Findings Of Fact In September of 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Kenney went to 8521 Madonna Place in Sarasota, Florida, in response to a newspaper advertisement. There they found respondent, who showed them through the house at that address, saying she was a friend of the owners who were offering it for sale. Respondent told the Kenneys that she was a registered real estate salesperson employed by Marjorie McCrory Real Estate, and gave them her card. But she said there would be no commission on any sale, because the owners were her friends and had helped her with babysitting. On October 2, 1976, the Kenneys entered into a written agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Tritschler, owners of the house respondent had shown them. By this con tract, which was received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit No. 3, the Kenneys agreed to buy the house in the event that they were able to sell their mobile home within thirty days' time and in the event that they were able to obtain financing for 80 percent of the agreed purchase price. The Kenneys were unable to obtain such financing and were also unable to sell their mobile home within thirty days of the signing of the contract. On October 5, 1976, the Kenneys drew a check to respondent's order in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), on which was written "Earnest Money-Escrow." The check was delivered to respondent. On October 6 1976, respondent endorsed the check arid deposited it in a savings account. Afterwards, she showed the Kenneys her newly acquired pass book, on which was written "Sherry Gayer, Escrow Account for Robert L. Kenney." After the Kenneys' efforts to meet the conditions of the contract proved unavailing, they demanded the return of the money they had given respondent. Her refusal resulted in litigation which was settled when the Kenneys agreed to accept five hundred dollars ($500.00), plus the interest that had accrued on the entire one thousand dollars ($1 000.00) while it had been on deposit in respondent`s account. The other five hundred dollars ($500.00) went to the Tritschlers, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Ms. Sherry L. Gayer 2116-59th Street Sarasota, Florida 33580
Findings Of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 2-4. Rejected as Conclusions of Law and not Finding of Facts. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 6. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence in that Hardage, for Respondent Benchmark, arranged the joint venture which culminated in the sale. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 9-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law and not a Finding of Fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the allegations against the Respondent, David W. Stuart, and the allegations of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, against Respondent, Benchmark Brokers of Destin, Inc., be dismissed, but that the license of Benchmark Brokers of Destin, Inc., be suspended for a period of 90 days for the violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 David L. Selty, Esquirer Executive Park, Building H, Suite 3 11 Racetrack Road, NE Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Harold Huff, Exec. Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation as a real estate salesman having been issued license number 0142776, effective August 27, 1984. Linda J. Nuccitelli is his registered employer. John Nuccitelli was respondent's former registered employer. In February, 1983, a final order was entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission which revoked the broker's license of John L. Nuccitelli. The final order was appealed, and the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, stayed the order of Real Estate Commission pending disposition of the appeal. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the order of the Real Estate Commission, and the court's mandate was issued on March 16, 1984. On April 1, 1984, respondent's license was renewed by the Department of Professional Regulation even though John Nuccitelli was named as his employer. The respondent was notified of the revocation of John Nuccitelli's license and automatic cancellation of respondent's license as a salesman, by letter from the Florida Real Estate Commission dated June 21, 1984. Prior to receipt of that letter neither the respondent nor John L. Nuccitelli were aware that the appeal process has been completed and the final order revoking Mr. Nuccitelli's broker's license had become effective. On April 16, 1984, the respondent submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), on behalf of Israel Branton, an offer to purchase certain property located at 4746 Miramar Road. The offer was set forth on a standard form entitled "Offer to Purchase and Broker's Tender." The form has a space for the signature of the broker and also has a space for the name and address of the broker. The offer to purchase designated "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as broker. Respondent signed his name in the space designated "Signature of Broker". The offer was accepted, and a HUD Standard Retail Sales Contract was executed. At the bottom of the contract is a certification to be signed by the broker. Typed in above the line stating "Name of Broker and Phone No" is "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli 305-422-0747." The line below states "By", and is signed "Louis Boatman, Jr. associate." On the Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit form, also submitted to HUD in connection with the transaction, respondent's signature is located on the line provided for the signature of the selling broker. A sales/broker's commission of $1,623.00 was paid to Anchor Realty as a result of this sale. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) On April 27, 1984, respondent submitted to HUD on behalf of Israel Branton an offer to purchase property located at 5019 Columbia Street, Orlando. As in the transaction above, "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" is named as the broker and respondent signed his name in the space provided for the signature of the broker. The certificate at the bottom of the Standard Retail Sales Contract was executed in the same manner it was on the contract for the property on Miramar, indicating "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as broker and signed by "Louis Boatman, Jr. Associate." On the Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit form submitted to HUD in connection with the transaction, respondent's signature was located on the line provided for the signature of the selling broker. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4). Israel Branton had known the respondent several years and was aware that respondent was a salesman and not a broker. Judy Sellers of Lawyers' Title Insurance Corporation, who handled the closing on the Miramar property, was aware that respondent was a salesman and John Nuccitelli was the broker for Anchor Realty. John Nuccitelli had given respondent authorization, as his agent, to sign all documents submitted to HUD on his behalf. Mr. Nuccitelli was aware that respondent was a very competent salesman with a thorough understanding of HUD paperwork and procedures. Due to the time restraints involved with HUD sales, respondent sometimes worked until midnight preparing the paperwork that had to be delivered to Tampa the next morning. To avoid having to get up before 5 a.m. to sign the documents himself, Mr. Nuccitelli told the respondent to sign: the documents for him. However, Mr. Nuccitelli was always fully informed about the transactions The Department of Housing and Urban Development has no objection to a salesman signing on behalf of a broker as long as the broker has authorized the salesman to do so. On August 2, 1984, respondent submitted to HUD, on his own behalf, an offer to purchase property located at 4777 Pleasant Valley, Orlando. Mr. Schroeder, Chief of the Loan Management and Property Disposition Branch of HUD, Tampa Office, rejected the offer noting on the document that the "OFFER MUST BE SUBMITTED BY A LISCENSED (sic) Broker." Mr. Schroeder had been informed shortly before August 2, 1984, that Mr. Nuccitelli's broker's license had been revoked and that the people who worked for him at Anchor Realty were not legally licensed. The Offer to Purchase had been signed by respondent as applicant and as broker, and it named "Anchor Realty REALTOR" as broker. Respondent indicated Anchor Realty as broker because respondent was still with Anchor Realty, and he filled out the form as he always had. However, he had not been authorized by Linda Nuccitelli to sign as the broker. Linda Nuccitelli became the licensed broker of Anchor Realty in August of 1984. Respondent did not represent to anyone that he was a broker. He never concealed the fact that he was a real estate salesman. He signed the HUD forms in the places for the broker's signature because John Nuccitelli told him that he could do so. At the same time, respondent clearly named "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as the broker. Mr. Schroeder, the HUD official who signed the contracts, was aware that John Nuccitelli was the broker. Mr. Schroeder indicated that HUD officials don't look at the signature on a form too closely but rely instead on the name that is typed in the appropriate space to determine the broker. The evidence presented established that respondent did not intend to deceive or mislead anyone and that in fact, no one was deceived or misled. Respondent has held a real estate license for about 15 or 16 years and has never had a disciplinary action filed against him until the instant complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed, that respondent be found to have violated section 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that respondent be fined $500 pursuant to section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard J; R. Parkinson, Esquire 602 East Central Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2, except last half of last sentence which is a legal conclusion. Accepted as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted as modified in Finding of Fact 5. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant and not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Respondent signed on behalf of the broker, and clearly signed by respondent as "associate." Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted By Respondent 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1, 2 and 3. 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 7. 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5 and 7. 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2.
Findings Of Fact Prestige Realty, Inc. and Anthony C. Cappello were at all times here relevant registered with the FREC as alleged. Mrs. Cappello, wife of Respondent, is a salesperson with Prestige Realty, Inc. Prestige Realty, Inc. is an Electronics Realty Associates (ERA) franchisee and actively promotes the ERA Homeowners warranty Plan which will, for a fee, warrant to pay for repairs to structure and equipment within the first year of purchase all costs over the minimum for which the policy is written. While showing prospective purchasers William and Dora Keys various properties, Mrs. Cappello told them about the ERA Buyers Protection Plan (BPP) and the Keys expressed an interest in having same, particularly if the seller would pay for it. Mrs.. Cappello has worked with the Keys for several months showing them various properties for sale. Thomas Hanrahan listed his home for sale with B & M Real Estate as listing agent at a price of $52,000 on 31 January 1977. On April 28, 1977 Mrs. Cappello obtained an offer from William and Dora Keys to purchase Hanrahan's house for $49,000. Keys had inherited some money, and after seeing the Hanrahan house which they liked, made an offer to purchase the property for $49,000 including the drapes and BPP. Inclusion of the BPP in the offer was suggested by Respondent Cappello and/or Mrs. Cappello. The