Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent, John P. Wickersham ("Wickersham"), is licensed as a real estate broker under license number 0095775. Respondent, Aladdin Real Estate of Rockledge ("Aladdin"), is a Florida corporation registered as a real estate broker under license number 0213244. Wickersham is the qualifying broker and corporate officer for Aladdin. Respondents maintain their escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Cocoa. On April 28, 1994, Ms. Marie Ventura, Petitioner's investigator, audited Respondents' escrow account. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $46,287.30 and a reconciled balance of $43,557.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a shortage of $2,730.04. Respondents provided Ms. Ventura with additional information. On May 16, 1994, Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $43,546.21 and a reconciled balance of $42,787.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had an excess of $11.05. Respondents never had a shortage in their escrow account. Respondents maintained an excess of $11.05 in their escrow account since September, 1993. In September, 1993, Respondents converted their method of bookkeeping to a computer system. The computer system failed to disclose an excess of $11.05 due to Respondents' misunderstanding of the appropriate method of labeling inputs to the software system. Respondents discovered and corrected the error prior to the formal hearing. Respondents properly made and signed written monthly reconciliation statements comparing their total escrow liability with the reconciled bank balances of their escrow account. Although Respondents did not use the form suggested in Rule 61J2- 14.012(2), Respondents satisfied the substance of the requirements for record keeping and reporting. Respondents maintained the information required in Rule 61J2-14.012(2) in bank statements, ledger cards, and checkbooks. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondents presented the information in a form that complied with the requirements of Rule 61J2-14.012(2). The shortage determined by Petitioner on April 28, 1994, was caused, in part, by errors made by Petitioner's investigator. It was the investigator's first audit, and the information provided by Respondents was not in an easily discernible form. However, Respondents never withheld any information, and Respondents maintained and provided all information required by applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and Rule 61J2-14.012(2). RECOMMENDED this 18th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Phyllis A. Crosby, Respondent, was registered as a real estate broker by the Florida Board of Real Estate, and was qualifying broker for Crosby Realty Corporation, a corporate real estate broker (Exhibit 4). Crosby had actual knowledge of the hearing scheduled to be heard September 3, 1986, and failed to appear. William Nolte and Marilyn Nolte owned a duplex in Tampa, Florida that they desired to sell. They talked with Wade Black and Dale Peterson, real estate salesmen with American Realty Company, and agreed to give American Realty Company an exclusive right of sale agreement, a listing agreement to list the property for rent before sale, and to pay a $100 commission for each tenant. The exclusive listing agreement dated February 26, 1985 was attached to Exhibit 2, deposition of Marilyn Nolte, as Exhibit 2. Pursuant to these agreements, tenants for each of the apartments were obtained and a buyer for the property was subsequently found. In March 1985, Crosby purchased American Realty's assets which included the Nolte agreements. Salesmen licenses of Black and Peterson were transferred to Crosby Realty. Rental and deposit checks from the two tenants, totalling $1,130.00, were obtained by Black and/or Peterson and delivered to Respondent. This money was never deposited into Respondent's escrow account. The Noltes demanded remittance of the $1,130.00 minus $200 (commission), or $930.00 from Respondent on numerous occasions and made numerous phone calls to the Crosby Realty Company office to obtain this money without success. On March 13, 1985, a buyer for the Nolte property was secured by Tam- Bay Realty, and the property was sold with the closing taking place June 9, 1985. Prior to the closing, Nolte wrote to the American Title Company, who closed the transaction, regarding the $930.00 owed Nolte by Respondent and this $930.00 was deducted from the commission paid Respondent. At the closing, Respondent appeared, took the check representing Crosby Realty's Commission less the $930.00 deducted to pay Nolte, and left before the final papers were signed. No commission for the rentals of the sale was ever paid by Respondent to Black or Peterson. Respondent, during 1985, had three accounts in the Citrus Park Bank in Tampa. One was the Crosby escrow account, one was the Crosby Realty general account, and one was the Phyllis A. Crosby personal expense account. Numerous overdrafts were drawn on the general account and personal expenses account and the bank notified the Respondent that these overdraft charges would be deducted from her escrow account as a set-off to keep the bank from losing money because of these overdraft charges. During June 1985, the bank debited the escrow account $88.50 (debit memo Exhibit 1), the July statement contained a debit memo of $283.00, and in August, debit memos of $126.76 and $62.88 appeared. In September 1985, Citrus Park Bank closed all of Respondent's accounts. On April 29, 1985, Respondent leased office space and a townhouse from Carlton Properties in Tampa. She signed a three-year lease effective May 1, 1985, which provided for two months free rent for the office, with tenant to make a security deposit in the amount of $817.79 (which equals one month rent) due June 1, 1985. This deposit was never made and she was evicted in July. The townhouse lease provided for two weeks free rent with the security deposit due May 15, 1985. Respondent made this payment and one additional payment, but the check for the second payment was returned marked insufficient funds. She was evicted July 22, 1985. Respondent leased office space on July 9, 1985, from Ayers-Siera Insurance Association in the Carrolwood Village Center for a broker's office. She gave the lessor a check for $842.00 for the August rent and a security deposit. She moved into the office space and the check, written on the Crosby Realty general account, bounced. It was returned for collection twice, marked insufficient funds. When run through a third time, the check was returned marked "account closed." Eviction proceedings were instituted and Respondent's