The Issue Whether Respondent, Andrey Barhatkov, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Facts are made: 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, in particular, Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate sales associate issued License No. 660647 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a sales associate with All American Realty, Inc., 227 North John Young Parkway, Kissimmee, Florida 34741. On or about July 5, 2005, Respondent prepared a residential sale and purchase contract on behalf of a buyer and faxed the contract to Jerome Fortson, who is not a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, broker associate, or broker, for Mr. Fortson to present to the buyer and obtain the buyer's signature. Having obtained the buyer's signature, Mr. Fortson later appeared on behalf of the buyer at the closing. Respondent was not present at the closing. Respondent admitted that he had Mr. Fortson show the real estate property to the buyer, that he had an arrangement with Mr. Fortson to show properties for him, and that Mr. Fortson was to report back to him for follow-up. Respondent acknowledged that Mr. Fortson was a mortgage broker and that they had an informal business referral agreement wherein Mr. Fortson would arrange financing for buyers that he had shown properties. In the course of this activity, Mr. Fortson, who represented himself as a sales representative for the buyer, contacted the listing agent for information regarding the property and showed the property. Respondent never met the buyer. The real estate agent representing the seller was not aware of Respondent's involvement in the transaction until he requested his share of the commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order finding that: (1) Respondent, Andrey Barhatkov, violated Subsections 455.227(1)(j) and 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes; Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson be suspended for one year, followed by one year of probation; Respondent be fined $2,000; (4) Respondent be required to attend such remedial ethics and educational courses as are determined appropriate by Petitioner; and (5) Respondent be required to pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 25th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division on Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Andrey Barhatkov 408 Pinewood Drive Davenport, Florida 33896 Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents are guilty of misrepresentation or breach of trust and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact In October 1993, Respondent Sylvester (Respondent) took his daughter, whose last name was Rodriguez by marriage, to a real estate sales office that was selling units of a new condominium building. Respondent's daughter was 42 years old at the time. Speaking to the qualifying broker for the selling broker, Respondent advised her that he was a real estate salesperson for Respondent Lyric Realty Group, Inc. and wanted to show a unit to his daughter. Respondent referred to his daughter by name, rather than as his daughter, and did not mention to the broker that his customer was his daughter. Respondent gave the qualifying broker his card and signed his name in a log to protect his interest in the cooperating broker's sales commission. After touring a model unit, Mrs. Rodriguez expressed sufficient interest that Respondent obtained a form contract from the qualifying broker before leaving the premises. Respondent completed the contract, but left negotiations to Respondent Mitulinsky because Respondent was going out of town. Respondent Mitulinsky is the qualifying broker for Respondent Lyric Realty Group, Inc. Her involvement with the transaction was limited to contact with the listing broker, transmitting prices between Mrs. Rodriguez and the seller. Respondent Mitulinsky did not disclose that Mrs. Rodriguez was Respondent's daughter. But the evidence fails to suggest that Respondent Mitulinsky was in any way aware that the seller's broker was ignorant of the relationship between Respondent and Mrs. Rodriguez. The evidence also fails to suggest that the nature and extent of the conversations between Respondent Mitulinsky and the qualifying broker were such as to support an inference of concealment of the relationship by Respondent Mitulinsky. Prior to agreeing upon a final price, the seller's qualifying broker agreed to increase the commission to be paid Respondent Lyric Group Realty, Inc. by one percentage point to three percent. The listing price for the unit was $285,000. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez submitted the contract with a price of $240,000. Following verbal negotiations, the seller returned the same contract with a price of $268,000, which the buyers accepted on October 29, 1993. A salesperson employed by the listing broker admits that she knew of the relationship between Respondent and his daughter prior to closing. After the contract was signed but prior to closing, Respondent, Mrs. Rodriguez, a home inspector, and the salesperson visited the unit. As the inspector worked, Mrs. Rodriguez and her father spoke freely, as they had in past visits, with Mrs. Rodriguez referring to Respondent as "dad" and he referring to her by her first name. The salesperson immediately informed her broker, who immediately reported the information to the seller. However, the seller elected to do nothing with the information because he was satisfied with the sales price and net proceeds. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez were purchasing the first unit to be sold at the seller's project. This makes the first transaction especially risky for both the seller and the buyers. The purchase price represented the fair market value for the unit. The unit appraised at $271,000 at the time of the sale to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez. On January 6, 1994, the parties closed on the unit pursuant to the provisions of the contract. The $16,080 sales commission was split evenly between the listing broker and Respondent Lyric Realty Group, Inc.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Real Estate enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against all respondents ENTERED on September 30, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, 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 September 30, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter Hobson, Esquire 606 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact On or about August 10, 1979, HRS caused a legal advertisement to be published concerning its Purchase Order No. 52579, requesting bids for window film installation pursuant to HRS Bid No. 30-497WR. The Invitation to Bid provided, in part, that: As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to make award(s) by individual item, group of items, all or none or a combination thereof; to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received. When it is determined there is competition to the lowest responsive bidder, then other bids may not be evaluated. Bidders are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their bid has been evaluated as being responsive. Among the special conditions of the Invitation to Bid was the following: The successful bidder will furnish and install window insulation film on all glass exposures of buildings designated as one through eight with the exception of these [sic] windows now having film installed. These buildings are commonly known as the Winewood Complex which is located at One Winewood Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Subleased or other occupied space will be an addition to the basic glass square footage of buildings five, six, seven and eight now occupied by the Department of Corrections, Winewood Office Park Lmtd. and the Parole and Probation Commission. Prospective bidders will be provided these applicable locations by the project manager. The bid will contain a diagram and listing of these square footages. The computations of total square footages of applicable glass areas will be separated by buildings. This is necessary so that after the installation of the film on each building is completed and accepted by the project manager, an invoice can be submitted for payment. [Emphasis added]. In addition, tee following clause was also contained in the Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid: All work performed by the Contractor in completing the subject project shall be guaranteed by the Contractor against all defect resulting from the use of materials, equipment and workmanship for a period of five years from the date of final completion of the subject project. If, within any guarantee period, repairs or changes are required in connection with the guarantee work, which in the opinion of the Owner is rendered necessary as a result of the use of materials, equipment or workmanship which are defective or inferior or not in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Contractor shall, promptly upon receipt of notice from the Owner and without expense to the Owner, proceed to: Place in satisfactory condition in very [sic] particular all of such guaranteed work, correct all defects therein; and make good all damages to the structure or contents thereof, which in the opinion of the Owner, is the result of the use of materials, equipment, or workmanship which are inferior, defective, or not in accordance with the terms of the Contract; and made [sic] good any work or materials or the equipment and contects [sic] of structures or site disturbed in fulfilling any such guarantee. [Emphasis added]. The Special Conditions also provided that: No interpretation of the meaning of the Drawings, specifications, or other Bidding Documents, no correction of any apparent ambitquity [sic], inconsistency or error therein, will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Project Manager. All such interpretations and supplemental instruction will be in the form of written addenda to the Bidding Documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Project Manager in writing, shall be binding and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret the Bidding Documents. Finally, the Invitation to Bid also provided for modification of bids if received in writing prior to bid opening. HRS distributed more than 25 bid invitations pursuant to the aforementioned bid, and in response thereto received four bids, one of which was a "no bid". Of the three remaining bidders, Solar-X of Tallahassee submitted a total