.00 deposit on the yacht. Mr. Scott's dealings, regarding the yacht, were with Ms. Woods. He had dealt with Seafarer and Ms. Woods on a prior occasion, had made a deposit, and had his deposit refunded. As a result, Mr. Scott felt comfortable dealing with Seafarer and Ms. Woods even though he had not purchased a yacht from Seafarer. On April 5, 1999, Mr. Scott's check was deposited in Seafarer's escrow account. On April 5, 1999, check numbered 1144, made payable to cash for $4,305.00, bearing Respondent's signature was written. The check bore the notation at the bottom left corner at the "FOR" space: "CAL2-46 (illegible) Enterprises." This check cleared Seafarer's escrow account on April 7, 1999, leaving a balance of $2,512.34. Respondent had signed the check and left it for Ms. Woods to fill-in the details. The check was signed by Respondent in March 1999 for a closing that was taking place at the end of March, but the check was not used at the closing in March. Ms. Woods had written the check to pay the rent for Seafarer. Even though Respondent had signed the check, the undersigned is persuaded that he did not know that Ms. Woods was going to use the check for a purpose other than for what it was written. On April 27, 1999, Respondent signed a check for $100.00, payable to Complete Yacht Service for engine repair to the CAL2-46. This check cleared Seafarer's escrow account on April 30, 1999, leaving a balance of $5,796.36. After a sea trial and survey, Mr. Scott wrote to Ms. Woods on April 30, 1999, indicating that he had decided not to purchase the 1974 CAL2-46 pursuant to their arrangement of April 2, 1999. On May 3, 1999, Mr. Scott again wrote to Ms. Woods that his offer to purchase the 1974 CAL2-46 for $55,000.00 in the conditional acceptance of vessel agreement, dated April 29, 1999, was expiring on May 3, 1999, at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Scott went to Seafarer on May 4, 1999, to obtain a refund of his deposit from Ms. Woods. Respondent informed him that Ms. Woods was out and that they would have to wait for her return, which was going to be in about an hour. Mr. Scott was unable to wait. He left Fort Lauderdale, returning to Nevada, with the understanding that his deposit, less $100.00 for the engine survey, would be returned to him. Mr. Scott expected the monies within a week to ten days. On May 5, 1999, a deposit of $4,700.00 was made to Seafarer's escrow account, leaving a balance of $9,136.36. On May 5, 1999, Seafarer's escrow account contained sufficient monies to give Mr. Scott a full refund of his deposit, less the $100.00. Respondent left for a vacation to the United Kingdom on May 17, 1999, with his return on June 15, 1999. Prior to his leaving, Respondent signed two blank checks, numbered 1153 and 1154, from Seafarer's escrow account. The checks were written for an upcoming business transaction during his absence, regarding a closing and Respondent's commission on the closing. On May 18, 1999, Seafarer's escrow account balance fell to $5,192.21, after three checks cleared the account. Two of the three checks, signed by Respondent, were payable to Seafarer in the amount of $1,360.00 for "comm.-37'Irwin." During May 1999, checks totaling $6,900.00, which were signed by Respondent, cleared Seafarer's escrow account. Mr. Scott made several telephone calls to Seafarer regarding the return of his deposit. Each time Mr. Scott spoke with Ms. Woods and he was not provided with a satisfactory response from her. On June 16, 1999, Mr. Scott received a check, check numbered 1153, for $5,900.00 from Seafarer. He also received a telephone call that same day from Ms. Woods requesting him not to deposit the check until the end of the month; Mr. Scott agreed. Respondent was not aware that check numbered 1153 was going to be used to refund Mr. Scott's deposit. Respondent was unaware that the check was used for a purpose other than for what it was intended. On June 17, 1999, check numbered 1154, made payable to Seafarer for $1,000.00 for "petty cash" cleared Seafarer's escrow account. The check was used by Ms. Woods to pay Seafarer's telephone and utility bills. Respondent was unaware that check numbered 1154 was going to be used for a purpose other than for what it was written. When Respondent returned from his vacation, he was contacted by Mr. Scott who advised Respondent of the problem with the return of his refund. Respondent checked the bank statements for Seafarer's escrow account and discovered that Ms. Woods had not used the checks for their intended purpose and that she had used funds from the escrow account for improper purposes. On June 25, 1999, Mr. Scott deposited the check that he received from Seafarer. The check, payable to Mr. Scott, was posted to Seafarer's escrow account on June 29, 1999, leaving a negative balance of $2,667.22. For 67 days, between April 5, 1999, when Mr. Scott's deposit of $6,000.00 was deposited in Seafarer's escrow account, and June 29, 1999, the date Mr. Scott's refund of $5,900.00 cleared, Seafarer's escrow account did not have sufficient funds to pay the refund. The period between May 5, 1999, and May 17, 1999, was the only time period, during the 67-day period, that Seafarer's escrow account had sufficient funds to pay the refund. Mr. Scott indicates that his refund was received in his account in July 1999. Respondent remained with Seafarer long enough to ensure that Mr. Scott received his refund. On July 8, 1999, Respondent notified Mr. Butler that he was no longer the broker for Seafarer. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Sustaining the Notice to Show Cause and finding that John Scales violated Subsections 326.002(1) and 326.005(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Suspending Respondent's license for three years. Imposing a civil penalty of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Janis Sue Richardson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tracy J. Sumner, Esquire 1307 Leewood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Ross Fleetwood, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
