Findings Of Fact Respondent, Benny Isaiah, holds real estate broker's license number 0311124 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Greater Realty of Orlando, Ltd., Inc., is a real estate broker corporation and holds license number 0223392 also issued by petitioner. When the events herein occurred, its offices were located at 66408 International Drive, Orlando, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Isaiah operated as the qualifying broker for Greater Realty. On or about November 2, 1982, Isaiah's wife, Dalia, a real estate salesman in respondent's fir, obtained an offer from Arthur Zimand to purchase a residence located at 9227 Bay Point Drive, Orlando, Florida, for $190,000. The residence was owned by Tran Van Don, a former Vietnamese army officer. In the contract for sale and purchase, Zimand established a closing date of February 1, 1983. He also gave respondent's firm a $2500 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Greater Realty which was placed in the appropriate escrow account as required by law. The contract provided that "(i)f the offer is not executed by both of the parties on (a date specified therein), the . . . deposit(s) shall be, at the option of the Buyer, returned to him and this offer shall thereafter be null and void." The above offer was presented to the seller and rejected. Thereafter, Don prepared a counter-offer on November 9, 1982, which increased the sales price to $205,000 and changed the closing date to November 30, 1982. After reviewing the counter-offer, Zimand agreed to all changes except the closing date of November 30, 1982. He could not agree to that date since he was unable to obtain sufficient funds to close the transaction until December 10, 1982. Accordingly, Zimand crossed out the closing date suggested by the seller, wrote in December 10, 1982, in its place, and initialed the change on the contract. The later closing date was unacceptable to the seller and he did not accept Zimand's counter-offer. Therefore, no contract was executed by the parties. Respondents were so notified by the seller's attorney by letter sent on November 23, 1982. The letter advised them that the seller would not accept the closing date of December 10, and that accordingly no contract between the two parties existed. On November 24, 1982, Zimand wrote respondent's wife a letter in which he withdrew his offer and requested a prompt refund of his $2500 deposit. On December 3 and 11, 1982, respectively, Zimand and Don executed a "release of deposit receipt" wherein both parties instructed respondents to disburse the deposit held in escrow to Zimand. By signing the release form, the seller acknowledged that he had no interest in the deposit monies. The document was mailed to respondents on January 11, 1983. This was followed by a letter to Isaiah from Zimand's attorney on January 25, 1983, again requesting a refund of the deposit within ten days. Despite these requests, Isaiah did not refund the deposit. On or about December 8, 1982, Isaiah withdrew the $2500 from his escrow account. The disposition of those funds is not known. Zimand later instituted a civil action against Isaiah seeking to recover his deposit. He also filed a complaint with petitioner. On May 9, 1984, or just before the matter went to trial, Isaiah returned the deposit to Zimand. This was some seventeen months after Zimand first requested a refund of his deposit. Isaiah contends there was a valid contract between Zimand and Don, and that they used a "technicality" (a dispute over closing dates) to get out of closing the transaction. Because of this, he believes he was originally entitled to keep the $2500 as a sales commission. He also contended that his wife is the person who should be involved in this proceeding rather than him since she negotiated the contract and is more familiar with the details of the contract. Finally, he asserts the dispute has no clear-cut answer, and falls within a "gray" area. As such, he was justified in his actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of Counts I, II and III of the administrative complaint, that their licenses be suspended for six months, and each pay a $500 administrative fine within forty-five days after a final order is entered in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 8th day of November 1984.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated December 27, 1977, VIRGINIA E. BELL, of VIRGINIA BELL REALTY, INC., forwarded to Mr. and Mrs. George Kuruzovich a contract for sale and purchase of real estate which had been executed by Robert and Patricia Gaudet. The cover letter from this respondent to Mr. and Mrs. Kuruzovich, stated that the contract provided for ". . . a net cash to you of not less than $7,500. This contract provided in paragraph twenty-two, "It is agreed that the seller shall net not less than $7,500 cash from sale herein upon closing." By letter dated January 3, 1978, Mr. George Kuruzovich informed Virginia E. Bell that the sellers approved the terms of the contract, with the understanding that they would receive net cash not less than $7,500. The contract dated December 27, 1977, was not consummated. However, a new contract, dated February 18, 1978, was executed by the sellers, George and Loretta Kuruzovich, with purchaser Patricia A. Gaudet. This contract likewise provided in paragraph twenty-two, ". . . sell [sic] shall net no less than $7,500 cash from sale herein payable upon closing." The contract dated February 18, 1978, was executed by all parties. The matter proceeded to closing, with the sellers authorizing Virginia E. Bell, to act as their agent. On May 4, 1978, Virginia E. Bell signed a letter to American Title Insurance Company stating that: "I, Virginia Bell, hereby certify that the proceeds of sale regarding the above captioned property