Findings Of Fact Donald L. Stuart is a real estate broker registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. He holds license number 215732 with expiration date of 3/3/77. In the renewal application received April 3, 1975 by FREC, Stuart reported his business address to be 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida. In early August, 1976 an investigator for FREC visited the address on South Old Dixie Highway and found a vacant house with no real estate broker's sign displayed. Inquiry in the neighborhood revealed the house had been unoccupied for a considerable period of time. By Election of Rights form submitted November 26, 1976, Stuart acknowledged receipt of the Administrative Complaint by checking Block 1 in which he acknowledged having read the explanation of rights, did not dispute the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint, and requested a hearing. Notice of Hearing was forwarded by Certified Mail, to the same address, viz. 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida to which the Administrative Complaint had been forwarded.
Findings Of Fact From September 5, 1972 to and including March 31, 1974, Barclay Realty, Inc. was a corporate real estate broker and was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Kenneth Friedman was the sole acting firm member of Barclay Realty, Inc. during said period of time and was the only real estate broker involved with said corporate broker during that period of time. During the period of time from September 5, 1972 to and including March 31, 1974, Edward D. Morris, Nikki Morris, Carl Hoy, and Dennis Morris were not registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as real estate brokers or real estate salesmen and were not holders of valid registration certificates from the Florida Real Estate Commission. Michael Anthony Morris was a salesman duly registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission and an active member of the Barclay Realty, Inc. prior to his death in January, 1973. A bank account was opened in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. at the First National Bank of Bay Harbor Island, Bay Heights, Bay Harbor Island, Florida. Respondent Friedman was not authorized to sign on the operating bank account of the corporate broker. The account was opened by one Dennis Morris and others without the knowledge of the Respondent. Respondent Friedman, although the Vice President and duly registered broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a broker for the Barclay Realty, Inc. whose business address was Eden Rock Hotel, Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, did not know of and did not supervise the activities of Dennis Morris and others who were advertising for the firm and who were working selling real estate in the name of the firm. The Barclay Realty, Inc. ceased operating from its registered address prior to March 31, 1974, and was operating from another address not properly registered with the Commission, to wit: 4525 Pinetree Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. Kenneth Friedman sent a letter on March 26, 1974, notifying the Commission that he had severed affiliation with Barclay Realty, Inc. previously thereto in August, 1973. In November of 1973, Louis Franco put up the sums of $4,000 and $3,900 for the purchase of condominiums located at 18071 Biscayne Boulevard, N. Miami Beach. The checks were made payable to Barclay Realty, Inc. and given to an individual known as Dennis Morris. These checks were deposited in an escrow account opened by Dennis and Edward Morris in the First National Bank of Bay Harbor Islands. The Franco real estate transactions in question never closed nor were the deposits totalling $7,900 refunded to Mr. Franco. The Hearing Officer further finds: That Respondent Kenneth Friedman used poor judgment in failing to sever relationship with the Barclay Realty, Inc. at the death of the only registered salesman, Michael Morris, that he had not intent to defraud members of the public and no intent to allow others to defraud members of the public. He did not receive remuneration from the activities of those who perpetrated fraud in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Friedman had no actual knowledge of the opening of the bank account in the name of the Barclay Realty, Inc. nor of the fraudulent transactions of those working in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Friedman failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission when he withdrew as a member of the firm as required by the Florida Statutes and the Rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. He failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission when the corporate place of business moved from the registered place of business to another location. That Respondent Kenneth Friedman, the Vice President and the only registered broker of Barclay Realty, Inc., negligently allowed the real estate corporation to operate in such a fashion that Mr. and Mrs. Louis Franco were defrauded of some $7,900 by non-registered salesmen of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Kenneth Friedman failed to keep himself informed as to the transactions of the corporation; failed to keep records as required by the Commission; failed to keep the interest of the public in mind in dealing with those working with the Barclay Realty, Inc., thus allowing his name and license to be so used that members of the public involved in real property transactions were or could have been mislead into believing that the Barclay Realty, Inc. was being properly operated under the Statutes of the State of Florida and the Rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Findings Of Fact For purposes of the Motions to Dismiss filed by Agrico and the Department, the following findings of fact are based upon the pleadings in this case, matters to which the parties have stipulated, and DOAH Case Number 86-3618, as well as final agency action resulting therefrom: On or about August 26, 1986, Petitioners filed with