Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent was at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0035275. The last license issued was as a broker, d/b/a Silver Springs Real Estate, Corp., 4121 East Silver Springs Boulevard, Ocala, Florida 32671. On or about August 3, 1984, the Respondent obtained Teri L. Lochman (Lochman) as a tenant of certain residential property belonging to Gail and Valerie Cox (Cox) that was involved in a sale to A. Pillot. In connection with this sale, a lease had been prepared between A. Pillot as Lessor and A. Alongi as Lessee. Lochman signed this lease as Lessee, and in connection with this lease, paid Respondent $1,600.00 representing $700.00 for the first month's rent, $700.00 for the last month's rent and $200.00 security deposit. These funds were paid by Lochman to Respondent in two separate checks in the amount of $500.00 and $1,100.00 dated August 5, 1984 and August 13, 1984, respectively. The Pillot/Cox escrow account, which had previously been established in Respondent's escrow ledger, was credited with these funds and the funds deposited in Respondent's real estate brokerage trust bank account, No. 805 0006583, in the Sun Bank of Ocala (Trust Account), on August 9, 1984 and August 17, 1984, respectively. Upon attempting to move into the home she had rented, Lochman discovered that Cox was still in possession because the sale had not gone through. At this point, August 17, 1984, Lochman and Cox signed an agreement which would allow Lochman to reside in the home rent free for two weeks while Cox was out of town in return for acting as a security guard. Sometime after the August 17, 1987 agreement was executed by Lochman and Cox, Lochman and Cox signed a handwritten month to month lease of the premises requiring Lochman to pay Cox $700.00 for the first month's rent, $700.00 for the last month's rent and a $200.00 damage deposit. This payment was conditioned upon Lochman receiving her refund from the Respondent. There was no credible evidence that Respondent agreed to release Cox from any previous agreement with Respondent wherein Respondent acted as agent for Cox in obtaining Lochman as a tenant or the handling of Cox's property, i.e. mowing grass or preparing house for rent. Additionally, there was no credible evidence that Respondent agreed to Lochman dealing directly with Cox. Respondent was at all times relevant to this proceeding acting as agent for Cox, and therefore, demanded from Cox her commission for obtaining Lochman as a tenant and reimbursement for other services rendered before returning Lochman's rental deposit. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent agreed to return Lochman's rental deposit without first obtaining her commission or reimbursement for other services rendered from Cox. There is no credible evidence to show that Cox paid Respondent her commission or reimbursed Respondent for other services rendered or that Cox made a demand on Respondent to pay the Lochman rental deposit to Lochman. There is credible evidence that Lochman made a demand on Respondent for the return of her rental deposit and that Respondent refused to return Lochman's rental deposit because there was a dispute between Respondent and Cox concerning Respondent's commission and reimbursement for other services rendered. Lochman did not pay Cox the rent for the month of September, 1984, therefore, she contends that Respondent only owes her $900.00 of the rental deposit. Upon Respondent's refusal to pay her the balance of the rental deposit, Lochman obtained a default judgment for $900.00 in civil court, however, and although the record is not clear, the default judgment may have been set aside. (See transcript, page 15, lines 9-13). The evidence is clear that check no. 257 drawn on the Trust Account in the amount of $1,465.00, paid on April 18, 1985, included $1,278.00 from the Pillot/Cox escrow account and depleted the funds in the Pillot/Cox escrow account. However, there was no evidence presented to show that the Lochman rental deposit was paid to Respondent. Likewise, there was no evidence presented to show that Cox did not receive the Lochman rental deposit. There was no evidence presented to show the payee on Check No. 257, or any other check, drawn on the Trust Account. There was no evidence presented to show that Respondent commingled trust funds and personal funds in the Trust Account in regard to deposits and withdrawals. There was insufficient credible evidence to show that Lochman was entitled to delivery of $900.00 or any funds from the Trust Account. There was no evidence that Respondent notified the Real Estate Commission (Commission) of the conflicting demands on the Lochman rental deposit or followed any of the procedures set forth in the statutes to resolve such a conflict.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of failing to notify the Commission of the conflicting demands on the trust funds and failing to follow the procedures set forth for resolving such conflict in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes and that Respondent's real estate broker's license be suspended for a period of six (6) months, stay the suspension, place the Respondent on probation for a period of six (6) months under the condition that the issue of conflicting demands on the trust funds be resolved within sixty (60) days and under any other conditions the Commission feels appropriate, and assess an administrative fine of $300.00 to be paid within sixty (60) days of the date of the Final Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order DISMISS Counts I, III, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 1st day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2387 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 4.5 Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Additionally, Petitioner has treated certain facts in this case as background in unnumbered paragraphs which I have numbered 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 except for the phrase that Respondent agreed to the return of the rental deposit which is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. I did not find Lochman's testimony credible in this regard. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. This paragraph is a statement of Lochman's testimony and not presented as a fact, therefore, is rejected. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent For the reasons set forth in the Background portions of this Recommended Order, there has been no rulings of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jeffrey J. Fitos, Esquire Valley Forge Military Academy Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondents committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Beniuda Haddad (Haddad), is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0353300. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Sharp Realty, Inc., 7360 Coral Way, Unit 21, Miami, Florida 33155. Respondent, Sharp Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0241934, at an address of 7360 Coral Way, Unit 21, Miami, Florida 33155. At all such times, Haddad was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer of Sharp Realty, Inc. On June 13, 1991, the Department, through its investigator Hector Sehwerert, conducted an audit of respondents' real estate brokerage escrow account. Such audit revealed an escrow liability of $12,000, a bank balance of $9,500, and shortage of $2,500. Regarding respondents' escrow liability of $12,000, the proof demonstrates that upon receipt of such funds they were deposited in respondents' escrow account pending closure of the respective transactions. Notwithstanding, at the time of audit, the bank balance was only $9,500, leaving a deficit of $2,500 on pending transactions. The audit further revealed that respondents had not been reconciling their escrow account on a monthly basis by comparing the brokers' escrow liability with their bank balance. At most, respondents balanced their bank statements, but made no effort to relate such balance to their escrow liability. Following the audit, respondents were accorded three days to account for the shortage or replace it with their own funds. Respondents were unable to account for the shortage within such time, and offered no explanation for such shortage at hearing, but did promptly replace it with their own funds. Respondents cooperated fully with the Department's investigator and, as heretofore noted, promptly replaced the shortage with their own funds. Moreover, there was no suggestion or proof that respondents had previously been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered finding the respondents guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b), (e) and (k), Florida Statutes, and that respondents be placed probation for a term of one (1) year and fined $1,000.00 for such offenses. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 June 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6683 The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. 2 & 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. 4-6. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5, otherwise subordinate. Addressed in paragraph 5, otherwise subordinate. Addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6, otherwise subordinate. Addressed in paragraphs 4-6, otherwise subordinate. Addressed in paragraph 6. The Respondents' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Subordinate. Addressed in paragraph 5. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the credible proof. Addressed in paragraph 5. 7 & 8. Addressed in paragraph 4, otherwise subordinate. 9 & 10. Rejected as not a finding of fact. See paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law. Addressed in paragraph 6, otherwise not relevant. Addressed in paragraph 6. 13-15. Addressed in paragraph 7, otherwise rejected as recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Suite N-607 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's real estate broker's license for failing to obey a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. A Final Judgment was entered against Richard B. Abel, P.A., in the case of Mark Freeman v. Richard B. Abel, P.A., Case No 85-5678CA-JRT, on August 17, 1986, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida. The Final Judgment was for an amount of $6,839 representing real estate commissions owed by Richard B. Abel, P.A. to Mark Freeman, plus interest and attorney's fees. A two count Administrative Complaint was filed by the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, against Respondent on June 27, 1988. The Complaint alleged inter alia that Respondent: (a) failed to satisfy a Final Judgment in Circuit Court for the payment of a real estate commission; and (b) failed to maintain trust funds in his real estate brokerage trust account or some other proper depository until disbursement in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), (k), Florida Statutes. A Final Order was entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") on December 6, 1988, accepting a Stipulation between Respondent and the Commission in settlement of the Administrative Complaint filed on June 27, 1988 (the "Final Order"). The terms of the Final Order provided that: Richard B. Abel, P.A., was reprimanded for failing to pay the Final Judgment entered against it in Circuit Court and was required to pay the amount due Mark Freeman within 45 days from the entry of the Final Order; Respondent, in his individual capacity, personally guaranteed the amount owed by Richard B. Abel, P.A., to Mark Freeman, and further agreed not to violate any provision of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes; and Respondent waived his right to contest the validity and enforcement of either the Final Order or Stipulation accepted in the Final Order. Neither Richard B. Abel, P.A., nor Respondent has paid the sums due pursuant to the terms of the Final Order entered by the Commission on December 6, 1988. The evidence submitted by Petitioner was uncontroverted. Respondent admitted that he placed the monies owed by Richard B. Abel, P.A., to Mark Freeman in the escrow account of Richard B. Abel, P.A., and disbursed the funds to himself, the sole owner, operator, director and officer. Respondent stated that he fully intended to pay Mr. Freeman when Respondent was able to do so. Respondent's sole defense was that the original debt was that of a corporation rather than a personal debt of Respondent. Respondent is in violation of the Final Order of the Comission entered on December 6, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failing to obey a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, fined $1,000, and placed on probation for a period not to exceed 5 years. The conditions of probation may include any of those prescribe in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21V-24.001(2)(a) except those prescribing re-examination or being placed on broker-salesman status. In the event Respondent fails to pay in full any fine imposed on Respondent or to complete the terms of any probation imposed on Respondent, it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for 8 years. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3727 Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Included in Finding 1 Included in Finding 2 Included in Finding 4 Included in Finding 5 5-6 Included in Finding 6 7-8 Included in Finding 7 9 Included in Finding 9 COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Departmen of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Richard B. Abel 2478 Inagua Avenue Miami, Florida 33133
The Issue The issues in this case include whether Respondent is guilty of having committed culpable negligence in a business transaction or failed to maintain trust funds in a proper account until disbursement was authorized and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida since 1983 and holds license number 0405933. His most current license was as a broker trading as Realty Trend. Respondent started Realty Trend in 1985 for the primary purpose of managing rental properties. Although he had little or no training or experience in accounting, Respondent retained considerable responsibility for the day-to- day bookkeeping associated with his business, though at times he employed a bookkeeper. Respondent maintained one account for sales transactions, in which he participated as the broker, and one account for property management activity. Respondent participated in few sales transactions and is phasing out of that part of the business. All escrow monies held by Respondent were kept in interest-bearing accounts. Although Respondent retained the interest, he disclosed this fact to the parties through the sales contract. Within about 18 months, Respondent had acquired about 100 properties to manage. Respondent decided to automate the bookkeeping and purchased a computer program that would write checks, track income and expenses, generate reports, and generally handle all aspects of bookkeeping. The program was designed to assist in property management operations. Emphasizing service to property owners, Respondent had always tried to send his checks for rent collected the past month between the tenth and fifteenth of each month. By August, 1989, Respondent had been warned by Petitioner that he had to allow two or three weeks for tenant's checks to clear and determine what emergency maintenance expenses might be incurred. Through a combination of ignorance about bookkeeping, his responsibilities as a broker holding escrow monies, and the property management computer program, Respondent mishandled his trust account. His repeated bookkeeping errors and failure to take corrective action allowed a sizable shortage to accumulate by the time Petitioner conducted a routine office audit on November 17, 1989. Respondent cooperated fully with the audit and promptly provided Petitioner's investigator with a box full of bank statements. His account was reaudited on January 8, 1990. Poor bookkeeping prevents a precise determination of the shortage, but it exceeds $10,000. It is difficult to understand how Respondent's books became so confused as to become nearly worthless. There was no evidence of fraudulent intent. It appears as likely that Respondent overpaid property owners as