bid of $34,624.88, based upon a measurement of 29,096 square feet at a price of $1.19 per square foot; Florida Solar Power, Inc. submitted a total bid of $30,079.14, based upon 30,693 square feet at $.98 per square foot; and, finally, Petitioner submitted a total bid of $43,555.10 based upon a calculation of 37,874 square feet at $1.15 per square foot. The bids of Solar-X of Tallahassee and Florida Solar Power, Inc. were determined to be unresponsive to the Invitation to Bid for reasons not here pertinent. Although Petitioner's bid contained a total square footage on which it proposed to install window film, the bid did not break down the area of glass on a per-building basis as required by the conditions of the Invitation to Bid. In addition, the conditions of the Invitation to Bid required that building space occupied by sublessors be separately computed in bid responses in order to attempt to pass on to those sublessors their pro-rata share of the cost. Petitioner did not separate this space in its bid as required. Petitioner also failed to furnish with its bid a diagram of exposed glass area in each building as required in the special conditions. Finally, Petitioner's bid response contained the following warranty provision: . . .3M Company and the [Petitioner] warrants [sic] "SCOTCHING" Brand Solar Control films against peeling, cracking, crazing, or loosening for a period of five (5) years after installation in the event the product is found to be defective under this warranty. [Petitioner] will replace such quantity of the film proved to be defective with the [Petitioner] additionally providing the reapplication labor free of charge for the first two (2) years of the warranty. The customer shall pay for any reapplication labor charges during the last three (3) years of the warranty. . .[Emphasis added]. At final hearing, a representative of Petitioner testified that this warranty was the manufacturer's warranty, and that Petitioner, as the seller of the product, intended that full warranty protection in accordance with the conditions of the Invitation to Bid be part of Petitioner's bid. However, nothing to this affect appears in Petitioner's bid, nor did Petitioner attempt to modify its bid in writing before bid opening to make HRS aware of its intentions in this regard. Although bid opening was initially scheduled for August 24, 1979, the opening date was extended to September 4, 1979, by addendum to the Invitation to Bid. After opening, bids ware reviewed by the staff of the Director of the Office of General Service in HRS for technical compliance with the Invitation to Bid. As a result of this review, it was determined that Petitioner's bid was the only bid submitted which complied with all provisions of the bid specifications, and the staff, therefore, recommended award of the contract to Petitioner. At this point the question of the award of the contract came to the attention of the Purchasing Director of HRS's Central General Services, whose office is responsible for evaluation of bids for compliance with the terms and conditions of an Invitation to Bid, state purchasing law and administrative rules relating to state commodity purchases. During the course of this review, it was determined that Petitioner's bid did not comply with the conditions of the Invitation to Bid in that it failed to break down its bid on a per-building basis and, additionally, improperly qualified the five-year warranty requirement contained in the Invitation to Bid and its conditions. At the Federal hearing in this cause the Purchasing Director for Central General Services also testified that he had received oral communications from other vendors, some of whom submitted bids and some who did not, to the effect that the technical specifications of the Invitation to Bid were tailored to the products sold by Petitioner to such an extent as to effectively close the bidding process to competition. None of these vendors protested the content of the specifications as required in the Invitation to Bid, nor was any direct testimony adduced at final hearing in this cause from these vendors. Although the Division of Purchasing of the Department of General Services also concluded that the bid specifications were too restrictive, there is insufficient evidence in the record in this proceeding upon which to base a conclusion that the specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid were either tailored to Petitioner's product, or were so restrictive as to limit competitive bidding. Indeed, one of the actual bidders, Solar-X of Tallahassee, submitted a bid which complied with the technical specifications, but was rejected because it included an unacceptable contingency clause for late delivery. After extensive in-house review by various HRS employees, a letter dated October 4, 1979, was forwarded to all vendors advising that HRS, after ". . .an extensive analysis of the bid responses. . ." had decided to reject all bids and issue a second call for bids. This letter also indicated that ". . .areas of concern which were expressed relative to the initial invitation will be addressed in the second call." The letter did not attempt to further identify the "areas of concern." The facts of record in this proceeding clearly establish that Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not include in its bid a diagram of each building on which window film was to be installed, nor did the bid indicate the number of square feet contained in each building. The two vendors whose bids were rejected apparently had no difficulty complying with this requirement. As a result, HRS was precluded from comparing the per-building cost of the competing bids, and, had the contract been awarded to Petitioner, HRS could not have determined the proper amount of periodic progress segments without performing independent measurement. Most importantly, however, Petitioner improperly qualified the five- year warranty provision contained in the Special Conditions. Petitioner's bid, on its face, limited its responsibility to replacement of defective window film during the five-year warranty period, and required that HRS be responsible for payment of labor charges for reinstallation during the last three years of the warranty period. This warranty qualification was clearly contrary to the requirement that any product replacement or reinstallation be without expense to HRS for a period of five years from the date of final completion of the project. There was extensive testimony at final hearing concerning allegations by Petitioner of improper conduct on the part of the HRS Purchasing Director for Central General Services which allegedly resulted in the decision to reject all bids and submit a second call for bids. Testimony on this issue involved Petitioner's assertion that the HRS employee's relationship by marriage to one of the unsuccessful bidders led to his conclusion that the technical specifications were so narrowly drawn as to preclude a consideration of his relative's product, and that the specifications should be redrafted so as to allow consideration of products other than Petitioner's. In light of the fact that Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid, in that it improperly qualified the warranty required, and did not contain square footage computations on a per-building basis, it is unnecessary to reach the question of the propriety of any conduct on the part of the HRS employee. The propriety of the rejection of Petitioner's bid was determined by Petitioner's failure to comply with the Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid, and could not have been affected by the alleged misconduct on the part of an employee of HRS. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Edward Lindsey was continuously employed by Respondent White Auto Parts between 1952 and 1989 (37 years). He was 64 years old at the time of his separation from White Auto Parts. White Auto Parts is a family-owned corporation for wholesale and retail auto parts sales. At all times material, it had eight stores and a warehouse operation in and around Gainesville, Florida. Retail sales are made over the respective store counters, and outside salesmen and inside salesmen handle wholesale sales. Inside salesmen stay at a desk in a specific assigned store and conduct most of their sales by telephone. William Thomas Hawkins, M.D., is Chairman of the Board and President of White Auto Parts. Dr. Hawkins is involved in the policy decisions affecting the management of the corporation, but is not generally involved in day-to-day business operations, including personnel matters. However, during substantially the whole of his leadership, Dr. Hawkins has urged day-to-day management personnel to hire college educated persons and/or enthusiastic and aggressive people. Usually, in connection with these urgings, Dr. Hawkins has referred to these recruits as "young," "college-educated," "new blood," or the equivalent. Despite occasional comments on individual employees being "old" or "slow," there is no evidence of a concerted effort by Dr. Hawkins to terminate or force early retirement on all employees 55, 60, or 65, or any other age for any reason, including replacement by younger, aggressive personnel. Petitioner Lindsey was initially employed in the shipping department, then worked at the counter. For the last 25 years he was employed as an outside sales person, a position he truly enjoyed. Petitioner's duties as an outside sales person included calls on independent accounts (garages, car dealers, and persons in the automotive business) to make presentations of stock, as well as to handle refunds and credits on defective returns and cores. He was also expected to develop new accounts. Outside salesmanship involved local travel by company car, getting in and out of the car many times a day, lifting heavy parts, and significant paperwork. By all accounts, it was significantly strenuous, physically. In the early years of his employment as an outside sales person, Petitioner was compensated on a commission basis, but that was gradually changed after Joe Nave became general manager of the company. At all times material, Joe Nave was general manager of White Auto Parts, with responsibility for managing day-to-day operations and for hiring and firing personnel. Seven years before Petitioner's separation, Mr. Nave intended to replace Petitioner with a younger, more aggressive person because of Dr. Hawkins' directions to seek such people out and because he was dissatisfied with Petitioner's sales performance. However, Petitioner improved