the Department a petition for formal administrative proceeding which challenged the dredge and fill permit that the Department intended to issue to Agrico. The Department transmitted this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing, and it was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer as DOAH Case Number 86- 3618. Petitioners relied upon Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, to "initiate" DOAH Case Number 86-3618 as is clearly set forth in paragraph 20 of their Petition filed in that case. In their Motion for Fees and Costs at paragraph 3, Petitioners further allege, and thereby concede, that they "initiated the above styled proceeding (DOAH Case Number 86-3618)." A final hearing was scheduled to begin on April 28, 1987 in DOAH Case Number 86-3618. However by letter to the Department dated March 2, 1987, Agrico voluntarily withdrew its application for a dredge and fill permit which was the subject of that case. Thereafter, a telephone conference call was held on March 17, 1987, following which an Order Closing File was filed in DOAH Case Number 86-3618 on that same date, and jurisdiction was relinquished to the Department. The Final Order in Case Number 86-3618 was entered by the Department on May 18, 1987 which states: Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the withdrawal of permit application number 53-1093999 is GRANTED with prejudice to further Department consideration of the application, but without prejudice to the future submission of another dredge and fill application covering the same tract of land covered by application number 53-1093999. The withdrawal of permit application number 53-1093999 divests the Department of jurisdiction to proceed with consideration of (Booker Creek and Manasota's) petition. Humana of Florida, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 500 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the above-captioned case (DOAH Case Number 86-3618) is DISMISSED as moot. On July 16, 1987, Petitioners timely filed their Motion for Fees and Costs which was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer and given DOAH Case Number 87-3007F. Petitioners are each incorporated as not-for-profit corporations within the State of Florida, with principal off ices in Florida, and each having less than twenty-five full time employees, as well as a net worth of not more than two million dollars.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1987, the Petitioner, Charles Eugene Rutledge, sat for the real estate salesman examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation for the Florida Real Estate Commission. On the examination, the Petitioner's grade was 74. Passing is 75. Question 21 on the examination, worth 1 grade point, read: Which of the following would not be considered a potential determinant of housing demand? Natural increases in the population. Migration patterns of household. Net households formation. All off the above would be considered potential determinants of housing demand. The correct answer, based on the reference material that the Department of Professional Regulation told examinees and schools for examination preparation courses could be covered on the examination, is "d." The Petitioner answered "c." Question 21 is not unfairly ambiguous. The negative phrasing of the question is perhaps somewhat tricky on first reading, especially in relation to answer "d." Does selection of "d" mean the examinee believes that all of "a" through "c" are potential determinants, or does it mean the applicant believes that none of "a" through "c" are potential determinants? But reasonable exercise of logic would lead one to the former conclusion. In any event, it is clear, and the Petitioner agrees, that at least "a" and "b" are potential determinants. Use of the word "formation" in answer "c" is not unfairly ambiguous, either. It reasonably does not lead examinees to believe that household "formation" refers to a federally prohibited race or ethnic origin factor, as the Petitioner suggested in his testimony. Nor does it make any significant difference bearing on the Petitioner's selection of answer "c" whether "potential determinant of housing demand" is looked at from the perspective of a buyer or a contractor, as the Petitioner also suggested in testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and establishing his grade on the August, 1987, real estate salesman examination as 74. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 6th day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Rutledge 707 Jean Ct. Tampa, Florida 33634 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Facts stipulated to by the parties Winston Towers 600 condominium was created by Winston Capital, Inc., which still owns units for sale in the condominium. Control of the association has been relinquished by the creator/developer and turned over by it to the unit owners including joint intervenors. In May of 1983, six Michigan limited partnerships each purchased a number of units in the condominium from Winston Capital, Inc. In March of 1984, four Texas limited partnerships each purchased a number of units in the condominium from Winston Capital, Inc. The joint intervenors consist of the six Michigan limited partnerships and the four Texas limited partnerships. The number of units so purchased gives the joint intervenors, as a block, a controlling interest in the condominium association. The association is controlled by the joint intervenors, who elected two of the three directors of the association. The association hired Hall Management Company, Kent Security Services, Inc., and an unnamed cleaning company. Records of the Secretary of State reveal that among other officers of Hall Management Company are Craig Hall, President and Director, and Christine Erdody, Vice-President. The records of the Secretary of State reveal no entity known as the Hall Real Estate Group. The public records of Dade County, Florida, reveal no fictitious name affidavit for any entity trading as the Hall Real Estate Group. The records