Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to administer and to enforce the Florida Yacht and Ship Broker's Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At times prior to June 21, 1991, Respondent Bongiovi was licensed by Petitioner as a yacht broker. Respondent Bongiovi did not hold any license as a yacht broker at any time after June 21, 1991. Respondent AJB Yachts was not licensed as a yacht broker at any time pertinent to this proceeding. Respondent Bongiovi does business as AJB Yachts or AJB Yacht Sales, Inc. There was no evidence that AJB Yacht Sales, Inc., is legally incorporated. On various dates in September and October 1994, Respondent Bongiovi placed two separate advertisements in the classified ads section of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Sun-Sentinel newspaper. The first of these ads offered for sale a 41' Hatteras yacht for the sum of $150,000. The second of these advertisements offered for sale a 43" Portofino yacht for the sum of $125,000. Both advertisements contained the Respondent's telephone number, 305-942-7425. On or about May 28, 1993, Respondent, acting as a yacht broker, represented Charles Robbins in the purchase of a 66' Pacemaker yacht named the Sea Cow. The owner of the yacht, Dennis Gaultney, was represented by Mauch Yacht Sales, Inc., the listing broker. As part of the offer made by Mr. Robbins, he gave to Respondent Bongiovi a check in the amount of $33,000 as earnest money. Respondent Bongiovi deposited this money in a bank account at First Union National Bank of Florida, Pompano Beach branch on June 1, 1993. This account is entitled "AJB Yacht Sales, Inc., Escrow Account." Respondent Bongiovi was the sole signatory on this account. Respondent Bongiovi immediately began making withdrawals from this account that were not related to the Robbins transaction. 1/ As of June 10, 1993, the balance in this account was $29,575.54. As of June 21, 1993, the balance was $23,570.83. As of June 30, 1993, the balance was $21,554.04. Negotiations for the sale of the Sea Cow continued between the purchaser and the owner until July 20, 1993. The final version of the owner's proposal was a response to the last proposal made by Mr. Robbins and contained several changes to the last offer made by Mr. Robbins, including a change in the price of the vessel and an extension of the closing date to July 22, 1993. These changes were initialed by the owner of the boat, but they were not initialed by Mr. Robbins. Mr. Robbins never received a signed copy of the final proposal from the owner of the Sea Cow. A survey to evaluate the condition of the vessel was conducted and a copy of the inspection report faxed to Respondent Bongiovi by Jan Mauch of Mauch Yacht Sales on June 9, 1993. The transmittal note that accompanied the fax stated the following: "Here is the 'Schedule A' 2/ to go with the contract. After Charlie sees the survey, have him sign this and Acceptance of Vessel on contract and fax back both to me and I'll have Denny sign." Included in the inspection report was the following information: ". . . an engine inspection did not include a detailed mechanical inspection or test of components. A complete engine survey by a qualified mechanic is recommended in all cases." Mr. Robbins thereafter requested that Respondent Bongiovi arrange for an inspection of the vessel's engines before he accepted the vessel. Mr. Robbins never received an inspection report for the engines, he did not obtain his own financing for the vessel, and he never tendered the balance of the purchase price. The transaction involving Mr. Robbins did not timely close because the inspection of the engines were not completed. Because there was a delay in closing the transaction, the owner sold the yacht to another buyer. Neither Mr. Gaultney nor Mauch Yacht Sales demanded a portion of the $33,000 earnest money deposit. Mr. Robbins demanded the return of his money from the Respondent after he learned that the Sea Cow had been sold to another purchaser. Respondent Bongiovi refused to return the deposit and asserted the position that he was entitled to keep all of the deposit as liquidated damages because the transaction had not closed. Respondent Bongiovi relies on Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the form agreement for his contention that he was entitled to retain the $33,000 deposit as liquidated damages. Those provisions are as follows: The purchase of the vessel is subject to survey - seatrial - capt (sic) - inspection showing condition subject to purchasers (sic) sole judgment and approval to be conducted as soon as practicable after execution of this agreement at the option and expense of the PURCHASER. The PURCHASER shall give written acceptance or rejection of the Vessel by June 10, 1993, and if written notification is not received by the BROKER (A.J.B. Yacht Sales) on or before said date, it shall be construed as acceptance of the Vessel by PURCHASER. In the event, after written or construed acceptance of the Vessel, the PURCHASER fails to pay the balance of the purchase price and execute all papers necessary to be executed by him for the completion of his purchase, pursuant to the terms of this contract, on or before July 10, 1993, the sum this date paid shall be retained by A.J.B. Yacht Sales as liquidated and agreed damage and the parties shall be relieved of all obligations under this contract. In paragraph 2 of the agreement executed by Mr. Robbins on May 28, 1993, there was a provision that the offer submitted by Mr. Robbins was withdrawn if not accepted by June 5, 1993. There was no evidence that there was a final and complete agreement sufficient to bind the parties by June 5, 1993, or at any time thereafter. The agreement executed by Mr. Robbins on May 28, 1993, also contained the following provision: In the event that this sale is not consummated by reasons of unsatisfactory survey . . . the deposit shall be returned, providing all expenses incurred by the PURCHASER against the Vessel have been paid, and this agreement shall be null and void. Mr. Robbins verbally notified Respondent Bongiovi that he would require additional testing on the engine before accepting the vessel. Mr. Robbins did not receive the results of those additional tests and learned soon thereafter that the vessel had been sold to another purchaser. Following the failure and refusal of the Respondents to return the deposit, Mr. Robbins sued the Respondents in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 772.11 and 812.014, Florida Statutes. Based on the evidence presented, the Circuit Judge in that civil proceeding entered a final judgement for treble damages ($99,000) in favor of Mr. Robbins and against the Respondents based, in part, on the following: . . . On the evidence presented, the Court finds: * * * Plaintiff (Mr. Robbins) gave Defendants (Mr. Bongiovi and his corporation) a check in the amount of $33,000.00 on May 28, 1993, to be held in escrow as a deposit pending accep- tance by the owner of a vessel for the purchase of said motor vessel. Said $33,000.00 was deposited into a bank account owned and/or controlled by Defendants. The owner of the vessel failed to accept Plaintiff's offer within the time provided in the written contract attached to the Amended Complaint; and, therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to return of his $33,000.00 deposit. Plaintiff demanded return of said $33,000.00 deposit, but Defendants failed and refused to return same, which sum has been due with interest since June 5, 1993. Defendants breached the Purchase Agree- ment on June 5, 1993, by failing and refusing to return Plaintiff's deposit of $33,000.00 when the offer to purchase the vessel was not accepted by the owner by that date. Defendants had a fiduciary responsibility to Plaintiff as escrow agents under the Purchase Agreement, and they breached their fiduciary responsibility by failing and refusing to return the $33,000.00 deposit when the offer to purchase the vessel was not accepted by the owner by June 5, 1993. . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order in this proceeding that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law and which imposes an administrative fine jointly and severally against the Respondents in the amount of $10,000 for the violations of Count I and imposes an additional administrative fine jointly and severally against the Respondents in the amount of $10,000 for the violation of Count II. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 December, 1995.