his performance on the road and complied with Mr. Nave's sales policy, and thereafter Mr. Nave had no further cause to speak on the subject to Petitioner again. The situation at that time had been either based on personality problems between the two men or upon Petitioner's work performance, but not upon Petitioner's age per se, and the problem was cleared up at that time. Approximately one year before his separation, Petitioner was called in and by agreement was put on a straight salary of $370.00 per week. Later, Mr. Nave sought to reduce that amount, but Petitioner refused to accept the reduction. Nothing more was said thereafter about this request of Mr. Nave, and there is no evidence in the record to explain why the request was ever made. On the whole, Petitioner and Joe Nave had a less than cordial business relationship over the whole of their association. Mr. Nave was, by all accounts, a "hyper" or choleric personality with an aggressive, if not downright belligerent, managerial style. Very simply, Mr. Nave wanted to know where all his employees were all the time, and he yelled and "cussed" a lot over every little thing. Petitioner found his superior's use of swear words particularly unappealing and inferred that the cussing was directed at him, even if Mr. Nave actually intended it toward other persons or inanimate objects. On September 6, 1989, Petitioner had surgery for prostate cancer. He was hospitalized for approximately ten days. Petitioner received a call from Mr. Nave after he got out of the hospital. At that time, Mr. Nave told Petitioner that his vacation and sick leave had been used up and his paychecks would stop, according to company policy. Petitioner knew that company policy was exactly what Mr. Nave had represented, but he anticipated trouble which was never threatened. Petitioner thought: So then I got to thinking, once before Mr. Nave had asked me, when I was sick prior years back from that, now, this was a different time . . . and he wanted to know if the doctor released me, and I said, "No sir. He will not release me for another week." And he went out of the office saying, well, he's going to get him another guy to replace me then, which it didn't take place, of course. So then I got to thinking about this thing. He called me, reminding me about my vacation time, and I guess at that time I was thinking, well, maybe he's going to pull one and replace me, so -- (TR-16) Petitioner returned to work on Monday in the second week of October 1989. At the time, he was still wearing a catheter and two drain tubes in each side. Despite Petitioner's suspicions and despite Mr. Nave's phone call, the Respondent employer kept Petitioner on at full salary until he came back to work. After being at work one week, Petitioner felt he had "over done it." On the following Monday, he told Joe Nave that he was going to try to work a few more days, but then might need some more time to recuperate. The following Thursday, Petitioner attempted to speak with Mr. Nave regarding feeling too ill to continue any further that day, but was unable to do so because when Petitioner finished his paperwork, Mr. Nave had already left. Petitioner left the keys to the company car on Mr. Nave's desk and told Arnold Reed, the purchasing agent, that he was going to have to go home. Mr. Reed noticed that Petitioner was not looking well and offered to take him home, but Petitioner called his wife, who came and got him. On Friday, Petitioner did not report for work or call in to Respondent. That day, he traveled to South Carolina with his son-in-law. Petitioner did not return to work the next Monday. That day, Arnold Reed told Joe Nave that Petitioner had had to go home Thursday. After Mr. Nave expressed his shock that Petitioner had not talked to him personally, Mr. Reed explained to Mr. Nave that it was obvious that Petitioner had been ill. Respondent presented no proof that it had a published personnel policy requiring Petitioner to remain on the premises, despite the circumstances, until he could be excused by Mr. Nave personally. That same Monday, Joe Nave called Petitioner's home and left word for Petitioner to return his call. Several days later, Petitioner's wife, Jean Lindsey, contacted Joe Nave to explain Petitioner's reasons for his absence. The tone and content of their conversation are disputed. Among other matters, Mrs. Lindsey testified that Mr. Nave informed her that Petitioner no longer had a job at White Auto Parts and was verbally abusive about Petitioner's absence and trip to South Carolina. Mr. Nave testified that he did not terminate Petitioner but only reiterated that Mrs. Lindsey should have Petitioner see Mr. Nave as soon as he returned home. Despite the foregoing contradictions, the two witnesses concur that Mr. Nave did, in fact, also tell Mrs. Lindsey that he had already given the company car and the accounts assigned to Petitioner to someone else. It was from this comment, made in the "heat of battle" as it were, that Mrs. Lindsey reasonably inferred that Mr. Nave had hired a replacement for, or had transferred another employee into, Petitioner's outside salesman position. 1/ However, somewhat contradictorily, Mrs. Lindsey also testified that although Mr. Nave had stated that Petitioner could come in and work on a part-time basis, she still concluded that Petitioner had been fired outright. Visibly upset, she exited the store where she had spoken on the telephone with Mr. Nave and told Howard Newsome, a long time employee, that Mr. Nave had fired Petitioner. As a result of her contact with Mr. Nave, Mrs. Lindsey called Dr. Hawkins, president of the corporation, to discuss Petitioner's job. She advised Dr. Hawkins during their telephone conversation that Petitioner was very ill, that he had not done well post-surgery, that he needed time off, that he had left the previous week to go to South Carolina to rest and recuperate, that previously he had come back to work with a catheter and two drains in him, and that he just was not up to coming back to work. She also told him Petitioner had been discharged for not coming to work. At that point, Dr. Hawkins directed Mrs. Lindsey to have Petitioner contact him upon his return so that a meeting could be set up to hear both sides and work out the situation. Upon returning from South Carolina on Saturday, Petitioner was informed by his wife that he had been fired from his job at White Auto Parts by Joe Nave, but she also told him about Dr. Hawkins' message. Petitioner phoned Dr. Hawkins as requested who offered to "iron things out." Dr. Hawkins set up a meeting among himself, Joe Nave, Petitioner Lindsey, and Mrs. Lindsey. At the meeting, Dr. Hawkins assumed Petitioner was still wearing the drain and catheter Mrs. Lindsey had described to him. He did not inquire about them and so he did not know they had been removed sometime before the meeting, which took place on October 31, 1989. The only persons present for the entire meeting were Petitioner, his wife, and Dr. Hawkins. Also present at the beginning of the meeting was Joe Nave, and at the very end of the meeting, Sherry Deist. At the beginning of the meeting, Dr. Hawkins had Petitioner's sales reports in front of him because he and Joe Nave had just gone over Petitioner's entire record and agreed on what they could offer Petitioner to resolve the situation. Dr. Hawkins perceived the situation to be that Petitioner was a long- time employee, not yet released from post-surgery medical care, who had come back to full-time employment too soon to be able to do the strenuous work of full-time outside salesman and who was afraid of losing his job because he had not and could not report in to do it. Petitioner and Mrs. Lindsey perceived the problem as Petitioner already having been unjustly terminated from his outside salesman job and that reinstatement to that position was the only result that would satisfy them. Because the sales reports were in front of Dr. Hawkins at the beginning of their meeting, Petitioner became defensive, since, by his perception, for years he had never been told that his work was unsatisfactory or inadequate nor had he received any documentation to that effect. 2/ Despite obvious biases, Petitioner's description of this part of the meeting is the most credible of the several conflicting versions, and it is found that Dr. Hawkins did make comments about sales being down, about Petitioner slowing down, about Petitioner being unable to continue in outside sales work, and about Petitioner being "burned out" physically. Nonetheless, Dr. Hawkins offered Petitioner the opportunity to return to work at the less strenuous position of inside salesman. 3/ There is conflict in the testimony as to whether or not Dr. Hawkins ever clearly stated that Petitioner had never been terminated, but it is most probable from the circumstances that this was never specifically stated. There is also conflict in the testimony as to whether or not Dr. Hawkins ever clearly stated that he would pay Petitioner half pay until he could return to work, would pay Petitioner part-time wages for part-time work as an inside salesman until he could work full-time, and would pay Petitioner full-time pay as an inside salesman indefinitely. The evidence is also unclear as to whether or not the inside salesman Petitioner would replace was making $370.00 per week or slightly less. Consequently, it is possible and even reasonable that Petitioner could have inferred from Dr. Hawkins' offer that even as a full-time inside salesman, Petitioner would not make exactly the same pay rate as he had been making as a full-time outside salesman. However, it is clear and undisputed that even if Dr. Hawkins was noncommittal in response to Petitioner's pleas to keep his outside job, Dr. Hawkins did offer Petitioner a less strenuous but substantially comparable inside job, which Petitioner rejected. Petitioner concedes that neither Mr. Nave nor Dr. Hawkins ever stated that he had been or was being terminated. Petitioner's primary reason for rejecting the inside salesman's job was that the desk he would work from as an inside salesman was located in the same office with Joe Nave's desk. Petitioner, his wife, and Joe Nave all agree that Petitioner rejected the inside job regardless of any beliefs Petitioner held about what salary was involved and regardless of whether it was a part-time or full-time job, purely because the inside salesman job offer was not a return to his same outside sales job and because he refused to share an office with Joe Nave, the superior he believed had fired him. At that point, Petitioner's refusal of the inside sales job, Petitioner's wife's insistence that Joe Nave had already fired Petitioner, and Joe Nave's response became so loud, adamant, and vitriolic that Dr. Hawkins tried to calm the situation down by asking Joe Nave to leave the meeting and the room. After Joe Nave left, the meeting among Petitioner, his wife, and Dr. Hawkins continued in only a slightly calmer atmosphere. Petitioner never specifically told Dr. Hawkins he was able to return to his outside sales job that day. According to Petitioner's testimony at formal hearing, at the time of the meeting on October 31, 1989, he felt that he could have resumed his duties, but that he could not have daily serviced his usual number of accounts. At the meeting, Dr. Hawkins remained under the mistaken impression that Petitioner was still wearing the drains and catheter. Therefore, Dr. Hawkins still would not make any statement binding the Respondent corporation to return Petitioner to his outside salesman job. Dr. Hawkins asked Petitioner whether he had been released by his treating physician. Petitioner told Dr. Hawkins that he still needed to see his doctor on November 10. 