The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Raymond Mangicapra is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number 0326800. FUGI is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. It holds registration number 0245691. At all times material to the instant case prior to March 5, 1992, Mangicapra was the broker of record for FUGI. On March 5, 1992, he resigned as FUGI's broker of record and its president. Approximately five months later he returned to FUGI in the capacity of a licensed broker-salesman The Angulo Transaction On or about April 26 1991, Jose Angulo, his wife Martha Salazar Angulo, and their son Carlos Angulo, signed a written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Angulo contract") to purchase from Lofts Development Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "LDC"), for $98,300.00, real property located in the Willow Wood subdivision in Palm Beach County upon which a residence was to be constructed. FUGI, through its then broker of record, Mangicapra, negotiated the sale for LDC. Mangicapra was also a part-owner of LDC and its qualifying agent. His partner was Vincent Ferri. Ferri, on behalf of LDC, signed the Angulo contract on May 2, 1991. Article II, Section C. of the Angulo contract provided, in part, as follows: Use of Mortgage Loan: Time to Make Application: Purchaser intends to pay for a portion of the Purchase Price by obtaining a permanent mortgage loan ("Mortgage Loan"). Purchaser agrees to make application(s) for such Mortgage Loan from a bona fide lending institution approved by Seller ("Mortgagee") in the amount of [$96,050.00], at applicable interest rates. Purchaser agrees to make application for such Mortgage Loan within five (5) days from execution of this Contract by Purchaser. Purchaser agrees to promptly execute all necessary documents, disclose all information within fourteen (14) days of request and pay all costs as and when requested of it by Mortgagee and/or Seller in conjunction with such application and take all other measures to aid in being approved for a Mortgage Loan, including the making of further applications for a Mortgage Loan. Failure to Obtain Mortgage Loan: Purchaser agrees that in the event Purchaser fails to qualify for such Mortgage Loan or fails to qualify for a Mortgage Loan sufficient in an amount to enable Purchaser to close after duly and promptly complying with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or Seller, Purchaser shall notify Seller of this fact, in writing, whereupon Seller may request that Purchaser make further applications for a Mortgage Loan. In the event that Purchaser fails to qualify for a Mortgage Loan with any Mortgagee after duly and promptly complying with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or the Seller, as provided above, then Seller shall, at its sole discretion, either (a) give a Mortgage Loan to Purchaser at applicable interest rates at the time such Mortgage Loan is closed for the Full Amount; or (b) transfer or otherwise assign a Mortgage Loan obtained by Seller at applicable interest rates at the time such Mortgage Loan is obtained for the Full Amount which Purchaser agrees to assume at closing in lieu of any other Mortgage Loan and for which Purchaser shall reimburse Seller for all loan closing costs, title insurance premiums and escrow balances existing at closing relative to such assumed Mortgage Loan; (c) in the instance where Purchaser is approved for a Mortgage Loan in an amount less than the Full Amount, unless otherwise prohibited by reason of government or lender regulations, take a purchase money second mortgage from Purchaser at applicable interest rates for a term not to exceed five (5) years and Purchaser shall pay all closing costs in connection with such purchase money second mortgage; or (d) return any monies paid hereunder less a sum for engineering and other expenses reasonably incurred in effecting and processing this Contract whereupon this Contract shall be terminated and the parties hereto shall be relieved of all further rights and obligations hereunder. Default by Purchaser: In the event Seller ascertains that Purchaser has failed to qualify for a Mortgage Loan due to Purchaser's failure to duly or promptly comply with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or Seller or due to failure on the part of Purchaser to supply accurate information, then any such event shall constitute default by Purchaser hereunder, entitling Seller to retain all sums paid hereunder as set forth in accordance with Article VI hereof. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Article II to the contrary or notwithstanding a subsequent mortgage disapproval by a Mortgagee, Purchaser specifically agrees that once a mortgage approval is obtained by Purchaser from one Mortgagee, the deposit monies paid by the Purchaser to Seller shall no longer be refundable. . . . Article III, Section D. of the Angulo contract provided, in part, as follows: Subject to the following provisions of this Paragraph, the estimated date of completion for the residence shall be on or about 120 days from mtg approv. . . . . In the event said Residence shall not be completed two (2) years from the date of this Contract as aforesaid, Purchaser shall have the option to cancel this Contract by giving written notice to Seller ("Cancellation Notice") within 5 days after two (2) years from the date of this Contract ("Cancellation Period") and upon such cancellation Seller shall refund to Purchaser his deposit made hereunder. Upon such Refund, all parties to this Contract shall be fully discharged and relieved from the terms and obligations hereof. Liability of Seller is limited to the Refund and in no event shall Seller be liable to Purchaser for any damages which Purchaser may sustain. In the event Purchaser does not send the Cancellation Notice within the Cancellation Period, this Contract shall remain in full force and effect and Purchaser shall not have the right to cancel this Contract unless Seller is otherwise in default of this Contract. Seller shall not be obliged to make, provide or compensate for any accommodations to Purchaser as a result of delayed completion nor shall Seller be liable for any expenses or inconveniences to Purchaser which may directly or indirectly arise from delay of delivery of possession. Article VI, Section A. of the Angulo contract addressed the subject of "Purchaser's Default." It provided, in part, as follows: If Purchaser shall fail to cure such default within such seven (7) day period, Seller shall, and does hereby have the unrestricted option to (1) consider Purchaser in default under this Contract, (2) retain all sums paid to it, whether held in escrow or otherwise, hereunder as agreed upon and liqu[id]ated damages and in full settlement of any claim for damages, and (3) terminate all rights of Purchaser under this Contract. . . . Article VII of the Angulo contract addressed the subject of "Deposit Money." It provided as follows: Seller shall at its option have the right to use the deposit money for any purposes as it deems necessary. Article VIII, Section B. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: Purchaser represents and warrants that this sale of the Property pursuant to this Contract was made by Seller's personnel and Purchaser agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Seller against any claims of real estate brokers for commissions relating to this sale. Article VIII, Section C. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: This Contract may not be assigned, sold or transferred by Purchaser without the prior written consent thereto by Seller, which consent may be withheld in Seller's sole discretion. There was no comparable provision in the contract restricting LDC's right to assign. Article VIII, Section E. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: This Contract shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives, successors and, as permitted hereunder, assigns. Addendum E to the Angulo contract, which was signed by the Angulos on April 26, 1991, and by Ferri on May 2, 1991, provided, in part, as follows: The purchaser(s) of a one or two family residential dwelling unit has the right to have all deposit fund[s] (up to 10 percent of the purchase price) deposited in an interest bearing escrow account. This right may be waived in writing by the purchaser(s). Purchaser(s) hereby waive their right to have all deposit funds (up to 10 percent of purchase price) deposited in an interest bearing escrow account. . . . First Union Group, Inc., is the agent for the Seller(s) and will be paid for his services by the Seller(s). . . . The Angulos' initial deposit was a check, which they gave to Mangicapra, made out to FUGI in the amount of $500.00. In conjunction with making this payment, they signed a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, which provided, in part, as follows: It is specifically understood that this Earnest Money deposit is to be held in First Union Group, Inc's (hereinafter First Union Group) trust account. Upon acceptance of said reservation/contract between [the Angulos] (buyer) and Lofts Development Corp. (seller), and upon clearance of said deposit, buyer agrees that First Union Group may automatically transfer to seller said Earnest Money and said Earnest Money shall be treated as purchasers['] initial investment deposit. Purchaser agrees that once said reservation/contract between buyer and seller named above is accepted by seller, and there is in effect a purchase agreement, any and all future deposits due per said purchase agreement shall be made payable directly [to] seller. If any future deposits are inadvertently made payable to First Union Group, buyer hereby gives First Union Group the right and authorization to transfer said deposit money to seller. Any deviation to the above must be in writing from buyer at the time of the reservation/contract. . . . The "automatic transfer" of deposit monies from the real estate broker holding these monies to the seller/builder, like that authorized by this signed Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, was the accepted practice in the area. Mangicapra deposited the $500.00 check he had been given by the Angulos in FUGI's interest-bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank in Delray Beach, Florida. The deposit was noted on the Angulos's ledger card. Respondents did not have the written permission of all interested parties to place the Angulos' deposit monies in such an interest-bearing account. Respondents received three other earnest money deposits from the Angulos: a check, dated May 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $700.