furniture was moved out of the office by the Sheriff in early October. The lessor has never received any monies from Respondent. In September or early October 1985, Respondent entered into a three year lease agreement with Paramount Triangle to lease office space commencing November 1, 1985. She moved her offices into that space and occupied the premises until April or May 1986 when she departed. During the period that Respondent occupied this office space, only one rental check from her was honored by the bank. Numerous checks given to Paramount Triangle for rent were not honored by the bank. Finally, the last check from Respondent dated March 6, 1986, which Paramount Triangle tried to deposit, was returned showing the account on which the check was drawn was closed on March 4, 1986. Pamela Glass was employed as a secretary by Respondent from July 6, 1986 through August 6, 1986. During this period, Respondent refused to accept certified mail and became very angry with Glass when she once signed for a certified letter addressed to Respondent. Glass received numerous phone calls from people complaining about not being paid for billing sent to Respondent. When her pay was not forthcoming at the end of the month, Glass quit. Glass also testified, without contradiction, that Respondent held accounts for utilities under various aliases she used for this purpose. Frank Maye, investigator for Petitioner, failed to get escrow account records from Respondent when requested and made appointments with her to audit her escrow accounts which were not kept by Respondent. Failing to obtain the records from Respondent, Maye subpoenaed the records from the bank.
The Issue Whether or not Respondents' registration as real estate brokers should be suspended for an alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about the middle of March, 1974, Anne Land, a saleswoman for Respondent real estate brokers, met one Timothy B. Howe who had responded to an advertisement in the newspaper concerning the purchase or lease of a home at 185 West Sunrise Avenue, Coral Gable, Florida. After viewing the premises, Mr. Howe decided to lease the property and his attorney prepared a lease in the total sum of $7,200 for one years rent. This proposal was submitted to the owner of the house, Mrs. Joanne Kealy, but upon the advice of counsel, she declined the proposal. Several days later, Howe decided to purchase the home. He signed a standard sales contract, dated March 26, 1974, which provided for a total purchase price of $72,500.00, payable under the following terms: "The sum of $1,800.00 by check hereby deposited in escrow with Magruder Realty, Inc., as escrow agent, in part payment of the purchase price and as a security deposit for the faithful performance of this contract by Purchaser, and the remainder of the purchase price shall be paid as follows: Upon acceptance of this contract the purchaser to deposit with Magruder Realty, Inc., an additional $5,400.00. Purchaser to assume existing mortgage for approx. $38,816.00 with Coral Gables Federal Svgs and Loan Association and the seller to give to the purchaser a second mortgage for balance of approx. $26,500.00 at 8 1/2 percent for 12 years or less with no pre-paid clause penalty..." The contract was signed by Land as witness and also in behalf of the seller and also as an escrow agent of Magruder Realty, Inc. The document was not acknowledged before a notary public (testimony of Lands Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Land contacted the owner who was out of state at the time and asked her to indicate her acceptance of the offer by telegram. The owner did so on March 29, 1974. The evidence is conflicting as to the circumstances surrounding the disposition of the deposit check for $1,800.00. Land testified that she gave the check to Joseph P. Magruder on March 26 or 27 as was her practice in handling deposits, but said nothing about holding the check. Mr. Magruder, on the other hand, testified that at the time she gave him the check, she said Mr. Howe desired the check be held until the total down payment of $7,200.00 was received from a trust account, and that he therefore put the check in the transaction folder and gave the folder back to her to retain. His statement of the reason for not depositing the check in an escrow account immediately is supported by subsequent events and by the fact that the check was not actually deposited until a subsequent date, which was contrary to his normal office practice (testimony of Land, Magruder, O'Brien; Exhibit 2). Subsequent conversations between Land and Howe during the latter part of March and early April were to the effect that Howe's mother was sending funds for the balance of the down payment. On April 4, Land talked to Howe by telephone and he asked for the escrow account number of Magruder Realty, Inc., in order that his mother could send the additional $5,400.00 and/or $7,200.00. Land asked Respondent O'Brien, who was in the office at the time, for the firm's escrow account number and passed it on to Howe. On the same day, Land went on vacation in North Carolina and did not return to the office until April 15th. At that time, Magruder informed her that the additional funds had not been received from Howe and that although he had tried to reach him on the telephone he had been unsuccessful. Because of the difficulty in reaching Howe as to payment of the balance of the down payment, Magruder deposited the $1,800.00 check in his escrow bank account on April 17, 1974. It was not honored by the Howe's bank because Cristina I. Howe, his wife, had issued a stop payment order on the check on April 15. On March 26, 1974, the date the check was drawn, the Howe bank account was overdrawn by 26 (testimony of Land, Magruder, O'Brien, Garcia; Petitioner's Exhibits 2 & 6; Respondent's Exhibit 1). Although Respondents claimed that the Florida Real Estate Commission had disposed of the instant allegation by its letter of censure dated February 10, 1975, which referenced file CD15240, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that this letter involved other transactions and not the one under consideration at the hearing (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5).