is $7,053.34 and not $7,500.00 as required under the special provisions of the Sales Contract and that Virginia Bell Realty will assume any liability as far as payment concerning the net proceeds to Mr. and Mrs. George Kuruzovich, and furthermore, I will not hold American Title Insurance Company responsible for same." On May 4, 1978, the closing on the February 18, 1978, contract was consummated. Mr. and Mrs. George Kuruzovich, the sellers, received $7,053.34 in cash for the sale of their home. By letter dated May 5, 1978, to Mr. and Mrs. Kuruzovich the Respondent, Virginia Bell, explained that the cash discrepancy was due to prorations of $155 for taxes, $219.60 for interest in addition to the mortgage balance, and $94.22 for an FHA insurance premium paid by Respondent. In mitigation, Virginia E. Bell contends that she informed the sellers that the net cash required by the contract did not include tax, interest and insurance prorations, but this self-serving oral representation must be disregarded as contrary to the expressed terms of the contract and against the weight of the evidence. This respondent admits that the transaction which is the subject of this proceeding was not handled properly, and she asserts that it will not happen again.
Recommendation Upon Consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Virginia E. Bell be fined the sum of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that the administrative Complaint against Virginia Bell Realty, Inc., be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 16th day of September, 1980. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-1779 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16thday of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Esquire 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virginia E. Bell 1927 U.S. Highway 17 Orange Park, Florida 32073 George E. Marcellus 64 Sleepy Hollow Road Middleburg, Florida 32068
Findings Of Fact Carmine Amato is a real estate broker holding license number 0110690, and is the broker for Wise Realty in Broward County, Florida, which he wholly owns. Amerigo DiPietro is a real estate salesman holding license number 0326813. At all times in question, DiPietro was employed by Wise Realty, and Amato was his supervising broker. In August, 1980, DiPietro took a sales contract from Charles and Jennie Conroy for the sale of their home in Broward County, Florida, described as Lot 3, Block 5 of Margate Estates, Section 3. DiPietro suggested to the Conroys that they could afford a larger home by selling their present house and using the equity to put a down payment on a new house. The Conroys subsequently contracted to buy a larger and more expensive house in Broward County from the Hocenics, said house described as Lot 13, Block 8 of Kimberly Forrest. DiPietro found buyers, the Meads, for the Conroys' house; however, the Meads were unable to qualify, and the contract did not close. The Conroys were anxious to close on the Hocenics' house and, as a result, sought a loan from Security Pacific Finance Company, said loan being referred to as a "swing" loan. The Conroys used this swing loan to close on the Hocenics' house, and this loan was secured by a security interest in their old home and the Hocenics' home. The Conroys were not induced in any manner by the Respondents to seek this swing loan. Having obtained the loan, the Conroys closed on the Hocenics' house, moved out of their old house and into the Hocenics' house, and assumed financial responsibility for both homes. Because the Conroys were short $2400, DiPietro took a note from the Conroys payable from the proceeds of the sale of their house. This represented money due DiPietro, which the Conroys could not pay at closing. DiPietro continued to attempt to sell the Conroys' old home and found another buyer, the La Serras. The La Serras qualified, but the Conroys could not raise $3400 needed to pay off their obligation at the closing of the sale of their old home. Because of this, the La Serra transaction did not close. In an effort to save the deal and close the La Serra contract, DiPietro made every effort, even agreeing to take a note for the commissions due to Wise's sales people, who represented both buyer and seller. The Conroys refused to close. With the swing loan almost due, Mrs. Conroy asked DiPietro if he and Amato would buy their old house outright. Eventually, DiPietro and Amato agreed to buy the house and accept financial responsibility for the first mortgage if the Conroys would agree to certain conditions. DiPietro indicated from the outset that neither he nor Amato had sufficient cash to purchase the house outright, and that financing would have to be arranged. DiPietro also advised the Conroys that, if this financing could not be arranged, the swing loan would have to be extended, and that it would be necessary for the Conroys to work with Amato and him to arrange for the extension of this loan. The specific conditions which the Conroys would have to meet were as follow: (a) the Conroys would give Amato and DiPietro a quit claim deed to their old house; (b) the Conroys would do those things necessary to extend the swing loan another six months; and (c) DiPietro and Amato would assume immediate financial responsibility for the house and, during the six months' period, sell it or arrange for long-term financing. The Conroys concurred in this agreement and executed a quit claim deed to their old house to the Respondents. DiPietro tried three different companies, seeking substitute financing for the house. When he failed in this, DiPietro contacted Mr. Conroy about renewing the swing loan. Mr. Conroy accompanied DiPietro to Security Pacific to renew the swing loan. DiPietro attempted to get Security Pacific to substitute any of a number of pieces of property owned by Amato