The Issue Whether the Respondent operated as a salesperson without being the holder of a valid and current license as a real estate salesperson, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0475436 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license was issued to Respondent as a salesperson c/o Dolphin Realty Referral Inc., 2525 Pasadena Avenue, Suite L., South Pasadena, Florida 33707. On December 18, 1996, Respondent presented a written offer to listing agent Sharon Simms for property located at 3900 48th Avenue, South, St. Petersburg, Florida. In connection therewith, Respondent, who was the building contractor for buyer Joseph S. Sparra, accepted a $2,000 deposit which was placed in the escrow account of Dolphin Realty Referral Inc., of which Thomas J. Hassel was qualifying broker. Hassel drafted the contract and qualified Joseph S. Sparra with Sigmund Financial for a first mortgage. The Respondent was employed by Hassel as an independent contractor. Thomas Hassel, the Respondent's employing broker, advised him that he was not sure Respondent's license was active, but the Respondent made no attempt to contact the Petitioner to ascertain his licensure status. On January 24, 1997, the Respondent accompanied Joseph S. Sparra to the closing at Anclote Title Services, where the Respondent provided the escrow money and accepted a $5,780 commission check on behalf of Dolphin Realty Referral, Inc. During the entire transaction, Respondent was not properly licensed with Dolphin Realty Referral, Inc., nor with any other real estate brokerage. Respondent's license was involuntarily placed on inactive status from January 1, 1996, through July 20, 1997, due to no employing broker. Hassel later advised Respondent that his license was not transferred to the new corporation when the broker changed its name from Dolphin Realty of Pinellas County to Dolphin Realty Referrals, Inc. The Respondent did not accept a share of the commission on the house in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent did not participate as a real estate salesperson in any other transaction while his license was on inactive status.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, Impose an administrative fine of $500 and require Respondent to complete a 45-hour salesperson's post-licensure course, as prescribed by the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John A. Kitzmiller, pro se 2613 59th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33707 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 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
Findings Of Fact Respondent Heidt Neil "Cap" Fendig, Jr., and his corporate alter ego, Go Fish, Inc., do business under the name Golden Isles Charter Company. Aside from operating the marina he leases on St. Simons Island, Georgia, Mr. Fendig hires out as a captain (for $175 a day), arranges charters, and acts as a yacht broker in Georgia. When Kirby J. Bourgeois acquired the Westwind, a 55-foot "Ocean Super Sportfisherman," the man to whom the boat had previously belonged recommended respondent to Mr. Bourgeois, an Oklahoman who knew little about boats, as somebody who could assist him. When Messrs. Fendig and Bourgeois met on October 5 or 6, 1990, respondent agreed to register the Westwind in the name of a corporation (Mandela Corp.) Mr. Bourgeois specified, and to equip the boat in accordance with Coast Guard requirements. Later he took Mr. Bourgeois out on "training trips." For each of these services, respondent prepared invoices which Mr. Bourgeois paid in due course. Around Thanksgiving of 1990, Mr. Fendig acted as the Westwind's captain on a cruise Mr. Bourgeois took to the Bahamas. They left the boat docked in Marsh Harbor. In January of 1991, Mr. Bourgeois told Mr. Fendig on the telephone that he wanted to sell the Westwind. At that time, if not before, Mr. Fendig mailed Mr. Bourgeois a packet of information about selling boats, which included a form yacht brokerage agreement. Instead of signing the yacht brokerage agreement, Mr. Bourgeois decided to show the Westwind at the Third Annual Brokerage Yacht Show in Miami Beach, one of the alternatives Mr. Fendig had suggested. Mr. Fendig, who had once inquired of petitioner DBR about obtaining a Florida yacht broker's license, and been told he was ineligible because he lived and worked out of state, advised Mr. Bourgeois that he was not licensed in Florida and could not act as a yacht broker in Florida. From conversations he had with petitioner's employees at the time he discussed obtaining a Florida license, Mr. Fendig understood that Florida law permitted him to accompany and assist yacht owners in the sale or purchase of yachts in Florida so long as he did not buy or sell as an owner's agent. Mr. Fendig agreed to bring the Westwind over from Marsh Harbor for the show, which began on February 14, 1991, a Thursday. On January 23 or 24, 1991, respondent sent Mr. Bourgeois a facsimile transmission, described as confirmation of a telephone conversation, in which he wrote: "As per your instructions, I will transport the boat to the Miami show and look for your arrival in Miami at [sic] sometime during the show." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Although Mr. Bourgeois had informed respondent "that he would not be able to be there the first day" (T.24), Mr. Fendig arrived before the show began. He also filled out a form application and a contract for exhibit space, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, which, together with the application fee, had reached Yachting Provisions, Inc. in Ft. Lauderdale, on February 1, 1991. Mr. Bourgeois, whose name did not appear on the application and contract, later reimbursed him the fee. Reportedly delayed by a snowstorm, Mr. Bourgeois did not reach Miami before Saturday evening. Until Mr. Bourgeois arrived, Mr. Fendig stayed with the boat, moored at slip 221 on Collins Avenue. Available to anybody who visited the Westwind while he was on board were copies of his business card, which included the words "YACHT SALES-YACHT MANAGEMENT." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Also available to show goers (including those to whom respondent never spoke) were one page fliers describing the Westwind and concluding: "Asking $350,000 Looking for serious offers contact H. N. "Cap" Fendig, Golden Isles Yacht Sales & Charter Co. 912 638-7717 St. Simons Island, Ga." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Respondent had asked his brother to make up this flier. Like other paid captains, respondent told anybody who inquired the owner's asking price. When, on the first day of the boat show, investigators in petitioner's employ posed as potential buyers, Mr. Fendig told them they would have to speak to the owner, who would be arriving later in the show. He told "everybody that, if they wanted to make an offer, the owner was coming and they could drop by later in the show and . . . talk to him." T. 36. While at the boat show, Mr. Fendig slept on the boat, which was an economic benefit for him, at the same time it afforded the vessel a measure of security, which was an economic benefit for the owner. Mr. Bourgeois paid him for bringing the boat to Miami Beach, but not for the time he spent there. He had wanted to go to the boat show for his own purposes, in any event. The yacht show closed on Monday without the Westwind's changing hands. Mr. Bourgeois still owned the Westwind on March 11, 1991, when he signed a yacht brokerage agreement with respondent Fendig. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Before that time Mr. Fendig had no agreement for or expectation of any compensation on account either of the Westwind's sale or of his efforts to accomplish a sale (other than bringing the boat to Miami, for which he received a fixed amount.)
