Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent, Antonio Prado, has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license no. 0138312. Respondent, Antonio Prado, is the President and qualifying broker for a real estate company called Bayside International Realty, Inc. Respondent, Bayside International Realty, Inc., has been issued real estate license no. 1001760. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. On January 13, 1995, an investigator employed by the Department conducted an office inspection and audit of the Respondents' place of business. During the course of the audit, the investigator discovered that the escrow account for the business contained $1,000.00. None of the $1,000.00 was, in fact, "trust funds" owed or belonging to a third party as Respondents have not held "trust funds" since August, 1990. The investigator advised Respondent that he was not allowed to hold personal funds in excess of $200.00 in the company escrow account. Based upon that information, Respondent immediately, on January 13, 1995, removed $800.00 from the escrow account leaving a balance of $200.00. The purpose of holding $1,000.00 in the account related to a Barnett Bank policy which required the minimum balance of $1,000.00 to avoid service charges on the account. Respondent, Antonio Prado, has not been active in the real estate practice for several years and was unaware of changes to the escrow policy dating back to December, 1991, which prohibit more than $200.00 of personal funds in an escrow account. Respondent, Antonio Prado, has been licensed for 19 years and has never been disciplined for any violations of the real estate law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order determining the Respondent, Antonio Prado, committed only a minor technical violation of Section 425.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and, in recognition of Respondent's exemplary record as a broker, which, along with his willing, immediate action to correct the error, demonstrates sound judgment, issue a letter of reprimand and guidance regarding escrow account rules and regulations. All other allegations against these Respondents should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0038 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are rejected as statements of fact as they are restatement of argument or comment made at the hearing. Paragraphs 3 through 6 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares 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 Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Theodore R. Gay Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Rhode Building Phase II 401 Northwest Second Avenue N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Antonio Prado, pro se and as President of Bayside International Realty, Inc. 1390 Brickell Avenue, Suite 230 Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' Florida licenses as real estate broker, salesperson and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession and the licensing of real estate professionals. Respondents Frank E. Smith, Elaine M Smith, and Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc., were licensed real estate professionals, a broker, a sales person, and a brokerage corporation respectively. Respondent Frank E. Smith was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc.. On or about July 23, 1991, the Respondents and Carolyn Chaple entered into a management agreement whereby Respondent agreed to rent and manage Ms. Chaple's residence located in Tampa. The terms of the management agreement signed by Ms. Chaple and Ms. Smith called for the company to render a monthly statement of receipts, charges and disbursements, and to remit the net proceeds each month to Ms. Chaple whose address was listed in the agreement as P.O. Box 12003, Brooksville, Florida 34601. For performing this service, Respondents were to receive a commission of 8% of the monthly gross receipts. The agreement also called for the Respondents to: ... hire, discharge and pay all engineers, janitors and other employees; to make or cause to be made all ordinary repairs and replacements necessary to preserve the premises in its present condition and for the operating efficiency thereof and all alterations required to comply with lease requirements, and to do decorating on the premises; to negotiate contracts for nonrecurring items not exceeding $100.00 and to enter into agreements for all necessary repairs, maintenance, minor alterations and utility services; and to purchase supplies and pay all bills. An amendment to the agreement, initialed by Ms. Chaple only, made the provision subject to a lease agreement purportedly attached but which was not offered into evidence. Ms. Chaple contends that lease provided she would be responsible only for those repairs costing in excess of $250.00 and which she had approved. This added provision was not, however, initialed by Respondents and, therefore, never became a binding part of the management agreement, regardless of what Ms. Chaple intended. Ms. Smith asserts that if Ms. Chaple had insisted on that change, she would not have entered into the agreement. It is found, therefore, that there was no agreement limiting Ms. Chaple's liability for repairs. Pursuant to the management agreement, Respondents solicited and obtained tenants for Ms. Chaple's property. Respondent admittedly did not send a copy of the first lease to Ms. Chaple, but the tenancy was short lived and terminated when the tenant moved out owing rent. Ms. Chaple claims the Respondents did not advise her of this situation. Instead, she claims, she heard of it from neighbors. However, on December 30, 1991, Respondents obtained another lessee for the property at a rental of $600.00 per month for 12 months. Respondents' fee was %8 of that ($48.00) resulting in a net monthly rental to Ms. Chaple, exclusive of