The Issue An administrative complaint dated September 13, 1993, alleges that Respondent, Donald Gross, conducted auctions without a proper license. The issue is whether that violation occurred, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Donald E. Gross received an auctioneer apprentice license #AE 0000117 in August 1991; the license became "involuntary inactive, delinquent" by August 1993 and remains in that status. In response to a complaint that Mr. Gross was conducting unlicensed auctions, Henry Rivera, an agency investigator since 1981, made a site visit on April 4, 1993. He found Mr. Gross at his address, 1950 W. Memorial Blvd., Lakeland, conducting an auction. Mr. Gross did not have a licensed auctioneer with him and did not claim that any was supervising him. Mr. Gross claimed instead that he was exempted from license requirements as he was affiliated with Universal Life Church in California. When Henry Rivera followed up his investigation with contacts to Church headquarters, he was informed by Andrew Hinsley in July 1993 that the Church had no record of Mr. Gross' affiliation and no record of any proceeds from auctions which he may have conducted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Auctioneering enter a final order finding that Donald E. Gross violated Section 468.385(2), F.S. and revoking his inactive apprentice license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 13th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donald E. Gross 1950 West Memorial Boulevard Lakeland, Florida 33801 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Board of Auctioneers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I hereby recommend that the Petitioner's challenge to the Department's determination of sales taxes due herein pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, be denied and that the revised assessment notices be upheld as issued. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Davis, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert F. Nunez, Esquire Post Office Box 12726 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Mercer Farrington, Esquire Post Office Box 1548 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint filed August 30, 1990, and assigned DOAH Case No. 90-6107, Respondent alleged that Petitioner, as a licensed auction business, accepted the consignment of property from Ms. Erma Grant in April, 1988. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to provide Ms. Grant a written agreement evidencing the consignment, as required by Section 468.388 for consignments involving property whose estimated value is over $500. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to pay Ms. Grant the auction proceeds within 30 days of the auction. Based on the factual allegations set forth above, the Administrative Complaint charges that Petitioner violated Section 468.389(1)(j), which prohibits a violation of any statute, through the violation of Section 468.388 by failing to obtain a written consignment agreement; Section 468.389(1)(c), which prohibits the failure to account for or to pay, within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days, money belonging to another which has come into the control of an auctioneer or auction business through an auction; and Section 468.389(1)(e), which prohibits conduct in connection with a sales transaction which demonstrates bad faith or dishonesty. Based on the alleged violations set forth above,the Administrative Complaint requests the Board of Auctioneers to enter a final order revoking or suspending Petitioner's license, imposing an administrative fine, issuing a reprimand, placing Petitioner on probation, and awarding other appropriate relief. Respondent predicated its allegations largely on a complaint that it received from Ms. Grant. By letter dated April 23, 1990, Ms. Grant recounted that she had advertised a moving sale in March or April, 1988. She reported that Petitioner contacted her and asked that she let him take everything to sell at an auction. Following the sale, she stated that she called Petitioner and consigned to him several items, including a davenport, china cabinet, a still- life picture, and two padded chairs. Ms. Grant charged in her letter that she did not hear from Petitioner following the consignment. Residing in Vermont, she returned to Florida in November, 1988, and immediately contacted Petitioner. She charged that Petitioner explained that he did not have the money, but thought that he had sent her a check. He reportedly promised to examine his records. Ms. Grant letter states that Ms. Grant returned to see Petitioner on March 6, 1989. The letter reads: "[Petitioner] had already told a cousin of mine that he had sent a check to me for $227. Some of my boys must have cashed it on me." It is unclear to whose "boys" the letter refers. Ms. Grant continued to pressure Petitioner for payment, according to the April 23 letter, but Petitioner refused to pay or show herrecords that he had already sent a check. Ms. Grant alleged that on April 11, 1989, Petitioner offered her $100. About a week later, Petitioner told her that he would be sending her a check for $50 and allegedly admitted that he had no copy of any prior check. Ms. Grant, who was 75 years old at the time and had recently been in poor health, ended her letter with a request for assistance and provided Respondent with her address in Vermont, to which she was returning in the next few days. Respondent