that he overpaid himself. Respondent's ongoing ignorance of his serious trust account shortages or, in the alternative, repeated failure to solve recognized trust account shortages represents culpable negligence. Even by the time of hearing, Respondent candidly admitted that he could not provide an accurate figure for the shortage and had not yet been able to repay the deficiency, although he intended to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondent; imposing an administrative fine of $500; requiring Respondent to complete an approved 60-hour course; suspending his license for a period of six months, commencing retroactive to the date on which Respondent cease operations due to the emergency suspension; and placing his license on probation for a period of three years following the conclusion of the suspension, during which time Respondent shall file escrow account reports with the Commission or other person designated by the Commission at such intervals as the Commission requires. DONE and ORDERED this 8 day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8 day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Attorney Steven W. Johnson Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Thomas I. McIntosh 13542 N. Florida Ave. Tampa, FL 33613 Attorney Neil F. Garfield Envirwood Executive Plaza, Suite 200 5950 West Oakland Park Blvd. Lauderhill, FL 33313 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
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 R. Granger Bruner is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license number 0010871. CASE NO. 90-2462 On or about September 9, 1989, Mr. Bruner obtained a contract from Alabama resident Earl W. Reed in which Mr. Reed offered to purchase certain property from owner Gary Salter. 1/ Mr. Reed, by his check, deposited with Mr. Bruner the sum of $1,000, as an earnest money deposit in connection with Mr. Reed's offer to purchase Mr. Salter's property. Mr. Bruner erroneously deposited Mr. Reed's earnest money deposit check into the Granger Bruner Realty operating account at People's National Bank of Niceville. Mr. Bruner's escrow account, where the earnest money deposit should have been held, was at the local Barnett Bank in the name of Granger Bruner Realty Trust Account. On or about September 14, 1989, the listing agent for Mr. Salter contacted Mr. Bruner's office and informed Mr. Bruner that Mr. Salter had withdrawn the property from the market. By letter dated September 21, 1989, Mr. Bruner notified Mr. Reed that the property had been withdrawn from the market and that the earnest money deposit was being returned. Enclosed with the letter was People's National Bank of Niceville check #509 drawn on the operating account of Granger Bruner Realty in the amount of $1,000 payable to Earl Reed. The letter and check were mailed to Mr. Reed at his address in Alabama. Mr. Reed apparently did not receive the letter or check, and became concerned about the return of his deposit money. The administrative complaint alleges that Mr. Reed continued to demand return of the deposit. Although the Department introduced a copy of Mr. Reed's complaint, Mr. Reed did not testify. The evidence does not establish that Mr. Reed made repeated demands on Mr. Bruner for return of the deposit. The complaint further alleges, but the evidence does not establish, that the September 21, 1989 check was not mailed until September 28, 1989. On September 30, 1989, Mr. Reed met in Crestview with Mr. Bruner and demanded the return of his earnest money deposit. Mr. Bruner issued check #2924 in the amount of $1,000 from Mr. Bruner's wife's personal account payable to Earl Reed. Mr. Bruner subsequently had a stop-payment order issued against the first check to Mr. Reed. CASE NO. 90-2463 Prior to October 6, 1989, Elaine Brantley, an auditor/investigator for the Department contacted Mr. Bruner and made an appointment to perform a routine audit on Mr. Bruner's accounts. Prior to October 6, 1989, Mr. Bruner was aware that his escrow account was short. On that date, Mr. Bruner deposited approximately $1,400 into his escrow account to cover the shortage. The deposit resulted in an overage in the account. Upon Ms. Brantley's arrival, Mr. Bruner informed her that the escrow account was short, that he'd gotten behind in bookkeeping, and that his secretary was depositing additional funds into the escrow account. Ms. Brantley had Mr. Bruner telephone the bookkeeping department at Barnett Bank. With Mr. Bruner's approval, Ms. Brantley asked for and obtained the balance of the escrow account by telephone from a bank employee. 2/ Mr. Bruner then informed Ms. Brantley that escrow account liabilities totaled $1,727.38. Ms. Brantley reviewed the account's check ledger and determined that the escrow account was indeed short. During the audit, Ms. Brantley noted an escrow account check #453 dated 7/25/89 in the amount of $500 made payable to Mr. Bruner. Ms. Brantley stated that Mr. Bruner said that he had disbursed the funds to himself to cover a mortgage payment he made to a third party identified as Ms. Penner. At hearing, Mr. Bruner testified that he had used his escrow account to cash a $400 check for another person, and that check #453 was drafted to recover his personal funds from the account. He stated that the check was written in error and that the transaction was not handled correctly. He admitted that he did not know the balance of the escrow account at the time the check was written. The recorded checkbook balance at the time was $340.19. At the time of the audit, Ms. Brantley also noted check #487 dated 9/26/89 in the amount of $500 to Ms. Penner. The evidence establishes that check #487 was Mr. Bruner's personal mortgage payment to Ms. Penner.
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 suspending the licensure of R. Granger Bruner for a period of 90 days, and imposing a total fine of $2,000, including $1,000 pursuant to Rule 2IV-24.001(3)(1), Florida Administrative Code, and $1,000 pursuant to Rule 21V-24.001(3)(c) and (f), Florida Administrative Code. It is further recommended that R. Granger Bruner be required to successfully complete a course of education related to management of operating and escrow trust accounts and be required to file escrow account status reports with the Commission at such intervals as the Commission deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-2462 The Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order. The Respondent filed a "Proposed Order" which sets forth proposed findings of fact. The proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: "Proposed Order" Accepted as to failure to prove exact amount of escrow account shortage. Rejected as to whether a shortage existed, contrary to evidence. Rejected. The testimony at hearing that certain deposits were not received is contrary to information provided to auditor and was not credited. Although the testimony related to the escrow account balance was unsupported hearsay, the auditor's testimony related to deposits and liabilities was based upon admissions by the Respondent. See Section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. 8-9. Rejected, unnecessary. 10. Rejected, immaterial. 