fact that an offer had been received was communicated to the listing salesperson and the listing agent met the Cappellos to present the offer to Hanrahan. Respondent Cappello, who had accompanied his wife to present the offer, first discussed the contract conditions, including drapes and BPP, before revealing the offering price to Hanrahan and the listing broker's agent. When Respondent revealed the $240 premium for BPP Hanrahan remarked it was a "rip- off"; however, Respondent Cappello emphasized that the seller shouldn't mind paying this premium if the selling price of the home is right. After obtaining Hanrahan's agreement to the BPP "if the price is right', Respondent disclosed the offering price of $49,000. Hanrahan refused this offer and made a counter offer of $51,000, which was communicated to the buyers who re-countered with a $50,000 offer. At no time during these negotiations did Respondents advise Hanrahan that Prestige Realty would receive 25 percent of the premium the contract provided the seller would pay for the ERA BPP. Of the $240 premium paid for the BPP, $C0 was retained by Respondent, Prestige Realty, and the remaining $180 was forwarded to ERA. When the offer of $50,000 was presented to Hanrahan by Respondent Cappello, it was represented to be the buyers' final offer, that the ERA BPP was an essential element of the offer, and if not accepted by the seller they would find the buyers another house. The Keys never insisted to Cappello that the BPP be included in their offer, and both William and Dora Keys testified they would have paid $50,000 for the Hanrahan home without the BPP. Attempts by Hanrahan to share the cost of BPP with the buyers or discourage their insistence upon having this policy provided were rebuffed by Respondents. Following the closing the Keys were offered the option of taking a lower deductible on the BPP than $100, but after being advised the additional cost to them for a lower deductible, it was declined. Respondents and other ERA franchisees consider the BPP to be a good selling tool in the conduct of their business. In addition to the BPP, ERA offers a sellers protection plan which, if the seller lists his house with an ERA franchisee and agrees to pay for a BPP when the house is sold, will insure the seller from failure of certain equipment (less a deductible) during the period the house is listed before sale.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ezell Realty, Inc., was a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0231943 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Winfield Ezell, Sr., held real estate broker's license number 0309739 issued by petitioner and was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Ezell Realty, Inc. The firm is located at 1512 West Gore Street, Orlando, Florida. Grover Crawford was an acquaintance of Ezell who was interested in purchasing certain rental property on Coretta Way in Orlando, Florida. When he was unable to purchase the property Crawford told Ezell to let him know if anything else became available in that area. Ezell happened to own a rental house at 1121 Coretta Way which he had just purchased several months earlier in a foreclosure proceeding, and the two eventually began discussions concerning a possible sale. At all times relevant thereto, the house was rented to tenants, and Crawford intended the property to remain as investor-owned property rather than owner-occupied property. Ezell initially agreed to sell the property for $70,000 and the two entered into a contract on January 8, 1983, using this sales price. However, the lender's appraisal of the residence came in far below this figure, and the parties eventually agreed on a sales price of $55,450. A second contract for sale and purchaser was executed on June 22, 1983. Although the contract provided that Crawford would pay a cash deposit of $2,300 to be held in escrow by Ezell Realty, none was paid since Ezell was given $2,300 by the tenants of the house to make needed repairs to the property prior to the sale. This arrangement was agreeable with Crawford. The contract also required the seller (Ezell) to pay all closing coats. Therefore, Crawford was not required to pay any "up front" costs in order to buy the property. Under the terms of the second contract, Crawford was to obtain FHA financing on the property in the amount of $53,150. This type of financing is the most desirable from an investor standpoint since the mortgage can be easily transferred to another buyer for a small transfer fee without lender approval. After executing the first contract on January 8, 1983, Ezell and Crawford executed an "Addendum to Contract For Sale and Purchase" on the same date which provided in pertinent part: This contract is for the sole purpose of having the buyer obtain an assumable FHA mortgage for the seller and reconveying title to the seller. The seller hereby irrevocably assumes the said FHA mortgage from the buyer immediately after closing and the buyers hereby agree to that assumption. For this, Crawford was to receive $1,000. The parties agreed that this addendum would apply to the second contract executed on June 22, 1983. At the suggestion of Ezell, Crawford made application for a $53.150 FHA loan with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC) in Maitland, Florida, a lending institution which Ezell had done business with on a number of prior occasions. However, Ezell was not present at any meetings between Crawford and RFC. When Crawford applied for the mortgage, he indicated the property would be used for investment purposes and would not be owner-occupied. For some reason, RFC assumed the property would be owner-occupied and structured the-loan in that manner. Because of this, Crawford's down payment was slightly less than 5% of the value of the property with the remainder being financed by the institution. Had RFC treated the loan as an investor-loan, the down payment would have been increased to around 15%. Neither Crawford or Ezell advised RFC of the Addendum to the contract which required Crawford to