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent James G. Adair is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license number 0409004, t/a Investor's Equity, 415 Beckwith Road, Suite 210, Panama City, Florida 23407 In November, 1988, Respondent negotiated a contract for the sale of real property identified as the Stopway Grocery. Said contract identified the purchasers of the property as Pakesh Jethani and Suresh S. Satiana. The Stopway Grocery property was owned by James A. White and located in Panama City, Florida. Respondent obtained an earnest money deposit in the amount of $5,000, allegedly from the purchasers, which was deposited into the Investor's Equity escrow account. Subsequently to the execution of the original contract, addenda to the contract were negotiated and agreed between the parties. The sale was to scheduled to close in December, 1988. During the period of time between the contract execution and the scheduled date upon which the sale was to close, the seller repeatedly contacted the Respondent to assure himself that the sale and closing were proceeding appropriately. At no time did Respondent inform the seller of any problems with the transaction or suggest that the sale would not close in December, 1988. The transaction did not close on the scheduled date. Neither the Respondent nor the purchasers attended the scheduled closing. Subsequent to the closing date, the seller contacted the buyers identified in the contract, at which time the seller learned that the buyers would not complete the transaction. The seller obtained legal representation. A demand for the escrow deposit was made on behalf of the seller. By letter dated May 1, 1989, Respondent informed the Petitioner that a dispute related to the escrow deposit had arisen between the parties to the transaction. By letter dated May 15, 1989, Petitioner advised Respondent of alternative methods by which the dispute could be resolved, and requested that Respondent notify Petitioner of the method chosen. After receiving no response, Petitioner, by letter dated July 14, 1989, again requested that Respondent notify Petitioner of the dispute resolution method chosen. As of July 1, 1991, Petitioner has received no further information from Respondent. Subsequent to the July 14, 1989 letter, an investigator for the Petitioner went to the Investor's Equity office in order to review the escrow account documentation. 1/ He was unable to do so because the books and records were not at the office but rather were allegedly in the Respondent's possession. The investigator attempted to contact both the Respondent and the alleged buyers in order to ascertain the disposition of the escrow deposit, but was unable to locate any of them. The Respondent's partner in the Investor's Equity operation, Robert Hodges handled mortgage brokerage activities for the business. The Respondent performed the real estate brokerage activities. Hodges testified that the referenced escrow deposit was received, but stated that the Respondent had stopped coming to the office during this time and was absent from the premises for more than one year. Hodges eventually closed the Investor's Equity operation. He stated that the relevant deposited funds were not in the escrow account, but was unable to otherwise identify the disposition of the deposit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order revoking the real estate broker licensure of James G. Adair. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Shaughnessy is a licensed real estate broker in Florida, holding license number 0079279 at all material times. He has been a real estate broker for 18 years. Respondents Conifer Consulting Group, Inc. and Conifer Realty Group, Inc. are corporations registered as real estate brokers, holding license numbers 0271201 and 0271202, respectively. In January 1992, Mr. Shaughnessy answered a want ad seeking a sales manager for single-family and condominium sales for Respondent Conifer Consulting Group, Inc. Mr. Shaughnessy received an interview with Scott Spence, the minority owner of both Conifer corporations. Following a successful interview, Mr. Shaughnessy interviewed with Bruce Houran, the majority owner of the Conifer corporations. Mr. Spence was the marketing director of the Conifer corporations. A civil engineer, Mr. Houran had provided the money for the businesses and relied on Mr. Spence's expertise in a wide variety of business matters, including the real estate operations. Following a successful interview with Mr. Houran, Mr. Shaughnessy had a final interview with Mr. Spence and Mr. Houran. At the conclusion of the third interview, the three men agreed that Mr. Shaughnessy would join the Conifer corporations as a sales manager, devoting his efforts to managing the sole salesperson working for the Conifer corporations at Bocilla Island Club in Bokeelia. In return for his efforts, the Conifer corporations agreed to pay Mr. Shaughnessy the sum of $350 weekly plus certain expenses. During the course of the interviews, Mr. Shaughnessy mentioned that he was a licensed real estate broker. The Conifer corporations were employing Ms. McClaran as their registered broker, but she had in reality only lent her license to the Conifer corporations in return for a portion of the sales and rental commissions. Following the interviews, and outside the presence of Mr. Shaughnessy, Mr. Houran expressed interest to Mr. Spence in replacing Ms. McClaran with Mr. Shaughnessy. Pursuant to this plan, Mr. Houran sent a letter to Ms. McClaran, with a copy to Mr. Spence but not Mr. Shaughnessy, terminating her employment with the Conifer corporations. The letter states that they have hired Mr. Shaughnessy as a "sales manager with a Broker's license" and adds that he will be providing his license to the Conifer corporations. Pursuant to the employment contract with Ms. McClaran, the letter gives her 90 days' notice, and she continued to earn commissions on sales contracts executed during that time. Unfortunately, no one told Mr. Shaughnessy that he was the new broker for the Conifer groups. Ms. McClaran's name continued to appear on the door to the real estate offices, even after the 90 days had expired. The Conifer corporations never had business cards printed up showing Mr. Shaughnessy as the broker, nor did Mr. Shaughnessy or anyone else hold Mr. Shaughnessy out as the broker for the companies. In late October 1992, the Conifer real estate salesperson contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission to inquire as to the status of her pending application to become a broker. She learned that the Conifer corporations were no longer properly licensed, as their license had expired in March 1992. The salesperson contacted Mr. Houran and told him about what she had learned. Mr. Houran called Mr. Shaughnessy and informed him of the licensing situation. Mr. Shaughnessy immediately began the process of placing his broker's license with Conifer Realty Group, Inc. (Mr. Houran decided not to continue to involve Conifer Consulting Group, Inc. in real estate activities.) Mr. Houran appointed Mr. Shaughnessy