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3108 Petitioner's proposed findings of facts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, he was off and on the boat during the last two days. Before Mr. Bourgeois' arrival, it had been necessary to stay with the boat for security reasons. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the proof did not show that anybody asked the owner's name, address or phone number. Respondent testified he did not distribute this information because it "wasn't necessary, because the owner was going to be there." T.36. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 10, the taking of evidence had closed and respondent was making legal argument. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 15, respondent (who appeared pro se) answered a speculative question about what "could" happen. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 H. N. "Cap" Fendig 205 Marina Drive St. Simons Island, GA 31522 Henry M. Solares, Director Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Swiss national, who resides in Jamaica. His business in Jamaica involves water sports and vacation tours, primarily for European tourists. Petitioner attended a boat show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in order to locate a suitable boat for entertainment and tour purposes for use by his business in Jamaica. There, he saw The Lady, a vessel being brokered by Anchorline Yacht and Ship Brokerage, Inc., of St. Petersburg, Florida. On February 28, 1980, Petitioner purchased The Lady from Anchorline for $120,000. Prior to that date, a survey was conducted by Wilkinson Company, marine surveyors, and repairs indicated by that survey were completed at South Pasadena Marina, Inc. At the time that Petitioner purchased The Lady from Anchorline, he advised the broker that he was taking the vessel out of the country. Accordingly, the broker required Petitioner to sign an affidavit that Petitioner had read the provisions of Section 212.05, Florida Statutes, and no tax was collected on the sale and purchase of The Lady. As The Lady was journeying from St. Petersburg across the State of Florida to West Palm Beach in order to reach Jamaica, she started taking on water. She was taken to Lantana Boatyard, where another marine survey was conducted. That survey concluded that The Lady was not seaworthy and, therefore, could not be taken to Jamaica at that time. As one of the required repairs, her engines needed to be overhauled by Cummins in Miami. Accordingly, after the repairs to be made at the Lantana Boatyard were completed, The Lady was taken to the Keystone Point Marina in North Miami, Florida, so that the work on her Cummins engines could be undertaken. During this time, Petitioner attempted to register The Lady in Jamaica; however, the Jamaican Government refused to license or register the vessel since she was not in Jamaica but was still physically located within the State of Florida. As a result of discussion between Petitioner and a Mr. Mathews at Anchorline, on September 18, 1980, the Petitioner made application for a Florida boat Certificate of Title at a tag agency. He reported the purchase price as ten dollars and, accordingly, paid forty cents tax on the transaction. Cummins started the repair work necessary on The Lady's engines while she had been docked at the Keystone Point Marina. On occasion, Petitioner has stayed overnight on The Lady for security purposes. He has had a telephone attached to the vessel for his personal use while on board. On January 7, 1981, Respondent Department of Revenue issued a Warrant for Collection of Delinquent Sales and Use Tax against the Petitioner in the total amount of $9,967.37, representing the follows: Tax $4,799.60 Penalty 4,799.60 Interest 350.17 Filing Fee 18.00 $9,967.37 On January 19, 1981, Petitioner made payment to Respondent Department of Revenue in the amount of $5,167.77, which payment was made under protest and which payment represents the amount of tax, interest, and filing fees, but does not include the amount of penalty. Pursuant to its warrant, the Department of Revenue has chained The Lady to the dock at the Keystone Point Marina. Accordingly, the work being performed by Cummins on her engines has not been completed, and no sea trial can be conducted. As stipulated by the parties, since the Petitioner purchased The Lady, she has been under repair and has never left Florida waters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered denying Petitioner's claim for a refund, finding the Petitioner liable for a sales tax equal to four percent of the purchase price, together with interest and filing fees, but finding the penalty assessed against Petitioner to be erroneous and therefore invalid. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Lechtman, Esquire 801 N.E. 167th Street, Suite 301 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 John Browdy, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Randy Miller Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed yacht broker.1 She is the yacht broker for Yachting Consultants, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In April 1999, Respondent was the listing broker of record regarding the sale of a 43-foot Pilgrim yacht. The selling broker was Mark Lipkus, a licensed yacht broker. John Pribik, a licensed salesperson, was Respondent's representative in the sale of the Pilgrim yacht. Mr. Pribik was under the supervision and control of Respondent and Respondent was responsible for his actions. Respondent had a buyer for the Pilgrim yacht, and the closing for the sale of the yacht was scheduled for April 13, 1999. The buyer was financing the purchase of the yacht. In a sale situation, a buyer and a seller have different responsibilities. The seller is responsible for providing all of the documents needed for a sale. The buyer is responsible for providing the funds for a sale. In the sale of the Pilgrim yacht, the responsibilities of the Seller and the Buyer did not change. There is a commission from the sale of a yacht, which is paid by the seller and, in accordance with standard industry practice, paid at closing. By standard industry practice, the commission split is 70/30, but can differ upon agreement. Mr. Lipkus received a down payment of $15,000.00 from the Buyer and placed the down payment in his escrow account. Mr. Lipkus was of the mistaken belief that the commission was payable by the Buyer, not the Seller. No co-broker agreement was entered into between Respondent or Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus regarding commission. There was no discussion regarding the split of the commission between them. On a prior sale involving Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus, the commission split was 60/40. Mr. Pribik and Respondent assumed the commission split of the sale of the Pilgrim yacht would again be 60/40. Considering the prior sale, it was not unreasonable for Respondent and Mr. Pribik to assume a 60/40 split of the commission. Mr. Lipkus assumed the commission split would be 70/30. A power of attorney had been prepared by the Seller who was unavailable for closing due to being in a remote area in the Philippine Islands. Mr. Pribik provided the power of attorney to the documenting agent who reviewed the power of attorney and found it to be satisfactory. The mortgage broker received a copy of the power of attorney prior to closing and forward a copy to the lending institution. The lending institution notified the mortgage