of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes reflect that Winston Towers 600 is a residential condominium, located in Dade County, Florida. The joint intervenors are not now offering and have not ever offered condominium units for sale. The joint intervenors are not now offering and have not ever offered condominium units for lease for periods in excess of five years. Winston Towers 600 Condominium Association, Inc., is the non-profit condominium association established to maintain and operate the condominium. In July, 1984, a meeting of the condominium association was held upon instructions of the developer, Winston Capital, Inc. Winston Capital, Inc., scheduled and held the condominium association meeting in July 1984, under the good faith impression and belief that the threshold requirements in Section 718.301 mandating turnover of control of the association board of directors had been met. Joint intervenors, collectively, own more than 50 per cent of the units in the condominium. Joint intervenors, as developers, did not turn over control of the condominium association in July 1984. The declaration of condominium for the condominium and the Florida Statutes grant certain rights and privileges to the developers. The joint intervenors have a substantial economic investment in the condominium. The joint intervenors desire to have the condominium operated and maintained by competent professional management so as to protect and enhance the condominium project. The annual fee being paid to Hall Management Company for management of the condominium is the same fee as had been previously paid by the developer, Winston Capital, Inc., to the prior manager, Keyes Management Company. The names of the board of directors elected to the board of administrators of the association on July 16, 1985, were Ms. Christine Erdody, Mr. James Sherry, and Mr. Joseph Pereira. Ms. Christine Erdody and Mr. James Sherry are general partners in each of the ten limited partnerships. Mr. Craig Hall is President and Ms. Christine Erdody is Vice- President. Other findings based on evidence Adduced at hearing At the turnover meeting in July of 1984, Ms. Erdody cast votes on behalf of each of the ten limited partnerships, voting once for each unit owned by all ten of the limited partnerships. There has never been a meeting of the unit owners in which the limited partnerships turned over control of the association to unit owners other than the ten limited partnerships. The ten limited partnerships have no business ventures or income producing activities other than attempting to offset expenses of operations by leasing the units owned by the limited partnerships and attempting to increase their equity in the condominium units. The units acquired by the joint intervenors were not acquired for their own occupancy. The limited partnerships, while in control of the association, employed Hall Management Company, pursuant to contract, to manage the condominium and to lease the units owned by the limited partnerships. The rental office used by the management company consists of a unit owned by one of the limited partnerships. The contract specifically requires that Hall Management Company attempt to lease those condominiums units owned by the limited partnerships. The limited partnerships have no income producing mechanism other than the disposition of condominium units owned by the listed partnerships pursuant to the contract with the Hall Management Company. A regular, normal, and common activity of each of the ten limited partnerships is to offer to lease and to enter into leases of the condominium units owned by the limited partnerships. They typically engage in this activity through their agent, the Hall Management Company. None of the ten limited partnerships have ever offered any of their units for sale. None of the ten limited partnerships have ever offered any of their condominium units for leases in excess of five years. Ultimately, all of the ten limited partnerships intend to sell all of their condominium units. There is no relationship or affiliation between the creator/developer, Winston Capital, Inc., and any of the joint intervenors. Each of the joint intervenors is a separate limited partnership. However, due to the facts that each of the joint intervenors have a common purpose, each has at least several general partners in common, each has entered into a management contract with a closely related management company, and each has acted in concert with the others in prior matters concerning the condominium facility and the association, for all practical purposes relevant to this case, the joint intervenors may be regarded as a single entity. This is true even though there is no agreement or contract between the joint intervenors requiring them to act collectively in any matter involving or affecting their vote in condominium association matters at Winston Towers 600 Condominium. In all the actions of the joint intervenors in voting their interests at association meetings, they have never thought or acted on the understanding that the joint intervenors were developers of the condominium. The unit owners other than the joint intervenors have selected one-third of the Board of Directors of the Association. The right to vote for a majority of the board of directors of the condominium association is a significant and valuable right which the joint intervenors believed they would be entitled to upon purchasing a majority of the units in the condominium. A substantial number of the purchasers of Florida condominium units are non-residents of Florida. A substantial number of purchasers of condominium units intend to rent their condominiums under leases with a duration of two years or less.