opened a formal investigation shortly after receiving Ms. Grant's complaint. On June 4, 1990, Respondent's investigator contacted Ms. Grant, who stated that she had still not received anything from Petitioner. The following day, the investigator contacted Petitioner, who said that he could not remember accepting any property from Ms. Grant on consignment. They set up an appointment for June 6. On June 6, Ms. Grant telephoned the investigator and informed him that a friend of hers in Cocoa, Mr. Alcide Quesnel, had received a call from Petitioner, who offered him the sum of $200 to send to Ms. Grant. The investigator contacted Mr. Quesnel on the same day, and he confirmed that he had received from Petitioner the sum of $200 the prior evening to send to Ms. Grant. Mr. Quesnel explained that he had introduced Ms. Grant to Petitioner. Mr. Quesnel later tried to change his story by telling the investigator that Petitioner did not give him themoney. Instead, someone unknown to him put the money in his pocket and he assumed that it was for Ms. Grant because he had known that she and Petitioner had been having some problems. By letter dated June 9, 1990, Ms. Grant provided Respondent's investigator with a copy of the $200 check that she had received from Mr. Quesnel. She added that Mr. Quesnel had telephoned her on the evening of June 5 and informed her that Petitioner had given him the $200, she was to call the investigator and tell him that she had received the money, and Petitioner did not want a receipt. In addition to the interviews of Ms. Grant, Petitioner, and Mr. Quesnel, the investigator received an affidavit from Ms. Grant's sister, who swore that she witnessed Petitioner pick up the furniture from Ms. Grant's house in April, 1988. By internal memorandum dated December 31, 1990, a law clerk of Respondent advised the attorney handling DOAH Case No. 90-6107 that she did not believe that Respondent could prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was guilty of any violations of Chapter 468. Respondent served the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal the same day. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Respondent is a state agency and initiated the underlying case giving rise to the present claim for attorneys' fees; Petitioner is a prevailing small business party; and the attorneys's fees and costs are reasonable as to those expended in connection with theunderlying case. The fees in connection with DOAH Case No. 90-6107 are $1920. There is no indication that Petitioner incurred any costs in connection with DOAH Case No. 90-6107.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Edward W. Hayden (herein Petitioner), was employed by Respondent, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (herein Respondent or the Authority), from April 19, 1992 until his discharge on May 5, 1993. During the entire period of his employment, Petitioner held the position of Purchasing and Property Records Manager. Respondent is a water wholesaler for the Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough tri-county area. Respondent is managed by a general manager, Harold Aiken, who reports to a board of directors which is comprised of elected officials from five member governments. The five member governments are Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and the Cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. Four directors report to general manager Aiken. These directors manage different parts of the Authority subject to the direction of manager Aiken. The general manager implements the policies and directives of the board of directors, administers personnel rules and oversees the day-to-day functions of Respondent. The general manager's authority specifically includes the ability to discharge employees. Petitioner, as purchasing and property records manager, was the person charged with overseeing Respondent's property and purchasing functions. Petitioner was responsible for developing and following procedures for purchasing, inventory control and maintenance of property records. In a nutshell, Petitioner was charged with protecting and safeguarding Respondent's assets. Petitioner's specific duties included developing, administering and managing the disposal of surplus property on behalf of the Authority. Petitioner reported to Koni Cassini, Respondent's director of finance, and general manager Aiken. Petitioner was hired because Respondent had experienced some difficulty maintaining inventory control and the management of its assets. In this regard, Petitioner has extensive experience in accounting and logistics management, having earned a bachelor's degree in business management and a master's degree in business administration. Additionally, he has extensive training in inventory control and management techniques. He served in the U.S. Air Force in excess of twenty years as an inventory management specialist and was assigned a number of critically responsible supervisory/leadership positions. Petitioner, while in the Air Force, managed operations as large as 72 assigned personnel and $42 million of inventory within a strict budget of taxpayer dollars. The purchasing, inventory control and property functions of the Authority are carried out through the finance department. The Authority works under a purchase order system wherein each item that is purchased must have a corresponding purchase order. Purchase orders must be approved by various officials within the