broker at some point before closing that the power of attorney was unacceptable. In turn, the mortgage broker contacted the documenting agent regarding the unacceptability of the power of attorney and informed the documenting agent that a new power of attorney was required before closing could take place. Mr. Pribik was notified by the mortgage broker that a new power of attorney was required. The responsibility to obtain the new power of attorney was the responsibility of the listing broker, who was Respondent via Mr. Pribik. As far as Mr. Pribik was concerned, with the time remaining before closing2 and with the Seller being in the Philippine Islands, he believed that it was virtually impossible to obtain a new power of attorney by the time of closing. The mortgage broker, taking the position that he should do whatever he could to effectuate a closing, encouraged Mr. Pribik to attempt to contact the Seller. Complying, Mr. Pribik was able to make telephonic contact with the Seller and Mr. Pribik and the mortgage broker spoke with the Seller, who agreed to provide a new power of attorney. Based on the verbal assurance by the Seller to provide the new power of attorney, the lending institution agreed to proceed with the closing, which was re- scheduled for April 14, 1999. A new power of attorney was faxed to the Seller, and the Seller executed it and faxed it back. According to industry standard, all commissions are paid at closing when a seller receives the funds. Also, according to industry standard, closing is not delayed until a commission is paid. Mr. Lipkus mistakenly believed that the commission was paid by a buyer, coming out of a buyer's deposit. As a result, he expected to take the commission out of the Buyer's down payment, which was held in Mr. Lipkus' escrow account. After obtaining his commission, Mr. Lipkus was going to forward the remaining monies. On April 13, 1999, the original date for the closing, the closing could not take place because the financing from the lending institution was not available, based upon the absence of a new power of attorney. Also, Mr. Lipkus had not made arrangements for the deposit monies to be at closing or forwarded a settlement statement to closing, which were both needed for the closing. Respondent contacted Mr. Lipkus by fax regarding the commission monies and the settlement statement, demanding both items in order for closing to take place. The evidence is not clear and convincing as to whether Respondent demanded the monies held by Mr. Lipkus prior to closing or whether Respondent was threatening to delay the closing unless she had the monies prior to closing. The evidence suggests that Respondent was demanding the monies to be in place at closing. Additionally, on the original closing date, closing was to take place at the office of the mortgage broker. Mr. Pribik, the Buyer, and the mortgage broker were present for the closing. Mr. Lipkus did not intend to attend, and did not attend, the closing. Since the commission monies were not available at closing, Mr. Pribik telephoned Mr. Lipkus and demanded that the commission monies be available and, told him that if not made available, the closing could not take place. In Mr. Pribik's opinion, the monies were needed for closing. The evidence is not clear and convincing as to whether Mr. Pribik demanded the monies held by Mr. Lipkus prior to closing or whether Mr. Pribik was threatening to delay the closing if he did not have the monies prior to closing. The evidence suggests that Mr. Pribik was demanding the monies to be in place at closing. Furthermore, for the first time, Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus, during the telephone conversation, became aware of their disagreement as to the proper commission split, whether 60/40 or 70/30. Believing that Mr. Pribik would prevent a timely closing, Mr. Lipkus agreed to Mr. Pribik's split of 60/40. Closing occurred on April 14, 1999. The necessary documents and finances were present. At the final hearing, Respondent expressed with sincerity that, if she did anything wrong, she wanted to know exactly what it was, so that she would not engage in the same conduct again. Furthermore, Respondent expressed the frustration that, prior to hearing, no one had explicitly told her what she had done wrong and that, at hearing, she continued to be unsure what she had done wrong because she had not been explicitly told what she had done wrong. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Finding that Giovanna Gallottini did not violate Rule 61B-60.008(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Not sustaining the Notice to Show Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 6th day of February, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Kenneth Baurley should be eligible to sit for the examination to become licensed as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On July 14, 1988, Mr. Baurley's application for licensure as a real estate salesman was received by the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission). By letter dated October 3, 1988, the Commission notified Baurley that his application had been denied based on his answer to question 6 on the application. In responding to that question, Mr. Baurley disclosed that he had been involved in two criminal proceedings; in both an adjudication of his guilt had been withheld. The first case arose in 1982 on the charge of battery on a law enforcement officer, for which he received 18 months of supervised probation. The incident had its genesis in a shoving match involving Baurley and someone who turned out to be an off-duty police officer for a small municipality. The second was in 1983 for the municipal offense of prowling. Although under no obligation to do so, Mr. Baurley also stated that he had been arrested for driving under the influence in 1988. He was found not guilty on the last charge, so it has no bearing on the decision in this case. Mr. Baurley's response to question 6 was complete and truthful. At the time of these incidents, Mr. Baurley was 19 and 20 years of age. He successfully completed his probation. He has had no further relevant contacts with the criminal justice system for more than five years. Mr. Baurley is now 26 years old. He has resided in Pompano Beach, Florida since 1972, although he attended college in Tallahassee. He is employed currently as President of A Better Limousine Service, Inc. and as a supervisor at Baurley Marine Works, Inc., which is owned by his father. Prior to his employment in these two positions, Mr. Baurley worked in a business established by his brother, Baurley "No Frills" Auto Rental. Before he held these positions, Mr. Baurley attended college in Tallahassee and worked at Doc's Sports Bar and Grill and at Forest Meadows Athletic Club. He was also an adjunct instructor at Florida State University where he taught Tae Ywon Do for college credit. In the course of his employment in the positions set out in Findings 6 and 7 above, Mr. Baurley has been required to interact with patrons, sometimes under difficult circumstances. In all the positions delineated in Findings 6 and 7 (other than the position as adjunct instructor at Florida State University) Mr. Baurley has been required to handle other people's money on at least a weekly basis. Most of the positions have required him to deal with his employers' or customers' money on a daily basis. Petitioner has performed all his employment responsibilities honestly and without incident. Darlene Vlazeny, a real estate salesperson and housewife, met Mr. Baurley in a business capacity by telephone in October, 1988. At that time Mrs. Vlazeny was soliciting in-kind contributions on behalf of a school for hearing impaired children. Mrs. Vlazeny testified that Mr. Baurley's was the only limousine company which agreed to her request to provide limousine services in connection with a benefit for the school at reduced rates. Since the school