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes issue a declaratory statement to the following effect: That the joint intervenors, individually and collectively, constitute concurrent and successor developers, and that as such concurrent and successor developers who collectively own more than fifty per cent but less than eighty-five per cent of the units, they are entitled to appoint two-thirds of the members of the board of administration of the condominium association. The statement should also note that the joint intervenors should comply with Section 718.3025(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by disclosing any financial or ownership interest which the joint intervenors have, if any, in Hall Management Company That the issue of whether the joint intervenors may have violated the provisions of the declaration of condominium is not a proper subject for a declaratory statement. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Arnold Belkin Apartment 912 210 - 174 Street Miami, Florida 33160 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 323301 Joseph D. Bolton, Esquire Stephen Gillman, Esquire SHUTTS & BOWEN 1500 Edward Ball Building Miami Center 100 Chopin Plaza Miami, Florida 33131 Linda McMullen, Esquire McFARLAIN, BOBO, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY P. O. Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Jr., Acting Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The Following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Rulings on findings proposed by the Division Paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Division's proposed findings are accepted and incorporated into the findings in this Recommended order. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant in part and is redundant in part. The substance of paragraph 26 is accepted with the deletion of certain redundant information. The substance of paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 is accepted with some modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy and with the deletion of certain redundant information. Rulings on findings proposed by the Joint Intervenors Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Joint Intervenors' proposed findings are accepted and incorporated into the findings in this Recommended Order. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant, subordinate, and not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are accepted. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted with additional findings for the purpose of clarity and accuracy. The substance of paragraphs 18, 19, 23, and 26 is accepted. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 are accepted. Rulings on findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are accepted in substance with the deletion of the reference to the Hall Group of real estate limited partnerships. Paragraph 11 is rejected in part because it is subordinate, in part because not supported by competent substantial evidence and in part because it is a conclusion of law. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15 are accepted in substance. Paragraph 16 is rejected because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 17 is rejected because it is irrelevant and subordinate. Paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 are accepted in substance. Paragraphs 21 and 22 are rejected because they constitute argument or conclusions of law and are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected because it is irrelevant to the issues to be decided in this case and because portions of it are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected because it is irrelevant to the issues to be decided in this case, because portions of it are not supported by competent substantial evidence, and because portions of it constitute argument or conclusions of law. Paragraph 26 is rejected because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected because it constitutes argument. Paragraph 28 is rejected because it is irrelevant and redundant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are rejected because they constitute argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 31 and 32 are rejected because they are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 33 is rejected because it constitutes argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are rejected because they are irrelevant and because they constitute argument.
Findings Of Fact The following pertinent facts are found based upon the unrefuted testimony and evidence adduced by the Petitioner, the Respondent having failed to appear to put on its case. The Respondent, George May, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 18515. His principal place of business is located at 2300 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case the Respondent was the active firm member for Commercial Equity Corporation, a corporate broker, with offices at the same address. The Respondent was also the principal officer and stockholder of Eight Villas Corporation. On July 15, 1977, Mrs. Graciela Holden approached the Respondent regarding her desire to sell an apartment complex she owned. She ultimately gave the Respondent a listing for the sale of her property described as: Lot 789, Block 19, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea according to a plat thereof recorded in plat book six, page two of the public records of Broward County, Florida, together with improvements thereon consisting of an apartment complex. Mrs. Holden had had previous real estate transactions with Commercial Equity Corporation and the Respondent, hence her reliance on the Respondent's services in this situation. She found herself in severe financial difficulty at this time and was becoming ever more delinquent on her mortgage payments on the subject property. She discussed with the Respondent the advisability and means by which she might sell that apartment complex. The Respondent recommended to her that she sell the property. On September 9, 1977, she entered into a deposit-receipt sales contract for the sale of the apartment complex to Enfo Inc., a Florida corporation. The Respondent negotiated and arranged for the contract and sale on behalf of Mrs. Holden. During the negotiation of the proposed sale the Respondent explained the details of the contract to Mrs. Holden and counseled her