reconvey the property to Ezell for $1,000 once the FHA mortgage was obtained. Had RFC known of this it would not have approved the loan. There was no competent evidence that such an agreement was illegal or violated any federal laws or contravened any real estate industry standard or ethical consideration. The loan was eventually approved, and a closing held on September 22, 1983. After closing, Crawford retained the property in his name with Ezell making all payments from the rent proceeds. This was consistent with an oral agreement between the two that such an arrangement would last for an indefinite period as long as the payments were current. When Crawford later received several notices from the lender stating that mortgage payments were in arrears, he hired an attorney and demanded that Ezell fulfill the terms of the Addendum. He also filed a complaint against Ezell with petitioner which precipitated the instant proceeding. After the closing, Ezell had intended for the tenants to assume the mortgage since they had expressed an interest in buying the property. However, such a sale never materialized. In July, 1984, the property was reconveyed to Ezell, and Ezell paid Crawford $1,000 as required by the Addendum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Julius L. Williams, Esq. P. O. Box 2629 Orlando, FL 32802 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact Immediately before going to work for International Land Brokers, Inc., respondent was employed as a factory worker. Earlier, he had worked as a real estate salesman, including two stretches with Property Resale Services, Inc. During respondent's original employment by Property Resale Service, Inc., he telephoned nonresident landowners and tried to persuade them to list their property for sale with Property Resale Service, Inc. Landowners who listed their property paid Property Resale Service, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, if any, in the event of sale. Respondent left the employ of Property Resale Service, Inc., because he "didn't think that they were in the business to actually sell properties." (R80) He later returned to Property Resale Service, Inc., but only after "[t]hey opened up a new . . . operation, calling people up, trying to sell property . . ." (R83). Respondent was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesman, from November 17, 1975, until May of 1976. At International Land Brokers, Inc., respondent worked from six to ten weekday evenings and sometimes Saturdays and Sundays as well. The floor of the "one and only office" (R89) occupied by International Land Brokers, Inc., measured 15 to 25 feet by 35 to 50 feet. The office was partitioned into 12 cubicles, each with a desk and a telephone. Respondent and other real estate salespersons sat at the desks and telephoned out-of-state landowners, working from a list of names they had been given. On the telephone, respondent identified himself as a real estate salesman and encouraged landowners to list their property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. After making initial telephone contact with a prospect who showed interest, respondent and the other salespersons noted interested prospects' names and addresses on slips of paper. Clerical personnel mailed packets of promotional material to these persons the next working day. The materials in these packets speak of "extensive advertising and sales promotions" conducted by International Land Brokers, Inc., in its purported efforts to sell property listed with it. Respondent was familiar with these materials because samples were posted on the walls of the cubicles respondent and other salespersons used when telephoning. After allowing time for the packet to reach its destination, salespersons followed up by making another telephone call to answer questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Landowners who agreed to list their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee, which was to be substracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When respondent began working for International Land Brokers, Inc., the advance listing fee was two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). During his employment, the advance listing fee climbed to two hundred eighty-five dollars ($285.00), and then to three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). Whenever International Land Brokers, Inc., received an advance listing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00), respondent received one hundred twenty dollars ($120.00), if he was the salesperson who made the initial telephone call and persuaded the owner to list his property. A salesperson making initial telephone contact with a prospect was known as a "fronter;" and a salesperson who called afterwards to obtain the listing was known as a "driver." Although respondent "never got any fronters commissions," (R100), he successfully solicited between 35 and 50 listings. Walter J. Pankz, a real estate broker and president of International Land Brokers, Inc., supervised respondent and the other salespersons, and monitored some of their conversations with prospects "to make sure that there wasn't heavy overdo." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, p.33. Respondent called Mrs. Joan Stevenson of Danvers, Massachusetts, two or three times before he succeeded in persuading her to mail a check to International Land Brokers, Inc., which she did on January 31, 1976. In the course of these telephone conversations, respondent told Mrs. Stevenson that properties in the vicinity of hers were generally being sold within four to six months of their listing, even though respondent knew that this was untrue. Respondent told Mrs. Stevenson that her "property is good property and that if he had to hold onto it any more than six months he wouldn't even bother taking a listing on it." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 11. Respondent inquired of Walter J. Pankz whether any of the property being listed with International Land Brokers, Inc., was being sold. Pankz answered that "we were working at a few going back in December, January" and that he personally "was working on transactions of reselling solicited properties" (Pankz's efforts resulted in the sale of exactly two parcels of real estate.) One night respondent noticed "cases of catalogs all over the place," (R108), but he does not know if they were ever mailed. Respondent testified that he thought these people were making a pretty earnest effort in trying to get the pro- perty sold, and especially when they started talking about opening up another phone operation to sell these properties . . . [T]hey kept talking about it and talking about it, but it never did materialize. On or about January 4, 1976, respondent saw a news report to the effect that petitioner "was cracking down on the advance-fee business." (R103) As early as December of 1975, respondent had heard of action by the authorities to discourage advance fee real estate operations. Although he was told by "the attorney for International Land Brokers" (R104) that "everything was above- board," (R105) respondent had ample reason to know that International Land Brokers, Inc., had no good faith "operation" for selling properties listed with it. Respondent is now employed as a real estate salesman in Tallahassee and has earned the respect of the real estate broker who employs him.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's real estate salesman's license. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September, 1977. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttman, III, Esq. Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esq. Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Robert J. Vossler, Esq. 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, violated provisions of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the Department), is the state agency responsible for licensing and monitoring real estate sales associates within the state. It is charged also with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints for violations of the law by real estate sales associates. Respondent, Caroline Mohan (Ms. Mohan), is a licensed real estate sales associate who holds License No. 3087231. She was registered as a sales associate with Coral Shores Realty (Coral Shores) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from September 12, 2005, to March 28, 2008. At all times relevant to the charges against her, Ms. Mohan was the Coral Shores sales associate who was the listing agent for Anthony Mannarino, the seller of property located at 10530 Versailles Boulevard, Wellington, Florida (the "subject property"). At closing, Coral Shores was to have received at 2.5 percent commission and pay a portion of the commission to Ms. Mohan. Dawn Campbell and Garth Smith (the buyers) entered into a Residential Sale and Purchase Contract (the Contract) to purchase the subject property from Mr. Mannarino. Pursuant to the contract, the buyers were to deposit $10,000 in an escrow account in two $5,000 installments. The Contract was signed on or about March 12, 2007. The transactions took place electronically and Mr. Smith sent Ms. Mohan a photocopy of a $5,000 check that he was supposed to have deposited, under the terms of the contract, in the account of Closings Unlimited Title Company (Closings Unlimited), but he never sent the check to Closings Unlimited. The seller asked Ms. Mohan to have the buyer use a different escrow agent, Southeast Land Title (Southeast), and so the buyer wired $5,000.00 to Southeast, but the Contract was not amended to reflect the name of the new escrow agent. A $5,000 deposit was sent to Southeast by the buyers, but they never paid the $5,000 balance due on the deposit. Mr. Smith testified the he could not make the second payment because he gave $5,000 in cash to an employee to deposit in his account so that he could make a wire transfer, but the employee took the money. On April 3, 2007, Southeast faxed a notice to Coral Shores, with an attached letter to the buyers, informing them of its intention to respond to a demand (presumably by the seller) to release the $5,000 held in escrow related to the subject property. As a result of a complaint filed by Dorothy Hoyt, a representative of Southeast, the matter was investigated and an Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Mohan personally received funds, fraudulently failed to account for those funds, and acted, without the proper license, as a broker by accepting the deposit. The Department's investigator testified that he was never able to determine if the escrow deposit was deposited at any bank, lending institution or with Dorothy Hoyt of Southeast Land Title of Boca Raton. He "believe[s] there was a wire for one deposit made, but [he] did not receive confirmation of that." Regarding his conversations with Ms. Hoyt, the investigator reported "she did state that . . . she had received - eventually received $5,000.00 and was still waiting [for] another $5,000.00 in order to have the full $10,000.00 deposit." In his report, the Department's investigator claimed that Respondent was terminated from employment by her Coral Shores broker, Ronald Cika, as a result of her misconduct in handling transactions related to the subject property. That claim was contradicted by Mr. Cika and by Ms. Mohan. Their testimony was supported by the contents of e-mails between his office and Respondent that show that she became inactive as a realtor while traveling overseas with an offer to reactivate with the same broker upon her return. Mr. Cika testified that he is aware of a lawsuit filed by Dawn Campbell related to a different address on the same street, 10526 Versailles Boulevard, but that he is not aware of any issues related to 10530 Versailles Boulevard, the subject property. Jannet Rodriguez, owner of Closings Unlimited, testified that she was never contacted and never opened a file to serve as either an escrow or closing agent for the subject property at 10530 Versailles Boulevard. She, too, is involved only in issues related to 10526 Versailles Boulevard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, dismissing the complaint against Respondent, Caroline Mohan. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent John Politis has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0069773. The last license issued to him was as a broker for Florida Mortgage & Realty Co., 1001 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At the time of the events which are the subject of this dispute, Respondent Center Associates, Inc., was a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0259310. The last license issued was at the same street address and suite number as Florida Mortgage & Realty Co. At all times, Respondent Politis has been licensed and operating as the qualifying broker, the sole officer, the sole director, and the 100 percent stockholder of Respondent Center Associates. In approximately March of 1989, Catherine P. Young, a real estate salesperson licensed in the State of Florida, was employed by the Respondents to solicit and negotiate agreements for leases of commercial shopping center space through the Respondents. For the first three or four months of that employment, Respondents paid Young an agreed salary. Thereafter, that salary agreement was cancelled, and a second agreement was entered into among Young and the Respondents. Under that new agreement any commissions resulting from Young's efforts were to be split so that Young received 80 percent of the commission and the Respondents received 20 percent of that commission. It was further agreed that Young would pay for her own travel expenses and her long distance calls, while Respondents would bear the expense of providing the office and paying for the local telephone service. During the term of that second agreement, Young negotiated several commercial lease agreements to their conclusions and received the commissions to which she was entitled. In the leasing industry, one-half of the commission is paid when the lease is signed and one-half is paid when the tenant moves into the leased premises. However, the commission is owed as of the time that the lease is executed. On or about March 2, 1990, Young terminated her employment relationship with the Respondents. On the day she left the employ of Respondents, she met with Respondent Politis and discussed with him her claim for commissions on leases already fully executed through her efforts, but which commissions had not yet been paid to Respondents. Respondent Politis agreed that she was entitled to 80 percent of the commissions which Respondents had not yet received but which had resulted from Young's efforts. Young asked Respondent Politis to put that agreement in written form, and he agreed to do so. When Young returned the following week to sign the agreement, Respondent Politis informed her that he had changed his mind and had decided that he would not pay her any more commissions since she was no longer employed by the Respondents. Young advised Respondent Politis that she was still entitled to commissions earned by her during her employment as a result of her efforts even though the commissions were not paid to Respondents until after she left their employment. In response to Young's anger that Respondents would refuse to pay her commissions which she had already earned, Respondent Politis told Young that she could sue him. Thereafter, Respondents received real estate commissions on four or five transactions where commercial leases were entered into as a result of Young's efforts. Despite Respondents being aware that Young had made a claim for her share of those commissions, Respondents failed to pay Young any portion of those commissions and failed to place the disputed commissions in escrow until their dispute was resolved. Rather, when Respondents received those commissions, Respondent Politis deposited them into the operating account of Center Associates, Inc., and used those monies to re-pay himself for loans he had made to that corporation. By letter dated February 4, 1992, Respondent Politis wrote to Petitioner advising that Respondent Center Associates was no longer in existence and would not be filing for renewal of its broker's license. Thereafter, Petitioner's records were notated to reflect that Respondent Center Associates' licensure as a real estate broker was cancelled effective March 31, 1992. Young filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent Center Associates in the Circuit Court in Broward County. Young's complaint for damages alleged that Respondent Center Associates had failed to pay her the commission to which she was entitled on one specific transaction and also alleged that Respondent Center Associates would be receiving other commissions "over the next several months" to which Young was entitled. That complaint also alleged that Respondent Center Associates had breached its contract with Young by failing to pay Young monies due to her. The non-jury trial on Young's complaint was conducted on February 24, 1993. The Final Judgment for Plaintiff entered by the Court on March 1, 1993, ordered Respondent Center Associates to pay Young the sum of $51,505.04. That Final Judgment also provided for interest on the amount of judgment at the rate of 12 percent per year. By the time the Final Judgment was entered, Respondent Politis had "dissolved" the corporation and had "cancelled" the real estate broker license of Respondent Center Associates, Inc. Neither Respondent Politis nor Respondent Center Associates has paid any monies to Young in accordance with that Final Judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Center Associates, Inc.; Finding Respondent John Politis guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint; and Suspending Respondent John Politis' license as a real estate broker in the State of Florida for a period of ten years, said suspension to be terminated and his license to be reinstated earlier upon proof that he has made restitution to Catherine P. Young. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrat
Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1987.
