The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 64I-1.001(1)(c) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Stipulated facts Mr. Rodriguez suffered a brain injury as a result of an automobile accident. Mr. Rodriguez is currently residing in Florida and presently intends to remain in Florida as his permanent home. Mr. Rodriguez is currently an undocumented immigrant with no federally-recognized immigration status. On or about May 2004, Mr. Rodriguez's legal representative applied for BSCI program services for Mr. Rodriguez, who was then denied on the basis that he was not a legal Florida resident. The Department shared all notices regarding rulemaking for the rule with Mr. Rodriguez's legal representatives throughout the original rulemaking process. There were no requests for workshops or hearings on the rule. The BSCI Manual instructs the case manager to determine legal residency to initiate the eligibility process. The BSCI program is wholly funded by the State of Florida from state revenue sources, including appropriations, a percentage of civil penalties received by county courts, recovery of third-party payments for medical services, and gifts. See § 381.79, Fla. Stat. Facts established at hearing The BSCI program provides rehabilitation services, such as in-patient rehabilitation services, out-patient rehabilitation services, day treatment programs, medical equipment, and home modifications, for eligible persons who have sustained traumatic brain or spinal cord injuries. The BSCI program provides funding as a last resort for services an injured person needs to integrate into the community. Every person who has suffered a moderate-to-severe brain or spinal cord injury in Florida is referred to the BSCI program's central registry. The BSCI program manual requires the case manager to determine legal residency in this state as the first step in determining eligibility for BSCI program services. When there is a question regarding Florida residency, the manual instructs the case manager to request proof of legal Florida residency, which, when there is a question regarding legal immigration status, must consist of a permanent resident alien card or a letter or document from the United States Immigration Department granting parolee or other status that would allow the person to remain indefinitely or permanently in the United States. The BSCI program has limited financial resources, but the Department has not established an order of selection for eligible persons in order to deal with a funding shortage, as permitted by Section 381.76(2), Florida Statutes. Rule, statutory authority, and statue implemented The BSCI program, found in Sections 381.739 through 381.79, Florida Statutes, was created by the Legislature expressly to ensure the referral of individuals who have moderate-to-severe brain or spinal cord injuries to the brain and spinal cord injury program, a coordinated rehabilitation program administered by the department. The program shall provide eligible persons, as defined in s. 381.76, the opportunity to obtain the necessary rehabilitative services enabling them to be referred to a vocational rehabilitation program or to return to an appropriate level of functioning in their community. Further, it is intended that permanent disability be avoided, whenever possible, through prevention, early identification, emergency medical services and transport, and proper medical and rehabilitative treatment. § 381.7395, Fla. Stat. The Department is the state agency responsible for implementing and administering the BSCI program. § 381.75, Fla. Stat. The eligibility criteria for the BSCI program are set forth in Section 381.76, Florida Statutes, as follows: An individual shall be accepted as eligible for the brain and spinal cord injury program following certification by the department that the individual: Has been referred to the central registry pursuant to s. 381.74; Is a legal resident of this state at the time of application for services; Has sustained a brain or spinal cord injury; Is medically stable; and Is reasonably expected to achieve reintegration into the community through services provided by the brain and spinal cord injury program. Section 381.76(2), Florida Statutes, further provides that, "[i]f the department is unable to provide services to all eligible individuals, the department may establish an order of selection." Pursuant to Section 381.011(13), Florida Statutes, the Department has the authority to "[a]dopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.56(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of law conferring duties upon it. This subsection does not authorize the department to require a permit or license unless such requirement is specifically provided by law." In 2005, the Department adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 64I-1.001(1)(c). Rule 64I-1.001(1)(c) added a definition of "legal resident" to a list of definitions of terms used in Sections 381.739-.79, Florida Statutes, consistent with the definitions included in Section 381.745, Florida Statutes. Rule 64I-1.001(1)(c) defines "legal resident" as follows: "A person who currently lives in Florida, has the present intent to remain in Florida indefinitely, and has lawful permanent presence in the United States of America." As part of the rulemaking procedure, the Department published in the Florida Administrative Weekly a notice of its intent to adopt Rule 64I-1.001(1)(c) containing the information required by Section 120.54(3)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. In the notice, the Department identified Section 381.011, Florida Statutes, as the specific authority for the rule and Section 381.76, Florida Statutes, as the law implemented. The Department also sent the notice to the Administrative Procedures committee, together with a document that provided as follows:
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fredric David Wolk was exclusively connected with international Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesman, from June 9, 1975, to September 8, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of international Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex has a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salespersons had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc. was in business. A week after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc. a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Jack B. Feiner, Esquire 2951 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesman in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Diamond was licensed as a real estate salesman in Florida on November 4, 1957. On April 1, 1978, he renewed his salesman's license in a "non-active" status. Renewal has not been sought again by Respondent nor has any renewal of the license, in any fashion, been accomplished by Petitioner. Respondent has not been notified of the status of his license since March 31, 1980. On or about November 16, 1983, an indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Respondent and others alleging 48 counts of mail and wire fraud involving the sale of advisory contracts relating to oil and gas leasing operations under the Federal SIMOL program. On November 23, 1983, Respondent was arraigned before United States Magistrate Peter R. Palermo and entered a plea of Not Guilty to the charges laid against him. The indictment in question related to the Respondent in 18 of the 48 Counts. On February 8, 1985, as a result of a trial by jury, Respondent was found guilty of 7 of the 18 Counts laid against him specifically and not guilty of the remaining 11 Counts which related to him. Review of the pertinent Counts of which Respondent was found guilty reflects that these allegations, notwithstanding the terms of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, relate specifically and exclusively to mail fraud only. There is no evidence that Respondent was found guilty of wire fraud. From the date of the conviction up until January 31, 1986, Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission in any way of his conviction as stated above. Respondent admits all the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint which relate to his guilt of and conviction for mail fraud in his letter requesting hearing in response to the Administrative Complaint. On April 9, 1985, Respondent was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment on each of the 7 counts of which he was found guilty each term to run concurrently, and was ordered to serve his sentence in the Eglin Federal Prison Camp at Eglin AFB, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that Respondent J. LEONARD DIAMOND's license as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 7th of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Sue Hartman, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Exec. Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando; Florida 32801 J. Leonard Diamond #12936-004 P. O. Box 800 Eglin AFB, Florida 32542
Findings Of Fact On or about December 19, 1975, Petitioner was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana, aiding and abetting the importation of a quantity of marijuana, and unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally aiding and abetting the importation of a controlled substance, all in violation of various provisions of the United States Code. For this offense, Petitioner was sentenced to two years in prison, and two years of special parole on each of the three charges described above, with the sentence and parole terms to run concurrently. Petitioner entered a minimum security prison in Dallas, Texas, in 1977. While incarcerated Petitioner attended a machinist school and completed the ground school portion of an FAA course to obtain a private pilot's license. Petitioner was released from prison in 1979, and began to serve a two-year special parole term in the Dallas, Texas, area. During this period he was required to meet with a probation officer monthly, and, according to the record in this proceeding, never missed any such required meetings. Petitioner successfully completed his special parole in July, 1980. Petitioner, who apparently was a resident of the St. Petersburg, Florida, area prior to his conviction, returned to the St. Petersburg area in July, 1981. He has been living at his current address for a little over one year. Petitioner is unmarried, and has no family in the St. Petersburg area. He has not been employed full-time since his return to Florida in July, 1981. Petitioner is self-employed in the St. Petersburg area as a journeyman electrician, an occupation he has practiced for approximately twenty years. He holds no occupational licenses, and belongs to no civic or professional organizations. Petitioner has not been arrested or charged with any violation of law since his arrest and conviction in 1975. He has applied for restoration of his civil rights, which application was pending at the time of final hearing in this cause. By letter of June 18, 1981, Petitioner inquired of Respondent whether he would be eligible to obtain licensure as a real estate salesman. Respondent, through its Executive Director, responded by letter of June 26, 1981, which advised Respondent, in part, as follows: Generally, the Board does not approve applications from individuals until they have completed their pro- bation or parole. Individuals may enroll in real a estate course at any time and each individual application is considered on its own merits. Persons who have been convicted, served sentences, and have their civil rights restored may apply for a real estate license. The Board considers the seriousness of the individual case, the circumstances of the individual, and the period of rehabilitation, in making its decision as to granting of a real estate license. Again, each case is considered on its own merits. The Board is known for its compas- sion for the rights of individuals. However, in its consideration, the utmost in mind is the protection of the public and the pattern of behavior of the individuals during recent years is important in its decision. Subsequent to receipt of the letter of June 26, 1981, Petitioner took certain real estate courses to prepare for the licensing examination. However, by letter dated July 2, 1982, Respondent advised Petitioner that because of his aforementioned criminal record, he would not be allowed to sit for the licensing examination.