as an officer of Conifer Realty Group, Inc. on October 23, 1994. On November 4, 1992, Mr. Shaughnessy filed with Petitioner a Request for Change of Status to effect the necessary change. Only when Mr. Shaughnessy filed the paperwork with Petitioner did his rate of compensation change. His old pay rate of $350 weekly was replaced by a new arrangement in which he received an equity interest in future developments created by either Conifer corporation. In late October or early November 1992, Mr. Shaughnessy also began the process of creating an escrow account for Conifer Realty Group, Inc. Previously, all escrow monies had been deposited in the general operating account of the corporation. No one performed monthly reconciliations of escrow monies, although no monies were ever lost. Working as quickly as possible to transfer sales and rental escrow monies into the new account, Mr. Shaughnessy received the first bank statement for the account around December 6, 1992, performed the required reconciliation, and determined that the escrow account was in good order and balanced. By the time of an inspection from one of Petitioner's investigators on December 4, 1992, there was no sign on the door of the real estate office at Bocilla Island Club. However, at that time, neither Conifer corporation had any relationship with the developer of the units, nor was either Conifer corporation conducting business of any sort out of this office. The salesperson who had discovered the problem had resigned, had formed a new company, had assumed Conifer's responsibilities for sales and rentals, and was using the old office at the Bocilla Island Club. Until the time of the filing with Petitioner in November, Mr. Shaughnessy was never aware, nor could he have reasonably been aware, that his broker's license was to be used to qualify the Conifer corporations. Communications had broken down between Mr. Houran and Mr. Spence or Mr. Spence and Mr. Shaughnessy. In any event, Mr. Shaughnessy never agreed to place his license with either Conifer corporation until October 1992. At all material times during which Mr. Shaughnessy's broker's license was placed with the Conifer corporations, the escrow account was maintained and properly reconciled. There is no evidence that the signage was improper at anytime, except possibly in connection with the real estate office operated by the former salesperson. However, the Conifer corporations are liable for the substantial period of time during which they operated without an escrow account. Although no money was lost or unaccounted for, management's casual attitude toward serious legal responsibilities is manifest in the sloppy way that the Conifer companies handled the transition between brokers and the improper relationship that they earlier maintained with Ms. McClaran. As a result of her involvement in the matter, Ms. McClaran, who was an inexperienced broker and personal friend of Mr. Spence, had her broker's license suspended for 90 days. It is a matter of some mitigation that Mr. Spence is no longer involved with either Conifer corporation and that Mr. Houran reasonably expected that his noninvesting co-owner would provide something of value to the companies--namely, his expertise in real estate matters, including licensing. The absence of injury to the public, although irrelevant to the issue of liability, is another factor in mitigation, as is the quick action taken by the corporations, through Mr. Shaughnessy and at Mr. Houran's direction, to correct the situation as soon as it was brought to their attention.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against William P. Shaughnessy; finding Conifer Realty Group, Inc. and Conifer Consulting Group, Inc. guilty of failing to maintain an escrow account and operating as a broker without holding a valid and current license as a broker; imposing an administrative fine of $4000 against the Conifer companies, jointly and severally; and issuing a reprimand against both companies. ENTERED on April 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on April 20, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate except for fact that there was no escrow account, which is adopted. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16: to the extent of implication that the office was that of a Respondent, rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-8 and 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: the state of mind of Respondents, as well as their degree of culpability, has been addressed in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson BPR, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street N308 Orlando, Florida 32802 Leonard P. Reina Forsyth, Brugger 600 Fifth Avenue, South #210 Naples, Florida 33940
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioners are entitled to recover from Respondent the attorney's fees and costs incurred by Petitioners, pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act.
Findings Of Fact At the time material hereto, Global Real Estate and Management, Inc., was a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, Mark H. Adler was a real estate broker licensed in the state of Florida, and Richard Shindler was a real estate salesman licensed in the state of Florida. Adler was the qualifying broker for Global, and Shindler was employed by Global. On November 17, 1989, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, received a written complaint about Adler, Shindler, and Global from Jay Hirsch, a real estate broker licensed in the state of Florida. Hirsch's complaint included the following allegations. Shindler had entered into two contracts for the purchase of real estate which required Shindler to place a total of $11,000 in Global's escrow account. Requests for verification of the deposit of such funds had been ignored. Hirsch had told Shindler at the time that the contracts were executed and on numerous occasions thereafter that since Shindler had chosen to participate in the real estate commission to be earned from the transaction, Shindler had assumed a fiduciary relationship with the sellers. Shindler had arbitrarily refused to close pursuant to the contracts and on October 2, 1989, Hirsch met with Shindler, reminded Shindler of Shindler's fiduciary responsibil-ities to the sellers, made demand on Shindler for the escrow deposit on behalf of the sellers, and advised Shindler of the provisions of Florida law relating to the responsibilities of the escrow holder when demands are made for release of escrowed money. Written demand was made on Adler within days of the oral demand. Hirsch subsequently spoke with Adler, the broker of record for