on the advisability of and method by which the sale could be consummated. During these negotiations and counseling sessions he became aware of her delinquent mortgage payments on the subject premises. After agreeing to the terms and conditions and entering into the contract, the seller and purchaser agreed to close the sale of the property on September 30, 1977. Errors became apparent in the preparation of certain mortgage assumption documents on the part of the purchaser, however, and therefore the mortgagee required re-submission of proper forms for assumption of the outstanding mortgage by the purchaser, which resulted in the scheduled closing being cancelled and the time for closing extended for two to three days. During the course of the negotiations with Enfo Inc., and after the contract was signed the seller and purchaser separately made requests through the Respondent to meet with each other. The Respondent, however, informed each on a number of occasions that the other party to the transaction did not wish such a meeting. In effect, then, the Respondent failed to communicate requests by either party to the other regarding their desires to have meetings to discuss terms and conditions of the proposed sale and in representing to each party that the other did not wish such a meeting, the Respondent knowingly made a false representation which was shown by the Petitioner to be material in effecting the ultimate abrogation of the contract. On September 30, 1977, the original date for closing, the Respondent advised the purchaser that the purchaser was in default on the contract because closing would not be on that previously agreed upon day and therefore the seller was declaring the contract void. Also on September 30, 1977, the Respondent informed his client, Mrs. Holden, that the purchaser did not wish to close the transaction and effect the sale. Shortly thereafter the Respondent informed Mrs. Holden that she would now likely lose the premises to mortgage foreclosure since she was three months delinquent on her mortgage payments and since she no longer had a contract of sale for the premises, on the strength of which the bank might forebear from foreclosure proceedings. The Respondent then advised Mrs. Holden that he would present her with a "new deal" to help her out of her financial predicament. On the following day, October 1, 1977, the Respondent again reminded Mrs. Holden that her loss of the premises by foreclosure was imminent and offered her a proposition whereby she would convey the subject apartment complex to the Respondent. Her equity in the premises was apparently calculated by the Respondent to be approximately $22,000. The Respondent, by way of exchange, would convey to her a single family home situated at 841 Southwest 13th Court, Pompano Beach, Florida, which he owned and in which he represented to her he had an equity of $22,000. The Respondent additionally assured Mrs. Holden that he would assist her with the mortgage payments on that house until she was able to obtain some financial stability and regular employment. The Respondent persuaded Mrs. Holden to believe that his offer was in her best interests and that in order to keep from "losing everything" she should act on his offer, which she did. As a result of these representations by the Respondent, Mrs. Holden executed a deed of conveyance of her apartment complex to Eight Villas Corporation that same day. That deed was recorded by the Respondent the next day. The Respondent in turn executed and gave to Mrs. Holden a quit-claim deed to the house known as 841 Southwest 13th Court, Pompano Beach, Florida. The Petitioner's evidence was unrefuted and demonstrates that the Respondent's statement to the purchaser, Enfo Inc., on September 30, 1977, to the effect that the purchaser was in default on the contract and that therefore the contract was going to be cancelled by the seller was made without the knowledge or consent of Mrs. Holden. Mrs. Holden at all times pertinent hereto wished to consummate and close the transaction with Enfo Inc., in order to relieve her financial problems and was not concerned with a slight delay in the original closing date. Similarly, the Respondent's statement to Mrs. Holden that the purchaser, Enfo Inc., did not wish to consummate the transaction and was therefore defaulting on the contract was also false and known by him at the time to be false. At all times pertinent hereto Enfo Inc., desired to close the transaction and had so advised the Respondent. Mrs. Holden believed the Respondent's representations in this regard and relied on his representations and guidance in her conduct of the proposed transaction with Enfo Inc., as well as the transaction with the Respondent himself. The value of the Respondent's Pompano Beach house for which he gave Mrs. Holden a quit claim deed was considerably less than Mrs. Holden's equity and value in the subject apartment complex. The conveyance of the apartment complex from Mrs. Holden to the Respondent's Eight Villas Corporation was induced by the representations of the Respondent, as the alter ego of the corporation, which he knew to be false at the time he made them. The Respondent thus fraudulently advised Mrs. Holden that it was in her best interest to transfer her property to him in exchange for one of lesser value and also falsely advised and misled her when he told her that unless she transferred her property to him in exchange for the house that she would lose the apartment complex and everything else she owned. The Respondent's real estate license which is the subject of this proceeding has already been revoked and the time for appeal of the Petitioner's final order has expired in DOAH Cases numbered 81-237 and 81-1149.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is therefore recommended that Case No. 81-1503 be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore Silver, Esquire 9445 Bird Road, Second Floor Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. George May Suite 202 2300 West Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311