11-12. Rejected, unnecessary. "Finding of Fact" The Respondent also filed a separate statement entitled "Finding of Fact" which includes additional proposed findings of fact. The proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Bart O. Moore, Esquire Moore, Kessler & Moore 102 Bayshore Drive Niceville, Florida 32578 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Armando Clemente is licensed as a real estate broker, and has held license 315166 at the times pertinent to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Amigo Realty, Inc., was a corporation licensed as a real estate broker, and held license 229372. The Respondents' business address was 2728 Davie Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Clemente was the sole qualifying broker for Amigo Realty, Inc. In 1989, Mr. Clemente solicited and obtained the exclusive right to sell a residence located at 2840 Southwest Eighth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It was owned by Louise McNally, a widow who had recently obtained the property through foreclosure. The property was located in an undesirable neighborhood, and in need of cleanup and substantial repair and renovation before it could be sold or leased. Ultimately Mr. Clemente agreed with Ms. McNally that Clemente would repair the house and then try to sell it, or buy it himself. Mr. Clemente contacted an old friend of his, Candido Proenza, about the property. Both Mr. Clemente and Mr. Proenza are Cuban. Mr. Proenza agreed to undertake the renovations and repair of the property through his own labor, while Mr. Clemente was to find a buyer for the property. They agreed that Mr. Clemente would initially pay for the materials used in the repair and renovation, and the parties were to split the net profit equally after Mr. Clemente was repaid for materials from the sale proceeds. Mr. Clemente prepared a deposit receipt and contract for the sale and purchase of the property between himself and Mr. Proenza as buyers and Ms. McNally as the seller. The purchase price was $30,000 and the contract shows that a deposit of $500 had been made toward the purchase price and that the closing was to take place as soon as possible. The special clauses contained in the contract state house is being bought "as is" with not [sic] guarantee or insurance for anything in the house or on property. Buyers guarranty [sic] that they will fix the property under safe and living conditions. Seller does not have to pay any additional money to attorneys or real estate office. Buyers will pay 7% commission on $30,000, at closing to Century 21 Amigo Realty, Inc. and if the house is for sale after repairs have been done it has to be listed with Century 21 Amigo Realty, Inc. or its assigns. (Exhibit B). Although the contract shows on its first page that the deposit of $500 was to be held in trust by Century 21 Amigo Realty, Inc., the line on the final page of the contract which is meant to be signed by the broker to acknowledge the receipt of the deposit is not signed. The contract does bear the signature of both Mr. Clemente and Mr. Proenza as buyers and Ms. McNally as the seller. As will be explained more fully below, on January 10, 1990, Mr. Clemente executed a statement on the letterhead of Amigo Realty in his capacity as a real estate broker stating that Amigo Realty had received in its escrow account the sum of $5,000 towards the purchase price of the property, $2,000 having been received on November 6, 1989, and $3,000 received on December 7, 1989. See, Finding 9. None of these statements were true. The repairs were more expensive than anticipated. While the repairs and renovations to the property were being carried out, Mr. Clemente and Mr. Proenza began to have disputes about such matters as the color of the kitchen cabinets, which required repainting them. During the work Mr. Proenza hurt his back, and it was necessary to have work performed by others. The cost of the renovations also was increased by custom work done for a potential buyer who later was unable to qualify to purchase the property. Mr. Clemente had marital difficulties and while the renovation project was going on, Mr. Clemente separated from his wife. With the agreement of Mr. Proenza, Mr. Clemente moved into the partially renovated house. The divorce caused a financial strain on Mr. Clemente, who ultimately was forced to close down his real estate business, Amigo Realty. Mr. Proenza was as eager as Mr. Clemente to obtain his share of the profit from the renovation and Mr. Clemente needed a place to live because of his divorce. They decided that Mr. Clemente would apply for a mortgage and purchase the house himself. Mr. Clemente made application for a mortgage to the Continental Trust Mortgage Company, with which he had done business in the past. In his loan application which was executed on November 22, 1989, Mr. Clemente represented that a cash deposit towards the purchase price was being held by Amigo Realty in the amount of $3,000, not $500. He later signed a statement on January 10, 1990, certifying that Amigo Realty then held $5,000 towards the purchase price, which consisted of $2,000 deposited on November 6, 1989, and $3,000 on December 7, 1989. The inconsistency between this statement and the loan application is not explained in the statement, but neither are correct. There were never any moneys placed in the trust account by Mr. Clemente as a down payment for his purchase of the property. I do not find credible the testimony of Mr. Clemente that he was unable to recall the figure on the mortgage loan application for the amount in the Amigo Realty trust account, and reject Mr. Clemente's contention that the $3,000 figure was one inserted by Gonzalez on the application so that there would be something in the space. I also reject the argument that because Mr. Clemente was under emotional stress arrising out of his divorce during January, he did not understand the significance or appreciate the consequences of the statement he signed on January 10, 1990, that a total of $5,000 was held in the trust account of Amigo Realty towards the purchase of the property. That statement was given to the mortgage company for its use in determining whether to grant the mortgage loan. Mr. Gonzalez may not have testified directly that the representation that $5,000 was on deposit in Amigo Realty was material to the mortgage company in determining whether to grant the mortgage loan to Mr. Clemente. It is obvious that the mortgage company was sufficiently concerned to seek a certification from Amigo Realty about the monies on deposit as a follow- up to the mortgage application which Mr. Clemente submitted on November 22, 1989. It is reasonable to infer from this fact that Mr. Clemente's certification as the broker for Amigo Realty that it held $5,000 on deposit was a material representation made in connection with the loan application Mr. Clemente had made. That representation was made in the course of Mr. Clemente's activities as a broker, and the representation was false. When the sale of the McNally home was closed on February 2, 1990, only Mr. Proenza received title, which he took as trustee. A handwritten trust agreement says that Mr. Proenza will hold title solely for the use of Mr. Clemente, and will convey the property to Clemente when told to do so by Clemente. Exhibit H, page 4. The trust agreement says nothing about payment by Mr. Proenza of any fees, commissions, discount points or other charges for the benefit of Mr. Clemente. Ms. McNally received $28,423.70, which included the $500 which the contract had reflected as a deposit in the Amigo Realty trust account, but which had not been paid. No broker's commission was paid to Amigo or to Clemente and Ms. McNally had no basis for a complaint about the amount she ultimately received when the contract closed. Shortly after the closing of the sale of the house from Ms. McNally to Mr. Proenza, another transaction closed which passed title from Mr. Proenza, as trustee, to Mr. Clemente individually. Mr. Clemente purchased the renovated house for a gross price of $65,000. In this transaction, Amigo Realty received a commission of $3,250 which was deducted from the proceeds payable to Mr. Proenza (Exhibit E, line 703) as was an additional $2,996.42 loan discount fee of 4.5% of the mortgage amount which was paid to Continental Trust Mortgage, (Id., line 802), plus other miscellaneous charges. These charges had the effect of reducing the amount due to Mr. Proenza as seller by $9,802.80, (Id., line 1400) leaving cash due to him of $55,092.92 (Id., line 603). After deducting the $28,423.70 which Proenza had paid to Ms. McNally to acquire title to the property (Exhibit J), the net sales proceeds were $26,669.22. Mr. Proenza then paid Amigo Realty $13,160.58 for the materials Mr. Clemente had purchased for use in the renovations. This left a "profit" of $13,508.64. If the amount were divided equally between Proenza and Clemente each would have received $6,754.32. Mr. Proenza actually paid Clemente $6,348.14, which would appear to be $406.18 less than Clemente was entitled to receive if that amount were divided in two. Mr. Clemente is only "shorted" if one accepts that Amigo Realty was due a 5% commission from Proenza on the sale from Proenza, as trustee, to Mr. Clemente individually, and that Mr. Proenza was responsible for paying the 4.5% loan discount to Mr. Clemente's mortgage lender, Continental Trust Mortgage. The Trust Agreement signed by Mr. Proenza contains no such provisions. The Department has alleged in paragraph 11 of its Administrative Complaint that Proenza believes Clemente took advantage of his labor and that Proenza was short changed, and did not receive a fair share of the profit. Mr. Proenza's has limited fluency in English. He believes that he was entitled to $13,000 not $7,000. Without payments of the $3,250 commission Proenza paid to Amigo Realty and the $2,996.42 loan discount Proenza paid to Continental Mortgage Company for Mr. Clemente's mortgage loan Mr. Proenza would have been left with $6,246.46 more than the $6,160.50 he received, an amount much closer to the $13,000 Proenza believes he should have cleared when the sales of the house from Ms. McNally to him and then from him to Mr. Clemente had closed. Mr. Proenza's testimony that Mr. Clemente asked him to "lend" Amigo Realty money which Mr. Proenza had expected to receive, becomes understandable. Mr. Clemente manipulated the closing documents to charge Mr. Proenza $6,246.42 as (1) a real estate commission and (2) to pay the loan discount points on Mr. Clemente's mortgage, when he had no agreement from Mr. Proenza that Mr. Proenza should do so. The settlement statement which was used for the closing of the transaction from Mr. Proenza to Mr. Clemente is on a U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development form which, at first, is quite difficult to understand. It provided a means by which Mr. Clemente was able to defraud the relatively unsophisticated Mr. Proenza. At the closing of the sale from Proenza to Clemente, Clemente also had to come up with money to replace the $5,000 he had represented to the mortgage company was already in the Amigo Realty escrow account. The title company would not accept Mr. Clemente's personal check, so he wrote a check on the Amigo Realty escrow account for the $1,750 shortage. Mr. Clemente deposited this amount into the Amigo Realty escrow account at a drive through teller window at a Fort Lauderdale bank on his way to the closing, but it was after 2:00 p.m. on Friday and the bank records reflected that the check was not credited to the account until the following Tuesday, February 6th. Mr. Clemente had no basis for drawing check #278 on the escrow account of Amigo Realty for $1,750 when he did so. He knew or should have known that the $1,750 had not actually been credited to the Amigo Realty escrow account. On May 2, 1990, the Amigo Realty escrow/trust account was audited. The audit showed and Mr. Clemente acknowledged that Mr. Clemente had never put the $500 earnest money deposit in his escrow/trust account toward the purchase of the McNally property, he had never put the $5,000 deposit in his escrow account which he had represented to his mortgage lender was on deposit in that account. The statement which he gave to his mortgage lender on January 10, 1990, certifying that there was $5,000 in the Amigo Realty trust account was fraudulent. No other shortages were found in the Amigo Realty escrow/trust account. The Respondents have previously been disciplined and paid a fine of $200 for culpable negligence for breach of trust, pursuant to a stipulation executed in April of 1989. Mr. Clemente contends that that stipulation was a plea of convenience which he entered into because the fine was nominal and would have cost him a great deal more than that amount to clear himself of wrongdoing at a formal hearing. Mr. Clemente is a member in good standing of the Fort Lauderdale Board of Realtors. He has not been the subject of any complaints other than the one which Mr. Proenza has filed with the Department. He no longer works as a broker, but now is a sales associate working under the supervision of broker Mike De Rosa.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that both Armando Clemente and Amigo Realty be found guilty of having violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (f), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is also recommended that Mr. Clemente be fined $1,500; that his license be suspended for two years. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 27th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 - 4. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3, except for the last sentence which is rejected. I cannot understand how a promise to pay 10% interest was involved in this transaction. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Findings 6 and 9. Adopted in Findings 12, 13 and 17. 11a. Adopted in Finding 18. 11b. Adopted in Finding 9. 11c. Adopted in Finding 18. 12. Adopted in Findings 18 and 19. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 2 - 4. Adopted in Findings 4 - 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Rejected, see, Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Findings 13 and 14, but see, Findings 15 - 17. Discussed in Finding 18. Adopted in Finding 19. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Finding 21. Rejected, Mr. Proenza was injured financially. It is by no means clear that the mortgage company was uninjured. The evidence is not convincing that there was more equity in the house, as renovated, than the amount of the loan although that fact is not pivotal here. These facts are evaluated in the assessment of the penalty. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Karen Coolman Amlong, Esquire AMLONG & AMLONG, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Suite 203 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-6053
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents committed fraud, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; failed to prepare monthly trust account reconciliations, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code; failed to account for or deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; and failed to preserve books and accounts, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent Maria L. Nuevo (Respondent) was a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 3006548. Respondent was first licensed, as a real estate salesperson, in Florida in 1984 and became a broker in 1986. Respondent is president of, and qualifying broker for, Respondent Realco Realty, Inc. (Realco Realty), which is a corporation registered as a real estate broker, holding license number 1011738. In late August or early September 2000, Respondent prepared a Residential Sales and Purchase Contract (Contract) on behalf of Omar Canizares, as buyer, to purchase a residence at 10620 Southwest 139th Street in Miami (Property). The Contract provided for a purchase price of $260,000 and a deposit of $1000 to be held by Realco Realty. Respondent presented the Contract to Zoila de Castro, a real estate broker who was representing Antonio and Lorraine Lambo, and Mrs. Lambo. The record is poorly developed on these points, but it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Lambo jointly owned the Property and that both of them never signed the Contract. Respondent left the Contract with Mrs. Lambo because Mr. Lambo was out of town. A few days later, Ms. de Castro returned the Contract to Respondent, intending to convey a counteroffer that raised the purchase price to $265,000 and the deposit to $5000--to be paid within three days after the inspection. However, the Contract delivered by Ms. de Castro to Respondent is notable for two omissions--a signature of one of the Lambos and a deadline for Canizares' acceptance of the counteroffer. Ms. de Castro's testimony that she delivered to Respondent the only original contract with signatures of both Lambos is discredited for two reasons. First, Respondent would likely use the better version of the Contract--i.e., the one with both sellers' signatures--when providing a copy to the appraiser. Second, Ms. de Castro appears to have maintained, at best, an imperfect grasp of all that was transpiring in