Authority depending upon the purchase price. As example, if the price of the item to be purchased is anywhere from zero to $500, a manager's signature is required on the purchase order. For items priced between $500 to $1000, a department director's signature is required on the purchase order. For items priced between $1000 to $15,000, the general manager must approve and sign the purchase order. For items priced in excess of $15,000, the board of directors' approval is required to effectuate the purchase. The signatures are required as part of the Authority's checks and balance system which is used to preserve and protect public funds expended by the Authority. Respondent has specific inventory control guidelines which govern the disposal of surplus property. The guidelines encompass six different procedures to dispose of surplus property. The first, and preferred method of surplus disposal, is by donation to one of the five member governments. The Authority uses a second method of disposal of surplus property which is classified as "junk" if it has no value, is beyond repair, and cannot be donated to a member government. A third method of disposal is to sell the property by sealed bid. The sealed bid method is used when either the quality or quantity of the items for sale is insufficient to justify public auction, i.e., the items are without value to the Authority. The most common way of determining whether the property has any value is to conduct a public auction or to "spot bid" the property. The sealed bid method can be utilized by outside vendors and/or employees. The Authority uses the employee sealed bid surplus sale for items that have no value. It is generally understood throughout the Authority that items that are placed in an employee's sealed bid surplus sale are useless to the Authority or have no commercial value whatsoever. Items placed in that sale are items which are basically to be "thrown away". A fourth method of disposal is "spot bidding". This entails contacting buyers, on an informal basis, to determine whether they are interested in bidding on the surplus property. A fifth and another preferred method of disposal is to sell the property via public auction. The Authority has conducted public auctions in the past either by itself or through the use of a private entity, the Tampa machinery auction, which conducts public auctions on behalf of private and governmental bodies. Tampa machinery auction handles all administrative duties, such as advertising, marketing and operations of the auction including collection of proceeds from the sale. The final method of disposal of surplus property is by "trade-in". This method involves obtaining a trade-in value for surplus property when the Authority is purchasing new property. Upon completion of Petitioner's probationary term of employment, a six-month period, his work performance declined considerably. Specifically, Petitioner was assigned the task of drafting a purchasing manual to be used by the board of directors for the board's approval. Petitioner failed to complete the purchasing manual in a timely manner and the director of finance, Koni Cassini, undertook the drafting and completion of the manual. Cassini completed the draft of the manual and it was approved by the board. During February, 1993, Petitioner decided to conduct the employee surplus property sale which is at issue herein. Petitioner's subordinate, James Krug, who held the position of property specialist, compiled a list of surplus property to be sold at Petitioner's direction. Petitioner and Krug circulated the surplus property list to the general manager and the department directors and also notified them of their decision to conduct an employee surplus property sale to dispose of items on the submitted list. Krug prepared the surplus property list which was reviewed by Petitioner. The surplus property sale was the first employee surplus property sale conducted by Petitioner during his tenure as purchasing and property records manager. Petitioner initially considered having a public auction prior to conducting the surplus property sale, but decided against it based on his "busy schedule". When manager Aiken received Krug's memorandum attaching the list of items to be sold in the surplus sale, he noticed that the list included a telecopier machine. He directed his secretary to contact Petitioner to determine the condition of the telecopier machine. Based on his inquiry, manager Aiken learned that the telecopier machine was functional and, therefore, instructed Petitioner to remove it from the list. He subsequently contacted Cassini to advise that the list contained at least one item of value. He directed Cassini to require that Petitioner provide a detailed description of the items on the list including whether the items were functional, non- repairable, or had any value to the Authority. Subsequently, on March 19, 1993, Cassini contacted Petitioner by memorandum and directed that he provide a description of all items on the list as Aiken requested. The surplus sale was to be held on March 24, 1993. On March 22, 1993, Petitioner sent a memorandum to Cassini stating that he would not provide the requested description of the items for the current sale, but would do so at the next time that the Authority had a surplus sale. At that time, Petitioner assured Cassini that there were no items of value on the current list. Cassini did not follow up on her March 19, 1993, memorandum based on