benefit, Mrs. Valzeny has had social contact with Mr. Baurley. She is aware of the incidents detailed in his answer to question number 6 on his licensure application, but believes he is trustworthy, honest and has a high moral character based on her experiences with Baurley. Mrs. Vlazeny would have no reservation about working with Mr. Baurley in any professional capacity. John Belegesky, a practicing attorney for more than 30 years, has known Mr. Baurley since he was a small boy. Baurley and Mr. Belegesky's son have been friends since grade school. Mr. Belegesky is also aware of Mr. Baurley's past and believes that the acts disclosed in the response to question number 6 to be out of character for him, and the result of youthful indiscretion. Mr. Belegesky trusts Petitioner to have a key to his home, which contains many valuables, and to houseset when he and his wife are away for weeks at a time. Mr. Belegesky would have no reservation about referring his clients, including major developers, to work with Mr. Baurley, if he is licensed. Mr. Belegesky believes Mr. Baurley possesses a high moral character and is honest and trustworthy. Mr. Baurley has matured and regrets his past actions. Mr. Baurley is honest and trustworthy and is of good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Kenneth M. Baurley, be allowed to take the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman and if he passes the examination, be issued a real estate salesman license. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5537 The proposed findings of Mr. Baurley have generally been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32802 Marion E. Baurley, Esquire 1025 Vermont Avenue, North West Suite 915 Washington, D.C. 20005 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32902
Findings Of Fact Notices to Show Cause were issued by the Department against Roy D. Mathew, and William Gannaway on April 9, 1976. (See: Agency Exhibits 1 and 2). The final hearing was scheduled by notice dated May 12, 1976. (See: Agency Exhibit 3). Roy D. Mathew, d/b/a Anchorline Yacht Brokerage holds Yacht and Ship Broker License No. 12433, issued by the Department on December 18, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 5). Mathew has at all material times held a yacht and ship broker license issued by the Department. William G. Gannaway holds Yacht and Ship Salesman License No. 12657, issued by the Department on December 18, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 4). Gannaway has at all material times held a yacht and ship salesman license issued by the Department. Gannaway has at all material times served as a yacht and ship salesman for Roy D. Mathew and Anchorline Yacht Brokerage. Prior to July, 1975, R. A. McKenzie, the owner of a yacht called The Anokone, decided to sell the yacht. The yacht was housed at Anchorline Yacht Brokerage in St. Petersburg, Florida, and McKenzie agreed to pay Anchorline a commission for selling the yacht. On or about July 8, 1975, Jean C. Noll, a resident of Jacksonville, Florida, saw the yacht, and believed that it was the sort of vessel that she and her husband had been looking for. She entered into a purchase agreement with the understanding that her husband, the Reverend Joseph E. Noll, Jr., would have the opportunity to make a personal inspection. William G. Gannaway represented Anchorline Yacht Brokerage in the transaction, and received a deposit from Mrs. Noll. (See: Agency Exhibit 6). On or about July 15, 1975 Reverend Noll came to St. Petersburg from Jacksonville and inspected the yacht. Gannaway at that time advised Reverend Noll that the starboard engine on the yacht was broken down and would require extensive repairs. Reverend Noll liked the yacht, and hired the Wilkinson Company to conduct a survey of the yacht. Dean Greger conducted the survey on behalf of the Wilkinson Company. A very thorough inspection was performed by Greger. He made 24 recommendations respecting & repairs, some of which were significant, and some of which were minor. He was not able to conduct a sea test of the vessel because of the broken down engine. His report was issued on July 22, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 7). McKenzie was somewhat disturbed about the large number of discrepancies, and he offered the following alternatives to the Nolls: He would sell the boat "as is" for $15,000; he would sell the boat "as is" with a new starboard engine installed for $17,000; or he would sell the boat for $19,500 with a new engine, with him making all additional repairs up to $1,000 and with all remaining repairs being split evenly three ways between the Nolls, McKenzie, and Anchorline. The Nolls accepted the latter option, and a contract reflecting it was signed. (See: Agency Exhibit 28). All work was to be performed at Whistlers Yacht Service, Inc., which was located adjacent to Anchorline. Shortly after July 22, 1975, it became apparent that a new replacement starboard engine could not be obtained, because the engine was no longer in production. Gannaway advised the Nolls that Whistlers indicated to him that they could replace the "shortblock" of the engine, rebuild the engine, and that they would stand by their work. Gannaway told the Nolls that he thought the rebuilt engine would carry a one year guarantee. Reverend Noll believed that the guarantee would be for no more than 90 days, and he agreed to a rebuilt engine rather than a new engine. Extensive work was performed by Whistlers Marina, and more than $2,100 was paid to Whistlers to perform the repairs. (See: Agency Exhibits 14, 22, 23, 24, 25). Dean Greger conducted a supplemental survey, including a sea test of the vessel on or about August 14, 1975. Fourteen of the 24 discrepancies noted in the original report were found to have been satisfactorily corrected. It was noted that the generator, the depth sounder, the auto pilot, the signal horn, the marine air conditioning, and the docking lights were not performing properly. (See: Agency Exhibit 8). The Nolls were aware of these problems when they closed the transaction and purchased the yacht on approximately August 20, 1975. The closing took place at a Federal Credit Union in Jacksonville. No representative of Anchorline was present at the closing. Following the closing the Nolls took possession of the yacht, and renamed it "Escape Hatch II". The Nolls were advised by several persons, including personnel at Whistlers Yacht Basin, and personnel at Anchorline, that they should familiarize themselves with the vessel in the immediate area prior to their taking any long excursions. The Nolls nonetheless left St. Petersburg in early September to return to Jacksonville. On this return trip the Nolls experienced many mechanical difficulties. Major repairs needed to be performed on the vessel in Ft. Myers (See: Agency Exhibit II), and minor repairs were performed in Stuart and Melbourne (See: Agency Exhibits 12 and 13). Upon return to Jacksonville major repairs were required and are continuing to be performed. (See: Agency Exhibits 16, 17, and 27). It is apparent that the starboard engine was not properly repaired, and that considerable dry rot remained on the vessel. The Nolls are presently engaged in litigation respecting their liabilities in connection with the vessel. Whistlers disclaimed any liability for making repairs, but Mrs. Coe, the general manager at Whistlers testified that she would have performed any repairs within 90 days if the vessel had been returned to the yacht basin. Mr. Gannaway and Mr. Mathew had sound reason to believe that there were no discrepancies respecting the operability of the yacht other than those set out in the marine surveys. Mathew and Gannaway had sound reason to believe that all of the repairs required to rectify these discrepancies had been performed at Whistlers. There was no evidence offered to show that either Gannaway or Mathew intentionally misstated any facts to the Nolls, or that they knew or should have known that any statements they made to the Nolls were false. There was no evidence to establish that Mathew had any personal knowledge of any of the dealings or discussions between Gannaway and the Nolls.
