Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: Respondent, Robert E. Zimmerly (Zimmerly) is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license No. 0127833, with last known address of 500 Hinson Avenue, Haines City, Florida and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker. Respondent, Haines City Realty, Inc. (Haines City) is a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued registration No. 0146307, with its last known business address of 500 Hinson Avenue, Haines City, Florida and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a corporate real estate broker. Haines City's license is currently in an inactive status. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Zimmerly was the sole broker, of and for Haines City, and was its President. Several weeks prior to April 23, 1981, the date N. B. Willoughby (Willoughby) signed the first offer to purchase the property (offer), Zimmerly along with Barbara Costello (Costello) and Chancellor I. Hannon (Hannon) showed the property described as "Lots 230 and 233 of the Lucerne Park Fruit Association Subdivision, P1at Book 3, Page 67, Public Records of Polk County, Florida" (property), consisting of approximately 20 acres and contiguous to the city limits of Winter Haven, Florida to Willoughby, a prospective buyer, along with Ray Workman (Workman), Willoughby's associate. Costello at the time was a sales person for American Realty of Haines City, now known as American Realty of Polk County, Inc., (American Realty). Zimmerly was representing Haines City. Hannon was representing Ridge Holding Association, Inc., (seller) the owner of the property. The property had originally been listed with Haines City but presently was considered as being listed with American Realty. Subsequent to having seen the property, Willoughby instructed Zimmerly to prepare an offer to purchase, with a purchase price of $70,000, subject to the condition, among others, that the seller would obtain a special exception for a mobile home park. A deposit check for $500 was submitted along with the offer. Costello submitted the offer to Hannon for seller. Sometime around April 25, 1981, Hannon notified Costello that the seller had rejected Willoughby's offer because of the condition concerning a special exception for mobile home park. Within a day, Costello notified Zimmerly of the rejection. Zimmerly requested rejection in writing which Hannon did not furnish until May 11, 1981 due to his involvement in personal matters. Willoughby was not notified of seller's rejection of his first offer until around May 11, 1981. On April 27, 1981, after a verbal notification by Costello of rejection of Willoughby's offer, Zimmerly prepared and submitted an offer to purchase (Ridge offer) from Ridge Crest, Ltd., Agent, (This was apparently meant to be Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd.) signed by Bob Zimmerly, a general and limited partner, to seller, with a purchase price of $72,000, subject to the condition, among others, that seller furnish a letter requesting a special exception for mobile homes park. The Ridge offer was submitted to Hannon for the seller and was accepted by seller on May 5, 1981. On May 18, 1981 Willoughby submitted his second offer to purchase (second offer), with deposit, to seller through Zimmerly. The second offer was identical to the first offer except for the deletion of the condition requiring a special exception for mobile home park. Zimmerly did not advise Willoughby at this time, or at any other time material to the transaction, that Zimmerly was involved in an attempted purchase of the property through Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd. even though the Ridge offer had been accepted on May 5, 1981. Although the Ridge offer indicated a closing date of May 15, 1981, the transaction did not close for reasons not clear in the record, until May 27, 1981. The warranty deed and the mortgage deed executed on day of closing shows Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd. as the Grantee and Mortgagor, respectively. The deposits submitted with both of Willoughby's offers were timely refunded by Zimmerly. Willoughby was notified by Hannon after the closing that his second offer was rejected. On November 6, 1980, a limited partnership known as Ridge Crest Villas Ltd., was filed with the Secretary of State. The record is not clear, but apparently this limited partnership was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report and on October 14, 1981, an identical limited partnership, with the same name was filed with the Secretary of State. Both limited partnerships listed Robert E. Zimmerly as a general partner with 5 percent interest and listed Robert E. Zimmerly and Dolores J. Zimmerly as limited partners with 45 percent and 50 percent interests, respectively. Respondent Zimmerly's testimony was that: (1) he wanted a written (firm) rejection before notifying Willoughby because of previous dealings with Willoughby; (2) it is not uncommon to use limited partnerships in real estate transactions because of the availability of tax advantages when using a limited partnership; (3) he was acting for Jones and Destefano when he made the offer and purchased the property in the name of the limited partnership; (4) he intended