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "May 30 check"); a check, dated June 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $700.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "June 30 check"); and a check, dated July 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $600.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "July 30 check"). The June 30 and July 30 checks were deposited in FUGI's interest- bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank and the deposits were noted on the Angulos' ledger card. The May 30 check, however, was inadvertently deposited in FUGI's general operating account at Capital Bank, instead of its escrow account, as a result of a bookkeeping error. On or about August 8, 1991, Respondents wrote a check (hereinafter referred to as "check #1395") transferring $4,800.00 from its Capital Bank escrow account to LDC. The $4,800.00 represented escrow funds being held by Respondents in connection with six different transactions. It included $1,800.00 of the $2,500.00 in earnest money deposits that Respondents had received from the Angulos. The transfer of this $1,800.00 to LDC was in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by the Angulos. Upon receiving check #1395, Ferri endorsed it back to FUGI to compensate FUGI for services it had provided LDC and for expenses FUGI had incurred in conjunction with the performance of these services. The endorsed check was deposited in FUGI's interest-bearing money market account at Capital Bank. On or about November 1, 1991, Donna Archer, who was then an employee of FUGI, sent a Verification of Escrow Deposit to Paragon Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "PMC"), from whom the Angulos were attempting to obtain a mortgage loan. Archer provided the following erroneous information in this Verification of Escrow Deposit: As Escrow Agent in the [Angulo] transaction, we are now holding the following amount in our escrow account for the above captioned transaction: $2,500.00------- total held in escrow. On or about December 26, 1991, PMC sent the Angulos the following letter advising them that their application for a mortgage loan had been conditionally approved: We are please[d] to inform you that your application for a FHA mortgage in the amount of 95,750.00 has been approved. The following items are contingencies on the loan and must be met prior to closing. Provide independent documentation of YTD income for Martha (i.e. copy of ledger signed by accountant of employer) Amendment of contract to reflect the following, contract to remain current through closing Hazard insurance policy for at least the loan amount Survey with flood certification [C]lear soil treatment guaranty Clear final inspection Proof of 10 year HOW warranty or 2/10 [h]ome buyers warranty At the time this conditional loan commitment was made, the master appraisal of the property was about to expire. Accordingly, an extension of the deadline was sought by PMC. By written agreement, dated April 26, 1992, and signed by Ferri and Jules Minker, the president of Contemporary Community Concepts Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "Contemporary"), LDC, which no longer wished to construct homes in the Willow Wood subdivision, assigned the Angulo contract to Contemporary: In consideration of the sum of $10.00 Ten Dollars lawful money of the United States, I, Vincent A. Ferri, President of Lofts Development Corporation, hereby assign without reservation or limitation and free of encumbrance, the purchase contract between Jose Antonio and Martha Salazar Angulo, his wife and Lofts Development Corporation, dated April 26, 1991 to Contemporary Community Concepts Corporation. The deposit monies indicated and due under the contract in the approximate amount of $1800.00 Eighteen Hundred Dollars, are not transferred by this agreement and remain with Lofts Development Corporation. In fact, the "deposit monies indicated and due under the contract," amounted to $2,500.00, although only $1,800.00 of that amount had been transferred to LDC. In May of 1992, upon attempting to contact Mangicapra to find out why LDC had not yet begun to work on their house, the Angulos discovered that FUGI had closed the office out of which it had been conducting its business. The Angulos brought the matter to the attention of Sharon Couglin of PMC. Couglin wrote a letter to an official at HUD to apprise the agency of the situation. A copy of the letter was sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Notwithstanding the Angulos' beliefs to the contrary, FUGI was still in business. It had simply moved to another location in Boynton Beach. (Mangicapra was not at this time, however, associated with FUGI in any way.) Minker contacted FUGI and the Angulos and advised them that the Angulo contract had been assigned to Contemporary. In his discussions with the Angulos, Minker told them that they would be given credit for the earnest money deposits that they had made. The Angulos, in turn, indicated that they wanted Contemporary to proceed with the construction of the house LDC had agreed to build for them. In accordance with the Angulos' stated desires, Contemporary proceeded with the construction of the house. As the house neared completion, the Angulos learned that the conditional mortgage loan commitment they had received was no longer valid because the master appraisal had expired. They thereupon tried to contact FUGI to explore their options. This time they were successful in their efforts to get in touch with a FUGI representative. They spoke with Denise Preziosi, who had replaced Mangicapra as FUGI's broker of record. The Angulos asked Preziosi if they could obtain a refund of their deposit monies in the event they decided that they did not want to go through with their purchase of the house. Preziosi indicated that she did not know the answer to the question and that, in any event, FUGI no longer held any of the Angulos' deposit monies. At the time she made this statement, Preziosi was under the mistaken impression that FUGI had transferred all of these monies to LDC. On or about November 25, 1992, Preziosi sent a letter to Minker, the body of which read, in part, as follows: I am in receipt of a copy of the "Agreement" between Contemporary Community Concepts Corporation and Lofts Development Corporation which Patti faxed to me yesterday. In reading this Agreement, I noticed that the amount stated as a credit to the Angulos is $1800 rather than the $2500 they did in fact pay to Lofts. I understand that you did not nor will not receive any money from Lofts but that you agreed to accept the assignment of the contract and would give them credit for their deposit. In this regard, please amend your records to reflect a credit of $2,500 as deposit monies rather than $1,800. The Angulos made their final color selections for the house in mid- December, 1992. Thereafter Minker obtained a certificate of occupancy for the house. Although Carlos Angulo, in Minker's office, signed a document prepared by Minker agreeing "to complete loan processing for a new loan and to close on [the house] when funds are made available as a result of this application, but not to exceed 60 days," 1/ when Carlos took this document home and presented it to his parents for their signature, they refused to sign it. The Angulos did not "complete loan processing for a new loan." The Angulos have not been refunded any of the $2,500.00 in earnest money deposits they have made, nor have they received any of the interest earned on these deposits. It has not been shown, however, that the Angulos are now, or were at any time previous hereto, entitled to such a refund under the provisions of their contract with LDC. The White-Hunt Transaction On or about May 3, 1990, Stacey White-Hunt signed a written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "White-Hunt contract") to purchase from LDC, for $97,000.00, real property located in the Delray Garden Estates subdivision in Palm Beach County upon which a residence was to be constructed. FUGI, through its then broker of record, Mangicapra, negotiated the sale for LDC. Ferri, on behalf of LDC, signed the White-Hunt contract on May 9, 1990. The White-Hunt contract contained provisions identical in all material respects to Article II, Section C., Article III, Section D., Article VI, Section A., Article VII, and Article VIII, Sections B., C. 2/ and E. of the Angulo contract, as well as Addendum E to the Angulo contract. (These contractual provisions are set out above.) White-Hunt's initial deposit was a check, which she gave to Mangicapra, made out to FUGI in the amount of $500.00. In conjunction with making this payment, she signed a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, which was identical in all material respects to the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by the Angulos. Respondents received one other earnest money deposit from White-Hunt. It was a check payable to FUGI in the amount of $1,000.00. The $500.00 check and the $1,000.00 check were deposited in FUGI's interest-bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank and the deposits were noted on White-Hunt's ledger card. Respondents did not have the written permission of all interested parties to place White-Hunt's deposit monies in such an interest-bearing account. On or about May 23, 1990, Respondents wrote a check transferring $6,500.00 from its Capital Bank escrow account to LDC. The $6,500.00 represented escrow funds being held by Respondents in connection with various transactions. It included the $1,500.00 in earnest money deposits that Respondents had received from White-Hunt. The transfer of this $1,500.00 to LDC was in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by White-Hunt. White-Hunt sought, but failed to qualify for, a conventional mortgage loan. Thereafter she applied for an FHA mortgage loan. By notice dated October 10, 1991, she was advised that her application had been denied. On February 7, 1992, the law firm representing White-Hunt sent a letter to Respondents, the body of which read as follows: Please be advised that I have been retained by Stacey Hunt with regard to the above- referenced Contract in order to secure a return of her deposit. I have enclosed herein copies of the deposit checks made payable to ERA First Union Group in the total sum of $1,500.00 which were provided to you on April 17, 1990 and May 8, 1990. Since Ms. Hunt has failed to qualify for a mortgage, in accordance with Paragraph (b)(2) of the Contract, this letter shall serve as formal demand for a return of any and all deposits placed with your company and any and all interest accrued thereon. In the event I am not