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1982, a Grand Jury in the Southern District of Florida filed an Indictment against the Petitioner, Anthony Stephen Vitale, which was docketed as Case No. 82-204-Cr-SMA. On August 12, 1982, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to Count I of the Indictment and the remaining counts were dismissed. The count to which the Petitioner pled guilty charged him with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, by reason of the following acts alleged in Count I of the Indictment: From July, 1975, through June, 1977, A. STEPHEN VITALE, whose last known residence is within the Southern District of Florida, was a Consular Officer of the United States assigned to the United States Embassy at Nassau, Commonwealth of the Bahamas, and, as such, was an officer and employee of the United States Department of State. As a Consular Officer, A. STEPHEN VITALE had the authority to issue immigrant visas and non-immigrant visas to qualified nationals of other countries. From on or about July 1975, and continuously thereafter up to and including June 24, 1977, in Nassau, Bahamas, an area outside the juris- diction of any particular state or district of the United States, A. STEPHEN VITALE, the defendant herein, William Lawrence Neng, a co-conspirator not indicted herein, and Sok Harn Neng, a co-conspirator not indicted herein, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with persons whose identities are both known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States of its lawful governmental functions and right to have its business and its affairs, particularly the insurance of visas by the United States Department, conducted honestly, impartially, and free from corruption and improper influence. It was part of said conspiracy that certain foreign nationals seeking immigrant visas and non-immigrant visas, hereinafter referred to as the Applicants, were required to pay money to William Lawrence Neng for said visas. It was further part of said conspiracy that William Lawrence Neng submitted the Applicants' visa applications and documents in support thereof to A. STEPHEN VITALE for approval. It was further part of said conspiracy that A. STEPHEN VITALE approved the Applicants' visa applications and issued visas without diligently, faithfully and effectively reviewing said applicants for fraud. It was further part of said conspiracy that A. STEPHEN VITALE required and accepted money from William Lawrence Neng in return for approving the Applicants' visa applications and issuing immigrant visas and non-immigrant visas to the Applicants. 1/ On his plea of guilty, the Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the charge described above and was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of one year. The judgment further provided that the Petitioner would be confined in a community treatment center for a period of three months and would thereafter be placed on probation for a period of five years. The judgment also ordered the Petitioner to pay a fine in the amount of $10,000.00. The crime to which the Petitioner pled guilty is a felony under federal law. At the time the Petitioner committed the crime to which he pled guilty, he was a grown man more than forty years of age. The Petitioner duly served his term of confinement and fulfilled all terms of his probation, including the payment of the fine. Thereafter, on January 21, 1988, the State Office of Executive Clemency restored the Petitioner's civil rights in the State of Florida. On May 9, 1991, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a limited surety agent. As required by the application, the Petitioner disclosed the criminal history information described above. In response to questions on the application form, the Petitioner answered "yes" with regard to whether the crime to which he pled guilty and of which he had been convicted was a felony and also answered "yes" with regard to whether that crime was a crime involving moral turpitude. On June 12, 1991, the Respondent sent a letter to the Petitioner advising him that his application file lacked certificates indicating completion of certain specified courses which are prerequisites to licensure. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a certificate of completion from the University of Florida showing he had completed his course work on July 24, 1991, and a certificate from Miami-Dade Community College showing he had completed an eighty-hour surety agent/bail bond course on April 27, 1991. The Petitioner's application shows that he has been self-employed and that he has been employed with a legal courier service over the past few years. The Petitioner is a graduate of the Georgetown Law Center. The Petitioner acknowledged that the bail bond profession involves the constant signing of documents regarding persons charged with crimes, as well as constant handling of collateral and transfer of funds in the regular course of the bail bond business.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for licensure as a limited surety agent and dismissing the petition. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 April 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered real estate salesman having been issued license number 0027286 by the State of Florida, which license was registered with Gibraltar Realty and Management, Inc., 407 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida. On August 2, 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Rodriguez responded to an advertisement that Respondent had placed in the Miami Herald offering to lease a certain apartment owned by Respondent and known as Unit 5-A, 710 Northeast 29th Street, Miami, Florida. Respondent had been advertising that apartment either for lease or for sale for a period of time. At the time, the apartment was unoccupied. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez met with the Respondent at the apartment. Respondent informed them that he was willing to lease the property to them for a period of 18 months at a rental of $2,000 per month with a $5,000 security deposit. No lease was ever prepared or entered into by the parties, although Respondent knew that a written lease was required to rent the unit under the terms discussed. Respondent requested Rodriguez to give Respondent a $2500 deposit check, and Rodriguez complied with that request. Respondent deposited the check into his personal checking account. Respondent never told Rodriguez that the deposit was not refundable. Respondent and Rodriguez began discussing a possible purchase of Respondent's apartment rather than a rental. As a result of the continuing discussions, Respondent prepared a Deposit Receipt and Sale-Purchase Contract dated August 7, 1980, and mailed it to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez. At the same time, he sent a copy of that proposed contract to Rodriguez' attorney, who was out of the office that week. After various conversations between the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez and the Respondent, and after the Rodriguez' attorney had met with Respondent and viewed the apartment, Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez declined to execute the Deposit Receipt and further determined that they would not purchase or lease Respondent's property. Approximately a week later, Rodriguez made demand on Respondent for return of his $2500. Rodriguez' attorney subsequently made demand on Respondent for the return to Rodriguez of that deposit. Respondent has failed and refused to return to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez the $2500 deposit. The subject apartment was never removed from the market and was continuously advertised by Respondent for sale or lease during the course of the negotiations with Rodriguez.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint and suspending Respondent's real estate salesman license number 0027286 for 18 months. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Colodny, Esquire 626 NE 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32082 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire 39 East Sixth Street Hialeah, Florida 33010 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this matter, Margaret C. McBride was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding salesman's license numbered 0056930, which expired on September 30, 1982, and has not been renewed. On June 15, 1982, W. T. and Agnes Wilson entered into a contract with Presidential Homes, through McBride Real Estate, Inc., for the construction of a home in Martin County, Florida, for the total purchase price of $65,610. The contract called for a down payment of 10 percent to start construction and subsequent periodic payments of 10 percent or 20 percent at set stages during construction of the home as called for in the contract. The Wilsons, who were residents of the Jersey Islands in the United Kingdom, had arranged with the Florida National Bank, Stuart, Florida, for a total of $75,000 to be paid out of their account, in periodic partial payments, on schedule directed by letter of June 21, 1982, to the McBride Real Estate, Inc., Escrow Account, from which payments could be made to Presidential Homes, Inc., in accordance with the contract provisions. The initial payment of 10 percent ($6,561) was made by the Wilsons on June 16, 1982. Thereafter, an additional $13,122 was paid to the McBride Real Estate, Inc., Escrow Account on July 13, 1982, and a second payment in the same amount was to be paid into that escrow account on July 20, 1982. Marie A. McBride, an authorized signatory on the McBride Real Estate, Inc., Escrow Account and Respondent's mother-in-law, on July 7, 1982, drew a check for $6,561 on that account, payable to Presidential Homes, Inc., for "Wilson," which check was subsequently endorsed by Respondent, Margaret McBride, who identified herself in the endorsement as vice president and treasurer of Presidential Homes, Inc. This second payment to Presidential Homes, Inc., according to the contract, was not due until the footings, foundation, and floor slab were complete. At no time did Presidential Homes, Inc., do more on the Wilson home than clear the land. No payment beyond the initial down payment was ever earned under the contract. Respondent, Margaret C. McBride, was also listed as an authorized signature on the McBride Real Estate, Inc., Escrow Account at the Florida National Bank of Martin County. On July 30, 1982, along with Henry V. McBride, her husband, she drew two checks, numbers 158 and 159, to cash, in the amounts of $4,400 and $5,000, respectively, on the escrow account and, also with Henry V. McBride, endorsed both and presented them for payment. Check numbered 159 reflects it was for the "Witte draw." Grant J. Bartels, an investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC), received a call from Mrs. Wilson on August 4, 1982, complaining of unauthorized draws for construction on their house which was not accomplished. When he thereafter went to the offices of McBride Real Estate, Inc., to initiate his investigation, he found that all records on some 110 contracts procured by that company for Presidential Homes, Inc., were missing, as were Respondent, Margaret C. McBride, and her husband, Henry V. McBride. Investigation revealed that these 110 contracts represented approximately $500,000 in payments paid out of the escrow account and, of the 110, work was started on only 11 homes. A total of 20 construction permits had been pulled