4/ Dr. Hawkins told Petitioner they would meet after November 10 to "iron out" the situation. Dr. Hawkins called in the corporate comptroller, Sherry Deist, and instructed her to pay Petitioner half pay until November 10. There is no evidence that Respondent had any policy or employee plan that would have provided Petitioner with any pay at all after his vacation and sick leave was used up. Even though Petitioner's vacation and sick leave had run out, Respondent had actually paid Petitioner full pay until he returned to work. 5/ Respondent also paid Petitioner full pay while he tried to work for approximately 10 days before he was "done in" and went home to recuperate. Respondent continued to pay Petitioner full pay while he was in South Carolina and for the few interim days up until the October 31 meeting. From October 31 until November 10, 1989, Respondent paid Petitioner half salary. Dr. Hawkins anticipated hearing from Petitioner on or about November 10, 1989 as to whether or not he had been released by his doctor. Dr. Hawkins had planned to set up a new meeting to work out Petitioner's job status at that time, but Petitioner never called Dr. Hawkins to set up such a meeting. At Dr. Hawkins' request, Sherry Deist called Petitioner on or about November 10, 1989 to ask if he had called Dr. Hawkins. Petitioner told her that he had not called Dr. Hawkins and that it was Dr. Hawkins' duty to set up a new meeting. Ms. Deist offered Petitioner Dr. Hawkins' phone number, but Petitioner said he had it. Sherry Deist relayed this information to Dr. Hawkins. It is Respondent's policy that unless an employee personally asks to have a check mailed, he must pick it up personally. At Ms. Deist's request, Petitioner came in to see her to pick up his check covering the November 10 date. Dr. Hawkins could have initiated a phone call or set up another job status meeting at that point, but he deliberately did not. Based upon gossip that Petitioner had never been released by his doctor, was seeking employment elsewhere, and/or was hiring a lawyer to fight his termination, none of which conflicting hearsay statements were ever established to be true, Dr. Hawkins did not initiate any further direct contact between himself and Petitioner and told Sherry Deist to keep good notes whenever she talked to him. Up to this point, Respondent had treated Petitioner in every way as if he were still employed. Dr. Hawkins' open-ended offer of another meeting to "iron out" the situation made it unreasonable of Petitioner to continue to insist that he had been terminated by Joe Nave and refuse to contact Dr. Hawkins. Also, it was reasonable, on the basis of his past experience in the Respondent's employ, for Petitioner to know, regardless of the confusion, that the burden was on him to make clear to his employer, probably through a written medical release, that he was medically able to resume his duties. 6/ Sherry Deist then phoned Petitioner, pursuant to COBRA, to inquire whether Petitioner wished to continue his group medical insurance. When he replied affirmatively, she told Petitioner he could mail Respondent a check. No evidence was presented to show that COBRA requires offering this insurance option only if Petitioner were terminated or if the employer would also have had to offer it upon Petitioner's retirement. Later, Ms. Deist called Petitioner and asked him to fill out his retirement papers. Although Petitioner told Ms. Deist that he had not retired, but had been terminated, he also requested her to fill out the retirement papers for him. He signed them in January 1990. Prior to his surgery, Petitioner was 64 years old, and the other outside salesman, Ed Girton, was 58. Mr. Girton left Respondent's employ for another job in August 1989, a month before Petitioner's surgery. Shortly prior to the time Petitioner had surgery, Respondent offered an outside sales job to Mike Monaghman, age 35. Mr. Monaghman did not accept the offer. There is no clear evidence which outside sales position was being offered to Mr. Monaghman, but it is most probable that it was the one previously held by Mr. Girton. Eventually, Rick Thames, age 36-37 took that position. Rick Thames was not hired from outside but previously had been a counter man for Respondent. He lasted only eight months on the outside and requested to return to counter work. Petitioner's position was not covered by anyone for the first two weeks he was out sick. From approximately the time of Joe Nave's acrimonious phone conversation with Mrs. Lindsey, wherein he told her he had given Petitioner's accounts and car to someone else, until May 1990, Petitioner's accounts were covered by Burt Oliver, 66 years old, who already worked for Respondent in parts management only three days a week to supplement his Social Security retirement income. When Mr. Oliver could no longer cover the accounts in three days, he returned to inside employment in parts work and his outside accounts were given to a younger man, Mark Roberts, who was 32 years old. Mark Roberts was hired from outside, but the record is unclear as to precisely when. Since 1989, both outside sales positions have been filled by a succession of people at various times and the territories were reorganized at approximately the time Burt Oliver returned to inside employment. Eventually, the persons placed in outside sales were Mark Roberts, 32, Phil Snyder, a man in his 50's, and Wayne Butler, age 40. Respondent's car formerly used by Petitioner in outside sales was used by Burt Oliver and by just about every other White Auto Parts employee on a haphazard basis until it was sent for repair. The Respondent currently employs at least 20 people over the age of The Respondent currently employs, and consistently has employed, many employees over the age of 60, but most of these work/worked only part-time to supplement their Social Security retirement income. There are currently two full-time employees over sixty. One is approximately 70 years old and was hired after Joe Nave left the Respondent for other employment. Petitioner has remained under a physician's care on a three-months- return-visit basis.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition and denying the prayed-for relief. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of November, 1991 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 25th day of November, 1991. 1/ See
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Stipulated Facts: Petitioner submitted its application for DBE certification on or about July 27, 1993. Petitioner and Travel Professionals International Licensing Co., d/b/a Travel Professionals, Inc. (TPI) entered into a franchise agreement on September 28, 1993. Department conducted an on-site review of Petitioner's business on November 4, 1993. Department notified Petitioner of its intent to deny its application for DBE certification by certified mail on December 9, 1993. Petitioner requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on December 15, 1993. One hundred per cent of Petitioner's stock is owned by Jeanne Santo, a "socially and economically disadvantaged individual" as defined in Rule 14- 78.002(1), Florida Administrative Code, and therefore, Petitioner is in compliance with 14-78.005(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code. All securities which constitute ownership by Jeanne Santo are held directly by Jeanne Santo, and therefore Petitioner is in compliance with Rule 14-78.005(7)(d), Florida Administrative Code. The contributions of capital or expertise invested by Jeanne Santo are real and substantial, and therefore Petitioner is in compliance with Rule 14- 78.005(7)(f), Florida Administrative Code. The provisions of Rule 14-78.005(g) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, do not apply to Petitioner. The franchise agreement (Agreement) between Petitioner and TPI contains the following terms and conditions which are not in the agreements between Petitioner and Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC); Petitioner and International Airlines Travel Agent Network (IATAN); and Petitioner and Systems One: a requirement that Petitioner locate its travel office only in "That portion of Pinellas County, Florida lying south of Florida State Highway 694". a requirement that Petitioner pay a quarterly advertising contribution. a requirement that Petitioner attend mandatory managers' meetings. ARC is customary in the travel agency industry. IATAN is customary in the travel agency industry. A leasing agreement for an automated reservation and ticketing system is customary in the travel industry. The Agreement requires that Petitioner be an ARC agent. Facts Not Stipulated The Fral Highway Administration (FHWA) is the federal agency that inisters the DBE program on the national level. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility of administering the DBE program for the State of Florida. In making its determination of an applicant's eligibility for DBE, the Department considers: (a) Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17); (b) 49 CFR Part 23; (c) Chapter 339, Florida Statutes, (d) Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, (e) United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) administrative decisions; and (f) guidelines and training material from the FHWA or USDOT. The USDOT through FHWA provided the Department with a copy of DBE Program Administration Manual (Publication No. FHWA-HI-90-047, April, 1990) which the Department uses as a guideline for USDOT's and FWWA's interpretation of the DBE program. Below are portions of the Agreement which are pertinent to this preceeding: Purposes of this Agreement: We have developed the Travel Professionals International System (hereinafter called "the TPI System) for the operation of retail travel agencies, and we have developed policies, procedures and techniques that are designed to enable such agencies to compete more effectively in the travel market... You have requested our assistance, the use of the TPI Systems, and a franchise from us to operate a retail travel agency using the TPI System.... Franchise: We hereby grant to you and you hereby accept from us a franchise to operate a retail travel agency utilizing the TPI System, only at the following location(s): That portion of Pinellas County, Florida lying south of Florida State Highway 694. We will not establish another franchisee or agency owned by us within the territory described above, or establish other franchises or company owned outlets providing similar products and services under a different trade name or trademark or modify your territory without your written permission, so long as you are not in default under the terms of this Agreement.... You may move the office of the travel agency to a new location in the same general vicinity with our prior written approval, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. You may not operate any additional office or location without our prior written consent, which consent will be given upon inspection and approval of such new premises.... Advertising Contributions: In addition to the service fees set forth above, you will be required to pay an "advertising contribution" in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY ($150.00) DOLLARS per quarter. We may adjust the advertising contribution annually on October 1, provided that any increase in the advertising contribution will be made only with the affirmative vote of at least fifty percent (50 percent) of the franchisees...The advertising contributions of all franchisees shall be placed in an advertising fund to be managed by us, and shall be used exclusively for advertising. Tradenames, Service Marks, Logos, Trade Secrets, and other Proprietary Matters: d. As you know, you will be given certain information about the Travel Professionals International System, our products and methods of doing business, as well as preferred supplier agreements, training and educational programs, computer operation and computer system arrangements, correspondence, memoranda, operating, sales and marketing manuals, and other confidential information. You recognize and acknowledge that this information is a valuable, special and unique asset belonging to us and constitutes our trade secrets which you agree to keep secret and not to disclose, during the operation of this Agreement, or after its termination or expiration, to any person or entity for any reason or purpose whatsoever.... Relationship of Parties: During the term of this Agreement, and any renewal term, you will be an independent contractor, and you will have no authority, expressed or implied, to bind us or to act as our agent, legal representative, or joint venturer. At our option, you will be required to describe yourself on all business forms, invoices, orders, stationery, and the like, as an independent licensee of Travel Professionals International, and to submit all such items to us for our written approval...The operation of your business shall be determined by your own judgment and discretion, subject only to the provisions of this Agreement and our policies and procedures, as they may be adopted or revised from time to time. We will not regulate the hiring or firing of your employees, the parties from whom you may accept business, the working conditions of your employees, or the terms of your contracts with your customers, except as may be necessary to protect the Travel Professionals International System. Service To Be Provided By Us: We will provide the following services to you pursuant to this Agreement: (b) We will prescribe certain standards of operation designed to enhance your profitability, which we shall expect you to follow. * * * (e) We may make recommendations to you regarding accounting and recordkeeping systems. * * * We will provide you with a policy manual, operations manual, preferred supplier manual, marketing manual, and an employee handbook which may be updated periodically. We will provide you with marketing, sales and promotional aids to include currently available professionally produced television spots, a series of high quality radio jingles, and from time to time, printed and other promotional material for use in your local area. We will operate an ongoing training program for you and your personnel. This program will include seminars, conferences, familiarization trips, and printed materials, such as bulletins and manuals, relating to marketing, management, and accounting procedures, and the like, and developments with the travel industry... * * * (l) We will provide, at no charge, up to five (5) person days of management expertise and sales effort effective on the first date of contract signing.... Your Obligation: During the term of this Agreement, and any renewal term, you will obligated to pay promptly to us any fees that are due hereunder, to maintain and keep such records and reports as we may prescribe, and to provide us with copies of such records and reports. You will be required to allow us to make inspection of your business and premises at any reasonable time, and to allow us to examine your books, tax returns and records during normal working hours. We reserve the right to establish a uniform accounting system to keep your books and records in conformity with such system. Your business shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of this Agreement, with such policies and procedures as we may publish from time to time, and all state, federal and local laws and regulations.... You will be required to cause your chief operating officer or manager to attend our next available training program and to cause each of the franchise employees and principals (as shown on Schedule A attached hereto) to attend the required training courses set forth in our published policies and procedures. At present, mandatory training programs we provide include "New Owners Orientation", "New Manager Orientation", and the periodic "Managers Meetings". Although we are not obligated to do so, we offer, and plan to offer in the future, periodic (at least three times per year), Managers Meetings. Attendance at Managers Meetings, when offered, is mandatory. In the event you fail to send a representative to any Managers Meetings, then you shall pay to us the registration fee for that meeting, notwithstanding your lack of attendance at such meeting. Although paragraph 8 does require Petitioner to pay a fixed sum to TPI for advertising, it does not restrict the qualifying owner's exercise of control over the day-to-day decisions concerning advertising. In fact, TPI, under paragraph 11(i) of the Agreement, agrees to furnish certain materials to assist Petitioner in advertising on the local level. It is clear throughout the Agreement that the operation of the business is to be determined by the qualifying owner's own judgment and discretion subject to the provisions of the Agreement and TPI's policies and procedures which may be adopted or revised from time to time. Paragraph 4 , Terms of the Franchise, provides for the termination of the Agreement prior to its expiration date. It is clear from the qualifying owner's testimony ("Because nobody tells me what to do."), that she would terminate the Agreement rather than to allow TPI to exercise the day-to-day control of the business. There is no question that the qualifying owner has the authority to take such action under Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, if in no other manner, than by defaulting under Paragraph 4(4). This gives the qualifying owner the final authority as to who exercises the day-to-day control of the business. It is clear from the testimony of TPI's Vice-President of Franchise Sales and Development that TPI does not consider those provisions of the Agreement that appear to place restrictions on the qualifying owner's discretion as to the day- to-day control of the business as being mandatory, notwithstanding the language of the provisions to the contrary. Likewise, it is clear that TPI will not involve itself in the hiring, supervision or firing of employees because of the liability it would place upon TPI, notwithstanding any provision in the Agreement. The parties to the Agreement are experienced business people, who have expertise in the travel agency industry and franchising. The parties to the Agreement have clear and mutual understandings and interpretation of the meanings of the terms of the Agreement . Their understandings and interpretations are that the Agreement does not restrict the qualifying owner's exercise of the day-to-day control of the business. The parties' interpretation of the Agreement is a possible and permissible interpretation. TPI has some 60 franchisees within 22 states, with 17 franchisees in the State of Florida. There are several other franchisors that franchise travel agencies throughout the United States, including the State of Florida. The purpose of franchise agreements in the travel business in general, and this Agreement in particular, is to enable the small, independent travel agency to compete more effectively in the travel market. The growing trend in the travel agency industry is to belong to a franchise. The Agreement is a typical franchise agreement and customary in the travel industry.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for certification as a Disabled Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this day 9th of January, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 9th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0568 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 in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner has listed the stipulated facts separately as paragraphs 1 through 14. These stipulated facts have been adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 14, respectively. Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 3 and 4-5 adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 23, 24, 26 and 21, consecutively. Proposed findings of fact 6 through 9 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed finding of fact 10 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 20 through 22. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. The Department has listed the stipulated facts separately as paragraphs 1 through 14. These stipulated facts have been adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 14, respectively. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 2 are adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 19. Proposed finding of fact 3 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 20 through 22. Proposed findings of fact 4, 5 and 6 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 15, 16 and 17, respectively. Proposed finding of 7 is rejected as being neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed findings of fact 8 and 9 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 18. Proposed findings of fact 10, 11 and 12 are considered conclusions of law or legal argument and for that reason are rejected as Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 13 and 14 are rejected as not being supported by the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Blasingame, Forisz, Smiljanich, P.A. Post Office Box 1259 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Dorothy S,. Johnson, Esquire Mary J. Dorman, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Hunter Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a franchised truck dealer for three manufacturers, including Respondent. The parties entered into a three-year franchise agreement on September 17, 1986, which agreement took effect on September 15, 1986 (Dealer Agreement). Under the Dealer Agreement, Petitioner is assigned a 12-county area that includes Polk County, Florida. In March, 1987, John Drakesmith entered into negotiations with R. N. Heintzelman for the purchase of all of the stock of Petitioner. The negotiations culminated in the execution on July 8, 1988, of an Agreement for Purchase, Sale and Redemption of Stock in Heintzelman's Truck Center, Inc. (Stock Purchase Agreement). The transaction was closed on the same day, and Mr. Drakesmith, as the new owner of Petitioner, assumed the management of Petitioner's business at that time. The Dealer Agreement provides that, to the extent permitted by local law, Respondent may terminate the agreement prior to its expiration date in the event of "[a]ny change... in the ownership or active management of [Petitioner] from that indicated [as described above], without the prior written consent of [Respondent]." The Dealer Agreement provides that, to the extent permitted by local law, Respondent may terminate the agreement prior to its expiration date in the event of "[a]ny actual or attempted assignment of this Agreement or any right or obligation hereunder." Around the end of May, 1987, one of Respondent's regional sales managers learned of the negotiations between Mr. Drakesmith and Mr. Heintzelman. On June 24, 1987, J. L. Brown, Respondent's director of dealer relations, telephoned Mr. Drakesmith at his Ford truck dealership in Cleveland to discuss his impending purchase of the stock of Petitioner. Mr. Drakesmith confirmed that a sale was taking place. Mr. Brown indicated that he and some other representatives of Respondent were going to be in Cleveland and would like to meet Mr. Drakesmith. They tentatively agreed to meet on July 2, 1987. By letter dated June 24, 1987, Mr. Brown confirmed the conversation of the same day. The letter informed Mr. Drakesmith that the Dealer Agreement "is a personal service agreement which can not be transferred or assigned." Accompanying the letter was an application package for a Western Star franchise. On July 2, 1987, Mr. Brown, Dennis Trittin, Respondent's parts and service representative, Mr. Roland Smith, Respondent's regional sales manager for the region including Florida, and Richard Dean, Respondent's Great Lakes regional sales manager, met with Mr. Drakesmith at his Cleveland dealership. Respondent's representatives told Mr. Drakesmith that they were looking forward to his marketing their product more aggressively than Mr. Heintzelman had in the past. They discussed Mr. Drakesmith's possible interest in handling Western Star trucks in his Cleveland dealership. Mr. Brown left Mr. Drakesmith with another copy of the application package. Following the July 2 meeting, Mr. Drakesmith concluded that Respondent was very favorably disposed toward having him as a dealer, although he recognized that he had not yet been formally approved. By letter dated July 8, 1987, Mr. Brown confirmed their July 2 discussion of Mr. Drakesmith's "interest in representing the Western Star product line in Orlando and possibly Cleveland." He added that he was looking forward to receiving the completed documentation "in order to formally complete the application process for the Orlando Dealership." Mr. Drakesmith mailed the completed application, together with some but not all materials, to Respondent on July 13, 1987. The materials were mailed to Respondent at the address shown in the application as that to which the application should be mailed. Respondent had moved from that address over one year earlier. When the application package was returned to Petitioner a few days later as undeliverable, Mr. Drakesmith had it remailed promptly to Respondent's correct address. The remailed package was never received by Respondent or, if received, lost prior to its delivery to Mr. Brown, who never received it. Two or three weeks after the closing, Mr. Smith visited Mr. Drakesmith at Petitioner's dealership. At the time, Mr. Heintzelman and his former general manager, Harry Gates, were both gone. The purpose of the visit was for Mr. Smith and Mr. Drakesmith to get acquainted with each other. Sometime after his visit and before September 15, 1987, Mr. Smith told Mr. Brown by telephone that Mr. Drakesmith had taken over Petitioner and was operating the dealership. Between Mr. Smith's visit in late July and September 15, 1987, Mr. Drakesmith had one or two telephone conversations with Mr. Smith concerning pending orders for trucks that Petitioner had submitted and sales in general. At no time during the visit or telephone calls did Mr. Smith mention the receipt, nonreceipt, or approval of Mr. Drakesmith's application. In August, 1987, Respondent received an expression of interest from a third party for a dealership including the Polk County area. At the time, Respondent had no dealers in Florida except for a dealer in Jacksonville and Petitioner. By letter dated September 15, 1987, Mr. Brown gave Mr. Heintzelman, addressed at Petitioner's dealership, notice of the termination of the Dealer Agreement, effective 90 days from the date of the receipt of the letter. The grounds for the termination were that Petitioner had breached the Dealer Agreement by assigning or attempting to assign the agreement and changing its active management or selling or otherwise changing its ownership without Respondent's prior written consent. The letter also stated that Petitioner had violated Florida statutory law by changing its executive management or ownership or assigning the agreement without first giving Respondent written notice and without providing Respondent with the opportunity and information necessary to evaluate and, if appropriate, object to the new owner, manager, or assignee. Copies of the letter were provided to Mr. Drakesmith and the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department). Mr. Drakesmith telephoned Mr. Brown on or about September 17 to object to the termination. Mr. Brown explained that he had felt that Mr. Drakesmith had lost interest in the Western Star franchise because he had not bothered to submit his application. When Mr. Drakesmith replied that he had sent it in, Mr. Brown said that he had not received it and suggested that Mr. Drakesmith resubmit it. On September 22, Mr. Drakesmith resubmitted the application materials that he had mailed on July 13 and remailed a few days later. After additional materials were requested and provided, Mr. Brown offered Petitioner a new dealer agreement with the same territory as in the Dealer Agreement, except that Polk County would be replaced by two less profitable counties. By letter dated September 22, 1987, the Department informed Petitioner of its receipt of a copy of the September 15 letter and informed Petitioner of its right to protest the proposed cancellation. The letter called Petitioner's attention to Section 320.641(3), Florida Statutes, which was cited in full. The letter also contained a copy of Sections 320.60-320.70, Florida Statutes. The letter informed Petitioner that it had 90 days from the date of the September 15 letter within which to file with the Department a "verified (notarized) complaint" for a determination of an unfair cancellation of the Dealer Agreement. By letter dated October 23, 1987, Petitioner notified the Department of its protest of the intended cancellation. The letter was signed by Mr. Drakesmith as president of Petitioner. The letter bore only the signature of Mr. Drakesmith, which was not notarized. The letter did not contain any information beneath Mr. Drakesmith's signature and title. As a result of a conversation between Henry C. Noxtine of the Department and Mr. Drakesmith, Mr. Drakesmith learned that his October 23 letter did not meet the verification requirement. Lacking the original letter, Mr. Drakesmith had an employee of Petitioner, Eileen C. Mercer, retype the letter and add in the lower right-hand corner of the second page the notation, "Signed before me this Oct. 29, 1987." She then signed beneath the notation and added her notary's stamp showing that her commission expires August 28, 1990. The record does not reflect whether Ms. Mercer applied her notary's seal to the letter. However, at no time did Ms. Mercer require Mr. Drakesmith to swear or affirm that the information in the October 23 letter was true and correct. Following the above-described additions, the letter was promptly resubmitted to the Department. By letter dated November 24, 1987, the Department transmitted the file to the Division of Administrative Hearings on the sole issue of the propriety of the cancellation of Dealer Agreement. The Department's transmittal letter, a copy of which was sent to and received by Mr. Drakesmith, noted that the Department had received a "verified" complaint from Petitioner. Mr. Drakesmith personally performs the duties of a general manager at Petitioner's dealership. Mr. Drakesmith is of good moral character. At no time has Respondent filed a verified complaint for a determination of Mr. Drakesmith's moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the complaint of Petitioner for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5308 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Findings 1-2. Adopted in substance. Adopted, except that the last sentence is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted, except that the Stock Purchase Agreement was signed on July 8, 1987, and by other parties as well. Adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant and legal argument. 