and him for the Conroys' new house and to release its security interest in said house. Because of Security Pacific's excellent equity position in this new house, Security Pacific was unwilling to release its encumbrance on the Conroys' house. Security Pacific said it would release its interest in the Conroys' house only if the amount of the loan was paid down to an amount that the old house could secure. Neither Amato, DiPietro nor Conroy could afford to do this. Security Pacific said it would renew the loan only upon the Conroys' reapplication. Lastly, Security Pacific made clear that it still looked to the Conroys and to their new house as primary security on the swing loan. During all this time, the Conroys' old home was vacant. It had been vandalized and had suffered significant damage which decreased its value. In addition, no yard maintenance had been performed during the period since the Conroys had moved out. To be salable, substantial repairs and maintenance had to be performed by DiPietro and Amato. The revelation that Security Pacific looked to him and his wife for payment of the loan secured by their new house frightened Mr. Conroy. The Conroys were already financially strapped, having been responsible for the payments on both houses during this time. With the swing loan nearly due, and envisioning the loss of both houses and being left with an unsatisfied $28,000 debt, Conroy went to an attorney. The attorney advised Conroy not to join with DiPietro and Amato in extending the swing loan. When the swing loan was not extended, Security Pacific commenced foreclosure proceedings. Amato and DiPietro kept up the payments on the first mortgage, although Mrs. Conroy had to complain at first when these payments were late. The first three payments (July, August and September) were delayed following transfer from the Conroys to Amato and DiPietro. DiPietro and Amato did not promise to assume sole responsibility for the swing loan. DiPietro's representation was that they would try to refinance the property, and that if they could not refinance it they would assume primary responsibility for payment of the swing loan if the Conroys would join with them in extending the swing loan. Respondent Amato never saw or spoke to the Conroys and never made any promises which he did not fulfill. When the foreclosure action commenced, DiPietro stepped up his effort to sell the Conroys' old house and, approximately six to eight weeks later, sold it after substantial repairs were completed. The sales price was $57,000. At the time of the sale, approximately $32,000 was owed on the house to Security Pacific, and approximately $21,000 was owed to Heritage Mortgage Company on the first mortgage. Respondent Amato had put approximately $2,000 into repairs on the house, and Wise Realty was owed a note of approximately $2400 representing commission on the Hocenic/Conroy sale.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the following is recommended: That the charges against the Respondent, Carmine Amato, be dismissed, it having been found that he had no contact with the Conroys, could not have made any representations to them, and is not guilty of Violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and That the charges against the Respondent, Amerigo DiPietro, be dismissed, it having been found that he made no misrepresentations to the Conroys and therefore did not violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 14th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Esquire 1000 South Federal Highway, Suite 103 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 David F. Hannan, Esquire 3300 Inverrary Boulevard, Suite 200 Lauderhill, Florida 33319 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, by entering a plea of nolo contendere of grand theft of the third degree; whether he was placed on probation without an adjudication of guilt for grand theft of the third degree; and whether he lacks the fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the insurance business contrary to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ronald David Lewis, holds various licenses to sell insurance contracts issued by the Petitioner, which is charged by statutes to regulate licensees. The Respondent misappropriated over $10,000 from Audrey M. Walker, who was a client of the Respondent. The State's Attorney for the Seventh Judicial Circuit filed an information against the Respondent charging him with grand theft of the third degree. The Circuit Court Judge Shawn L. Briese entered an order of probation which reflects that the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere, and was placed on 60 months' probation by order withholding adjudication of guilt. The deposition of Audrey M. Walker establishes that the Respondent misappropriated funds from Ms. Walker, whose trust he had gained by virtue of his licensed status.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its final order revoking all the licenses Respondent holds to sell insurance contracts. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 9th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Ronald David Lewis 3800 South Atlantic Avenue Apartment 304 Daytona Beach, Florida 32127 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, dishonest dealing, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction contrary to Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and Whether, if the above allegations are proven, the Respondent is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest or untruthful that the money, property transactions and rights of investors or others with whom he may sustain a confidential relation may not be entrusted to him by virtue of a second violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, contrary to Section 475.42(1)(o), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert E. McMillan, III, is and was at all times material to the administrative complaint a licensed real estate broker holding license number 0317361. The Commission is charged under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, with regulation of real estate brokers and salesmen. The Respondent was previously disciplined by the Commission by a Final Order dated September 2, 1992 in which the Commission found the Respondent guilty of violation of Sections 475.25(1)(b),(e),(k), and 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Dr. Manuel S. Couto and his wife desired to have a home built on Block 2, Lot 12 Marineland Acres, 1st Addition, Plat Book 5, page 50. They approached Respondent's business, which was a construction and real estate development concern, and spoke with Randy Joyner, a salesman employed by the Respondent and the brother of the Respondent's late wife, who had sold the Coutos the lot. The Respondent offered to build a particular house for the Coutos for $50,000. The Coutos counteroffered to purchase the house for $30,000 cash and to convey to the Respondent two lots described in the contract as: Section 29A, Block 7, Lot 4, Palm Coast, Florida, and Section 29A, Block 7, Lot 5, Palm Coast, Florida. Dr. Couto bought Lot 4 for $3,900, and Lot 5 for $4,900; however, he paid a total, including interest, of $15,264.80 for the two lots. Palm Coast is a real estate development located in the western portion of Flagler County in which the Respondent's business was located, and he was not particularly familiar with the area in which the Coutos' lots were located. The Respondent accepted the counteroffer, above, upon the recommendation of Joyner. The Respondent believed the lots in question to be valued at $10,000 each. The Coutos paid the Respondent $30,000, and the Respondent began construction. Shortly after commencement of the project, it was determined that the Respondent would have to do considerable site work in order to install a septic tank. The costs of this work, $5,400, was paid by the Respondent, and Dr. Couto wrote the Respondent an additional check in the amount of $1,900. In addition, Dr. Couto made numerous changes to the plans which raised the costs of the construction for which he was obligated to pay under the contract. Work progressed on the project until the Respondent became aware that the lots which were to be transferred were not valued at $10,000. A dispute arose between the Respondent and the Coutos regarding the Coutos paying the difference between the value of the lots and $20,000. When the dispute went unresolved, the Respondent ceased work on the project. Thereafter, the Respondent again began work on the project because of Dr. Couto constant badgering; however, the underlying disagreement about the value of the lots was unresolved. The Respondent finished the house at a cost to him of $55,004.82, and the Coutos paid him $38,425. When the second lot at Palm Coast was to be transferred, it was arranged to have the Coutos transfer the lot directly to the new purchasers, with the money, $4,690.37, due to the Respondent to be held in escrow pending payment of the subcontractors and materialmen building the Coutos' house. Dr. Couto prepared an affidavit that all the contractors had been paid for the Respondent to sign. It is this affidavit dated January 16, 1992, which purports to bear the signature of the Respondent notarized by Martha B. Bennett, Notary Public. The Respondent denies that the document bears his signature, and asserts that Dr. Couto signed the affidavit. Dr. Couto states that he saw the Respondent sign it, and the Respondent's secretary notarize it. The authenticity of this document was put in question by Respondent's answer to the administrative complaint, and the notary was not called as a witness. Dr. Couto and his attorney had attempted unsuccessfully to obtain similar affidavits from the Respondent, who had refused to sign them. At the time the affidavit was prepared, Dr. Couto was aware that materialmen had not be paid. The purported purpose of the affidavit was to release the funds retained by the title company. However, it was Dr. Couto who prepared the affidavit, and it was not presented to the title company to obtain the release of the funds. The affidavit was retained by Dr. Couto, and presented to the title company in June 1992, by Dr. Couto together with letters from Respondent stating that he was not going to pay the subcontractors. Upon the affidavit and letters, the title company paid the $4,690.37 to Dr. Couto. Given the background of the affidavit, the contradictory testimony about its execution, and the absence of additional authentication, the signature of the Respondent is not accepted as genuine. In spring 1992, various materialmen and subcontractors filed liens on the house being built for the Coutos. In order to clear the title to his home, Dr. Couto had to settle with the lienholders and pay them $14,878.18. As stated above, Dr. Couto received the proceeds from the sale of the second lot, $4,690.37. Subsequently, the matter was brought to the attention of the state's attorney. The Respondent paid the Coutos $3,000 in cash, and the state's attorney dropped the case against the Respondent after handwriting analysis was completed on the affidavit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 29th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The Petitioner submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of the findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 5,6 Paragraph 8,9,10 Paragraph 7 Rejected as contrary to better evidence, See Paragraph 13 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 16 COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Clifford A. Taylor, Esquire 507 East Moody Boulevard