in receipt of a check payable to Ms. Hunt on or before February 14, 1992, I will presume that you have converted these funds and proceed to undertake . . . any and all efforts to have the funds returned including, without limitation, contacting the Florida Real Estate Commission. Preziosi, on behalf of FUGI, responded by letter to the law firm. The body of her letter read as follows: In response to your letter of even date enclosed please find a copy of a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer which was signed on April 17, 1990 by Stacey Hunt. You will note that this agreement states that once a contract between buyer and seller is in effect, any deposit money given to First Union Group, Inc. will be transferred to the seller and treated as the initial investment deposit. Further, all future deposits are to be made payable to the seller. If an additional deposit was received by First Union Group, Inc., it too would be transferred to the seller. In this regard, be advised that on May 23, 1990, $1,500 that was being held by First Union Group, Inc. on behalf of Ms. Hunt was transferred to Lofts Development Corp. as per this agreement. Also enclosed is a copy of the check together with a copy of the escrow cards which represented all deposits transferred via this check. Respondents have not returned any deposit monies to White-Hunt; however, as Preziosi pointed out in her letter, well before White-Hunt had requested a refund from them, Respondents had transferred these monies to LDC in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement White-Hunt had signed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Mangicapra guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, III, IV, V, and XV of the Amended Administrative Complaint to the extent indicated above, suspending Mangicapra's license for a period of 120 days and fining him $3,000.00 for having committed these violations, finding FUGI guilty of the violations alleged in Counts VI, VIII, IX, X, and XX of the Amended Administrative Complaint to the extent indicated above, suspending FUGI's registration for a period of 120 days and fining it $3,000.00 for having committed these violations, and dismissing the remaining allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1993. 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 16th day of April, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The administratively complaint alleges that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 517,16(1)(a), F.S. by having sold notes, which were securities as defined by Section 517.02(1), F.S., which were unregistored in violation of Section 517.07, F.S., and having represented that said notes were secured by first mortgages when in fact they were not so secured in violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S., on two occasions to Joseph M. and Patricia Barton. The first sale is alleged to have occurred on June 14, 1974, in the amount of $15,000, and the other sale is alleged to hake occurred on September 29, 1973 in the amount of $5,000. The Petitioner introduced Exhibit 1 which was received and which indicates that only the common stock of Equitable Development Corporation was registered with the State of Florida, Division of Securities. The Petitioner presented no evidence relative to the alleged sale occurring on June 14, 1974. It is therefore not proven. The Petitioner called Gregory Stevens who was the sole witness at the hearing and who was a license securities salesman and licensed mortgage broker. In September 1973 Stevens was self employed doing business for Gregory Stevens, Investment Incorporated. Stevens stated that he dealt in first mortgages. Respondent testified that he obtained the mortgage documents through Financial Resources Corp., the president of which was Mr. Rinehart. Respondent was assured by Mr. Rinehart before he began handling these mortgages that they were not required to be registered as securities because they ware exempt, and that the State had so indicated for this type of transaction. Respondent testified that he sold a note and mortgage to his clients, Joseph and Patricia Barton, in his capacity as a licensed mortgage broker on behalf of Gregory Stevens Investments, Inc., of which he is president. Exhibit 10 is a sample order form for another contract which shows that such transactions were in the corporate entity. Respondent's uncontroverted testimony was that only he individually is licensed to sell securities, and that no mortgages were sold as securities. The evidence is that on September 29, 1973, a promissory note of the Equitable Development Corporation was issued to Joseph and/or Patricia Barton, secured by a Mortgage Deed issued by Equitable Development Corporation. The face amount was $5,000. The Bartons also received a quitclaim deed. The mortgage deed specifically covenants that the underlying property is free and clear of all encumbrances except current and future real estate taxes. Respondent testified that he physically examined the property which secured the mortgages and it looked good. He saw appraisals at double the face amount of the mortgages he sold. Those clients who requested title insurance or opinions of title from a lawyer could obtain same, and when they were requested he saw then and they never showed any defects or other encumbrances. This was the procedure followed with the Bartons, although neither title insurance nor a title search and opinion were obtained requested by the Bartons. The Respondent indicated that at the time of said sale to the Bartons that he believed, and had no reason not to believe, that said mortgage was a first mortgage as it recites on its face. The Hearing Officer notes that Section 517.06(7), F.S., 1973, was amended effective October 1, 1973, and the Barton transaction took place on September 29, 1973. Therefore, the applicable provision is the unamended law found at Section 517.06(7), F.S.A. Regarding the law existing at the time and its interpretation, the Respondent also introduced Exhibit 2, 4, and 5 which letters indicate that the sale of notes secured by mortgages would be exempt from registration as exempt transactions pursuant to Section 517.06(7), F.S.A., and setting forth guidelines for exempt transactions. Without dealing with the question of estoppel, these exhibits state the agency's interpretations of the then existing law. The Hearing Officer finds the agency's interpretation as set out in Exhibits 2, 4, and 5 is an accurate interpretation of the statute. The Hearing Officer finds that a note is a security as defined in Section 517.02(1), F.S. Regarding the allegation that the note sold to the Bartons was an unregistered security, it is admitted that it was not registered, however, the Respondent asserts that the sale was a transaction exempted under the provisions of Section 517.06(7), F.S.A. Having examined the note and mortgage in question, the Hearing Officer finds that the note and entire mortgage securing it were sold in a single sale to one purchaser. The note and mortgage do not indicate any expressed recourse agreement or guarantee as to repayment of interest, principal, or both offered in connection with the sale. While the Respondent could not specifically recall the Barton transaction, he testified that purchasers were generally shown the property, an assessment of the property prepared by an appraiser indicating each lot's value, and it was represented that they would receive a first mortgage securing the note on lots worth two times the value of the note. There was no showing that the Respondent knew or should have known the mortgage to the Bartons was not a first mortgage and title to the property not clear. The transaction of September 29, 1973, was exempt under the law existing at that time. The Petitioner therefore has failed to show any violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S.
Recommendation The agency having failed to show a violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S., by the Respondent and the Hearing Officer having found that the September 29, 1973 transaction was exempt recommends that the charges be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner Charles W. Musgrove, Esquire Counsel for Respondent
The Issue The Respondents have been charged with multiple violations of Chapter 494, (1987), the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to the act. The violations, described in an amended administrative complaint dated April 16, 1990, are as follows: Rule 3D-40.006(5), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to issue a statement signed by both parties, when receiving a deposit on a mortgage loan, regarding disposition of the deposit and other matters. Section 494.08(10), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(2), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to provide a written statement with a summary of limits and conditions for recovery from the Mortgage Broker Guaranty Fund. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.008(1), F.A.C.: Respondents assessed fees for credit reports, phone calls, appraisals and courier services, which fees were not supported by the files. Section 494.055(1)(0), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(4), F.A.C.: The department had to issue a subpoena for compensation records. Section 494.055(1)(g) and (p), and Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Borrowers were required to pay higher closing costs than were disclosed on the good faith estimate form. Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Respondents failed to secure executed modified mortgage loan applications from the borrowers or to return excess monies to the borrowers. Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(1), F.A.C.: Respondents accepted deposits from loan applicants but failed to obtain executed mortgage broker agreements which would disclose the cost of the loans. Sections 494.055(1)(b) and (g), and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c), and (4), F.S.: Respondents failed to disclose that they would retain both origination fees and discount points as their compensation, and failed to disclose compensation received from the lender in addition to brokerage fees assessed the borrowers on the closing statements. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S., Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c) and (4), F.S.: Respondents collected a servicing release fee from the borrowers when the Respondents were not the lender, and failed to disclose the collection. Section 494.055(1)(e), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(b)(a), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account.