Global, regarding the legal requirements in escrow deposit disputes but discovered that Adler "knew nothing" about the transaction. Shindler and Adler continued to ignore the demands made on them for the escrow deposit. Hirsch also alleged that there may be "certain other irregularities" regarding fiduciary responsibilities, entitlement to commissions by Global, and conflicts of interest. An investigator was assigned to investigate Hirsch's complaint against Adler, Shindler, and Global. According to the investigative report issued on February 12, 1990, that investigation revealed possible serious violations of the laws regulating the conduct of real estate brokers and salespersons. Although the investigative report recited that Global waited two months after the initial deposit demand was made by Hirsch before it filed an interpleader action to resolve conflicting demands on the escrow deposit, the documentation attached to the investigative report clearly indicated that Global waited just a few days short of three months before filing the interpleader action. The investigative report further revealed that during the time that at least the $11,000 was required to be in Global's escrow account (if Global were not involved in any other real estate transactions at the time), the escrow account had less than an $11,000 balance for both the months of September and October of 1989. The report further indicated that the IRS had attached Global's escrow account for Global's failure to pay payroll taxes. The investigative report revealed that there had been a problem obtaining broker Adler's presence for the interview with the Department's investigator. When a joint interview with both broker Adler and salesman Shindler did take place, the broker was unable to answer any of the investigator's questions, telling the investigator that he knew little regarding the problems since he relied on salesman Shindler to operate the business on a daily basis. In response to the investigator's continued questioning as to how IRS was able to attach an escrow account, Shindler explained that although the checks were marked escrow account, the bank statements did not reflect an escrow account but rather reflected a "special account." It was further discovered during the investigation that broker Adler had not been a signatory on the escrow account; rather, salesman Shindler had been the only signatory on the escrow account. At the conclusion of that interview, Shindler, who had taken control of the interview, agreed to supply the Department's auditors with all IRS and bank correspondence relative to the escrow account attachment. During that same joint interview on January 23, 1990, when questioned about the real estate transactions which were the subject of broker Hirsch's complaint, Shindler spoke in terms of having "his" attorney file an interpleader action (although he was the buyer). He also talked about oral extensions to the written contracts. Shindler also explained that his "deposit moneys" were in the escrow account because he was using a part of sale proceeds belonging to his brother as his down payment on purchases made for himself, an explanation which suggested there might be co-mingling of funds. A complete audit of Global's escrow account by the Department's auditors was scheduled for February 7, 1990. A supplemental investigative report was issued on May 3, 1990. That report contained the following recital. Shindler and Adler had failed to comply with the Department's requests for files and bank statements so that an audit could be conducted on the escrow and operating accounts. On March 22, 1990, a subpoena was served on Global requiring those records to be made available by April 3. As of April 30, complete records were still not submitted in that case files were not available and certain checks and monthly bank statements were missing. Therefore, an appointment was made to conduct the audit in Global's office on May 1 with the requirement that broker Adler be present. On that date, files were still not available and bank records were incomplete, precluding the conduct of a proper audit. Adler told the investigator on that date that Shindler had not even told Adler that a subpoena had been served, which statement reinforced the investigator's belief that salesman Shindler had been operating as a broker and running the business operations of Global, with broker Adler merely lending his license. On that same date Shindler changed his explanation of the escrow account shortages, saying the IRS had not garnished the escrow account; rather, Global's bank had transferred $3,200 from Global's "escrow" account to Global's operating account to cover checks written on Global's operating account when the account did not have sufficient funds. It was also discovered that Adler had not been performing monthly reconciliations of Global's "escrow" account. Adler told the investigator that he would supply files and reconciliations by June 1, 1990. A supplemental investigative report was issued on June 12, 1990, advising that although the subpoena return date had been extended to June 1, 1990, as of June 12 Adler had still failed to respond by producing the required records. On June 19, 1990, the Probable Cause Panel of the Florida Real Estate Commission considered the investigative reports and determined that there was probable cause to believe that Adler, Shindler, and Global had violated statutes regulating the conduct of real estate brokers and salespersons. The administrative complaint recommended to be filed by the Probable Cause Panel was issued by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, on June 21, 1990, against Mark H. Adler, Richard Shindler, and Global Real Estate and Management, Inc. That Administrative Complaint contained factual allegations regarding Shindler's contracts to purchase properties listed by broker Hirsch, regarding the alleged "verbal" extensions of the closing dates in the written contracts, regarding the repeated demands on broker Adler for release of the escrowed money as liquidated damages, and regarding the lengthy delay in responding to those demands. The Administrative Complaint also contained factual allegations regarding Shindler's use of a part of sale proceeds due to his brother as his own down payment on the properties and regarding the escrow account balance which was less than $11,000, the minimum balance required to be maintained in Global's escrow account if there were no other sales pending. Also included were factual allegations regarding the alleged attachment of Global's escrow account by the IRS for failure to pay payroll taxes, regarding the fact that broker Adler