for Jones and Destefano to own the property through the limited partnership and took a promissory note for the down payment; (5) he did not advise Willoughby of his involvement in the purchase of the property, other than in general terms "that some fellows from up north are interested" (Destefano is "from up North") because he had been taught in real estate schools, and it was his policy, not to discuss one prospective buyer's offer with another prospective buyer; and (6) it is common practice to have a "backup" offer as with Willoughby's second offer because you are never sure if a particular transaction will close. Mainly, this testimony went unrebutted by the petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes 1981) For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of Reprimand and impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 308 P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire P.O. Drawer J Lakeland, Florida 33802 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints filed pursuant to the laws of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. (Official recognition taken of Section 20.30, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes). Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesman in Florida having been issued license No. 0199126 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued Respondent was as a non-active salesman with a home address of 6312 Balboa Lane, Apollo Beach, Florida 33570. During times material, Respondent was the owner and sole stockholder of Computer Real Estate Sales, Inc. During times material, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman in association with Computer Real Estate Sales, Inc. located at 600 West Jefferson Street, Brooksville, Florida 33512. During early March, 1986, Respondent caused to be ordered a termite treatment to be performed in March, 1986 on property owned by Richard E. Atkinson (Atkinson) located at 21476 Chadfield Street in Brooksville. The subject property treated for termites was being managed by Respondent through his company, Computer Real Estate, Inc. Respondent was previously the owner of that property as well as four other rental properties that he sold to Atkinson. Respondent caused the property management account of Atkinson to be debited by the sum of $380.00 to pay for the termite treatment performed by Bray's Pest Control (Bray's). (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent failed to pay the $380.00 to Bray's for the termite treatment nor did he later credit Atkinson's property management account when he failed to pay Bray's for the termite treatment. To collect payment for the termite treatment, Bray's was forced to file a civil complaint against Respondent in county court, Hernando County. On February 25, 1987, a final judgment was entered against Respondent in the amount of $391.40 plus costs of $36.00 and interest computed at the rate of 12% from March, 1986 until paid. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5). Subsequent to entry of the judgment and despite Bray's efforts to collect the award, Respondent failed and refused to satisfy the final judgment until an initial payment was made on March 5, 1989 and the balance due was paid on July 13, 1989. Respondent's contention at hearing that he was simply stockholder and not liable for the obligations of Computer Real Estate Sales, Inc., was rejected based on a review of pleadings filed which indicated that he was sole stockholder during times material and that several contractors relied upon his representation, as owner of Computer Real Estate Services, Inc., to make payments for debts and obligations incurred by that company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 payable to the Florida Real Estate Commission within 30 days of the entry of the final order herein or Respondent's real estate license shall be revoked. In the event that Respondent pays the above referred $1,000.00 fine to Petitioner within 30 days of entry of the final order herein, Respondent's real estate license No. 019916 be placed on probation for a period of (1) one year. 2/ DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 5th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material hereto, Stanton S. Bank (Respondent) was a Florida licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0003707, with an address of Bank Enterprises, Inc., 1959 NE 148th Street, North Miami, Florida 33131. Respondent was initially licensed in or around the mid-1970s. On or about April 17, 1992, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida charged Respondent by Information with a felony, which was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 92- 0233-CR-KEOE, for filing a false 1985 Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1). Respondent falsely represented his distributive share of income from a corporation called Aqua Shield, Corp. On or about June 29, 1992, Respondent entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office on the charge, agreeing, inter alia, to plead guilty to the Information. No promises regarding sentencing were made to Respondent in the agreement. On or about September 16, 1992, Respondent pled guilty to the criminal offense and was sentenced as follows: suspended sentence and