Findings Of Fact Inlet Mortgage Company, Ltd. ("IMC") is a mortgage brokerage business operating under license #HB65002147500. Its place of business is 700 Virginia Avenue, Suite 105, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982. John Davis is the principal mortgage broker of Respondent IMC, operating under license #HA246700273. He has been licensed in Florida since approximately 1987, and opened his business in February 1988. As authorized by Section 494.065(1), F.S. (1987), the Department of Banking and Finance ("department") conducted an examination of the affairs of the Respondents for the time period February 1988 through June 1, 1988. The examination was completed on July 5, 1988, with a written report. At the time of the examination Respondents had closed only four loans and had another six in progress. The audit was conducted because a loan processor working for IMC had applied for her mortgage broker license, and her application seemed to imply that she was already practicing mortgage brokering. The audit cleared up this question and the processor was not found to be operating improperly. However, Timothy Wheaton, the department examiner, found other violations by IMC. When an audit or review is conducted by the department, the agency staff first interviews the person in charge to explain the review and to learn about the company. The staff then looks at the licenses, reviews files of closed and active loans, and examines books and accounts, payroll records, and the like. Generally, a sampling of loan files is selected from the broker's loan log, but in this first review all loans were reviewed, as so few existed. The staff writes a preliminary report and conducts an exit interview to let the broker know its findings. Later, a formal report is completed and provided to the broker, who has thirty days to respond. Timothy Wheaton conducted his review of IMC and John Davis at the company office in Ft. Pierce on June 3, 1988 and June 7, 1988. At some point on June 3rd, Wheaton was reviewing compensation records to determine how the broker, his partner and the loan processor were paid. Davis had checkbooks available, but the accountant had not prepared his books as the office had just opened. Wheaton had questions as to whether the checkbooks were all that was available; when he asked for the payroll records, Davis told him he would have to subpoena them. Wheaton returned on Monday with a subpoena and was given the same records as before. Davis admits that he made the demand for the subpoena. He was piqued because he was very busy when the audit staff arrived, and when he suggested they return later, he felt they wrongfully impugned his motives and accused him of hiding something. Respondent Davis has admitted to several "technical" violations or oversights in the loan files at the time of the first review. A summary of the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund was not being provided, but has been provided since the first audit. Deposits for credit report, appraisal fees and other costs were collected from the borrowers, but the files did not include a statement, signed by the borrowers, describing disposition of the funds in the event that the loan was not consummated, or the term of the agreement. After the first audit Davis has provided such a form statement and has included it in each file. On three closed loans, and one that was still pending, the files did not include documentation to support minimal (i.e., $25.00, $10.00, $6.56) fees for phone calls and courier fees, or fees were collected which exceeded the documentation in the file. Davis explained that these are charges made by the closing attorney, and the files now document those expenses. The difference between what was collected for a credit report and what was spent was returned to the borrower. (For example, $20.30 was returned to borrower, G. Stewart). In three loans closed at the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC received as compensation both the origination fee and a portion of the discount points. In the McCurdy loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($600.00), plus one half of the 1 percent discount fee ($300.00). In the Alexander loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($469.00), plus a .75 percent discount fee ($351.75). In the Stewart loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($612.00), plus 1/2 percent discount fee ($306.00). In each case, the Good Faith Estimate form provided to the borrowers disclosed the fees separately and did not break out which portion of the loan discount would be paid to the lender and which portion would be paid to IMC. The origination fee is sometimes called the broker's fee, although some banks also collect the fee when a mortgage broker is not involved. Discount points are a one-time payment to a lender to increase its yield on the loan. They are a percentage of the loan, paid up front, to reduce the interest rate over the term of the loan. These are distinctly different forms of charges to the borrower. Davis claims that he explained orally to each borrower how much compensation he would receive. The borrowers do not remember the specifics of that explanation, but rather consider the total origination fee and discount fee as their cost of the loan. They knew that the broker was going to be compensated for his services and understood that compensation would come from those fees in some unspecified manner. Davis claims that he checked with some lenders who told him that it was standard practice for part of the broker's compensation to be called a "discount" fee. He considered it a tax advantage to the borrower, as discount fees could be deductible, just as interest is deductible. During the audit, Davis discussed his compensation practice with the agency staff, who explained that, whatever it is called, the broker's compensation had to be fully disclosed to the borrower at the time of application on the Good Faith Estimate form. Between June 3rd and June 7th, Davis attempted to redisclose his compensation to the borrowers, but this resulted in unsigned disclosure forms in the file when the agency review staff returned on June 7th to complete the audit. At the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC maintained an escrow account for the deposits received from applicant/borrowers for audit reports, appraisal fees and other costs. Davis later closed his escrow account because he felt it was costing him money and because he did not consider the funds he received at the time of application to be escrow deposits. In most cases, the credit report and appraisal and other relevant services were ordered the same day as the loan application. Whether the loan was eventually consummated, the customer was still responsible for paying the charge if the services were provided. This is disclosed in a statement at the bottom of the Good Faith Estimate form and in a separate "Notice to Borrower", signed by the applicant which, since the first audit, is maintained in the loan file. According to the Notice to Borrower, if the loan is cancelled or denied, and the services have not been performed, the funds will be returned to the customer, less any cancellation charge by the appraisal or credit firm. These funds are deposits. When the escrow account was closed, Davis deposited the money for appraisals and credit report in his operating account. After services were rendered and an invoice received, he would pay the bill. Barbara Janet (Jan) Hutchersien, conducted the department's second audit of IMC in January 1990. This review covered the period from July 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. John Davis provided the boxes of loans and bank records and loan log. The auditor used the logs to review a sample of loans from each lender with whom IMC works. The bank records were used to trace funds reflected in the loan files. Ms. Hutchersien found, and noted in her examination report, that no escrow account was maintained, although deposits were received in a sample of loan applications. In the Fishman loan, which closed on 4/11/89, closing costs were disclosed by IMC as $1,822.00 on the Good Faith Estimate form dated 1/12/89, yet those costs actually amounted to $2,075.00, disclosed at closing on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Settlement form, for a difference of $253.00. In determining consistency between a good faith estimate and actual closing costs, the agency staff looks at items which are predeterminable costs. In the Fishman case, the estimate for survey was $225.00, but the actual cost was $400.00, due, according to John Davis, to an oddly-shaped lot. In two loans financed by Greentree Mortgage Corporation, IMC received a substantial fee from the lender, which fee was not disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, on the HUD Settlement form, or anywhere in writing to the borrower. File documents call these fees "discount for pricing". In the Meslin loan, closed on 8/11/89, the fee from the lender to broker was $432.00; in the Krueger loan, closed on 7/21/89, the payment was $820.00. These paybacks are called "par plus pricing", a relatively new (within the last five years) form of loan pricing. Par plus pricing allows a borrower who does not wish to pay cash at closing, but who would qualify for a higher interest rate in terms of monthly payments, to avoid paying discount points fee at closing. Instead, the lender pays the points to the broker, and the borrower gets a higher interest rate. This is contrasted with the discount point system where the borrower pays cash points at closing in return for a lower interest rate. Par plus pricing can work to the advantage to all parties: The borrower avoids a large cash outlay at closing, the lender enjoys a higher interest rate over the term of the loan, and the broker receives his money from the lender. The borrower, however, should understand his options, including the option to pay cash at closing for a lower interest rate. Davis did not disclose the payback from the lender in writing because that is the way he says he was told to handle the loan by Greentree's representative. Davis told the borrowers that he was getting his money from the lender. He did not, however, explain that the borrower would be paying a higher interest rate in return, and Roger Krueger did not understand why his loan was at 10 1/4 percent, rather than 9 3/4 percent, which he thought was the going rate at the time of closing. IMC also received funds from the lender in the Barnes loan, closed on 12/30/88. Cobb Financial Partners was the original lender, yet they paid IMC a service release fee ordinarily paid by one lender to another for release of servicing a loan. Although the fee from Cobb to IMC was not disclosed in writing to the borrowers, the Barnes' were told that the fee for IMC's services would come from the lender, rather from them. They were told, and it is disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, and on the HUD Settlement Form, that Cobb Partners Financial was paid $900.00 (1.25 percent loan discount) by the borrowers. Of this, $810.00 was returned by Cobb to IMC. John Davis concedes that Cobb, not IMC, was the lender and was not "comfortable" with how Cobb told him to handle his fee. He has not done business with Cobb since this loan and was simply trying to avoid having to charge his fee to Barnes, who had just arrived in town to become the newspaper editor. The borrowers who were the subject of the files in which the agency found violations generally did business with Davis and IMC because they thought he would get the best deal for them. They were financially unsophisticated and trusted him to represent them. They understood that he was being paid for his services and felt that he should be paid. Except for Mr. Krueger, they were generally satisfied with their mortgage rates. The mortgage broker's fiduciary responsibility is to the borrower, rather than the lender, although he must deal fairly and honestly with the lender. The service that the broker provides to the borrower is his knowledge and his ability to shop for the best product. Par plus pricing and other mechanisms by which the broker receives his fee in whole or part from the lender are not considered by the department to be a violation of standards governing the practice of mortgage brokerage, so long as the customer is fully apprised of his options and is informed of the role of those payments in the product or service they are receiving. The Barnes' and Kruegers clearly were not so apprised, nor does the record establish that the Meslins were informed, although they did not testify. Categorizing brokerage fees or compensation as "discount points" is patently misleading, as discount points are used to buy down an interest rate. When the points are diverted instead to the broker, the consumer does not receive the loan for which he has paid. John Davis admits certain technical violations, but unequivocally denies that he wilfully misled his customers or committed fraud. Since the second audit, he has restored his escrow account. He now discloses his compensation as brokers fees rather than discount points, and has learned how to disclose in writing the par plus pricing loans. In considering certain violations as "technical", and in recommending a penalty in this case, the undersigned has considered Respondents' willingness to correct the errors addressed by the department and Respondents' inexperience at the time of the first audit. Although he was involved in banking, insurance, and accounting, John Davis had not practiced mortgage brokering before moving to Florida and starting his business. In his early practice, as evidenced by his own testimony, he was willing to rely on the advice of lenders, rather than to seek guidance from his licensing authority. He misconceived his role as being jointly responsible to the borrowers and lenders with whom he worked, rather than a primary fiduciary duty to the borrowers, his clients. Although the concealment of compensation as discount points was a willful misrepresentation, the record establishes a pattern of ignorance, albeit inexcusable, rather than fraud.