Findings Of Fact The claim imposed by the Department of Revenue stems from an audit conducted by Mr. George Thomas Lloyd, Jr., an employee of the Department of Revenue. Mr. Lloyd examined the books of the corporation and the receipts for items purchased and compiled a ledger of particular items which, in Mr. Lloyd's opinion, were not parts of the ship and upon which a use tax was due. At the hearing on this case this ledger was introduced as Joint Exhibit No. 1. It is a composite exhibit consisting of 157 pages. This ledger reflects purchases in the amount of $1,953,426.13 upon which the Department of Revenue claims tax is due. The total tax claimed by the Department of Revenue is $72,630.19 for taxes, penalties, and interest through February 16, 1976. The Petitioner is a Norwegian corporation with principal offices located in Oslo, Norway, and an office in Miami at Biscayne Boulevard. Petitioner owns three cruise vessels of Norwegian ownership and registration which sail out of the port of Miami, Florida to ports in the Caribbean. These cruises last several days. The parties have agreed that the Petitioner is in the exclusive business of transporting passengers and goods in foreign commerce. Mr. Lloyd, who conducted the audit above mentioned, testified that he prepared Joint Exhibit No. 1 by evaluating the items described in the corporation's records and used his own independent judgment in a determination as to whether those items were, or were not, parts of a vessel. If he determined they in fact were not parts of the vessel, he concluded that a use tax was owed to the State on the purchase price of those items. Mr. Lloyd stated that his determination as to whether a particular item was indeed a part of a ship was based on his independent judgment which was largely a question of whether the item was physically attached to the vessel. The individual items are far too numerous to describe in any detail herein, but they range from napkins, stirrers, postage meters, paper products, grinding wheels, coffee pots, towels, party favors, games, sandpaper, repairs to a shotgun, movie rentals, hardware items, batteries, flowers, bug spray. The items in question were delivered to Petitioner's warehouse on Dodge Island, Miami, Florida for lading on board one of Petitioner's three cruise vessels. The cruise vessels tie up next to the warehouse where the goods are stored and from time to time these goods are brought aboard each of the vessels. The items in question are all used aboard each vessel during the vessels' passenger cruises. The only time the cruise vessels spend within the territorial limits of Florida are for a period of time on Saturday of each week for the purpose of embarking and disembarking passengers for each weekly cruise. These articles, somewhat above described, are all used in connection with the ship's operation which is the conduct of weekly pleasure cruises from Miami to the Caribbean. The question of whether a particular item is a part of a vessel is one of definition and common sense. The auditor, Mr. Lloyd, appeared to accept a definition similar to what one would use in determining whether or not an item was a fixture in regard to realty. However, there are all types of vessels and it appears to this Hearing Officer that what may be a part of one type of vessel would have no function on another. There is really no relationship between what may be considered a part of real estate and what may be considered a part of a ship. There also appears to be no logic behind a definition which limits "parts of a ship" to those items which are physically attached to the vessel. Most would agree that pumps are parts of a ship; even though they may not be attached and can be easily removed, they are necessary in keeping a vessel afloat. Similarly, a compass and other navigational equipment may be removed, but that would hardly make them any less a part of a ship. As the Petitioner points out in its Memorandum, the most logical approach to a finding as what is truly a part of a vessel must ultimately hinge on the nature of the vessel, and a broad definition of seaworthiness. What are clearly parts of some ships have no purpose on others. A cargo freighter would need hoists and cranes which are not required on a tug. Each type of vessel uses equipment suited to that ship's purpose and type of cargo. While a tanker may be in the business of transporting oil, a very specialized cargo, a cruise ship is in business of transporting people and catering to their needs and entertainment. Therefore the equipment of a cruise ship would appear more frivolous to those accustomed to ships transporting basic raw materials. Both vessels, however, are in the shipping business. Since the parts of a ship must be defined as those items which serve a useful purpose to the operation of the ship, the decision then depends not on the nature of the item, but of the vessel. An oil tanker might conceivably have equipment or parts which are so specialized that they could serve no other useful purpose except aboard that type of vessel. The cruise ships in question in this case, however, use equipment which are apparently commonplace and equally useful on land as on sea. What items may properly be considered parts of a cruise ship depend on how those items relate to the operation of the vessel. While the equipment of an oil tanker would hardly be expected to be directed toward mirth; likewise, it is unreasonable for the equipment of a cruise ship to be limited to the bare necessities of a spartan voyage. As the testimony on behalf of Petitioner indicated, all the items listed on Joint Exhibit No. 1 do serve a purpose aboard the vessel and all items were purchased for use aboard the company's three vessels. It is therefore concluded that all the items listed on that schedule are in fact parts of the vessels owned by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has raised several other issues in its defense to tax assessment of the Department of Revenue. Among other things the Petitioner claims that the items in question are not stored for use in Florida. The facts above indicated that the items were purchased by the corporation and no sales or use tax has yet been paid upon them. The items are stored at the Dodge Island Warehouse owned by the Petitioner and are from time to time placed aboard vessels operated by the Petitioner corporation. From the facts presented at this hearing, the ships only spend several hours in the port of Miami each Saturday of every week. The items, therefore, are principally used while the vessels in question are on the high seas or in foreign ports. Except for this period of time on each Saturday when the vessels are in port, these items are used while the vessels are in engaged in foreign commerce.