7-9. Adopted. 10-11. Adopted in substance. 12-13. Adopted. Adopted, except that reliance is irrelevant. Adopted in substance. 16,18. Adopted. 17. Rejected as irrelevant. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Findings 1,3,4. Adopted. 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. 8,14,16. Rejected as irrelevant. 15. Adopted in substance. 17,18. Adopted. 19-21. Rejected as irrelevant. 22-23. Adopted. Adopted in substance. However, the materials that Mr. Drakesmith sent to Respondent and when he sent them is irrelevant. Rejected as recitation of testimony and cumulative. Adopted, except that second sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 28,29. Adopted in substance. 30-32. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. Adopted in substance. 35-37. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted, except that last 17 words are rejected as irrelevant. Adopted, except that the cause offered for the Issuance of the termination notice is against the greater weight of the evidence. 40-44. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance. Rejected as unclear. Adopted, except that the last 16 words are rejected as legal argument. 49-51. Adopted in substance. 52-57. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Foster, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dean Bunch, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss, Burke & Wechlser, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Enoch John Whitney General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of real estate professionals in Florida. Petitioner was a licensed real estate salesperson in Florida whose license was listed with Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc. in Ft. Myers. In October, 1989, Clyde H. Ward applied to Goldome Realty Credit Corporation for a $40,000.00 fixed rate mortgage on his property located in Ft. Myers. On October 5, 1989, Goldome sent Mr. Ward a commitment letter for a mortgage initially described as a 30 year fixed rate mortgage, but which was, five days later, amended to a 15 year fixed rate mortgage at 10%, conditioned upon, among other things, a satisfactory appraisal. Consistent therewith, Goldome thereafter contacted its regular appraiser in the area, Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc., and requested that an appraisal of the property be accomplished. Horizon assigned the Petitioner, Ms. Wilcox, to conduct the appraisal. The original first page of her report indicated the property was a manufactured house with a crawl space, not situated on a slab. In reality, however, as was noted on the amended first page of the report, as of October 9, 1989, the property was not a manufactured house and was situated on a concrete slab without a crawl space. Goldome denied a fixed rate mortgage to Mr. and Mrs. Ward but offered them a one year adjustable rate mortgage. The Wards accepted this change under protest. A formal denial of the fixed rate mortgage was sent to the Wards on December 18, 1989 by a form which indicated that their application for the fixed rate mortgage had been denied for (1) inadequate collateral, and (2) "we do not grant credit to any applicant on the terms and conditions you request." The "inadequate collateral" basis for denial noted, however, that a mortgage had been offered, accepted and closed with the Wards under an adjustable rate bank loan. On February 16, 1990, Mr. Ward wrote to Goldome expressing his concern over the denial of the fixed rate loan and the basis for denial. In response to Mr. Ward's letter, on March 7, 1990, Mr. Krohe, Goldome's vice president for residential lending, wrote to Mr. Ward and clearly stated that Goldome's denial of the fixed rate mortgage was based on several areas in the appraisal that caused concern. Mr. Krohe specifically pointed out that the fact that the property was described in the appraisal as being a "mobile home" was not the only reason for denial. In his testimony, Mr. Krohe cited several other reasons for denial. One was that the appraiser indicated that the predominant value of homes in the neighborhood was $35,000.00 and Mr. Ward's application was for a mortgage in excess of that. It is Goldome's policy typically to not make a loan in excess of the predominant value since there would be no way to sell the loan in the secondary market. In addition, comments on the appraisal indicated that homes in the area were a mixture of mobile homes and small CBS or frame houses located on paved and graveled roads, and the homes in the neighborhood reflected average maintenance. The zoning classification for the property was MH-3, which permits mobile home use on the property. Further, the room sizes and layout was indicated as "fair to average" and the appraiser pointed out an incurable functional problem with the room layout. This problem related to the fact that the only full bathroom in the house was located between the master bathroom and the second bedroom and could be reached only through one of those rooms. Further, the appraiser indicated there were no recent sales similar to the subject property in the neighborhood and those sales which were comparable were noted to have superior construction and functional utility. Mr. Krohe pointed out that not one of those concerns by itself necessarily would have caused the fixed rate mortgage applied for to be declined. He notes, however, that underwriting is not a science, and all of those reasons combined caused the underwriter to decline the loan. Notwithstanding his receipt of this letter, Mr. Ward filed a complaint with the Division of Real Estate which was referred to Investigator John Harris for inquiry in March, 1990. During the course of his investigation, Mr. Harris spoke only with the Petitioner, Ms. Wilcox, and with Mr. Ward. On or about March 22, 1990, he met with Petitioner at her place of business, Horizon Appraisal Service. During the course of that interview, Ms. Wilcox admitted she had made a mistake on the first page of the appraisal report whereon the property w as described as a manufactured home situated on a crawl space without a slab. She indicated she had corrected the form as soon as she found out about the mistake, occasioned not by a written description but by check marks to pre- printed descriptions which were to be marked if appropriate. The work was done by typewriter, not by pen. Mr. Harris also interviewed Mr. Ward, but did not interview anyone else during his entire investigation even though Ms. Wilcox pointed out that information she had from Ms. Selph and Mr. Krohe indicated that the declination of the loan was not primarily based on this erroneous information. In fact, Ms. Wilcox requested that Mr. Harris contact both Selph and Krohe to verify this but he chose not to do so, relying instead on the information provided to him by Mr. Ward and the March 7, 1990 letter from Krohe to Ward which he interpreted as indicating the denial was based on the description of the property as a "mobile home." That letter does not so indicate, however, and clearly shows that any such classification was not the sole basis for denial of the loan. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Harris considered the fact that Ms. Wilcox admitted to making the mistake as tantamount to an admission of culpable negligence and he recommended that action be taken against her. Thereafter, the matter was referred to a probable cause panel of the Real Estate Commission which, on May 15, 1990, considered the allegations against Ms. Wilcox and, after a review of the file and a presentation by a counsel to the Board, found probable cause. Review of the transcript of the probable cause panel as it relates to Ms. Wilcox reveals that even there, the case was inaccurately described to the panel by its counsel who claims that, "the loan was rejected on the basis of the appraisal which incorrectly described the structure as a manufactured house with a crawl space and no slab." Counsel completely omitted any mention of any of the other bases for denial which were described by Mr. Krohe in his deposition of which the Department was notified but declined to attend, and which could have been determined by an appropriate investigation into the matter. The discussion by the panel members, as documented in the transcript of its meeting, in no way related to the particulars of the alleged misconduct but instead concerned itself primarily with the status of the appraiser. In short, it is clear that the probable cause panel's finding of probable cause was based only on its review of the completely inadequate investigation by Mr. Harris and the slanted comments of the panel's counsel. Nonetheless, an Administrative Complaint was filed against the Petitioner which alleged culpable negligence, breach of trust and misrepresentation and concealment. Prior to the hearing, the Board dismissed the allegation of misrepresentation and concealment. A hearing was conducted on the remaining counts on October 11, 1990 in Ft. Myers before H.O. Parrish. In her Recommended Order dated December 12, 1990, Ms. Parrish concluded that the Department had failed to establish the Respondent committed any misconduct; that Ms. Wilcox had accurately described and evaluated the home within customary ranges; and that the lender verified the reasons for denial of the requested mortgage were not related to the typographical errors pertaining to the type of home, the crawl space, and the slab. Ms. Parrish thereafter recommended a Final Order be entered by the Commission dismissing the Administrative Complaint and such an Order was entered. By Motion dated March 4, 1991, Petitioner's counsel sought reimbursement for the Petitioner of attorney's fees and costs relating to her defense against the allegations made against her in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent has stipulated that the amount claimed for the original representation is reasonable as to both hours claimed and fee per hour. It claims, however, that fees