repair expenses if any, of $552.00 per month. Ms. Chaple claims that though she repeatedly asked for a copy of the management agreement she had signed, she never got one. When she began to ask for accountings, she says she got some but not all. By the same token, she claims she did not get all the receipts relating to the repair work done on her property. Between December 4, 1991 and August 16, 1992, Ms. Chaple wrote several detailed letters to the Respondents requesting information on the status of the first tenancy and efforts being made to receive compensation, and detailed explanations for expenditures made and charged to her on the account statements that were sent. She also complained of the lateness of the statements, of the Respondents' notice of intended termination of the agreement, and an explanation of large expense charged almost every month. Respondents claim they furnished Ms. Chaple a copy of the management agreement on at least 3 separate occasions by mailing a copy to her Brooksville address, that address listed for her in the agreement. Ms. Chaple, however, was living in Houston, Texas during all this period and requested the use of the Brooksville address, apparently her father's post office box. Respondents also claim they sent Ms. Chaple a monthly statement of account along with her net rent check each month. Every check sent was cashed by Ms. Chaple indicating she received them. There is no explanation as to why she did not also receive the account statements. In light of Ms. Chaple's moves, and the use of an intermediary to transmit mail, it cannot be said Respondents did not send the agreements. This is not to say Ms. Chaple did receive them all, merely that the Respondents dispatched them to her. Ms. Chaple also claimed she never got a copy of a lease from the Respondents. Respondent, Elaine Smith, admits this indicating she did not send copies of leases to owners as a matter of practice. It is noted that Ms. Chaple repeatedly requested itemized explanations for the major expenditures deducted from the rent each month and characterized on the account statement solely as "maintenance." The management agreement obliging the owner to pay for such expenditures as a deduction from rent is silent on the need on the Respondents to explain such deductions. The agreement obliges the agent to "render a monthly statement of receipts, disbursements and charges and to remit each month the net proceeds to the [owner]." While it may be true the monthly statement of accounting showing "maintenance" might be acceptable evidence to the Internal Revenue Service, when, as here, such expenses are relatively large and frequent, it is not at all unusual or unreasonable for the owner to request and expect to receive an explanation of those deductions. To be sure, Respondents did send some receipts as requested, but it is clear they did not do so in all cases. Clearly the mere use of the word, "maintenance" does not constitute a sufficient showing of "disbursements" or "charges" as are called for in the agreement. This is so especially in light of the fact Respondents also operated a maintenance company through which they contracted for almost all maintenance and repair work except air conditioning. The charge to the owners was cost plus 10%. Ms. Chaple ultimately filed a complaint with the Division which, on March 18, 1992, sent its investigator, J.L. Graham, to the Respondents' office. As a part of her investigations, Ms. Graham did an audit of the Respondents' escrow accounts maintained at the Sun Bank in Tampa. She discovered that Respondents maintained a security escrow account which had a shortage of $5,780.00 and a rental escrow account which had a shortage of $4,261.31. Respondents admit a shortage had existed ever since the business was purchased in 1986 and claim that due to the shrinking inventory of properties they managed, the need to pay $500.00 a month on the purchase price, and $1,300.00 a month on obligated rent, they did not have sufficient income from operations to reimburse the accounts the amount of the shortages. There is no evidence that Respondents misappropriated any of the funds represented by the shortages and it is accepted they did not cause or increase either shortage. However, it is equally true they did nothing to eradicate or reduce either, routinely drawing their lawful commissions which were placed in the company's operating account and used to pay routine expenses. In any event, within 2 days of Ms. Graham's inspection, Respondents borrowed the money to reimburse the escrow accounts for the amount of the shortages in full. Ms. Graham also found that Respondents failed to prepare and sign written monthly reconciliations of the escrow accounts and had no supporting documentation for the accounts other than the check register, leases and the management agreements. Respondents' books were primarily kept in a computer and the information in support of the escrow accounts was not being kept in a manner readily accessible to the Division's representatives. Mr. Smith admits he did not do the required reconciliations, claiming that between the computer records and the bank statements, he knew what was going on. This is insufficient to satisfy the Division's requirements. Mr. Smith contends that immediately after the audit, he began doing the required reconciliations and would be willing to furnish them to the Division on a repeated basis if necessary. Respondents also failed to prepare and furnish to the tenants of clients' properties the required disclosure of agency relationship, notifying the tenants in writing that they, Respondents, represented the respective landlords, not them. Respondents asserted they made it clear to each tenant that they did not own the units being rented, but this does not meet the rule or statutory requirement. Review of the corporation records also revealed that Mrs. Smith, a