this attempted transaction and may be claiming to have delivered a fully signed contract--though still without a deadline for Mr. Canizares' acceptance--in order to place herself in a better light. At this point in the transaction, the lack of an enforceable agreement between Mr. Canizares and the Lambos should have been obvious to the Lambos' real estate broker, but it was not. The testimony depicts a series of unanswered letters and unsatisfied demands, as the Lambos initially tried to get the deal to close and eventually tried only to get the deposits, which they believed now totalled $5000. In fact, neither Respondent held any deposit. Although relieved from the obligation to collect another $4000 in deposit, due to the failure of the parties to come to an agreement, Respondents had misrepresented to the Lambos and Ms. de Castro that they held the initial $1000 deposit. Although Petitioner has failed to prove other fraudulent acts by either Respondent toward the Lambos or Ms. de Castro, Petitioner has proved another fraudulent act by Respondents in connection with this transaction. Exploiting Ms. de Castro's lack of diligence, Respondents appear to have shopped the Contract. On September 22, 2000, Respondent ordered an appraisal on a form showing the purchase price as $325,880. At the request of the appraiser, Respondent sent to the appraisal a copy of an altered Contract, which provided for a purchase price of $310,100 and reflected total deposits of $5000. The Lambos-Canizares sale never closed, and the Lambos never received any money representing the deposit that they claimed to be owed. Respondents opened an escrow account in September 2000, but had never performed written monthly escrow reconciliation for their trust account through the date of the audit in February 2001. Additionally, at the time of the audit, Respondents were unable to produce any documentation pertaining to their real estate practice. However, Respondents later produced banking records and reconciliations for January and February 2001, which were undoubtedly prepared after the February 2001 audit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking the real estate broker licenses of Maria L. Nuevo and Realco Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Christopher J. DeCosta Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-809 Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael H. Wolf Michael H. Wolf & Associates, LLC. 3832 North University Drive Sunrise, Florida 33322
Findings Of Fact The Department rules on the Proposed Findings of Facts and Exceptions, submitted by the parties as follows: APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Applicant's Proposed Findings numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 29 are accepted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Findings of Fact rendered by the Hearing Officer. Applicant's Proposed Finding number 22 is accepted to the extent that factual matters are discussed. However, to the extent that it suggests that "public convenience and advantage" will be promoted by establishment of the trust company, the Department rejects this conclusionary statement as inconsistent with the Department's conclusion as to this criterion based on the reasons as discussed in paragraph three (3) contained in the Conclusions of Law of the Final Order. Applicant's Proposed Finding number 25 concerning the telephone survey has been dealt with in the Hearing Officer's Finding number 13, as adopted by the Department. Applicant's Proposed Finding number 26 concerns several counter- arguments addressing contentions proposed by the Protestants. As to (1) "Concentration", (2) "Dual Banking", and (3) "Siphoning of Capital". To the extent that no significant findings of fact, if any, were premised on these contentions, there is no necessity to respond. A portion of the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact number 10, was excepted to, concerning the "concentration" argument, and will be treated below in paragraph 9. Number 4 concerning injury to existing institutions has been dealt with in the Final Order in paragraph 4 of the Conclusions of Law, as to the "reasonable promise". The Applicant's Conclusions of Law numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 are accepted. Numbers 2, 3, and 8 are rejected as contrary to the Conclusions of the Final Order. PROTESTANT'S (FLORIDA BANKERS ASSOCIATION) PROPOSED FINDINGS Protestant's Proposed Findings numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 34, and 35 are accepted to the extent that they are generally consistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings or with the Final Order. Protestant's Proposed Findings numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 are rejected to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings or with this Final Order, or are otherwise irrelevant or immaterial. APPLICANT'S EXCEPTIONS The Applicant's Exceptions numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 concern Proposed Findings that were not specifically referenced in the Hearing Officer's Report. However, they are generally consistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings and have been accepted by the Department to the extent that they are consistent with the Final Order. Exception 7, concerning Proposed Finding number 18, has been discussed above in paragraph 1. Exception 8, concerning Proposed Finding number 22, has been discussed above in paragraph 2. Exception number 9, concerning objection to portions of Finding of Fact number 10, is rejected. The first sentence of the Finding may speak in terms of "national trust business", but is viewed in terms of trust business throughout the nation. In no wise does it imply that there is a national market for personal trust business. The language should be viewed in the context of the overall finding. Exception number 10 is duly noted and reflected in the Final Order. Exception number 11 has been addressed in the Final Order in paragraph 4 of the Conclusions of Law as to "resonable promise." CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Banking and Finance and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to: Thomas J. Cardwell, Esquire, Post Office Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802; Robert A. White, Esquire, Aubrey Kendall, Esquire, and Paul Brenner, Esquire of the firm Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody and Cole, 1600 Southeast First National Bank Building, Miami, Florida 33131; Howard A. Setlin, Esquire, 1111 Lincoln Road Mall, Suite 600, Miami Beach, Florida 33139; Bruce Culpepper, Esquire, 350 East College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301; Robert Asti, Esquire, 2400 First Federal Building, Miami, Florida 33131; Richard R. Paige, Esquire, Alfred I. DuPont Building, Miami, Florida 33131; Charles Cane, Esquire, 801 Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida 33009; and G. Kenneth Kemper, Esquire, 9999 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 200, Miami Shores, Florida 33138, on this 24 day of January, 1980. FRANKLYN J. WOLLETT Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9886