and costs are not reimbursable here because, (1), Petitioner is not a small business entity, and (2), the Division had probable cause to initiate the Administrative Complaint. Petitioner has also submitted an additional affidavit, subsequent to the hearing, in which she claims 7.1 additional hours, at $110.00 per hour, for services rendered subsequent to the final hearing in the original action. Petitioner claims to be an independent contractor to Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc.. She works strictly on commission. She has a desk at the Horizon office and keeps almost all her business information there. She has no other office. She cannot do appraisals for other brokers because she can work for only one broker at a time. She claims to be licensed as an appraiser in Florida but the licensure information on file with the Department of Professional Regulation as of September 4, 1990, reflects she is licensed only as a real estate salesman. By affidavit dated December 6, 1985, and attached to the Independent Contractor Agreement of equal date, Petitioner outlines her working conditions with Horizon. She pays all her own license fees and dues; she is responsible for her own auto and transportation expenses; she pays all her client development costs without reimbursement; she is not required to maintain any set working hours; she takes vacations when she pleases; she is not required to meet any quotas; she receives no minimum salary, sick pay or other fringe benefits; she pays her own income and FICA taxes; and the association with the broker may be terminated by either party at any time. Under the terms of the Agreement referenced above, Petitioner is to get 45% of the fee charged by Horizon for the appraisal done by her. Any lawsuits for the collection of appraisal fees must be maintained only in the name of the Broker, however, since the appraiser is considered to be a subagent. Though the appraiser may conduct the actual appraisal, the Agreement requires that these completed appraisals be submitted to the broker for review, and Mr. Krohe, of Goldome, indicated that his institution would accept only appraisals signed by the broker, not the appraiser. The agreement also stipulates that all clients brought in by the appraiser will result in an additional 10% fee split, and will remain clients of the broker upon termination of the agreement. Notwithstanding the appraiser can take vacations when desired and work when she pleases, she must, however, notify the broker a minimum of two weeks in advance of vacation time and call in on days when she will not be available. The appraiser agrees to a five day turnaround on appraisals, may not solicit listings for the transfer of property other than owned by her, and, significantly, may perform her services only for this broker, Horizon Appraisal Services, Inc.,
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(a),(b), and (e) and 475.42(1)(a),(b), and (d), Florida Statutes (1997), by operating as a broker without holding a valid broker's license, operating as a broker while licensed as a salesperson, collecting money except in the name of his employer, and committing misrepresentation, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in the state. Respondent is licensed in the state as a salesperson pursuant to license number 0575377. The last license issued was issued as an involuntary inactive salesperson at 361 Godfrey Road Southeast, Palm Bay, Florida 32909. After March 31, 1995, Respondent's license as a salesperson became inactive after Respondent did not renew it. Between March 1994 and January 1997, Respondent was employed as a salesperson by Prestige Homes of Brevard, Inc. ("Prestige"). Prestige is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Mark Pagliarulo and Mr. John Wales. Prestige is engaged in the business of residential construction. Mr. G. Wayne Carter was the sponsoring broker for Respondent from March 1994 through January 1997. Mr. Carter was licensed in the state as a broker until his license was revoked in 1998. Between March 1994 and January 1997, Prestige paid Respondent a sales commission of three percent of the sales price of each home constructed by Prestige and sold by Respondent. Prestige paid Respondent a weekly draw against commissions earned by Respondent. Mr. Carter, the sponsoring broker for Respondent, had no knowledge of the payments received by Respondent. Respondent did not deposit any sales commissions to Mr. Carter's escrow account. Respondent participated in various activities that violate relevant provisions in Sections 475.25 and 475.42. Respondent collected $1,100 from Marcia Pitts for a sprinkler system, a $1,000 initializing fee from Linda and David Grogan, and a $1,000 "design fee" from Mrs. Robert Leudesdorf. Respondent converted the foregoing sums to his personal use without the knowledge of his employers at Prestige and without the knowledge of Respondent's broker. Respondent operated as a broker without a valid broker's license, while licensed as a salesperson, and collected money for himself rather than for his broker or his employer. Respondent routinely designed variations on a "custom" home design without his employers' knowledge. Respondent then charged the purchasers approximately $1,000 for the plan changes. Respondent routinely deducted the $1,000 fee from the contract price Prestige charged the customer and converted the $1,000 fee directly to his personal use. Respondent failed to disclose to the purchasers that he was not acting on behalf of Prestige. The purchasers believed they were dealing with Prestige. The omission and failure to disclose amounted to a misrepresentation, false pretense, and breach of trust in a real estate transaction. For a time, Respondent's employers at Prestige condoned Respondent's "free lance" activities. Respondent's employers reduced Respondent's draws against commissions by the amount of the "free lance" fees converted by Respondent. After Respondent failed to discontinue his "free lance" activities, however, Prestige terminated Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(a),(b), and (e) and 475.42(1)(a),(b), and (d), and revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 31st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Steven Michael Wallace 361 Godfrey Road Palm Bay, Florida 32909 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints relative to real estate transactions. (Official recognition of Florida Statutes, TR 6-7) Respondent is now and was at times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued License No. 0149408. The last license to Respondent was as a broker, t/a Marathon Realty at Post Office Box 2386, Marathon Shores, Florida 33052. (Petitioner'S Exhibit 1) On or about May 2, 1985, Respondent solicited and obtained a sales contract entered into by Emily Cathy Cronnon, as purchaser, and W. J. and Delores Sarver , as sellers, for the purchase and sale of certain residential property (contract for sale). (Petitioner'S Exhibit 2) The sales transaction was scheduled to close on or about July 1, 1985, but the transaction did not close. On or about December 2, 1985, the purchaser and sellers terminated the sales contract. (Petitioner'S Exhibit 3) On or about May 13, 1985, the Respondent allowed Emily Cathy Cronnon and her live-in boyfriend, Billy Hull, to take possession and occupy the property with the knowledge and consent of seller W. J. Sarver. In this regard, W. J. Sarver denies giving permission to Ms. Cronnon to occupy the property prior to closing. However, it is found herein and the testimony of Billy Hull and Respondent substantiate the fact that Emily Cronnon and Billy Hull visited Respondent's office during early May, 1985, to find out whether they could move into the Sarver property with their furnishings prior to closing. Initially, Ms. Diabo advised Cannon and Hull that she was not at liberty to permit them to move in. However, she told them that if they liked, they could phone Mr. Server and get his permission. This was done and it is found that Mr. Sarver gave his permission to Respondent to allow Ms. Cronnon and Billy Hull to occupy the premises prior to closing, provided they turned the utilities off and then had the same turned on in their name. This was done, and the contract purchaser (Cronnon) and her boyfriend, Billy Hull, moved in prior to the time that the transaction closed. Respondent received a $500 rental payment from the purchaser on August 19, 1985. (Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2) Respondent deposited said check in an appropriate bank account and waited eleven (11) days for that check to clear. On August 30, 1985, she wrote a $500 check to the Sarvers indicating that the same was rental payment to them for the use of their property by Cronnon and Hull. Respondent customarily waits at least ten (10) days for any check to clear before she writes a check drawn on those same funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 9th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings: 1. Accepted as modified. 7. Rejected based on credible evidence herein which reveals that Emily Cathy Cronnon and her live-in boyfriend, Billy Hull, took possession and occupied the property with the prior knowledge and consent of seller, W. J. Sarver. Rejected based on credible evidence which reveals that Respondent did not conceal the rent payment, but rather deposited the rent payment until the funds cleared her bank and she immediately thereafter transmitted the proceeds to the Sarvers. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary to decide the issues posed. Rejected as a conclusion and not a finding of fact. Respondent's proposed findings and conclusions are largely a brief in the form of resolutions of credibility, conflicts, recommendations as to how those conflicts should be resolved, and conclusions in the form of ultimate findings of fact. As such, they are not specifically addressed in the Appendix, but were carefully considered and reviewed by the under signed in preparation of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: JAMES H. GILLIS, ESQUIRE SENIOR ATTORNEY DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 MICHAEL H. DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE WATSON & CLARK POST OFFICE BOX 11959 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33339 HAROLD HUFF, EXECUTIVE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32502 HONORABLE VAN B. POOLE, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 JOSEPH A. SOLE, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