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered, finding that Respondents violated Sections 494.055(1)(e), (o), and (q), F.S. (1987); Sections 494.08(5) and (10), F.S. (1987); and Section 494.093(4), F.S. (1987), and imposing a penalty of $1,000.00 fine, and one year probation, with the conditions that Respondent Davis successfully complete a specified amount and type of professional short course work and undergo periodic review and supervision by the agency. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 6. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 6. Rejected as redundant. - 8. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence except as found in paragraph 6. The department was required to obtain a subpoena due to Respondents' feigned or real refusal to produce certain records. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. - 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. Rejected as immaterial. The telephone charges were incurred by the closing agent, not Respondents. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. and Rejected as unnecessary and - 48. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 49. - 52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. and Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 20. 59 - 74. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16-19. Rejected as unnecessary. The conclusion that the handling of "par plus pricing" was fraudulent is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 77. - 81. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 20 and 21. 82. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 83. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 12. 84. Adopted in paragraph 10. 85. - 89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90. Adopted in paragraph 22. 91. - 93. Rejected as unnecessary. 94. Adopted in part in paragraph 26. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 13. - 9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Liability for payment occurs when the service is rendered, as reflected in Respondent's "Notice to Borrower". Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. - 19. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 20. - 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary. - 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Included in conclusion of law number 9. Rejected as immaterial. - 33. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The terms implied that the loans would be at a discounted rate, but were not, because the "discount" (partial) went to the broker. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 Orlando, FL 32801 John O. Williams, Esquire Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee St. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Dept. of Banking & Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Rm. 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
The Issue Is Respondent, Victoria D. Wiedle, guilty of failure to account for and deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent Wiedle was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number BK-0646846, and was principal broker of Escarosa Realty. Respondent's license is still active. Janice Marlene Christian is a realtor associate. She was an independent contractor with Escarosa Realty from December 1998 until April 1999. Accordingly, Respondent Wiedle was Ms. Christian's registered broker during this time. Ms. Beverly Lewis is the mother-in-law of Ms. Christian's brother. Ms. Lewis came to Ms. Christian in February 1999 because she was interested in looking for and purchasing a house. On February 16, 1999, Ms. Christian facilitated an Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement (the Agreement) on behalf of Escarosa Realty with Ms. Lewis. The Agreement was on a form created by Formulator, a software company. "Florida Association of Realtors" appears on the face of the document. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement reads in pertinent part: RETAINER: Upon final execution of this agreement, Buyer will pay to Broker a non- refundable retainer fee of $0 for Broker's services ("Retainer"). Accordingly, Respondent was not entitled to any money as a retainer fee for broker services pursuant to this agreement. The agreement was signed by Ms. Lewis, Ms. Christian, and Ms. Wiedle and became effective on February 16, 1999. The specified termination date of the agreement was August 17, 1999. On or about February 27, 1999, Ms. Christian tendered an offer to sellers on behalf of Ms. Lewis, for property located at 107 Poi Avenue in Santa Rosa County (subject property). Pursuant to this offer, Ms. Lewis gave a $500.00 check dated February 27, 1999, to Ms. Christian as earnest money. The check is made out as follows: "Escarosa Realty Inc. Escrow". Ms. Lewis wrote in the memo section of the check that the check was escrow money for 107 Poi Terrace. The $500.00 check was deposited in Escarosa Realty's escrow account on March 1, 1999. Respondent accounted for the $500.00 check on the March 1999 monthly reconciliation statement for Escarosa Realty. The seller of the subject property made a counter- offer for a higher price which Ms. Lewis rejected. The testimony differs as to what happened next. According to Ms. Christian, Ms. Christian spoke to Respondent sometime after Ms. Lewis rejected the counter-offer about refunding the escrow money to Ms. Lewis. According to Ms. Christian, Respondent informed her that she did not have to give the escrow money back to Ms. Lewis yet because she had the buyer broker agreement. Ms. Christian further asserts that she filled out a written request on March 16, 1999, on a form entitled "EMD Request," which means earnest money deposit request, and gave it to Respondent who again asserted that the $500.00 did not need to be returned at that time because of the buyer brokerage agreement. Ms. Christian's testimony is consistent with Ms. Lewis's. According to Ms. Lewis, she talked to Ms. Christian about getting a refund of the $500.00 shortly after she rejected the counter-offer. She and Ms. Christian discussed the EMD form. She initially agreed that Respondent could temporarily maintain the escrow funds. However, when Ms. Lewis discovered that the financing she was seeking through the rural development program would take several months, she decided she wanted the money returned. Ms. Christian ended her contract with Escarosa Realty effective April 14, 1999. Because Ms. Christian was no longer at Escarosa, Ms. Lewis contacted Respondent by telephone on or about April 21, 1999. Ms. Lewis informed Respondent about the purchase offer and rejection of the counter-offer for the subject property. According to Ms. Lewis, Respondent initially told her she would return the money to her in the mail. When she did not receive it, Ms. Lewis again called Respondent and was told that the $500.00 would not be returned because of the buyer brokerage agreement was still in place. Ms. Lewis asserts that Respondent never told her any request for a refund of the $500.00 had to be in writing. Ms. Lewis then went to the Escarosa Realty office. Ms. Weidle was not there but Elnora Alexander was there. Ms. Alexander was also a realtor associate who was an independent contractor with Escarosa Realty. Ms. Lewis explained to Ms. Alexander about the circumstances of the subject property and that she wanted her earnest money back. Ms. Alexander gave a copy of the buyer broker agreement to Ms. Lewis. After going to Escarosa Realty, Ms. Lewis had numerous other telephone conversations with Respondent about the money. Respondent denies any knowledge of the Poi Terrace failed transaction until she spoke to Ms. Lewis on the phone. She also denied ever receiving the EMD request from Ms. Christian. Respondent asserts that she repeatedly told Ms. Lewis that she would return the $500.00 if Ms. Lewis would only make a request in writing, but that Ms. Lewis refused. This assertion is not credible. It is inconceivable that after all of the efforts made by Ms. Lewis to get her $500.00 returned to her, that she would refuse to make a written request for the money. In any event, there is no dispute that Ms. Lewis made verbal requests to Respondent for the return of the escrow monies. Respondent Wiedle admits that Ms. Lewis requested the money over the telephone. Further, in an April 2, 2001 letter from Respondent to the Division of Real Estate, Respondent acknowledged that Ms. Lewis asked for a refund of the money in the beginning of May and again in early June of 1999. Clearly, if Respondent Wiedle had not previously been aware of the failed Poi Terrace transaction, she was made aware of it during the telephone conversations with Ms. Lewis. Notwithstanding Respondent's assertion that the reason she did not refund the $500.00 to Ms. Lewis was that the request was not in writing, it is clear from Respondent's testimony and from a letter she wrote to Mr. Clanton, Petitioner's investigator, that she believed the $500.00 was connected to the buyer brokerage agreement, not to any offer for purchase of property. In an undated letter from Respondent Wiedle to Mr. Clanton, Respondent wrote: Dear Mr. Clanton, This is in response to your letter dated August 17th, 1999. First Beverly A. Lewis was refunded her money on August 20, 1999 check #111. Second I would like to respond to her complaint. Beverly A. Lewis signed a Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement with EscaRosa Realty, Inc. on February 16th, 1999 with it to terminate on August 17th 1999. Beverly A. Lewis knew that her deposit was a refundable deposit after the agreement is expired not before. As the Broker of this company I had no contact with Beverly Lewis until the agent Marlene Christian was asked to leave the company. If there ever was a contract for her to purchase a house then her agent Marlene Christian never informed me of nor did she ever provide any such contract. The deposit was given to me with the Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement only. Nor did her agent Marlene ever fill out the EMD refund request form requesting a refund to be given to Beverly A. Lewis. However, The result would have been the same. I asked Beverly Lewis If she had changed her mind on purchasing a house she said no she was still going to buy a house but that she knew if she didn't buy her house through Marlene at her new company that Marlene would make life very hard on her. I told her I was sorry but that is the whole purpose in the contract was to secure your buyers from just going all over the place. . . .(emphasis supplied) Respondent refunded the $500.00 to Ms. Lewis on August 10, 1999. At hearing, Respondent volunteered that there was a previous complaint against her for failing to return money she held under a buyer brokerage agreement with a former client. In that instance, the Probable Cause Panel of the Florida Real Estate Commission found no probable cause but issued a letter of guidance to Respondent.1
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, the evidence of record and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent, Victoria D. Wiedle, guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that she failed to deliver escrow money upon demand, imposing a fine of $1,000.00, and placing Respondent Wiedle on probation for a period of two years. As conditions of probation, Respondent should be required to attend a continuing education course which addresses appropriate handling of escrow funds and be subject to periodic inspections and interviews by a Department of Business and Professional Regulation investigator. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth M. Olson, Jr., is a registered real estate broker with the FREC and Active Firm Member of Olson and Associates Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker registered with the FREC. A copy of the Administrative Complaint was forwarded to the last address of Defendants registered with the FREC by certified mail numbers 4747 and 4748 and the notice of hearing was forwarded to the same address by certified mail numbers 4613 and 4614. Accordingly the Hearing Officer had jurisdiction over the Defendants and the offenses. By contract dated September 17, 1975 (Exhibit 6) Joseph J. Pillucere contracted to purchase real property from Paul L. Nave. The contract provided, inter alia, for a $500 earnest money deposit, $9500 down payment at closing with purchaser to assume existing first mortgage of approximately $28,000; and the seller taking back a purchase money second mortgage in the amount of $17,000. Thereafter, at the time scheduled for closing, the purchaser failed to produce the additional down payment required, execute the second mortgage and assume the existing first mortgage. After receiving conflicting demands from buyer and seller for the return of the earnest money deposit Defendant requested an advisory opinion from the FREC in accordance with Section 475.25(1)(c) FS. On May 13, 1976 an advisory opinion (Exhibit 5) was given by FREC to the Defendant, with copies to both parties to the contract, advising Defendant that the earnest money deposit should-be disbursed to the seller. The deposit has been disbursed to neither party to the contract.