Petitioner's assurance that there were no items of value remaining on the surplus list. Petitioner conducted the surplus property sale, which sale included several items of value including three trench safety units, a three-ton air conditioning unit and a refrigerator. Trench safety units are suspension systems that are used to lower workers into the ground to inspect and repair open pipes. The trench safety units cost Respondent $5,000 each when purchased new during 1990. The surplus property list described the trench safety units as "mini- lift systems". Petitioner described the trench safety units in this manner, even though employees of the Authority referred to the units as "trench safety units" and not "mini-lift systems". Petitioner advised several Authority personnel, including manager Aiken and Cassini, that all of the items on the surplus property list were in rough to poor condition and had no value. As example, he advised the Authority's personnel manager, Holly Manning, that the items on the surplus list were "junk". Respondent purchased the trench safety units for a pipeline investigation in 1990 at the direction of Allison Adams, the Authority's special projects coordinator. The Authority only utilized the safety units during that investigation; however, it could and intended to utilize the safety units in the future for the maintenance of underground pipes or to conduct other subterranean investigations. Petitioner did not contact either the member directors or the general manager for authorization to dispose of the safety units. Likewise, Petitioner did not contact the member governments to determine whether they could use the safety units, nor did he attempt to obtain any sealed bids on the safety units other than through the employee surplus sale. Petitioner did not "spot bid" the safety units prior to including them in the employee surplus sale. Petitioner also listed a three-ton air conditioning unit in the employee surplus sale, despite the fact that it was in good operating condition and had a value of approximately $1,500. Although it was his duty to know all items of value on the surplus sale, Petitioner did not have any idea of the value of the air conditioning unit. Likewise, Petitioner did not spot bid the air conditioning unit prior to including it in the surplus property sale. Two Authority employees purchased the three trench safety units through the sale. Jim Krug, the property specialist who included the units in the surplus property list, purchased one of the units for $223. The other two safety units were sold to Rick Minjarez, a water plant operator, for $175 each. The safety units were in good condition when they were sold. Within ten days of purchasing the safety units from the Authority, Krug and Minjarez sold the items to an outside vendor, who had engaged in business with the Authority in the past, for $1,000 per unit. Cassini conducted an investigation when she learned that the surplus sale had been conducted and that items of value had been sold. Based upon her initial investigation, Cassini recommended that Petitioner and Krug be put on administrative leave without pay pending the outcome of her investigation. Petitioner and Krug were then given an opportunity to explain why the safety units and other valuable property items were included in the sale contrary to his assurance. After Hayden and Krug received pre-termination hearings, Aiken terminated Hayden and Krug on May 5, 1993, based upon Cassini's recommendation. Aiken issued Minjarez a written reprimand for his part because of his failure to bring to the Authority's attention the fact that the items which he purchased were "items of value". Minjarez was not discharged because of Respondent's determination that he was not specifically responsible for protecting the Authority's assets and did not prepare the list of items which were sold. (Minjarez and Krug's disciplinary action is not at issue herein). Petitioner was recommended for discharge by Cassini based upon the fact that he was hired to oversee the purchasing and property functions of the Authority and he failed to fulfill his duties in that regard. Cassini also determined that, by Petitioner's actions, he was insubordinate and misused the Authority's assets to its detriment. Finally, Cassini recommended that Petitioner be discharged because of his insubordination and his failure to comply with her directive that he protect the property interests of the Authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition for relief and terminate him from employment. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Aiken, General Manager West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire THOMPSON, SIZEMORE Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Edward W. Hayden 505 Hedgerow Brandon, Florida 33510 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire DE LA PARTE & GILBERT One Tampa City Center, Suite 2300 Post Office Box 172537 Tampa, Florida 33672-0537