Findings Of Fact The Respondent licensee, Martin County Properties, Inc., was at all times material registered with the Commission as a real estate corporate broker and the Respondent licensee, Jackson L. Smith, was at all times material registered with the Commission as a real estate broker. On May 8, 1974, the G. H. I. Inc., as purchaser, offered to purchase property described as: "132 plus or minus lots, Parcel #1, and 154 plus or minus acres, Parcel #2, in the County of Okeechobee" for a purchases price of $567,600.00 from Nachman Tevlo, et al., seller. Accompanied with this officer, the corporation submitted a $10,000.00 security deposit to be held in trust by the Respondent, Martin County Properties, Inc. In count one of the complaint, it is alleged that the Respondents failed to place that deposit in a trust or escrow account and that on December 31, 1974, Respondent Smith issued a check to the buyer for $7,700.00, which was drawn from its escrow account and that said check was returned for insufficient funds. The complaint alleges that at the time of issuing this check, the Respondent Smith overdrew the firm's escrow account by $402.80 and that by reason thereof, Respondents are guilty of failing to immediately place upon receipt the monies received from persons they dealt with as brokers in an escrow account in violation of Section 475.25(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Robert F. Cochran, Secretary-Treasurer of G.H.I., Inc., the corporate purchaser, acknowledged tendering the deposit in connection with the above referenced transaction. The proposed offer was conditioned on acceptance by two undisclosed partners of which the corporate purchaser had no knowledge of and Respondent Smith was advised to retain the deposit check until such time as the two undisclosed partners accepted the terms of the contract. Respondent Smith was unable to obtain such approval from the undisclosed partners and when the transaction fell through, Respondent returned the original deposit check within one week of the time that he advised the purchasers that the proposed offer was not accepted. Mr. Cochran had no recollection of Respondent Smith ever tendering him a check drawn in the amount of $7,700.00 as alleged in count one of the administrative complaint. (See Commission's Exhibit #1). In count five of the administrative complaint, the Commission alleges in pertinent part that Respondent Smith issued Dwight L. Clemons a check from his trust account drawn in the amount of $4,842.95, which created a deficit in his escrow account of $1,202.20. By such act, it is alleged that the Respondent failed to maintain sufficient monies in his escrow or trust bank account, monies received and entrusted to them by persons dealing with them as brokers until disbursements are properly authorized in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(i), F.S. Mr. Clemons acknowledged the transaction with Respondent Smith in which he received a return of an escrow deposit in the amount of $4,842.95 which was received in the form of a check which was returned by the bank for "uncollected funds." Mr. Clemons testified that he presented the check to the bank and knowing Respondent Smith, tendered the necessary funds to cover the deficiency and that Respondent Smith returned his money approximately one week later. (See Commission's Exhibit 2). In count six of the administrative complaint, it is alleged that William A. and Agnes Foster, as buyers, made an offer to purchase one half of a duplex in Jensen Beach, Florida, and to secure such offer, they made a security deposit of $1,000.00 to Respondent Smith. It is alleged that Respondent Smith failed to deposit the $1,000.00 in his escrow account and on October 10, 1974, he deposited only $500.00 in his account from this transaction. By reason thereof, it is alleged that the Respondent failed to immediately place in his escrow or trust bank account, upon receipt, monies etc. entrusted to him until disbursements thereof were properly authorized in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), F.S. William Foster acknowledged the subject transaction and his tender of the $1,000.00 deposit. He testified that the seller, Miriam Fell, accepted his offer on or about November 8, 1974, and that the transaction closed without difficulty. However, an examination of Martin County Properties, Inc., trust account statement for the month ending October 1, 1974, reveals that on October 10, 1974, a $500.00 credit was entered on the subject trust account and an examination of the September 4, 1975, check drawn in the amount of $1,000.00 and issued by William A. Foster revealed that the check was deposited in Martin County Properties' trust account on October 10, 1974, the same date that the $500.00 deposit appears on the October trust account statement. Count eight alleges in pertinent part that Respondent Smith received an escrow deposit of $2,500.00 from Jansje Welm, toward the purchase of the "Gideon Property" on Indian River Drive in Jensen Beach. It is further alleged that approximately eight (8) days later, without permission of Jansje Welm, Respondent issued to Martin County Properties, Inc., a check in the sum of $1,000.00 which left a balance in his escrow account of approximately $1,597.00 and that by reason thereof, Respondent Smith is guilty of failing to maintain in an escrow or trust bank account monies received from persons dealing with him as a broker, where such funds should have been kept until properly disbursed or otherwise authorized, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(i), F.S. Mrs. Welm testified that she advanced Respondent Smith, a $2,500.00 deposit to secure an offer which she was led to believe consisted of a syndication of approximately six or either others who were interested in purchasing the "Gideon Properties." The transaction did not close and as of the hearing date she had not received a refund or her escrow deposit. An examination of Respondent Martin Counties, Inc., trust account for the month ending December 31, 1974, reveals that a $2,500.00 deposit was made on approximately December 12, 1974, and that for the month ending December 31, 1974, the account was overdrawn by $402.80. This of course covers the time period in which Mrs. Welm had tendered her $2,500.00 deposit toward the "Gideon Properties" and at no time during the period December 6 through December 31, did the statement reveal that Mrs. Welm's deposit was returned. It was noted that a deposit was made during the period December 23 through 27, in the amount of $5,000.00, however, this deposit apparently failed to clear based on insufficient funds. (See, Commission's Exhibit #9). It was also noted that the $2,500.00 check issued by Mrs. Welm was honored by her bank on December 16, 1974, and that during the period in which she drew her check i.e., December 9 through December 23, 1974, the firm's trust account at no time had a balance in excess of $2,297.20. (See, Commission's Exhibit #6). In count ten it is alleged that Respondent Smith also received from his salesman, Jack K. Follrath, a check in the amount of $2,500.00 to be held in escrow toward the purchase of the Gideon Properties. This check was issued by Jerry Warwin and was made payable to the firm's trust fund. It is alleged that on January 8, 1975, Respondent Smith exchanged that check for a cashier's check at the First National Bank and Trust Company which he placed in his personal account. It is further alleged that on March 18, 1975, Warwin's attorney demanded the return of the $2,500.00 which Warwin received on June 18, 1975. By this act it is alleged that the Respondents are guilty of failure to maintain in their escrow account funds entrusted to them in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(i), F.S.; and are guilty of forming an intent, design or scheme to defraud, appropriate or otherwise convert properties entrusted to them in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), F.S. Warwin testified that while he gave the Respondents no specific instructions to place the money in an escrow account, he was led to understand that the deposit would be escrowed until the sales transaction for the property closed. He testified that after making repeated demands for the return of his deposit, first by himself and ultimately through his attorney, it was returned. Jack Follrath, a salesman for Jackson County Properties, acknowledged receipt of the $2,500.00 check from Jerry Warwin and expressed his opinion that the money was not to be deposited until sufficient escrow deposits were received to effect the closing. The check representing the deposit made by Jerry Warwin was introduced and an examination thereof reveals that it was drawn on January 5, 1975, in the amount of $2,500.00 and was paid by his bank on January 8, 1975. An examination of the firm's trust account statement reveals that on January 8 a $2,500.00 deposit was in fact made, however, on January 13 the account balance was $293.20 which was the same amount remaining in the account as of January 31, 1975. And, of course, at no time during the period of January 8 through January 31, 1975, was Mr. Warwin's $2,500.00 deposit