Recommendation For reasons that the items in question are parts of the vessels and that they are used and consumed outside the state of Florida the tax assessed by the Department of Revenue should be disallowed. ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel G. LaPorte, Esquire 150 Southeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 E. Wilson Crump II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ed Straughn, Executive Director Department of Revenue Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE KLOSTERS REDERI A/S, d/b/a NORWEGIAN CARIBBEAN LINES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-428 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Respondent, David Hirshberg acted as a yacht salesman without being licensed in accordance with Chapter 326, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was not licensed as a yacht broker or as a yacht salesman in accordance with Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the "Yacht and Ship Broker's Act". The Division is the state agency statutorily authorized to regulate yacht and ship brokers and salesmen. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was employed by Tampa Bay Marine Repossession Center (Center). Respondent's main responsibility was the sale of new Chris Craft boats and occasionally used boats. However, other than giving directions or explaining procedures at the boat show as set out in Finding of Fact 11 the Respondent was not involved with the sale of yachts. The Center is a division of Hirsh Marine, Inc., and acts as the showing agent between banks owning the repossessed boats and the boat buyer. At all times material to this proceeding, Center was not licensed as a yacht broker in accordance with Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, but was licensed as a boat dealer. On Sunday, March 10, 1991, the Center maintained a display booth at the Ninth Annual Suncoast Boat Show (Show) at Sarasota, Florida. The Center's display booth at the Show on March 10, 1991 contained listings offering boats for sale which had been repossessed by banks. One of those listings was for a 34-foot Mainship Trawler (Trawler). Listing of boats on a display board at boat shows is a common method of offering brokerage boats for sale. At the time Center was offering the Trawler for sale on March 10, 1991, the Center did not own, hold title to or have a secured interest in the Trawler. On March 10, 1992, the Trawler was owned by a lending institution that had foreclosed its security interest in the Trawler. The Trawler had been delivered to the Center by the lending institution to be offered for sale. The Trawler was held for sale by the Center for the owner in expectation of compensation for the sale. Ron Hirshberg testified that after the Center negotiated the sale of a repossessed boat with a buyer, the Center paid the lending institution off and title to the boat was transferred to the Center which in turn transferred title to the buyer. Based on material available at Center's display booth, this does not appear to be the procedure used by the Center in handling a sale. The material available at the Center's display booth advises the potential buyer, among other things, that: (a) Center acts as the showing agent between the boat owner (bank) and buyer; (b) certain guidelines are imposed by the bank; (c) no offers will be submitted to the bank without a 10% refundable deposit on initial offer; (d) offers are subject to bank's acceptance; and (e) if repairs are needed, this will be negotiated between bank and buyer. Respondent had his business cards on the table at the display booth which indicated he was associated with the Center. Also, on the display board was a notice that read "Any questions, come out to Chris Craft in-water display and ask for Dave". Dave is the Respondent herein. Upon inquiry, Respondent would direct the person to the marina where the repossessed boats were stored and explain the procedure on how to make an offer or purchase a repossessed boat. There was insufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the Respondent was employed by the Center as a yacht salesman or that the Respondent acted as a yacht salesman on behalf of Center as the term "salesman" is defined in Section 326.082(4), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes enter a final order dismissing the order to show cause. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 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 the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 8. - 5. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 3 and 11. Rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 5. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 9. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The Respondent did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Henderson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David R. Hirshberg 6035 30th Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34209 Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Ute Elisabeth Stork, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued against her on January 26, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, regulating the practice of persons holding real estate brokers' and real estate salespersons' licenses in Florida. Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Ute Elisabeth Stork, is now, and at all times relevant to this matter has been, licensed as a real estate salesperson in Florida. On March 23, 1998, Ms. Stork passed the broker examination and became a real estate broker/salesperson. Ms. Stork holds license number 0646762. Between February 28, 1997, and February 10, 1998, Ms. Stork was registered with Petitioner as a salesperson employed by SWF Business Brokers, Inc., a registered brokerage corporation with offices in Fort Myers. On or about September 29, 1997, Ms. Stork began operating as a salesperson employed by FHIG Platinum Realty, a registered brokerage corporation trading as ERA Platinum and located in Naples. There was conflicting evidence on the issue of whether Ms. Stork severed her relationship with SWF Business Brokers prior to starting her employment with ERA Platinum. Michael Omerzu, her employing broker at SWF Business Brokers, testified that Ms. Stork continued as a nominal employee of his firm until February 10, 1998, when he fired her. Mr. Omerzu knew that Ms. Stork was also working for ERA Platinum, but he believed her role there was clerical and that any of Ms. Stork's real estate transactions would continue to go through his company. Mr. Omerzu conceded that Ms. Stork did not come into the office after September 29, 1997, but also stated that Ms. Stork did work on one project in his office after that date. Mr. Omerzu formally terminated Ms. Stork in February 1998, after learning of her involvement in the transaction that is the subject of this proceeding. Ms. Stork admitted that she did not notify Mr. Omerzu that she was quitting his employ, but contended that her actions would have given any reasonable person notice that she was no longer working at SWF Business Brokers. After September 29, 1997, she no longer came into the office, she attended no meetings, and she filed none of the bi-weekly reports expected of active employees at SWF Business Brokers. Ms. Stork offered a copy of a form 400.5, signed by her and dated September 29, 1997, indicating the change in brokers from SWF Business Brokers to ERA Platinum. However, the evidence established that the Division never received this document. Ms. Stork admitted that she did not send the form to the Division. She testified that she assumed the signing broker for ERA Platinum would see to it that the form reached Petitioner. After the investigation leading to this case commenced, Ms. Stork submitted a form 400.5 to the Division's investigator. Unlike the form she offered at the hearing, the form Ms. Stork sent to the investigator was not signed or dated. Ms. Stork's explanation of the disparity between the forms was confused and not credible. Ms. Stork's husband, Sven Jutz, was president and part owner of ERA Platinum. Mr. Jutz was not licensed to operate as a real estate broker in Florida. ERA Platinum employed licensed persons to perform the functions of brokers. Both Ms. Stork and Mr. Jutz are natives of Germany and have lived in the United States for about five years. At some point prior to December 1997, ERA Platinum purchased an advertisement in a German magazine, offering its services to Germans seeking to purchase businesses in the United States and to qualify for resident visas. Elke and Deiter Reichardt, a German couple visiting Florida and interested in moving to the state, called Ms. Stork in response to the advertisement. They met Ms. Stork at the ERA Platinum office in Naples. Ms. Reichardt testified that she believed Ms. Stork was the broker for ERA Platinum. Ms. Stork