was not a signatory on the escrow account, and regarding Adler's reliance on Shindler to operate the real estate brokerage office on a daily basis. The Administrative Complaint also recited the failure of the Respondents to comply with the subpoena served on Global by the Department, which precluded the possibility of conducting a proper audit of Global's account. Factual allegations were included reciting that on May 1, 1990, Shindler had acknowledged that he had been operating as a broker and running the real estate brokerage business of Global with broker Adler "lending his license." In addition, the Administrative Complaint recited Shindler's original explanation that the IRS had attached the escrow account, which explanation was later changed by Shindler to be that Global's bank had taken $3,200 from Global's escrow account to cover checks written against Global's operating account when there were not sufficient funds in that operating account. Lastly, the Administrative Complaint alleged that Adler had not done monthly reconciliation statements of the escrow account from October of 1989 through the date of the Administrative Complaint. Based upon those factual allegations, the Administrative Complaint alleged that Adler was guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction (Count I), that Shindler was guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction (Count II), that Global was guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction (Count III), that Adler was guilty of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized (Count IV), that Global was guilty of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized (Count V), that Adler was guilty of having failed to produce for inspection records when subpoenaed by the Department (Count VI), that Global was guilty of having failed to produce for inspection records when subpoenaed by the Department (Count VII), that Shindler was guilty of having failed to deposit funds with his employing broker (Count VIII), and that Shindler was guilty of having operated as a broker while being licensed as a salesman (Count IX). The Administrative Complaint sought disciplinary action against Adler, Shindler, and Global for those alleged violations. Adler did not seek a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained within that Administrative Complaint. Rather, he entered into a settlement agreement with the Department, agreeing that all of his real estate licenses, registrations, certificates, and permits would be suspended for a period of eighteen months, that he would resign as an officer and/or director of Global, and that he would testify at any formal hearing held regarding the Administrative Complaint. Adler also agreed that notice would be published that he had been suspended for 18 months for culpable negligence and failure to properly supervise a licensed salesman in his employ. That agreement was approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission in a Final Order filed of record on August 31, 1990. On the other hand, Shindler and Global did request a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained in that Administrative Complaint. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal hearing and was assigned DOAH Case No. 90 That formal hearing was conducted on January 9, 1991. Based on the evidence presented during that final hearing, a Recommended Order was entered on March 20, 1991, finding that the Department had failed to prove its allegations as to Shindler and further finding that the Department had failed in its burden of proof as to two of the three counts against Global. The Recommended Order did find that Global failed to maintain trust funds as alleged in Count V of the Administrative Complaint and recommended that Global be ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $500. That Recommended Order was adopted in toto by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its Final Order filed on April 24, 1991. It is clear that Shindler prevailed in the underlying administrative action and that Global prevailed as to two of the three counts against Global. The Department was substantially justified in initiating the underlying administrative proceeding against both Shindler and Global. At the time that the underlying action was initiated, it had a reasonable basis both in law and in fact.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Boca Insurance Lenders, Inc. (hereinafter "Boca"), has been a Florida corporation involved in the business of purchasing life insurance assignments. Some beneficiaries of insurance policies are unable to pay for the funeral of the friend or relative insured by that policy, and most funeral homes require payment in full for the funeral expenses at the time the funeral is scheduled. Under the arrangement that Boca has with certain funeral homes, the beneficiary of the life insurance policy of a decedent can assign the policy to the selected funeral home. The funeral home then assigns the policy to Respondent Boca, and Boca pays the funeral home the cost of the funeral. Respondent Boca's profit results from a 6 percent discount on the monies paid. Shares of preferred stock of Respondent Boca were sold for $1,000 a share. Respondent Boca ceased selling its preferred stock in March 1994, converted and/or re-acquired the outstanding shares, and began selling bonds issued by the company instead. Purchasers of preferred shares of the stock of Respondent Boca earned a return of 12 percent, 14 percent if their investment was held longer than one year. Purchasers of the bonds issued instead of the preferred shares of stock received the same return on their investment as was paid on the preferred shares. At all times material hereto, Respondent Equity Investment Club, Inc. (hereinafter "Equity"), has been a Florida corporation. The business purpose of Respondent Equity is to allow persons to deposit small amounts of money in a personal account akin to a Christmas Club, except that such persons can withdraw their money on 24-hours notice. Account owners earn a return of 6 percent on their deposits. The monies deposited in such accounts were "pooled" by Respondent Equity and used by Respondent Equity to purchase Respondent Boca's shares of preferred stock. At all times material hereto, Respondent Alec Shatz was the president and the director of both Respondent Boca and Respondent Equity. He was also the sole stockholder of Respondent Equity. Respondents admit that Respondent Shatz directed, controlled, supervised, managed, and participated in the acts, practices, and policies of Respondents Boca and Equity. In conjunction with commencing sales