returned. In count eleven, it is alleged in pertinent part that on February 6, 1975, Respondent Smith issued check no. 259 on his trust account made payable to Commercial Trend Development, Inc., for $750.00 and marked "refund - Carter"; that on February 18, 1975, Respondent Smith deposited from the firm's operating account $457.00 in the said trust account and that on February 23, 1975, the check for $750.00 written previously cleared, leaving a total balance of $18.20 in Respondent Smith's trust account. It is alleged that based on the foregoing, Respondents failed to maintain trust funds in their escrow account until such were properly disbursed in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(i), F.S. Roy Glancy, the real estate salesman who was involved with the Respondent in connection with the Carter transactions, testified that he intended to purchase a piece of property from the Carters which is located in the Dixie Park Subdivision of South Stuart. He acknowledged payment of the $750.00 deposit and indicated that when the transaction did not close, he received a refund of his deposit. It is alleged in count four that on July 15, 1974, Respondent Smith received a deposit of $2,200.00 to be held in trust on the purchase of property known as the "Krueger" property by C & D Contractors, which he (Smith) deposited in his escrow account; that on July 16, 1974, without the permission of C & D Contractors, issued check no. 236 from his escrow account in the amount of $900.00 payable to Martin County Properties, Inc., leaving a balance in his escrow account of $1,360.83 as of July 31, 1974, which amount represented the closing balance for the firm's escrow account for the month of July. It is further alleged that on September 6, Respondent Smith issued a check drawn on his trust account to C & D Contractors in the amount of $2,200.00 marked "deposit refund on Krueger Property" which was returned for uncollected funds. Thereafter on September 23, 1974, Respondent Smith paid C & D Contractors by cashier's check, the sum of $2,200.00 which represented the earnest money deposit placed on the Krueger property. Robert Coy, President of Coy and Deggeller Construction Co. of Stuart, Florida, testified that he made an offer to purchase the Krueger properties to Respondent Smith which offer was accompanied by an earnest money deposit of $2,200.00. Mr. Coy testified that his offer was tendered to Respondent Smith on July 16, 1974, and that when he did not receive any notification from Respondent Smith regarding whether or not his offer had been accepted, he demanded the return of the deposit which occurred during early September 1974. Commission's Exhibit #15 reveals that the $2,200.00 deposit above referred to was deposited into Respondent's trust account on the same date on which the check was drawn, i.e., July 16, 1974. (See, Commission's Exhibits #15 and #11). On that same day, a $900.00 check and/or debit was made to the account leaving a balance of $1,360.83. The firm's account statement reveals that this balance ($1,360.83) was constant throughout the period from July 17 to July 31. During the period July 17 through July 31, Mr. Coy did not receive a refund of his $2,200.00 deposit. Mrs. Betty White, the head bookkeeper of Jensen Beach Bank, the banking institution in which the Respondent Martin County Properties, Inc., maintains its trust account, testified that she provided the firm's account statements pursuant to subpoena and that the account's statements were under her custody and control, and that they were kept and maintained during the normal course of the bank's business. While the Respondent's counsel objected to the introduction of copies of the firm's trust account statements, Mrs. White creditably testified that the original of such account statements were forwarded to the firm (depositor) at the end of each month and that the bank has at its disposal, only microfilm of the originals. Based thereon, Respondent's counsel's objection to the introduction of copies was overruled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended as follows: That the Respondents be found not guilty of the allegations contained in counts one, two, three, seven, nine and eleven of the administrative complaint and, therefore, that they be dismissed. That the Respondents be found guilty of the allegations contained in counts four, five, six, eight, ten, twelve and thirteen of the administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner. That the Respondent Smith's registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker be revoked. That the Respondent Martin County Properties, Inc.'s, registration as a real estate corporate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 R. J. Randolph, Sr., Esquire R. Jerry Randolph, Jr., Esquire Randolph and Randolph, P.A. 201 East Osceola Street Stuart, Florida 33494
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida holding license number 0005609. She is 72 years of age. The money she earns as a real estate broker helps to supplement her retirement income. In the almost 40 years that she has been broker, the only complaint that has been made against her in connection with the practice of her profession is the complaint that is the subject of the instant case. Peter Rettig is a longtime acquaintance of Respondent's. He too is a Florida real estate broker. Rettig is the operating and qualifying broker for La Costa Real Estate, Inc. In September of 1993, as a favor to Rettig, Respondent agreed to act, without compensation, as Rettig's escrow agent. Thereafter, Rettig deposited trust funds received from his buyer/clients in the "Mary A. Belotto Escrow Account" (account number 3431110272) that Respondent had established at Barnett Bank. On various occasions from September of 1993, to July of 1994, Respondent, unthinkingly, appropriated a portion of these funds for her own personal use, but acted swiftly to replace the appropriated funds with her own personal funds. As a result, no one was actually harmed by her actions. During this period of time, Respondent was suffering from severe emotional distress and a resulting inability to think clearly due to the death of her husband and the subsequent death of a close friend who had provided her with needed assistance and support following her husband's death. On January 18, 1995, Edward Gruskin, an investigator with the Department, conducted an office inspection/audit of La Costa Real Estate, Inc. and the "Mary A. Belotto Escrow Account." The inspection/audit revealed that Respondent had engaged in the conduct previously described in Finding of Fact 11 of this Recommended Order and that, in addition, she had failed to prepare and sign monthly reconciliation statements for her escrow account. Respondent now realizes that she erred in engaging in such conduct and in failing to prepare and sign these reports. She has apologized for making these errors and has promised, with apparent sincerity, not to repeat them in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and fining her $250.00, issuing her a reprimand, and placing her on probation for a period of three years for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of September, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties in their proposed recommended orders: The Department's Proposed Findings 1-2. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 3. Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 4-5. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for 5c. and 5d., which have not been incorporated in this Recommended Order because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Respondent's Proposed Findings First unnumbered paragraph: To the extent that this proposed finding states that Respondent is 72 years of age and has been a real estate broker in the State of Florida for almost 40 years, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Fourth and fifth unnumbered paragraphs: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. Seventh unnumbered paragraph- First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mary A. Belotto 1571 Southeast 23rd Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