characterized her role as one of transaction broker. Ms. Stork first took the Reichardts to visit a computer business in Tampa. After the visit, all parties agreed that the Reichardts' proficiency in English was probably not sufficient for the day-to-day operation of a business involving a great deal of personal customer contact. Ms. Stork next showed the Reichardts a business called Club Nautico, a Captiva Island boat rental business owned by Aquavestments, Inc. Ms. Stork believed that the Reichardts would be capable of dealing with tourists, and testified that Club Nautico was an established business with a good track record. Ms. Stork and the Reichardts visited Club Nautico, and the couple decided to make an offer on the business. Ms. Stork prepared a contract for the sale and purchase of the business. The contract named "D.E.C. Boat Rental, Inc." as the purchaser of the business. D.E.C. Boat Rental was formed on the advice of Ms. Stork and Mr. Jutz. They persuaded the Reichardts that it would be easier for German citizens to purchase an American business through a corporation. Mr. Jutz hired a law firm to prepare the corporate documents, listing Mr. Jutz as the sole director and officer of D.E.C. Boat Rental. The Reichardts were not mentioned in the corporate documents. Mr. Jutz also offered to run the boat rental business for the Reichardts pursuant to a management contract. The Reichardts rejected this offer. The contract was signed by Ms. Reichardt on behalf of D.E.C. Boat Rental, though she was not a named officer or director of the corporation. The contract provided that the buyer would make a $1,000 earnest money deposit at the time of signing on December 11, 1997, and would make an additional deposit of $23,000 toward the purchase price five days after the seller's acceptance of the offer. The contract provided that all deposits would be held by "Don Ross, Att." Mr. Jutz testified that Don Ross was a lawyer who had offices in the same building as ERA Platinum. Mr. Jutz stated that he had used Mr. Ross as escrow agent and closing attorney on one deal, and "it was not fun." Mr. Jutz testified that he had not yet severed relations with Mr. Ross at the time of the D.E.C. Boat Rental contract, so ERA Platinum continued to list him as the escrow agent. Mr. Ross did not testify. Ms. Reichardt testified that Ms. Stork told her that Don Ross was the escrow agent, and that Ms. Stork instructed her to make out the $1,000 earnest money check to "Don Ross, Escrow." Ms. Reichardt made out such a check on December 11, 1997, and handed the check to Ms. Stork. Both Ms. Stork and Mr. Jutz testified that the check ultimately ended up in the hands of Mr. Jutz, who handled all the money for ERA Platinum. The check was deposited at First Union Bank. The check was endorsed by "ERA Platinum Realty, Inc.," but Mr. Jutz testified this was the escrow account set up by Don Ross for his company. Mr. Jutz stated that he deposited the check into the account. On or about December 24, 1997, Ms. Reichardt sent a second check from Germany to Ms. Stork. This check was in the amount of $23,000, and was made out to "Escrow Agent." Ms. Reichardt testified that Ms. Stork instructed her to make the check payable to "Escrow Agent." This check was endorsed by "Within Named Payee" and deposited into ERA Platinum's escrow account at Barnett Bank. It was undisputed that this Barnett Bank account had no connection whatever with Don Ross. The contract between D.E.C. Boat Rental and Aquavestments did not close. Ms. Reichardt testified that the seller held out for more money, and was concerned about the Reichardts' ability to pay. Ms. Reichardt also stated that she and her husband became concerned with Mr. Jutz' machinations, and contacted an attorney, Ernest Seemann, who advised them not to go through with the deal. Mr. Seemann is a native of Germany who has practiced law in Florida for 20 years. He testified that Ms. Reichardt came to see him with the D.E.C. Boat Rentals contract and sought his advice. He reviewed the contract, then researched the corporate records and learned that the Reichardts were not shown on the corporate records of the company formed by Mr. Jutz to purchase the business. Mr. Seemann advised the Reichardts not to complete the deal because D.E.C. Boat Rentals was not in their name. Mr. Seemann testified that he also contacted Don Ross, who told him he had nothing to do with this contract and had received no money to hold in escrow. This testimony was corroborated by Mr. Jutz, who conceded that Don Ross did not personally participate in this transaction. His suspicions aroused, Mr. Seemann investigated further and found confusion as to the identity of the broker for whom Ms. Stork was working. After the exchange of many letters and phone calls, he finally received a letter from Mr. Omerzu acknowledging that Ms. Stork was a sales agent in his office, but that Mr. Omerzu knew nothing about Ms. Stork's dealings with the Reichardts or the whereabouts of their deposit money. As noted above, Ms. Stork claimed that she had already severed her relationship with Mr. Omerzu at the time of the D.E.C. Boat Rental transaction. Mr. Seemann then began attempting to track down the whereabouts of the Reichardts' money. He contacted Charles Carney, a broker for ERA Platinum, but learned that he had left the company before this transaction commenced. Mr. Seemann then contacted Harold Shireman, the successor broker to Mr. Carney at ERA Platinum. Mr. Shireman knew nothing about the Reichardts' money. Mr. Shireman testified that he left ERA Platinum shortly after this incident, partly because he was uncomfortable at being "kept in the dark" about transactions for which he was the nominal broker. Mr. Seemann ultimately discovered that the Reichardts' $23,000 deposit was being held in an ERA Platinum escrow account, and that Mr. Jutz had sole signatory authority over that account. He requested that Mr. Jutz transfer the money to Mr. Seemann's trust account, but Mr. Jutz refused. The Reichardts ultimately purchased the business from Aquavestments pursuant to a second contract entered on or about February 27, 1998. Mr. Seemann formed a corporation, Sea Wave Boat Rentals, Inc., for the Reichardts' purchase. The Reichardts are the directors of Sea Wave Boat Rentals. This contract provided that the $1,000 earnest money deposit and the $23,000 additional deposit would be held in escrow by "ERA Platinum Realty, Inc., Harold Shireman, Broker." As noted above, Mr. Shireman was not involved in the transaction, had no knowledge of the deposit money, and had no ability to draw on the ERA Platinum escrow account. The contract provided that all funds would be disbursed by the closing agent in accordance with the closing statement, and that any dispute regarding escrow funds would be referred by the broker to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Mr. Jutz and Ms. Stork refused to attend the closing or to turn over the $24,000 of the Reichardts' money they were holding. To conclude the closing, the Reichardts were forced to pay an additional $14,000 to the listing broker in exchange for the listing broker's assignment of rights to the money being held by Mr. Jutz and Ms. Stork. Mr. Jutz ultimately returned $9,750 to the Reichardts. He retained $14,250 as the commission for his firm's role as the buyer's broker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner finding that Respondent has violated Sections 475.215(2), 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)(e) and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent, and that Respondent's real estate license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Steven W. Johnson, P.A. 1801 East Colonial Drive, Suite 101 Orlando, Florida 32803 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower, Suite N-308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Herbert R. Fisher, Chairperson Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