three years probation with special conditions, among them, performing 100 hours of community service and paying the cost of prosecution, not to exceed $2,000. Approximately 28 days later, on or about October 14, 1992, Respondent informed Petitioner of his conviction of the felony. In 1978, Respondent and Robert "Bud" Smith (Smith) formed a business called Aqua Shield Corp. which was engaged in the business of painting and waterproofing. Smith was the President, owning 51 percent of the stock, and Respondent was the Treasurer, owning 49 percent. Respondent's main responsibility was developing the business, whereas Smith controlled the payroll and handled most of the financial matters. By 1978, Respondent was no longer actively involved in real estate but kept his license active. Subsequently, in 1979 Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a general contractor. His contractor's license was not needed for the work performed by the business. Also, very little of the business was construction related. Aqua Shield employed a certified public accountant, Glenn Lapides (Lapides), whose services Smith had used in his prior business. Smith and Lapides developed a scheme whereby the salaries of Smith, Respondent and employees of the business would periodically be paid in cash, instead of by check. Smith would selectively choose certain checks that the business received for services rendered and take them to Lapides who, in turn, would give Smith cash, after deducting nine percent for himself (Lapides). Smith would then pay himself, Respondent and the employees' wages in cash. On some occasions, after Smith selected the checks, Respondent would take the checks to Lapides and exchange them for cash. Respondent knew that the scheme was illegal. In December 1988, a U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent, investigating Lapides, visited Aqua-Shield Corp. The IRS agent had no knowledge of the scheme. Immediately after the agent's visit, Respondent informed Smith that the illegal activity had to stop. Shortly thereafter, Respondent began to cooperate with the IRS and convinced Smith to do the same, with both fully cooperating throughout the investigation. For almost four years Respondent provided documents and testimony to the IRS. Smith cooperated until his death from cancer. Respondent resigned from Aqua-Shield Corp. in 1990. During the IRS investigation, Respondent filed amended tax returns and paid the IRS in interest and penalties approximately $40,000 to $45,000. Even though Respondent was charged in the Information for filing a false 1985 federal tax return, his 1986 and 1987 returns were also false. Presently, Respondent actively uses his general contractor's license. He operates a highrise waterproofing business, restoring homes and buildings damaged by Hurricane Andrew. The business is licensed to operate through his contractor's license which is the sole license for the business. Respondent employs approximately 42 people on a full-time basis. As his probation has not expired or been terminated on his criminal conviction, he and his business are being monitored by the federal government. Even though Respondent also continues to maintain an active real estate broker's license and an office at the location listed on his license, he does not engage in the real estate business and has no sales persons. The prosecuting Assistant United States Attorney in the federal criminal action supports and recommends leniency toward Respondent regarding the discipline of his license due to the considerable cooperation of Respondent with the criminal investigation. No prior disciplinary action has been taken against either Respondent's real estate broker's license or construction license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: Suspending Respondent's real estate broker license for one year, with the suspension being stayed provided Respondent completes a two-year probation under terms and conditions that Petitioner deems appropriate. Imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 28th day of December 1993.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a state certified general real estate appraiser should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Administrative Complaint filed on March 5, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In 1994, Respondent, James M. Milliken, Jr., was licensed as a state registered appraiser, having been issued license no. RI-0001148 by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Real Estate Appraisal Board (Board). As such, Respondent could perform appraisal services under the supervision of a licensed or certified appraiser. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a registered appraiser by Gulf/Atlantic Valuation Services, Inc., in Sarasota, Florida. His supervisor was Alan C. Plush, a state certified general appraiser. After the events herein occurred, Respondent obtained his licensure as a certified general appraiser. His most recent license number is 0002351, also issued by the Board. Respondent also held a real estate license during this period of time, but it was inactive when the alleged misconduct occurred. Pursuant to a change in state law, all registered appraiser licenses automatically expired on November 30, 1994. Renewal notices were sent by the Board to each licensee approximately sixty to ninety days before that date. Unless a licensee renewed his license by the expiration date, he was unable to lawfully "operate" as an appraiser. The evidence shows that Respondent's registration expired on November 30, 1994, and it was not renewed until March 9, 1995, after Respondent had sent a check and application to the Board, and his registration was then renewed. Therefore, between December 1994 and when the license was renewed, he was not authorized to have his name appear on an appraisal report or operate as an appraiser. Respondent later applied for licensure as a certified general appraiser. As a part of that process, he was required to provide evidence of appropriate experience obtained as a registered appraiser. To establish his experience, Respondent provided, among other things, copies of two appraisals he performed in December 1994. Those appraisals have been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Respondent's name is found on both documents as being one of the appraisers preparing the reports. As a part of a routine, random audit to verify Respondent's experience to qualify as a certified general appraiser, a Board analyst reviewed his file and discovered that the above two appraisals had apparently been performed when Respondent's registration had expired. This prompted an investigation. During the course of the Board investigation, a Board investigator interviewed Respondent, who acknowledged that he had performed the two appraisals in question, one dated December 9, 1994, and the other dated December 15, 1994. Thereafter, an administrative complaint was issued. At hearing, Respondent indicated that when his registration expired on November 30, 1994, he was attempting to secure a date from the Board on when he could be examined for licensure as a certified general appraiser. Because he did not want to pay a fee for both his current registration and the new licensure, he delayed sending in his registration renewal application and check. When Respondent could not get a satisfactory date for the examination, he forwarded a check to the Board in February 1995 to renew his registration. Respondent contended that he was under the impression that there was a grace period in which he could renew his registration without having his license expire. Testimony at hearing established, however, that no such grace period existed. Respondent also contended that the Board failed to prove that he prepared the reports since his signature does not appear on either document copy. However, his name, title, and license number are typed on the front page of each report, and witness Plush established that Respondent's signature would only appear on the original copy sent to the client, while copies retained by the appraiser's office are customarily unsigned. Further, his supervisor confirmed that Respondent actively participated in the two projects, and as noted above, Respondent acknowledged to an investigator that he worked on both reports. Finally, in seeking a new license, Respondent represented to the Board that he had prepared the two reports. It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that at least a portion of the appraisal work for the two reports in question was performed by Respondent prior to November 30, 1994, when his registration was still active. Even so, the remainder of the work was completed after his registration had expired. By doing so, Respondent operated as an appraiser without being registered. Both reports make reference to the fact that they were prepared in conformity with "all regulations issued by the appropriate regulatory entities, regarding the enactment of Title XI of the Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)." It is fair to assume, then, that the two matters are federally related transactions within the meaning of the law. Each of the two evaluations exceeded one million dollars. Without offering a specific citation, the Board analyst "believed" that the threshold under the federal law in 1994 was $150,000.00, and that any federally related transaction exceeding that value required the use of a state licensed appraiser. If this is correct, Respondent had to be licensed in order to perform appraisal services on the two subject properties. In mitigation, it is noted that this is the first time Respondent has ever been subject to disciplinary action by the Board. In addition, no member of the public or user of the reports suffered harm by virtue of the violation. The violation also appears to be somewhat minor, and there is only one count in the complaint. Finally, Respondent is presently a law student attending school on student loans, and he will suffer financial hardship as a result of the imposition of a fine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 475. 