of its preferred shares, Respondent Boca filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission a Form D which is a Notice of Sale of Securities pursuant to Regulation D, Section 4(6), a Uniform Limited Offering Exemption. When Respondent Equity was formed, it also filed a Form D with the Securities and Exchange Commission under Rule 504. Filing a Form D notice that stock will be sold pursuant to an exemption from registration is not the same as registering a stock with the Securites and Exchange Commission. Respondents Boca and Shatz did not register the preferred shares of stock with the Department, and neither Respondent Boca nor Shatz is or has been registered with the Department to sell or offer for sale securities as a dealer, as an associated person, or as an issuer. One of the ways in which Respondent Boca marketed its preferred shares of stock was by advertising seminars which could be attended by members of the public. Advertisements appeared in newspapers and were aired on the radio. It was not necessary that a potential investor attend one of Respondent Boca's seminars in order to purchase Boca's preferred shares. Employees of Respondent Boca attended the seminars and gave presentations. They also answered questions from members of the public attending the seminars. Information about Respondent Boca, Respondent Equity, and Respondent Shatz' other companies was given out at the seminars. A prospectus for Respondent Boca was also given out. The seminar advertisement which appeared in The Palm Beach Post on February 22, 1993, on behalf of Respondent Boca represented that one could earn 12 percent interest on a "No Risk Return", that there was no penalty for withdrawal, that the investment was "liquid," and that interest was paid every 60 days. The advertisement also read: "Registered with S.E.C". (Part of the advertisement, which was admitted as Joint Exhibit numbered l, is illegible.) By September 27, 1993, the advertisement which appeared in The Palm Beach Post remained substantially the same except that the interest rate was 14 percent, the phrase "Your Money Guaranteed through Insurance Payments" had been added, and the ad read "Register [sic] under S.E.C. exemptions". An October 25, 1993, advertisement was the same except that the word "interest" now read "dividend". However, a February 14, 1994, advertisement used the word "interest" rather than "dividend". Respondent Boca's September 18, 1995, advertisement also used the word "interest", represented that "This is a Minimum Risk Return!", and stated that "Our Investment Involve [sic] Insurance Company". The advertisement contained no language as to any registration with either the S.E.C. or the Department. Although some persons purchasing Respondent Boca's preferred shares were "accredited investors", no purchasers were questioned by Respondents Boca or Shatz as to their financial ability or experience to determine if they were accredited investors prior to their purchase of Boca's preferred shares. At some of the seminars conducted by Respondents Boca and Shatz, attendees were also given information regarding the membership accounts offered by Respondent Equity. Between May 7, 1992, and March 14, 1994, Respondent Boca made 137 sales of its preferred shares of stock. In April 1993 Respondent Shatz announced the establishment of Respondent Equity as an investment club for the purpose of raising money for Respondent Boca by having the investment club purchase Respondent Boca's stock. In May 1993 five membership accounts in Respondent Equity were opened, and those members subsequently made additional deposits in their accounts. Once the accounts were opened, Respondent Equity became the sole manager of those funds. On July 2, 1993, Respondent Equity purchased five shares of Respondent Boca's stock with the combined monies from the membership accounts. Respondent Equity has not registered its securities with the Department, and neither Respondent Equity nor Respondent Shatz is registered with the Department to sell or offer to sell its membership accounts as an issuer, as a broker/dealer, or as an associated person. A pamphlet regarding Respondent Boca's offering, labeled "prospectus" but generally known as a private placement memorandum, was given to attendees who wanted one at each seminar. No prospectus was available regarding Respondent Equity's offering. As the advertisements placed by Respondents Boca and Shatz changed, so did the prospectus for Respondent Boca. Boca's February 1, 1993, prospectus carried a caveat on the cover page that the securities of Boca and its prospectus were neither approved or disapproved by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The September 1, 1993, prospectus carried the same caveat. However, the November 1, 1993, and the April l, 1994, prospectuses added to that caveat an additional statement that the securities of Respondent Boca were not registered with the Department but the firm was registered as an issuer/dealer to sell its own securities. Between June 15, 1993, and January 14, 1994, neither Respondent Boca nor Respondent Shatz had access to all of the corporate books and records for the time period prior to June 15, 1993, since those records were in the possession of Respondent Boca's accountant/escrow agent. Respondent Boca's September 1, 1993, prospectus, its September 1, 1993, revised prospectus, and its November 1, 1993, prospectus represented that any purchaser of Boca's preferred shares had the right of access upon reasonable notice to Boca's books and records. Further, the November 1, 1993, prospectus offered that right of access to potential purchasers. Respondent Boca's September 1, 1993, prospectus represents that Larry Rosenman was Boca's escrow agent possessing copies of all assignments of insurance policies. That information was also provided orally to those attending Respondent Boca's September 30, 1993, seminar. On October 7, 1993, Rosenman wrote a letter to Respondents Boca and Shatz denying that he had agreed to be Boca's escrow agent, demanding that Boca and Shatz cease any representations to the contrary, and demanding that Boca and Shatz notify anyone who had received the September 1, 1993, prospectus that the representation in the prospectus that Rosenman was the escrow agent was not accurate. By letter dated October 8, Respondent Shatz wrote Rosenman apologizing for the error, agreeing to remove Rosenman's name from Boca's prospectus, and agreeing to notify all persons who had received the prospectus that Rosenman's name should not have been listed. Respondents Shatz and Boca issued a revised September 1, 1993, prospectus deleting any reference to an escrow