The Issue Whether Respondent, a real estate broker, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 16, 2010, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state 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. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license BK-575099. Respondent is registered as a sole proprietor broker, trading as Atlantic Auction Realty. On February 21, 2008, Respondent, acting through his company, entered into a contract (auction contract) with David Mover to auction a townhouse owned by Mr. Mover located at 8626 S.W. 94th Street, Miami, Florida (the subject property). Mr. Mover had been trying to sell the subject property for approximately two years. In March 2007, Mr. Mover became unable to make the mortgage payments on the subject property. On February 21, 2008, the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida, entered a Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure (Judgment of Foreclosure) against the subject property in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, the holder of the first mortgage. The amount of the judgment was $245,727.25. The Judgment of Foreclosure ordered that the property be sold at public sale on April 24, 2008. At the time of the auction, there was a second mortgage on the subject property owned by a trust. The approximate amount of the second mortgage was $120,000.00. The trust was a defendant in the foreclosure proceedings. Prior to the auction conducted by Respondent, the trustee of the trust indicated a possible willingness on the part of the trust to accept less than the balance owed on the second mortgage if the property were sold by private auction, as opposed to the public auction ordered by the Judgment of Foreclosure. However, the subject auction occurred prior to the trustee’s making a commitment to take less than the balance owed on the second mortgage. The price listed on the auction contract was $350,000.00. The minimum amount Mr. Mover wanted for the townhouse was $370,000.00, which would have been sufficient to satisfy the Judgment of Foreclosure and the second mortgage. Mr. Mover never agreed to accept less than $370,000.00 for the subject property.2 Mr. Mover understood that the $350,000.00 figure was a starting point for the auction.3 This was not an absolute auction. Mr. Mover had the right to refuse a bid less than $350,000.00. The auction contract contained the following provision in paragraph 3: 3. 10% BUYER’S PREMIUM will be added to the Buyer’s Bid and be the Auctioneer’s total commission. The auction contract provided that the auction would be on March 20, 2008. Respondent prepared a flyer that announced the terms of the auction. Prospective bidders were notified by the flyer that a 10% deposit would be required the day of the sale and that there would be a buyer’s premium of 10% of the bid. Prospective bidders were required to have a cashier’s check in the amount of $10,000.00. The “Auction Terms and Conditions” included the following provisions: Bidder Registration. The auction is open to the public and your attendance is welcomed. To register, you must display a cashier’s check in the amount as set forth in each property description. Upon being declared the top bidder, the cashier’s check will be applied as a partial deposit, and the deposit must be increased to equal (10%) [sic] of each contract price. Please be advised there are no exceptions. . . . Contract and Deposit. Bids may not be retracted once accepted by the auctioneer. Upon being declared top bidder, the cashier’s check will be applied as a partial deposit. . . . The auction was conducted in the driveway of the subject property. Mr. Mover waited in the upper area of the subject property during the auction. Mr. Gordon opened the bidding at the base bid (the bid amount prior to tacking on the buyer’s premium) of $285,000.00, but agreed to up the base bid to $300,000.00 when Respondent agreed to reduce the buyer’s premium to $10,000.00 from 10% of the base bid amount ($28,500.00 for a base bid of $285,000.00 or $30,000.00 for a base bid of $300,000.00). Respondent went upstairs and wrote down the amount of the bid and told Mr. Mover that he would reduce the buyer’s premium to $10,000.00 if Mr. Mover would accept that price. Mr. Mover refused to accept that bid. Mr. Mover believed that the auction had failed to sell the property. After talking with Mr. Mover, Respondent concluded the auction by declaring Mr. Gordon, bidding on behalf of himself and his wife, the winning bidder at the auction. Mr. Gordon’s base bid was in the amount of $300,000.00 plus a buyer’s premium in the amount of $10,000.00, bringing the total bid to $310,000.00. After being declared the winning bidder, Mr. Gordon gave to the Respondent the $10,000.00 cashier’s check he had brought to the auction. Mr. Gordon signed a document styled “Contract for Sale and Purchase at Auction” (Purchase Contract), which reflected a total selling price of $310,000.00 (this figure included the buyer’s premium) and a requirement that the closing date be on or before April 19, 2008. The Purchase Contract contained the following provision relating to the Buyer’s Premium: 8. BUYER’S PREMIUM – WHEN EARNED: it is understood and agreed by the Seller and the Buyer that the Buyer’s Premium is paid to the Auctioneer at the time of the Auction Sale and is the sole property of the Auctioneer, and he is entitled to this money as his fee at the time of said payment. Respondent told Mr. Gordon that he would cash the check Mr. Gordon gave to him on March 20, 2008, after Mr. and Mrs. Gordon had an executed contract signed by both parties. Respondent cashed Mr. Gordon’s check on March 21, 2008. Respondent never presented the Purchase Contract to Mr. Mover, and the transaction never closed. The Gordons were unable to secure financing because they had no contract. Mr. Gordon has made repeated demands for the return of the proceeds from the check he gave to Respondent. Respondent has