Bunnell, Florida 32110 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 00390879. The last license issued to Respondent was in 1988 as a salesman with Atlantic Marketing Realty, Inc., 224 Commercial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. On July 26, 1984, a Grand Jury indictment was filed against Respondent in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and was assigned case number 84-67-CR-ORL-18. By Count Two of the indictment Respondent was charged with having sold, transferred, or delivered approximately 1,000 counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes in the denomination of $100 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 473. On September 28, 1984, Respondent entered into a "Plea Agreement" in which he agreed to plead guilty to Count Two of the indictment filed in case number 84-67-CR-ORL-18. By this Plea Agreement, Respondent acknowledged that he entered into the agreement freely and voluntarily. Respondent acknowledged his understanding of the nature of the offense to which he agreed to plead guilty and the penalties therefor. The factual basis for his plea includes an admission that he knowingly delivered 1000 counterfeit $100 bills to two individuals at a motel in Daytona Beach, Florida, for which he received approximately $15,000. On November 19, 1984, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to Count Two of the indictment, a felony. He was adjudicated guilty of this felony offense and sentenced to three years in prison. Respondent served approximately ten months of the three year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institute in Lexington, Kentucky. Upon his release from federal prison, Respondent spent four months at a halfway house in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent was not incarcerated at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed or at the time of the formal hearing. Respondent contends that he thought that he was working for the federal government when he committed the acts which resulted in his incarceration. This contention is rejected as lacking credibility and as being contrary to the Respondent's Plea Agreement. There is a dispute in the record as to whether Respondent notified Petitioner in writing as to his criminal conviction or his subsequent incarceration within thirty days of those events. Respondent contends that he notified Petitioner verbally and in writing of these events, but he was unable to identify the person he contends he notified verbally, nor did he produce a copy of his alleged written notification. Petitioner's records reflect no written notification from Respondent or from anyone on his behalf. This dispute is resolved by finding that Respondent did not notify Petitioner in writing as to his criminal conviction or his subsequent incarceration.
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 which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b),(f), and (p), Florida Statutes, and which revokes all real estate licenses previously issued Respondent. It is further recommended that no administrative fines be entered against Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3568 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact contained in paragraph 2 are rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Respondent's licensure is as a real estate salesman, not as a real estate broker. Whether Respondent was licensed as a broker or as a salesman would make no difference in the recommendation made as to the penalty to be imposed. All other proposed findings of fact are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William Richard Rossmeyer 180 Isle of Venice, #125 Post Office Box 7412 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's real estate salesman's license should be disciplined because he engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust and for failure to account and deliver monies entrusted to him while acting as a salesman in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received including a review of the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent was, and is, a licensed real estate salesman in Florida and has been issued license number 0128100. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Augustin Leon Padron is a resident of Caracas, Venezuela and is a part- time resident of Miami, Florida. During 1978, Leon was interested in purchasing property in the Miami area so he contacted a distant cousin, the Respondent, to help in the acquisition and management of any property be purchased. On November 9, 1978, Leon executed a power of attorney appointing the Respondent as his attorney-in-fact in regard to the acquisition and management of properties that Leon may purchase. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) On November 17, 1978, Leon wired to the Pespondent $20,000 to be held for the acquisition of property by Leon. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) On August 31, 1979, Leon, through the assistance of Respondent, purchased a duplex located at 43-45 NW 44 Avenue, Miami, Florida. Of the $20,000 sent to Respondent by Leon, $17,194.35 was used for the purchase of the duplex, leaving a balance of $2,805.65. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 6) The balance of $2,805.65 was never accounted for by Respondent or delivered to Leon. Pursuant to the power of attorney, Respondent assumed the duties of manager of the duplex for Leon, which duties included the collection of rent, making repairs and the payment of the monthly mortgage to Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On or about April 1, 1981, Leon gave a $10,000 check to the Respondent for the purpose of making certain repairs and additions to the duplex. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) Respondent never made repairs or additions as requested and has failed to account for or deliver, to the present time, any of the $10,000, although demands have been made by Leon for the return of the money. On or about May 24, 1981, Leon issued two checks, each in the amount of $10,000. One check was issued to Arango and Galarraga, a law firm, as a deposit towards the purchase of the Kasbah Bar. The second check was issued to the Respondent to he used as a deposit on the purchase of property in Kendall. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Both of the above-referred transactions bailed to materialize. On July 7, 1981, the law firm of Arango and Galarraga issued a check payable to Leon in the amount of $10,000 representing a return of the deposit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) This check was tendered to the Respondent. Respondent took this check plus the $10,000 deposit as to the Kendall property and had a $20,000 certified check drawn and made payable to Leon. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10) On November 19, 1981, at Leon's request, Respondent issued a check to Leon in the amount of $10,000 representing a part payment of monies owed to Leon by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Leon attempted to cash this check hut was told that there were insufficient funds in the Respondent's bank account to cover such an amount. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) Leon has made numerous demands upon Respondent for the payment of the $10,000 but Respondent has failed to pay over to Leon the $10,000 or to make good on the check he issued. During 1980 and 1981, Respondent failed to make at least five (5) mortgage payments causing the mortgage loan on the duplex, referred to above, with Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association to become delinquent and foreclosure proceedings were instituted. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The evidence is undisputed that Atlantic Federal notified Respondent on at least two occasions that the loan was delinquent and, if not brought current, foreclosure proceedings would result. (Petitioner's Exhibits 15, 16, 17, and Respondent's Exhibit 1) Respondent failed to advise of the nonpayment of the mortgage and the impending foreclosure. Additionally, at no time did Respondent advise Leon that be did not have sufficient funds to make the mortgage payment as scheduled. On November 19, 1981, Leon discovered through the public records of Dade County and Atlantic Federal, that his duplex was about to be foreclosed. Leon brought the mortgage payments current and paid the attorneys fees and costs involved amounting to $5,281.47. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) Based on the above-referred events, Leon revoked the Respondent's power of attorney effective that day, November 19, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14) Subsequent to November 19, 1981, Leon attempted to work out arrangements whereby Respondent would repay to Leon all monies owed by Respondent to Leon. These attempts failed and Leon filed suit against Respondent in Dade County Circuit Court for $26,065. On July 24, 1992, Leon secured a final judgment against Respondent for the amount requested, i.e., $26,065 plus interest and costs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) To this day, Respondent has failed and refused to satisfy the judgment and Leon has been unsuccessful in his attempted collection on that judgment. Respondent contends that the $10,000 check that gas issued him by Leon was for the payment of services performed on behalf of the Respondent. Evidence in that regard reveals that Respondent was not charging Leon a commission on any real estate transactions. A review of Respondent's testimony herein reveals that in addition to the acquisition and management of the duplex referred to herein which is located at 43-45 NW 44 Avenue in Miami, Respondent only picked up and forwarded goods and merchandise to Respondent in Caracas, Venezuela which had either been purchased by or shipped to Respondent from New York and other places. Apart from the time involved in the reshipping of those goods and merchandise, Respondent only paid nominal shipping charges. It is true that Respondent attempted to negotiate for the sale and purchase of the Kasbah Bar for Leon; however, his efforts in that regard were unsuccessful. Based on all of the evidence herein, including the testimony of Leon and the documentary evidence received, Respondent's contention that Leon owed him in excess of $10,000 is not credible and is rejected. This is especially so in view of the fact that Respondent issued a check in the amount of $10,000 to Leon which was returned for insufficient funds. For all these reasons, Respondent's testimony is incredible and is rejected in those instances wherein it differs from the version offered by the deposition testimony of Augustin Leon Padron.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Ignacio Dulzaides', license as a real estate salesman (number 0128100) be revoked. DONE and ORDER of this 11th day March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 11th day of March, 1985.