Findings Of Fact In early July, 1972, Donald R. and Pamela S. Leininger (buyer) entered into a contract to purchase a residence through Sun Up Realty with its salesman, Bernard Zapel. The real property involved and Sun Up Realty were owned by Defendant, Norman N. Zipkin either as sole proprietor or as sole shareholder of the corporation in whose name the property was held. Disclosure of the role of Defendant as owner-seller was not an issue in these proceedings. Buyer executed two contracts for the purchase of the property both dated July 9, 1972. The first contract acknowledged receipt of $100 as a deposit with a down payment to be made of $1750 with the buyer obtaining a mortgage of $33,250. Noted on this contract are two additional payments of $650 and $1,000. All of these deposits were payable to and deposited in Sun Up Realty's Escrow Account. The second deposit receipt contract was also dated July 9, 1972 and receipt of $1750 was thereon acknowledged by seller. The sale price of $35,000 applied to both contracts. The second contract provided as terms and conditions of sale that the buyer would make an additional deposit of $1700 before closing and that buyer was to apply for, qualify, and obtain a mortgage insured by FHA. Papers to so qualify were sent to the bank but buyer never qualified for the loan. The Administrative Complaint indicates that the first document executed by the buyer provided for an FHA insured mortgage; the evidence presented was as noted above. Apparently to allow buyer additional time to qualify for the loan Defendant leased the premises to buyer pursuant to lease agreement (Exhibit 5). Although Defendant testified buyer paid him nothing while he occupied the house pursuant to this lease agreement, in his deposition (Exhibit 1) buyer presented a receipt for one month's rent paid to the seller for the premises. Buyer never qualified for the mortgage because the lending agency was never satisfied from whence the additional $1700 down payment was to come. Although no evidence was presented on this point it appears that this additional deposit was required for buyer to reach a 10 percent down payment on the price of the residence. The July 9, 1972 deposit receipt contract that was in effect with respect to this transaction provides in pertinent part: "2. An additional sum of seventeen hundred dollars ($1700) shall be deposited with Escrow Agent before closing. In the event such sum is not so deposited, Seller at his option may cancel and terminate this agreement." "3. Buyer to apply for, qualify for, and obtain a Mortgage insured by the FHA Section in an amount not less than $31,550. In the event the Buyer fails to qualify for said mortgage, all said deposit shall be returned immediately, less the cost of the credit report. "14. It is mutually agreed that the trans action shall be closed and the Buyer shall pay the balance of the first payment and execute any and all papers necessary to be executed by him for the completion of this purchase within days from the aforementioned abstract of title, or such time as shall reasonably be required by seller to make such title good, otherwise the herein named Escrow Agent is hereby directed by both Seller and Buyer to divide the monies being held by said Escrow Agent, under the terms under this Contract between the Seller and Broker herein named as hereinafter provided." "It is further agreed that in case of default by the Buyers, the Seller may at his option take legal action at law and/or in equity to enforce this Contract, in which event, the Buyer shall pay reasonable attorney fees and court costs; or else the Seller may at his option retain one half of the deposit herein paid as considera tion for the release of the Buyer by the Seller from any and all further obligations under this Contract to the Seller, which release shall be implied from such act of retention by the Seller." Buyer quit the premises in October, 1972 and thereafter demanded return of his deposit from seller. By letter from buyer's attorney (Exhibit 6) dated March 19, 1973 demand was made for return of the deposit. By letter dated March 23, 1973 (Exhibit 7) Seller denied the refund of the deposit on grounds that the buyer had breached the contract as the Buyer had qualified for and been approved for a mortgage by the Collateral Mortgage Co. The money was withdrawn from the escrow account and paid to the seller. Defendant is an attorney, mortgage broker, general contractor, developer and real estate broker. For the past decade he has devoted most of his energies toward real estate development. This is the first time charges have been preferred against him by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Findings Of Fact A Quit-Claim Deed was executed the 3rd day of March, 1975, by Bayshore 21, Inc., first party to Marc Broxmeyer an undivided 70 percent interest; Gerald Schefflan and Pearl Schefflan, his wife, an undivided 20 percent interest; and Yetta Young an undivided 10 percent interest. The deed was recorded in Official Records Book of Dade County, Florida. The deed reflects that no documentary stamp taxes were affixed to the deed. At the time of the conveyance there existed upon the property three outstanding mortgages: one in the amount of One Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,450,000) in favor of Washington Federal Savings and Loan; one in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106) in favor of Sidney Salomon, et al.; and Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($12,500) in favor of Harold Kravitz. The total consideration for the conveyance amounted to Three Million Three Hundred Forty- Two Thousand Six Hundred Six Dollars ($3,342,606). The undisputed facts of the transaction as outlined at the hearing and agreed to by the Petitioners' attorney are as follows: Prior to August 17, 1974, all the outstanding stock of a corporation known as Tepmon of Florida, Inc., (Marvin Glick, presidents and controlling person and Eugene J. Howard, secretary) was held by Sidney Salomon, Jr., Hid Salomon, III, Elliot Stein, the Estate of Preston Estep and John Soult. On or about April 17, 1974, these people entered into an agreement for purchase and sale of corporate stock with Bayshore 21, Inc., pursuant to which Bayshore 21, Inc., agreed to purchase for Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,500,000) all of the outstanding capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. At the time, Tepmon of Florida, Inc., had as its only asset a certain parcel of real property known as the Golden Strand Hotel, as shown by suit, Shoprite Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Tepmon, Inc., et al. in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 74-29983. Pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement, a closing was to be held in various stages on August 19 and 20, 1974, at which time Sidney Salomon, et al., delivered to Bayshore 21, Inc., all of the capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Bayshore 21, Inc., in turn executed and delivered at the closing a chattel mortgage in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106), the security for which there was sixty-nine (69) shares of capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., which stock represented the outstanding stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., and carried with it the ownership and control of said corporation. Also given to Sidney Salomon, et al, by Bayshore 21, Inc., at the closing was a purchase money mortgage in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106), which mortgage secured the real property known as the Golden Strand Hotel. The reason for the two separate security devices, one the chattel mortgage secured by the outstanding sixty-nine (69) shares of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., stock and the other the real property mortgage secured by the Golden Strand Hotel, was that the parties contemplated that upon Bayshore 21's acquisition of the outstanding Page 3 of 7' pages capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., Tepmon would be dissolved and completely liquidated. Mindful that such liquidation would render valueless as collateral the capital stock of Tepmon, the parties provided in a collateral security agreement, dated August 20, 1974, that the purchase money real estate mortgage would constitute the substitute collateral security for repayment of the outstanding purchase money obligation owed by Bayshore 21, Inc., to Sid Salomon, et al., effective upon the dissolution of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Subsequent to acquiring all the capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., Bayshore 21, Inc., did in fact effectuate a complete dissolution and liquidation of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Pursuant to such dissolution, the sole asset of Tepmon of Florida, Inc, the Golden Strand Hotel, should have become titled in the name of Tepmon of Florida, Inc.'s sole stockholder, Bayshore 21, Inc., in order to give effect to the validity of the purchase money mortgage. This is not what occurred however, as Sidney Salomon, et al., point out in their Cross-Claim to the aforementioned suit, the truthfulness of which assertions have been admitted by the Petitioners. The September 5, 1974 deed of conveyance of the Golden Strand Hotel from Tepmon of Florida, Inc., to Petitioners (which should have been to Bayshore 21, Inc.) contained only minimum stamps in the amount of eighty-five cents (85). As a result of the Cross-Claim in the aforementioned suit filed by Sidney Salomon, et al., against Petitioners, a stipulation and agreement was entered into resolving the matter in a manner which gave effect to the purchase money real estate mortgage given by Bayshore 21, Inc., to the Salomons. Pursuant to such stipulation, the Petitioners agreed that "the allegations made in