licensed salesperson, was listed as an officer of the brokerage corporation. Respondents admit this but claim they did not know it was improper and that their accountant failed to so advise them. Gennie Amick has known and been friends with Respondents for more than 7 years. She has used their services in the past as managers of property she then owned and both her son and her daughter do so at the present time. They have had absolutely no complaints about the Respondents' management. Ms. Amick knows Mrs. Smith very well and considers her to be a very honorable person. Respondent's integrity has never been questioned, to the best of Amick's knowledge, and she goes out of her way to help her clients, doing more than her contract requires of her. Mr. Smith is also an honorable person. Because of Ms. Amick's trust in the Respondents, she loaned them $6,000.00 when she learned of their difficulties with the Division and this loan was repaid when Respondents thereafter mortgaged their home. Respondents have owned Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc. since they bought it in 1986, paying $20,000.00 for the business. They put $1,500.00 down and agreed to pay the balance off at $500.00 per month. They also agreed with the seller to rent his office for $1,300.00 per month. It was these commitments, and the shrinking of the client list, which prevented them from making up the shortages in the escrow accounts. Mr. Smith has been in the real estate business, both in Florida and elsewhere, since 1967. He has been licensed as a broker since 1988 and he and his wife have operated Sunshine, which does not handle sales, only property management, since 1986. It is their livelihood. He became the qualifying broker for the firm in 1988. Neither he nor Mrs. Smith has been the subject of a complaint before now. At no time did either Respondent intend to break any rules or to unlawfully profit by their improper actions. They claim any infractions are as a result of ignorance rather than design and so it would appear. Their relationship with Ms. Chaple was less than an acceptable business relationship, yet Ms. Chaple did not make a good witness. It appeared she had her own agenda to follow and her memory of facts seemed selective. She appears to be difficult to deal with and it is reasonable to believe that much of the difficulty she had with the Respondents was as a result of her own attitude and approach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered placing all Respondents' licenses on probation for a period of 1 year under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Division and imposing an administrative file of $500.00 upon each Respondent Smith for a total fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 18th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3898 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 to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the word, solicited. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein, Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein 5. Accepted to the extent that the evidence shows the agree-ment and accountings were sent to the best evidence available to the Respondents. 6. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law, 7. & 8. More a comment on the state of the evidence, than a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 14. Accepted. Rejected as implying the disclosures made satisfied the rule requirements. Accepted. & 18. Accepted as to what Respondent's did and that no harm to the public or any client resulted, but rejected to the extent public benefit is asserted. 19. & 20. Accepted but relevant only to the quantum of punishment to be imposed. 21. - 23. Accepted. 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Hurston Building - N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Sheldon L. Wind, Esquire 110 E. Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33504 Jack McRay General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute violations of the statutes and rules regulating the practice of real estate in the State of Florida. Respondent, Benjamin C. Rolfe, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0318091 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mr. Rolfe was as a broker with Squires Realty of the Palm Beaches, Inc., 721 U.S. 1, #217, North Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent, Duane C. Heiser, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0038233 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mr. Heiser was as a broker effective February 8, 1991, at Duane C. Heiser Realty Co., 1312 Commerce Lane A1, Jupiter, Florida. On or about December 12, 1998, a Final Order was issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission and received by Mr. Heiser whereby his real estate broker's license was suspended for two (2) years from January 12, 1989, through January 10, 1991. During the month of October 1989, Mr. Heiser violated the lawful suspension order of the Commission by personally delivering rental checks to and ordering the disbursement of escrow funds from the Property Management-Operating Account, which is an escrow account, of Squire's Realty Company of the Palm Beaches, Inc. Between March 22 and March 26, 1990, the escrow account records of Mr. Rolfe, who was the qualifying broker for Squire's Realty of the Palm Beaches, Inc., were audited by Petitioner's authorized representatives. The Escrow/Trust Account Audit revealed that Respondent Rolfe failed to properly document and reconcile the Property Management-Operating Account, which is an escrow account. Mr. Rolfe was responsible for this account. Mr. Rolfe was negligent regarding the management of this escrow account by allowing a suspended licensee, Mr. Heiser, access to this account. Mr. Rolfe and Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate penalty for Mr. Rolfe's violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, would be the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 and the placement of his licensure on probation for a period of one year. They further stipulated that the administrative fine was to be paid within thirty days of the filing of the final order. They also stipulated that during his term of probation Mr. Rolfe would be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education with thirty of those sixty hours being the thirty hour management course for brokers. They further stipulated that Mr. Rolfe would be required to provide to Petitioner satisfactory evidence of his completion of those sixty hours of continuing education and that those sixty hours of continuing education are to be in addition to any other continuing education required of Mr. Rolfe to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Mr. Heiser and Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate penalty for Mr. Heiser's violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, would be the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 and the placement of his licensure on probation for a period of one year. They further stipulated that the administrative fine was to be paid within thirty days of the filing of the final order. They also stipulated that during his term of probation, Mr. Heiser would be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education with thirty of those sixty hours being the thirty hour management course for brokers. They further stipulated that Mr. Heiser would be required to provide to Petitioner satisfactory evidence of his completion of those sixty hours of continuing education and that those sixty hours of continuing education are to be in addition to any other continuing education required of Mr. Heiser to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which: Dismisses Counts I, III, and V of the Administrative Complaint; Finds Mr. Heiser guilty of having violated a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 upon Mr. Heiser and place his licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is also recommended that the conditions of probation require that Respondent Heiser pay the said administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the final order and that he be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education during his term of probation. It is further recommended that as part of the sixty hours of continuing education, Mr. Heiser be required to successfully complete the thirty hour management course for brokers, that he be required to provide satisfactory evidence of completion of such continuing education to Petitioner, and that these sixty hours of continuing education be in addition to any other continuing education required of Respondent Heiser to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Finds Mr. Rolfe guilty of culpable negligience in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 upon Mr. Rolfe and place his licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is also recommended that the conditions of probation require that Respondent Rolfe pay the said administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the final order and that he be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education during his term of probation. It is further recommended that as part of the sixty hours of continuing education, Mr. Rolfe be required to successfully complete the thirty hour management course for brokers, that he be required to provide satisfactory evidence of completion of such continuing education to Petitioner, and that these sixty hours of continuing education be in addition to any other continuing education required of Respondent Rolfe to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of December, 1991. 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 30th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Garfied & Associates, P.A. World Executive Building Suite 333 3500 North State Road 7 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, holding license number 0419502. Ms. Linton was the owner and qualifying broker for Respondent Key Realty Co. of Pensacola, Inc. (Key Realty). Key Realty was a licensed real estate brokerage company in Florida, holding license number 0244319. Both Respondents, and in particular Ms. Linton, have excellent character references from other active members of the real estate community. On November 7, 1989, Petitioner entered a Final Order against Respondents for escrow account violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Final Order required Respondents to submit monthly escrow account status reports. From November 7, 1989, through March 27, 1990, the Respondents did not file any escrow account status reports as required by the Final Order. Ms. Linton had turned the responsibility of filing those reports over to her accountant. However, Ms. Linton did not check to see if the escrow reports were filed by her accountant. Her accountant's full-time employment was as a contract auditor for the U.S. Navy. In October, 1989, the accountant was assigned to audit a contract in the Pacific and moved to the Pacific island which was the site of the contract. The accountant advised Ms. Linton that he would be leaving in October. After' October, 1989, the accountant no longer did any accounting work for Respondent. However, Ms. Linton did not make arrangements for the filing of the escrow account reports required by the Final Order after her accountant left the country. No sufficient excuse was offered by Ms. Linton for her failure to file or ensure the filing of these escrow reports. The Respondents' rental escrow account revealed a shortage of $2,008.14 as of March 21, 1990. The money to cover the shortage was placed in a desk drawer in the Respondent's office for deposit while the Respondent was on vacation. Her