refused those demands.4 Respondent was aware of the foreclosure proceeding before he conducted the auction. Respondent did not disclose the foreclosure proceeding to Mr. Gordon prior to the auction. After the auction, Mr. Mover filed for bankruptcy. Mr. Gordon filed no claim in that proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Division of Real Estate find Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint. For the violation found in Count I, it is recommended that the final order impose against Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and that it revoke his broker’s license. For the violation found in Count II, it is recommended that the final order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 and that it revoke his broker’s license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 14th day of July, 2010
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for licensing and regulation of real estate brokers, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent Maria V. King, has been a licensed Florida real estate broker, issued license number 662452 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Her address with the DBPR is 900 Cesery Boulevard, Suite 107, Jacksonville, Florida 32211. Charles Wettstein was the listing broker for the property located at 3216 Randall Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32205 (subject property) for the owner/seller, Abdul R. Elsharif. The subject property was listed on the MLS for $269,900. A representative of Developing Entrusted Capital Counseling, LLC (DECC or buyer), came to the Respondent’s office and indicated that she wanted to purchase the subject property. On or about December 2, 2006, Respondent, on behalf of DECC, forwarded an offer to Wettstein for the property with a purchase price of $410,000. The offer was contingent on the following conditions: (1) buyer to choose closing agent; (2) an appraised value of $410,000; (3) satisfactory WDO and 4 point inspection; (4) assignable contract; and (5) an acceptance of a (legal) addendum between the buyer and seller only. In the cover letter sent by Respondent to Wettstein, Respondent states that there will be an assignment fee comprising the difference between the appraised value and sale price ($410,000 and $269,900). The cover letter also states that the MLS will need to be changed to the contract price of $410,000, which is usually done after an appraisal of the property, and that the appraisal would be paid for by the buyer and done immediately after the contract is signed. Respondent advised the buyer's representative that she was offering much more than the listing price for the property. Respondent testified that the buyer represented to her that the buyer was aware of the listing price, but that she had done her homework and she knew what she was doing in offering the price of $410,000. Respondent also testified that the proposed addendum to the contract and the assignment documents were given to her by the buyer. The buyer represented to Respondent that she had legal counsel who had advised her regarding the assignment and other stipulations in the contract. All documents given to her by the buyer, including the addendum to the contract, were not concealed from the seller and were in fact, submitted with the offer to the listing agent, Wettstein. Respondent was not involved in obtaining a mortgage for the buyer or doing an appraisal of the subject property, and did not intend to perform either function. Respondent did not benefit from this transaction, other than the potential commission based upon a sale price of $410,000, as opposed to the listed price of $269,900. Respondent had concerns about the purchase price but was following the instructions of her buyer. Respondent sent all documents, including the addendum and the assignment documents, to the seller because she was aware that he had an attorney who would be looking at the information sent. Respondent informed the buyer that she would submit all documents to the listing agent and her reasons for doing so. She also informed the buyer that she would only do the contract for the purchase of the subject property. Respondent did not think that the subject property would appraise for $410,000 as required by the conditions of the contract. In other words, Respondent doubted the actual sale would go through. The offer communicated by the Respondent to Wettstein, was presented to the seller and rejected. A mortgage loan was not obtained and an appraisal was not completed on the subject property in connection with the offer by DECC. Any appraisal of the subject property would have been arranged by the lending institution as opposed to Respondent, and would not have been performed by Respondent. Respondent was aware that the MLS for Duval County documents a history of the MLS listing prices. Respondent testified that based on her understanding of Duval County policy, the listing price of the subject property can only be increased if a legal, legitimate appraisal is submitted or seen by MLS. Therefore, if the subject property appraised for $410,000, and the listing price was changed as a result, the MLS would show the property’s previous listing price of $269,900.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 24th day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1420 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 200 Celebration, Florida 34747 Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