the Cross Claim . . . are true and correct and Cross Claimants are entitled to the relief prayed for therein. Cross Defendants [Petitioners] have no defenses thereto, legal or equitable, or any kind whatsoever Pursuant to this stipulation, the Petitioners agreed to execute Quit-Claim Deeds conveying any interest they may have received in the property pursuant to the September 5, 1974 deed of conveyance from Tepmon of Florida, Inc., to Bayshore 21, Inc., the entity which was the sole stockholder of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., at the time of its dissolution and liquidation. By Quit-Claim Deeds dated January 2, 1975, Gerald and Pearl Schefflan conveyed their interest to Bayshore 21, Inc., Yetta Young conveyed her interest back to Bayshore 21, Inc., Marc Broxmeyer conveyed his interest back to Bayshore 21, Inc., and the last Board of Directors of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., comprised of Marvin Glick and Eugene Howard, also conveyed any interest that entity may have retained back to Bayshore 21, Inc. At this point Bayshore 21, Inc., finally held the title it was supposed to have acquired upon the dissolution and liquidation of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Also at this point the validity of the purchase money real estate mortgage given by Bayshore 21, Inc., to Sidney Salomon, et al., was reestablished and the parties were returned to the posture called for and required by their purchase and sale agreement dated April 17, 1974. When, on March 3, 1975, Bayshore 21, Inc., conveyed title to the Golden Strand Hotel to the Petitioners in this action, by unstamped deed, the conveyance was a voluntary conveyance. At the time of the conveyance, three outstanding mortgages encumbered the real property. Such mortgages were a One Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollar ($1,450,000) mortgage in favor of Washington Federal Savings and Loan; the One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollar ($1,880,106) purchase money mortgage in favor of Sidney Salomon, et al.; and a Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollar ($12,500) mortgage in favor of Harold Kravitz. When Petitioners took title to this real property, they took title subject to three outstanding mortgages. The Hearing Officer further in summary finds: The transactions related in the foregoing findings of fact ultimately transferred title of real property to Bayshore 21, Inc., pursuant to an agreement dated April 17, 1974. Fee simple title was then transferred from Bayshore, Inc., to Petitioners by Quit-Claim Deed dated March 3, 1975, subject to mortgage liens.
Recommendation Affirm the assessment of documentary stamp taxes made by the Respondent in this cause. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene J. Howard, Esquire 2212 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent, Loretta Woloszyk, failed to account for or deliver a security deposit received by her, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and whether or not Respondent derivatively violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that she is guilty of a breach of trust in a business transaction and, therefore, violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. Loretta Woloszyk, Respondent herein, is presently registered with the Board of Real Estate as a broker/salesperson. On or about April 15, 1977, Respondent Woloszyk entered into a deposit receipt contract executed with John F. and Jeannine M. Chrest as purchasers of a house owned by Respondent Woloszyk located at 210 North G Street, Lake Worth, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of said deposit receipt contract, John E. Knowles signed as broker for receipt of a $300 cash deposit from the Chrests as purchasers. On or about April 22, 1977, the $300 deposit was placed in the escrow account of Sunshine Estates, Inc., the corporate broker by which the Respondent was employed. The deposit receipt contract was contingent upon the buyer qualifying for a Veterans Administration (VA) mortgage loan in the amount of $26,900. The relevant portion of the contract provided as follows: VA Appraisal: It is expressly agreed that, notwithstanding any other provisions of this contract, the purchaser shall not incur any penalty by forfeiture of earnest money or otherwise be obligated to complete the purchase of the property described herein, if the contract price or cost exceeds the reasonable value of the property established by the Veterans Administration. The purchaser shall, however, have the privilege and option of proceeding with the consummation of this contract without regard to the amount of the reasonable value established by the Veterans Administration. By letter dated May 25, 1977, the Chrests were notified that the subject property was appraised at $18,750, and thus was not acceptable under the minimum property appraisal standards of the Veterans Administration. With this notification, John Chrest went to the offices of Sunshine Estates, Inc., and demanded a return of his $300 earnest money deposit. John E. Knowles, as broker in receipt of the Chrests' $300 deposit, returned the $300 deposit check to Respondent Woloszyk, who deducted $200 from the Chrests' $300 deposit based on a separate rental transaction with the Chrests on the same subject property. During the hearing, John Chrest testified that he contacted Respondent for purchase of her residence situated in Lake Worth Farms. Mr. Chrest agreed during cross-examination that he initially contacted Respondent to "buy or rent Respondent's residence". He also testified that upon receipt of the VA appraisal at an amount below the agreed upon purchase price of $26,900, he agreed to pay to Respondent rent in the amount of $150 plus a $50 security deposit, which amount was deducted from the Chrests' security deposit. The FHA-VA deposit receipt contract contains a special condition entered by and between the parties (Woloszyk and the Chrests) indicating that "Buyer will pay rental of $225 per month until closing, beginning on or before May 1, 1977. Buyer will honor rental agreement for Kenneth Johnson, tenant, from April 1, 1977, to March 31, 1978, or $80 per month rent." Based thereon, and on John F. Chrest' s admission that be agreed to the rental fee which was deducted from his deposit received by Respondent Woloszyk, the administrative charges alleged are without basis. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMEND: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED in its entirety. RECOMMEND this 6th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1979 COPIES FURNISHED: John Namey, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ms. Loretta Woloszyk 733 Husiingbird Way, Apt. #3 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued Mortgage Broker License No. 3082 on September 3, 1974 by Petitioner. Respondent conducted certain transactions under its Mortgage Broker License during the period from September, 1973 until April, 1974. Respondent found client investors who had funds which they wished to invest in mortgages which would pay a greater return in interest than the average land mortgage. The transactions involved the purchase of a promissory note from a land development corporation secured by a mortgage deed on land ostensibly owned by the developer, in which the latter reserved the right and was authorized to convey the premises to a purchaser under an installment land contract subject to the lien of the mortgage. The deed further provided that the developer would deliver to a bank as an escrow agent a copy of any such agreement for deed and a quitclaim deed which would be held in escrow unless a default was established under the mortgage deed. What the investor would receive in such cases would be the developer's assignment of an agreement for deed collateralized by the mortgage deed. The issuance of these high interest notes were for the purpose of enabling the development company to make certain improvements on the land which they were obligated to do under sales contracts. In the transactions in question, Respondent dealt through Financial Resources Corporation of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida to which he remitted the investors funds, less an amount retained for fees or commissions. The land developer/borrower would then issue the note and mortgage in the face amount of the total investment made by the investor. The detailed procedure was that when an investor inquired concerning such mortgages, Respondent would determine from Financial Resources Corporation if any were available. It was the practice of Respondent's President then to look at the land development, determine if, in fact, the land was in development and had streets and the like, and to read pertinent documents concerning the development. He would then proceed to accept the full sum of the investment from the investor pursuant to an agreement by which the investor, in consideration of the stated sum, would authorize Respondent to use its best efforts to secure collateralized promissory notes at a minimum percentage of interest on the declining balance with principal and interest payable monthly if held to maturity. Respondent would then deposit the investor's check, usually on the same day as received, and then in several days send a notice to Financial Resources Corporation authorizing it to prepare and execute a self-amortizing monthly principal and interest promissory note with quitclaim deed in the amount of the investment, together with a check representing the proceeds of the Investment less the Respondent's fee or commission, and a sum for intangible tax on the transaction. Financial would thereafter return to Respondent a copy of the note and mortgage in exchange for the funds remitted. The recorded mortgages would be sent to Respondent within a month or so thereafter. Respondent had