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Toledo Realty, Inc. (TRI), was a corporation registered as a real estate broker having been issued license number 0133053 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division or petitioner). Respondent, Ramiro J. Alfert, holds real estate broker license number 0223005 also issued by petitioner. Alfert, who has been a broker for eleven years, was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for TRI when the events herein occurred. The firm is located at 7175 Southwest 8th Street, Suite 210, Miami, Florida. Approximately three years ago, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) began foreclosing on a number of residential properties on which the owners had defaulted. Wishing to dispose of these repossessed properties in an expedited manner, FNMA selected at random a number of brokers in the Miami area who were given exclusive listings and agreed to advertise the properties, and take such other steps as were necessary to make a quick sale. Futrell Realty (Futrell) in Kendall, Florida was one such broker, and it had the exclusive listing on the two properties relevant to this proceeding. According to established FNMA procedure, a broker who obtained an offer on a FNMA property was obliged to send the original contract to the listing broker who then mailed it to FNMA area headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. Marie J. Pardo was a salesperson for TRI, having worked there for almost six years. Pardo represented two potential buyers, Lazara Rouco and Artemia Delgado, an unmarried couple, who were interested in purchasing a FNMA property at 794 Southwest 97th Court Circle, Miami. On March 19, 1986, Pardo prepared a purchase/sales contract on behalf of Rouco and Delgado in which the couple offered to buy the property for $65,000. A $4,000 deposit was given by Rouco to Pardo and then placed in TRI's trust account. In accordance with established procedure, the original contract was sent to Futrell which forwarded it by express mail to FNMA in Atlanta. Four days after the contract was executed, Pardo was advised by Rouco that she and her boyfriend had separated, and she could no longer afford such an expensive house. But by now, the offer had been accepted by FNMA, and Rouco's $4,000 deposit was at risk. In an effort to save Rouco's deposit, Pardo, with FNMA's approval, secured another buyer for the property, and had Rouco assign the contract to the new buyer. The house was thereafter sold by FNMA to the new purchaser on an undisclosed date. Pardo did not advise Alfert or other TRI personnel that this action had been taken. Knowing that Rouco still wished to buy a home, but one that was less expensive, Pardo obtained Rouco's agreement for TRI to retain the $4,000 deposit pending efforts to find another property. In June or July, Pardo located another FNMA property at 100 Southwest 110th Avenue, unit 138, Miami. Because Pardo considered Rouco to be a credit risk, Pardo decided to have Rouco prequalify for a loan before a formal contract was submitted to FNMA. Accordingly, Pardo obtained (presumably from TRI files) another FNMA contract executed on June 10, 1986, by three buyers (Julio Ugarto, and Patricia and Ernesto Duarte) on a different FNMA property. She made a copy of that contract, scratched out the existing names, address and price, and inserted a new price ($47,500), address and Rouco's name. The altered contract was dated July 10, 1986. Although Pardo showed Alfert a copy of the contract that day, he did not notice anything unusual about it, and sent a letter to the mortgage company confirming that TRI had an escrow deposit of $4,000. Pardo stated she did not disclose the alterations to Alfert since she feared being fired if respondents learned of her actions. Pardo sent a copy of the altered contract to a mortgage broker friend to see if Rouco could qualify for a loan. Before she heard from the lender, Pardo left Miami in early September for a three-week vacation in the Dominican Republic. She asked another salesman with whom she shared a desk, Carlos Cachaldora, to hold the contract while she was gone. Cachaldora was a long-time employee of TRI, having worked there for some twelve or thirteen years. The two had worked as "partners" for four years with Pardo securing the client and Cachaldora doing the follow-up work. Although Pardo told Carlos about the alterations, Carlos did not advise Alfert or any other TRI employee of Pardo's actions. At hearing, Paido stated she did not know who sent the altered contract to FNMA but "believes" it was Carlos. However, Carlos denied mailing the contract to FNMA, and testified he received it in early September. Since the evidence shows that FNMA received the contract prior to September, it is found that Pardo mailed the contract to FNMA in July or August without advising Futrell or respondents. By fortuitous circumstances FNMA happened to receive from Futrell a validly executed contract on the same property at 100 Southwest 110th Avenue. This contract and the altered July 10 contract were sent to the FNMA attorney in Miami for review in preparing the closing documents. When FNMA's attorney began checking the documents, she noted there were some discrepancies in the two contracts and brought this to the attention of FNMA. Thereafter, a FNMA area supervisor in Atlanta, Paul Buechele, compared the July 10 contract with the other contract and noted that the names on the contracts did not match, that the July 10 contract had the initials of a FNMA employee who no longer worked at FNMA, and that he did not have the original July 10 contract in his files. Buechele telephoned Alfert on Friday, September 5 and briefly told him he had a "problem," and followed up with a letter the same day advising that FNMA "(had) no record of this sales contract," and for Alfert to express mail the original within 48 hours or else FNMA would "consider any such contract null and void." Although Buechele suspected the second contract might be an altered document or a forgery, he did not tell this to Alfert. During their conversation, Alfert looked in the office file, but could not find the original contract. He then advised Buechele that he would have to check with the salesman involved with the sale and get back in touch after he learned what had happened. There were no further communications between the two. The following Monday, Alfert met with Cachaldora who told Alfert he thought the