626(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that he be given a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 J. Murray Milliken, Esquire Post Office Box 174 Floral City, Florida 34436-0174 James Kimbler, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Under the Administrative Complaint filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission there were five counts containing allegations against Bartley C. Johnson, Anthony Johnson, Barry P. Rifkin, and Flag Realty, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Flag). Prior to the commencement of the hearing, all allegations against Anthony Johnson were dropped by the Florida Real Estate Commission. The issues raised under the five counts of the Administrative Complaint were as follows: Whether Barry P. Rifkin and Flag were guilty of negligence and breach of trust in a real estate transaction by violating a duty imposed upon them by law and the terms of a listing contract by allowing Bartley C. Johnson to handle a closing and prepare a closing statement reflecting the erroneous proration of taxes, and failing to refund the excess taxes upon demand by the Sanchez's contrary to 475.25(1)(a), F.S. Whether Bartley Johnson failed to account for and deliver upon demand personal property in the form of money which he had in his possession and which was not his property or was not property which he was entitled to retain contrary to 475.25(1)(c), F.S. Whether Barry P. Rifkin and Bartley Johnson were guilty of fraud and concealment by not revealing to the Sanchez's that Bartley Johnson was a licensed real estate salesman contrary to the provision of 475.25(1)(a), F.S. Whether Barry P. Rifkin and Flag were found guilty of misconduct by the Florida Real Estate Commission warranting suspension of their licenses on August 8, 1975. Whether Barry P. Rifkin and Flag if found guilty of counts one and three, would be guilty of a second offense warranting suspension of their registration and have demonstrated a course of conduct and practices which show that they are incompetent, negligent, dishonest and untruthful and that money, property, transactions and rights of investors are those with whom they may sustain a confidential relationship may not be entrusted to them whereupon their registrations should be revoked pursuant to 475.25(3), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Barry P. Rifkin is a registered real estate broker as stipulated by Counsel for Rifkin and Counsel for the Commission. Bartley Johnson is a licensed real estate salesman as stipulated by Bartley Johnson and Counsel for the Commission. Flag Realty, Inc. is a registered real estate broker corporation as stipulated by Counsel for Flag and Counsel for the Commission. At no time has Bartley Johnson been employed by or working for Barry P. Rifkin or Flag. About February 11, 1974 Vince Zarra, a salesman for Flag Realty, Inc. entered into an exclusive right of sale contract with Mr. and Mrs. Armando J. Sanchez (hereinafter referred as Sanchez) to sell certain real property located in Putnam County. Subsequently, on or about April 29, 1974 Bartley Johnson and his wife, Dorothy M. Johnson, signed a deposit receipt contract to purchase the aforesaid property from Sanchez for $12,000. Said contract for purchase was negotiated by Vince Zarra, salesman for Flag Realty, Inc. Prior to July 16, 1974, Vince Zarra arranged for a closing in the real estate transaction described above between Bartley C. Johnson and Sanchez. This closing was to take place on July 16, 1974 in the office of Flag Realty., Inc. Vince Zarra was not present at the closing and made no arrangements for Flag to be represented at the closing but did advise a secretary at the Flag office to expect the arrival of the parties. Bartley Johnson arrived at the closing first and obtained certain data from the files of Flag from their secretary. Subsequently, the Sanchez's arrived at the Flag office, unaware that Zarra was not going to be present at the closing. The Sanchez's were greeted by Johnson and shown certain papers related to the closing. These papers indicated a purchase price of some $600 less than the contract price of $12,000. This $600 reduction was represented by Johnson to be the Sanchez cost of filling certain portions of the property. The Sanchez's did not agree to the reduction in the contract price but demanded and received the full $12,000 contract price. The Sanchez's had had prepared by an out-of-town attorney a proposed closing statement which prorated the various costs of the transaction to include the real property taxes. Johnson controverted the proration of the real estate taxes as presented in the proposed closing statement. Johnson attempted to determine the tax assessment for 1974 on the real property in question. Sanchez although not in agreement with the proration of the taxes, but, in an effort to conclude the closing, accepted proration of the taxes in accordance with the figures provided by Bartley Johnson. Rifkin arrived at the Flag office after Bartley Johnson and the Sanchez's. Upon his arrival, Rifkin was made aware that the Johnsons and Sanchez's were closing on their real estate transaction and that Vince Zarra was not present. Rifkin introduced himself to the Sanchez's and Johnson, who he already knew, and advised the parties that he was available if they needed him. He subsequently wrote checks from Flag's account necessary to complete the transaction; however, he did not participate in the closing. Although Rifkin had known Bartley Johnson and Anthony Johnson, his son, Rifkin did not know that Bartley Johnson was a licensed real estate salesman. Johnson did not advise the Sanchez's of the fact that he was a