for all the contracts. All of the 11 homes started were heavily encumbered by unsatisfied mechanics' and materialmen's liens. President of record of Presidential Homes, Inc., was John Gideon, a contractor who ran the construction aspect of the company. Respondent was vice president and treasurer, but Henry V. McBride basically directed operations. According to Raymond P. Arndt, who worked for McBride Real Estate, Inc., during the period in question, Respondent started out working with the real estate company as Henry V. McBride's secretary, but then became the vice president of Presidential Homes. As a part of her job, Respondent handled the mortgage applications for clients of Presidential Homes, Inc., and Mr. Arndt would deal with her on an almost daily basis. Though Mrs. McBride worked for Presidential Homes, she worked out of the McBride Real Estate, Inc., office. No one other than the McBrides, including Respondent, had access to the real estate company records after hours. During the week prior to August 6, 1982, Mr. Arndt, who had been present when the FREC investigator first came, told Respondent the investigator would be back the next day. When the investigator did come back the next day to Respondent's office, Respondent, her husband, and all records pertinent to Presidential Homes, Inc., which had been present when Mr. Arndt locked up the night before, were missing. Mr. Paul Turscak also was a former employee of McBride Real Estate, Inc., during the period leading up to the McBride disappearance. He talked with Respondent frequently about Presidential Homes, Inc., operations, but whenever he would ask her about the status of a particular property--its construction schedule or its funding--he would not get a straight answer. Both McBrides took several vacation trips to such places as Jamaica, Tennessee, and the Bahamas in the months prior to their disappearance. After a complete investigation of the situation by the Martin County State Attorney, Mr. McBride was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 30 years in prison for his complicity in the operation. Respondent was not tried.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Margaret C. McBride's license as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1983, 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 18th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ms. Margaret C. McBride 562 North West Riverside Drive Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent Angelo J. Carlozzi was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesman, from May 23, 1975, to September 15, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex has a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salespersons had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc. was in business. A week after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc. a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records. Soon after his association with International Land Brokers, Inc. respondent was given the name of Corrine K. Moers, whom he telephoned. Respondent told Ms. Moers that he "hoped that we could do business . . ." Exhibit No. 34, p. 15.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Richard I. Kroop, Esquire 420 Lincoln Road Suite 512 Miami Beach, Florida 33139
The Issue At issue is whether respondent's license as a real estate salesman should be disciplined for the alleged violations set forth in the administrative complaint. Based on the evidence, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, respondent, Kevin P. Sheehy, held real estate salesman license number 0203610 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. The license is currently in an involuntary inactive status. On October 14, 1983, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on the charges of (a) conspiracy to import marijuana and (b) importation of marijuana. For this he received a four year sentence on each count to run concurrently and a special parole term of five years. According to his counsel, he began serving his sentence on September 5, 1985 at Eglin Air Force Base. He is eligible for parole around April, 1987. Prior to his conviction, respondent was employed as a real estate salesman in a real estate firm in Tavanier, Florida. When Sheehy is released, his former broker intends to offer him a job as a salesman, assuming Sheehy holds a license, for the broker found Sheehy to be honest, trustworthy, productive, and a hard worker. This was corroborated by another person in the community. Both witnesses urged that Sheehy, who is 27 and afflicted with juvenile diabetes, be given the opportunity to pursue a livelihood when he is paroled. There is no evidence that Sheehy failed to notify the Division of Real Estate of his felony conviction within thirty days after the date of his conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts VII and VIII of the administrative complaint, and that ,, his real estate salesman license be suspended for eighteen months. The remaining charge in Count XIX should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 9th day of January, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent David L. Schuldenfrei was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesman, from October 30, 1974, to February 3, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's Offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of Post of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salespersons had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three, or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc. was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc. a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Harry Tempkins 420 Lincoln Road Suite 258 Miami Beach, Florida