agent and, specifically, deleting Rosenman's name. They did not notify all persons who may have received the original September 1 prospectus. Thereafter, none of Respondent Boca's prospectuses represented that Boca had an escrow agent. Attorney Tina Talarchyk was Respondent Boca's "in-house counsel" from October 1, 1993, through December 1993. She denied at hearing that she was also Boca's escrow agent during that time period and that she had ever executed the temporary escrow agent agreement written on her letterhead and admitted in evidence in this cause. She offered no explanation for the other items of correspondence admitted in evidence which reflect she was the person handling the redemption of stock certificates when investors wished to withdraw their monies invested in Respondent Boca. As she appeared to be carrying out the duties of an escrow agent on her professional letterhead and as she represented herself to an investor to be Boca's escrow agent, she acted as an escrow agent on behalf of Respondent Boca during that time period. On October 7, 1994, Respondents Boca and Shatz directed a letter to all investors that incorrect statements had been made in the past. The letter specifically advised that Respondent Boca did not have an escrow agent at that time, that Respondent Boca had never been registered as an issuer/dealer to sell its own securities, and that, although any investor could examine the company's books and records, no audit had been performed at that time. The letter also offered to return any investor's money. No investor requested the return of any monies based upon the contents of that letter. No investor relied upon any misrepresentation or "incorrect statement" in investing in Respondent Boca. The investors who testified at the final hearing conducted their own "due diligence" inquiry before investing in Respondent Boca and discovered, as the Department's own investigators discovered, that there were no complaints regarding Respondents made to any local or state agency. On occasion, a former employee of Respondent Boca found that an entry in Boca's accounts receivable journal had not yet been deleted when he thought it should have been. From August 18 to August 25, 1993, one of Respondent Boca's bookkeepers gave Respondent Shatz a report that she prepared indicating that Respondent Boca had a negative bank balance. Respondent Boca never missed making timely any interest or dividend payment to any investor who purchased Boca's preferred shares and, later, Boca's bonds. Similarly, Respondent Equity never missed making timely any interest payment to any investor having a membership account. Every person who purchased preferred shares in Respondent Boca was able to redeem those certificates and receive back the money invested in Boca upon electing to do so. Similarly, every member of Respondent Equity was able to withdraw their monies upon electing to do so. The Department has never received a complaint from any investor in Respondent Boca regarding Boca's or Respondent Shatz' business practices. Similarly, the Department has never received a complaint from any member of Respondent Equity regarding Equity's or Respondent Shatz' business practices. Although the Department has examined and copied Respondents' business records at the corporate office on several occasions, and although the Department has interrogated investors in Respondent Boca and members of Respondent Equity, some of them on repeated occasions, the Department has not discovered any investor or member who has been injured by Respondents' business practices, by Respondents' failure to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department, or by any representations made by Respondent Shatz at Boca's seminars or by Respondents Shatz or Boca in any of Boca's prospectuses. Further, the Department has not discovered any investor or member who relied on any erroneous or inaccurate statement made by any Respondent in deciding to invest in Respondent Boca or open a membership account in Respondent Equity. A Department investigator attended the September 30, 1993, seminar after seeing the newspaper advertisement and ascertaining that Respondents Boca and Shatz and Boca's securities were not registered with the Department. He also attended the February 17, 1994, seminar. Fifty-five of the 137 sales made by Respondents Boca and Shatz occurred after the first seminar which he attended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondents Boca and Shatz not guilty of the allegations contained in counts 1-4 of the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against them; Finding Respondents Equity and Shatz guilty of the allegations against them contained in counts 5-19; Finding Respondents Boca and Shatz guilty of the allegations against them contained in counts 20-430; Ordering Respondents to cease and desist from the sale of unregistered securities by unregistered persons and entities; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for each of the 137 transactions against Respondents Boca and Shatz, jointly and severally, for a total of $13,700; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for each of the 5 membership accounts against Respondents Equity and Shatz, jointly and severally, for a total of $500. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 30th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-6671 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16- 18, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 33 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 7, 9, 15, 19, and 20 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 21, 23, 27, and 31 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12, 26, 30, 32, and 37- 40 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 34 and 36 have been rejected since they are illegible. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 35 has been rejected as being irrelevant. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 11, 13, 18, 23, 40, and 41 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 6-10, 12, 19-21, 24, 29, 30, 32-34, 36-39, 42, and 43 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 14-17, and 35 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 22, 25, 28, and 31 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 26 and 27 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. O'Neill, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Division of Securities and Investor Protection The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Alec Shatz 5850 West Atlantic Avenue Suite 103 Delray Beach, Florida 33484 Hon. Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