no agreements in writing with the land developer, nor with Financial Resources Corporation. Respondent claimed that its fees for services were set by Financial Resources Corporation which usually amounted to about 12 percent of the face amount of the investment, but which was sometimes more and frequently less than that authorized under the applicable statutes and regulations. Respondent did not maintain an escrow bank account and all funds received from investors were deposited into the corporate bank account of the firm. Respondent's agreements with investors set no specific term or period of time in which the secured promissory notes were to be obtained although its president would customarily tell investors that it would take some time for the transaction to be consummated, and that they could not expect to receive the recorded mortgages right away (testimony of Mr. Montague, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-10). Respondent discontinued transactions as described above in April, 1974 because he was dissatisfied with the business. He had been informed that certain lands under some of the mortgages had not been sold until after the mortgage had been executed and that this was in violation of State law. In the fall of that year, he received a memorandum from the State Comptroller on the subject of escrow accounts, dated October 11, 1974, which warned mortgage brokers in the state concerning the practice of remitting investors' funds to land developers in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note (testimony of Mr. Montague, Respondent's Exhibit 9). In 1975,a financial examiner from Petitioner's office was sent to the office of Respondent to examine his books and records. Pursuant to that examination, it was determined that Respondent had committed various violations of Chapter 494, F.S. on certain transactions. The following findings of fact are made with respect to the transactions in question: Allegation: That Respondent took and received deposits of money from Robert E. Creighton, Hazel R. Hardesty, J. Wilfred Caron, Rose A. Hoadley, Margaret A. Gregory and Willard A. Kotthaus, in the regular course of business, and failed to immediately place such said funds in an escrow or trust account as required by Section 494.05(1) , F.S. As heretofore stated, the Respondent did not maintain an escrow trust account with respect to any of the above-stated transactions. The above- mentioned individuals had authorized Respondent to disburse the funds immediately upon receipt (testimony of Mr. Montague, Supplemented by Exhibits 3- 8). Allegation: Respondent failed to maintain adequate records in violation of Section 494.06(3), F.S., in that its files contained no written agreements on transactions with Della W. Shaw, Lantana Sheet Metal and A.C. Inc., and another transaction with Lantana Sheet Metal. The agreement between Della Shaw and Respondent, although not present in Respondent's file at the time of examination of its records by Petitioner's representative, had been executed on October 15, 1975, and presently is contained in the records of the Respondent. It had been taken out temporarily by one of Respondent's associates who also had Della Shaw as a client. Respondent had entered into two transactions with the trustee of the pension fund and profit sharing plan of Lantana Sheet Metal, one for ten thousand dollars from the pension fund and one for three thousand dollars from the profit sharing plan. At the time of these investments there were written contracts which were executed by the parties. The books and records of both the pension fund and the profit sharing fund were maintained at Respondent's office by a firm which administered both plans. The agreements pertaining to the Lantana transactions were requested and withdrawn from Respondent's files by the trustee of the Lantana funds. Consequently, they did not appear in the records of the corporation at the time of examination by Petitioner's representative (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 4; Respondent's Exhibit 10). Allegation: Respondent failed on numerous loan purchase agreements to establish the term for which the agreement was to remain in force before the return of the deposit for nonper- formance could be required by the investor, in violation of Chapter 3-3.06, F.A.C. The transactions in question did not involve applications for mortgage loan, but agreements to purchase secured promissory notes. Respondent's clients were investors/purchasers, not borrowers (testimony of Mr. Montague; Petitioner's Exh. 2-10). Allegation: Respondent charged and accepted fees or commissions in excess of the maximum allowable in violation of Section 494.08(4), F.S., and Chapter 3-3.08(3) and (4), F.A.C., on trans- actions involving Rosa Eichelberger, overcharge of $10.90, Lantana Sheet Metal, overcharge of $62.60; Lantana Sheet Metal, overcharge of $10.91; Rose A. Hoadley, overcharge of $9.10; and Margaret A. Gregory, overcharge of $9.10.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert Marriott has been a licensed real estate broker/salesman under the laws of the State of Florida, trading as Marriott Realty. In February of 1980, in his capacity as a real estate broker/salesman, Respondent obtained an offer to purchase commercial property in Miami from Orlando Villacis, a resident of Ecuador, as purchaser, for a total purchase price of $500,000. In conjunction with the offer, Villacis paid a $20,000 earnest money deposit to be held by Marriott Realty in escrow under the terms of the offer. Villacis' deposit check in the amount of $20,000 was deposited into the Marriott Realty escrow account on February 22, 1980. By March 11, 1980, Villacis' $20,000 had been withdrawn, leaving an escrow account balance of $40. This fact was never reported to Villacis. Having heard nothing definite from Respondent with regard to the offer, and because he spent most of his time out of the country, Villacis engaged the services of attorney Rafael Penalver. Prior to July 1980, Penalver contacted the Respondent and inquired as to the status of the offer. Each time, Respondent told him that the seller was still considering the offer. In July of 1980, Respondent told Penalver that the $500,000 offer had been rejected by the seller and recommended that Villacis present an offer for $570,000. Penalver prepared the offer in the amount of $570,000, again calling for a $20,000 earnest money deposit, which Penalver and Villacis assumed was still in the Marriott Realty escrow account. Receiving no response from Respondent on the second offer, Penalver attempted to contact Respondent by telephone on numerous occasions. When Penalver was successful, Respondent told him that the seller was reviewing the offer. In early September 1980, Respondent advised Penalver that the $570,000 offer had been rejected by the seller. By letter dated September 11, 1980, Penalver raised the offer to $600,000, set a deadline of September 19 for the acceptance of the offer, and directed Respondent to return the $20,000 immediately should the offer not be accepted. After September 19, having heard nothing from the Respondent, Penalver called him, at which time Respondent advised that the offer was being considered by the seller. Penalver then wrote a letter dated October 7, 1980, to Respondent demanding that Respondent deposit the $20,000 into Villacis' account. Again hearing nothing from Respondent, Penalver on numerous occasions attempted to contact him by telephone in order to again demand the immediate return of the $20,000 deposit. Being unsuccessful, Penalver wrote the Respondent on November 20, 1980, and January 22, 1981, both times demanding the return of the $20,000 earnest money deposit. After the letter of January 22, 1981, Respondent agreed to meet with Penalver in Penalver's office. On February 2, 1981, the Respondent and his wife met with Penalver. During that meeting, Respondent advised Penalver that the $20,000 was no longer available and that he and his wife had used the money to make mortgage payments and cosmetic improvements on their personal residence. Respondent challenged Penalver to sue him to get the money back. After discussing Respondent's position with Villacis, Penalver filed a civil action for return of the $20,000. In his Answer to the Complaint filed in that litigation, Respondent admitted that he had used the $20,000 deposit for mortgage payments and other personal household expenses and for payment of his IRS tax deficiency. Villacis obtained a Final Judgment in the civil action in the amount of $20,000 plus interest and costs on October 6, 1982. Respondent testified that he did not return the $20,000 earnest money deposit because, in approximately October 1980, Villacis verbally agreed to loan the $20,000 to Respondent. Villacis strongly denied making any offer of a loan to Respondent. The purported loan agreement would have occurred after Penalver had twice written Respondent regarding immediate return of the $20,000 and seven months after the $20,000 had disappeared from the escrow account. Further, after Penalver sent his November demand letter, Respondent wrote Villacis in December of 1980 asking that Villacis consider loaning Respondent the $20,000 in exchange for an unrecorded mortgage on Respondent's personal residence. Clearly, Respondent's testimony is not credible. As of the date of the formal hearing in this cause, the Final Judgment in favor of Villacis and against Respondent remained unpaid and Respondent had still not returned to Villacis the $20,000 earnest money deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed against him and revoking his license as a real estate broker/salesman. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 David I. Schlosberg, Esquire 525 North 27th Avenue, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33125 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