licensed real estate salesman until after the closing. Within days after the closing, Sanchez began to make inquiries as to what the actual 1974 taxes were. He eventually determined that the proration of the taxes at the closing were incorrect, whereupon he made demands upon Johnson and Zarra for a refund of the excess taxes he had been assessed at closing. At the time of the final hearing in this cause Sanchez had not received a refund of the excess taxes assessed at closing. Bartley Johnson asserted at hearing that the property purchased was not as represented by the Sanchez's and that he had advised them by letter that he was willing to reconvey to them their property in return for his money. However, because of the misrepresentations he would not repay them the taxes. Exhibit A, an Order of Dismissal and Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission, was presented as a joint exhibit of the Florida Real Estate Commission, Barry P. Rifkin and Flag. The Order of Dismissal states in pertinent part: "It is, therefore, ORDERED, that the above information be, and the same is hereby dismissed."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds the allegations contained in counts two, three, four and five unfounded and recommends that they be dismissed; and further the Hearing Officer finds that the allegations contained in count one were proven; however, the fact that Barry Rifkin was present and did offer his services if needed must be considered in mitigation together with the fact that the parties did tacitedly agree to the disbursement of the funds as presented in the closing statement. Based upon the factors in mitigation, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the registration of Barry P. Rifkin and Flag Realty not be suspended but that they be required to refund the excess taxes paid by the Sanchez's. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of August, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Barry D. Schreiber, Esquire 2020 Northeast 163rd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Bartley C. Johnson Ethel Birmingham 655 Northeast 123rd Street Miami, Florida 33162 Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue Whether Richard H. White violated Section 475.25 (1)(a), and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Richard H. White is a registered real estate salesman. White was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. for over one year as a listing representative or closer. He received commissions for his work from International Land Sales Chartered, Inc. The testimony and depositions introduced by the Florida Real Estate Commission against White indicate that the deponents and witness were called by an individual who identified himself as Ed or Bill White or Mr. White, an employee of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. This caller represented that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. could sell the individuals' property in Florida, that the sales of real property in Florida were booming, that there were foreign investors interested in purchasing Florida real estate, and that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would advertise their property for sale in a catalogue which was distributed to real estate brokers in the United States and overseas. The caller further represented that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would sell the property through its advertising effort. No evidence was introduced that any of these representations were false. There were no representations made by the caller that the caller had made sales, that there were prospects already interested in the individuals' property, or that the property was worth a given price based upon similar sales by the caller. White testified that he had seen the catalogue prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and that to the best of his knowledge, these were distributed to brokers in the United States and overseas. There is evidence in the record to support the fact that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. prepared listings and distributed them to brokers. There is no evidence in the record that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. did not produce such a catalogue. Mr. White stated that Mr. Shackett, the broker for International Land Services Chartered, Inc., told him that there had been sales, but discouraged White's further inquiry by telling him that he had been hired to obtain listings and was not entitled to any commission from sales and that matters relating to sales was none of his business. White's testimony was supported by the testimony of others who received similar responses from Mr. Shackett. The testimony of White and others was uncontroverted. The only evidence that Richard White was the caller who contacted the witnesses called against him, was the caller's use of the last name White and the testimony of Richard White that he was the only person named White working for the company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Richard H. White as a real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Oliver, Esquire Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ronald L. Fried, Esquire 2699 S. Bayshore Drive Suite 400C Miami, Florida 33133