original copy had been sent to FNMA and it must have been misplaced. Alfert was not overly concerned since it was not unusual for the selling broker to have only a copy of a contract in its files, particularly since the listing broker is given the original on FNMA transactions. At no time did Carlos advise Alfert that the July 10 contract was an alteration of the June 10 contract. Carlos telephoned Buechele the same day and advised him TRI had a copy, but no original, of the contract, and it was being express mailed that day to FNMA in Atlanta. On September 11, 1986, Rouco wrote TRI a letter requesting the immediate return of her $4,000 deposit because she had just been advised she could not qualify for a loan. Alfert mailed her a refund check the same day. He gave no further thought to the matter since he felt the contract at that point was "terminated." This was because Rouco had requested a return of her deposit, and more than forty-eight hours had passed since receiving Buechele's letter. On December 2, 1986, a Division investigator visited Alfert to discuss the July 10 contract. His visit was prompted by a complaint from Buechele about the altered contract. For the first time, Alfert learned what Pardo had done. Alfert immediately sent her written notice that she was fired. He also advised the Division that she was no longer an employee of TRI. Cachaldora, who had worked for TRI for some twelve years, also left TRI a few months later, albeit voluntarily. He was not fired because Alfert considered Pardo, and not Cachaldora, to be the guilty party. TRI is a relatively large realty office having three brokers and approximately seventy-five salesmen. Alfert holds the position of manager and has biweekly meetings with sales personnel to go over office procedures and to discuss sales. According to office procedure, Alfert is, whenever practicable, supposed to review all contracts before they are presented or mailed. This advice was conveyed to Pardo and Cachaldora but they did not follow office procedure. Except for the activities of Pardo and Cachaldora, there is no evidence that any other employee was involved in the Rouco matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found not guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), as alleged in the administrative complaint. DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of December, 1987.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, admissions made by Respondent, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number 0265883. In March of 1990, Ulrich Wingens, by and through his attorney, Charles Burns, entered into a written contract to purchase from Jupiter Bay Shoppes Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "JBS") certain commercial property located in Palm Beach County. Respondent brokered the sale. The sale contract provided that JBS was responsible for payment of Respondent's broker's fee of $50,000.00 and that such compensation was to "[t]o be due and payable only if closing occur[red]." Respondent received a $20,000.00 earnest money deposit from Wingens in connection with the sale. The sale contract provided that the $20,000.00 was to be held in the Jim Towns Realty escrow account. The sale did not close. Litigation between Wingens and JBS ensued. During the pendency of the litigation, the parties instructed Respondent to continue to hold Wingens' $20,000.00 earnest money deposit in escrow until they advised him to do otherwise. Wingens and JBS settled their dispute before the case was scheduled to go to trial. On November 14, 1991, the judge assigned to the case, Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Edward H. Fine, entered an order directing Respondent "to immediately transfer to Fleming, Haile & Shaw, P.A. Trust Account the escrow deposit in the amount of $20,000.00 and any accrued interest thereon." Respondent did not comply with the order. He had appropriated the $20,000.00 for his own personal use and benefit and was not holding it in escrow. This was contrary to the instructions he had received from Wingens and JBS. At no time had Wingens or JBS authorized Respondent to take such action. Wingens' attorney, Burns, brought the matter to the attention of the Department. The Department assigned one of its investigators, Terry Giles, to the case. As part of her investigation, Giles interviewed Respondent. During the interview, Respondent admitted to Giles that he had closed his real estate office in October of 1991 and had not at any time prior to the interview notified the Department of the closure. At the time he closed his office, Respondent's real estate broker's license was still in active status.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III and IV of the Administrative Complaint and revoking his real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE IN CASE NO. 93-1315 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the "findings of facts" proposed by the Department in its post-hearing submittal: Accepted as true and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. First sentence: Accepted as true and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Accepted as true, but not incorporated because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 3-13. Accepted as true and incorporated in substance. 14-15. Accepted as true, but not incorporated because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted as true and incorporated in substance. Accepted as true, but not incorporated because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted as true and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Legal Section, Suite N 308 Hurston Building, North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Mr. James C. Towns 7101 Smoke Ranch Road #1007 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