employees failed to make the deposit. Given these facts, the resultant shortage was a very minor transgression of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21-V, Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, Bank charges totaling $328 were debited from the rental escrow account from June 1989 to February 1990. The Respondent's bank, Barnett Bank of Pensacola, had erroneously charged the rental escrow account for these bank charges despite instructions from the Respondent not to do so. All of the debited bank charges were either replaced by the bank or Ms. Linton. Since it was the bank's actions which caused these charges to be made to Respondents' rental escrow account and not Respondents' actions, no violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, can be attributed to either Respondent. Several checks totaling $3,605.15 were written by Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, from the rental escrow account and later returned due to nonsufficient funds. The checks were returned for nonsufficient funds due to the bank's hold policy. Since Respondent had consummated numerous transactions with Barnett Bank of Pensacola in which the hold policy was not applied to her account, Respondent had no knowledge that the bank's hold policy would be applied to her account. No reliable evidence was presented that this set of facts constituted bad accounting methods on the part of Respondents or otherwise violated the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In the course of operating a rental management business, Respondents, on October 25, 1989, entered into a rental property management agreement with Richard and Susan Vigeant. The agreement called for monthly rental statements and disbursements. Respondents collected rental funds on behalf of the Vigeants from November, 1989, to February, 1990. However, Respondents did not provide monthly statements or deliver net rental funds to the Vigeants until March 6, 1990. Respondents were under the impression that the Vigeant's funds were to be held by the Respondents for minor repairs to the Lessor's property. The Vigeants were not under such an impression and, after numerous phone calls for more than a month, the Vigeants' requested disbursement of the net rental funds on February 20, 1990. The funds were disbursed to the Vigeants on March 6, 1990. Respondents failure to give the Vigeants monthly accounting reports as required by the rental management agreement violates Section 475.25 (1)(d), Florida Statutes. However, this violation, while not minor, is also not overly serious and should not receive severe discipline. None of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Linton or her business were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction. The evidence did show that Ms. Linton is not very good at maintaining the rental escrow account or at seeing that the rental escrow account was properly maintained. Respondents' recordkeeping is poor and in disarray. The evidence was clear that Ms. Linton does not have the inclination, desire, or capability to maintain her broker's escrow account. The strongest evidence to support this conclusion is that all of Respondent's latest difficulties with her escrow account occurred after she had already been disciplined for escrow account violations which occurred prior to the events under consideration here. 1/ Given this inability, Respondent cannot be entrusted to properly handle escrow funds given to her. Since Respondents are not competent to handle escrow matters Respondents' licenses should be revoked. The Respondent does not currently have the financial ability to pay any fines and such a penalty would not be appropriate in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Division enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of four violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker's licenses. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 24th day of September, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, allegedly committed by real estate brokers and brokerages who are licensed in Florida. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Ursoleo was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0090870 through the Division of Real Estate. Respondent Jewell was a corporation registered as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0258744. Both licenses were issued to the following address: 1154 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33931. Respondent Ursoleo was the active broker for Respondent Jewell, and held the office of president within the corporation. On July 10 and 11, 1989, the Respondents' accounting records were reviewed in a random, routine audit conducted by the Division of Real Estate as part of its regulatory functions. During the review, the investigator reported that financial shortages existed in two accounts kept by the corporate broker in a fiduciary capacity. A deficiency of $4,569.81 was allegedly located in the rental escrow account, and a deficiency of $1,218.83, was allegedly located in the Bigelow Shopping Center management account. The Rental Escrow Account The rental escrow account is an account that contains monies held in a fiduciary capacity by the real estate broker on behalf of a number of separate clients who own rental property in Lee County, Florida. Respondent Jewell, through its qualifying broker and corporate officer Respondent Ursoleo, manages these properties for a commission or management fee. As part of the management duties, the Respondents collect rents, maintain the property, and render periodic accountings to the clients regarding the rents collected, property repair and maintenance expenses, and other financial matters involving the properties. Each client has an independent agreement with Respondent Jewell regarding how his property is handled and how his escrow account funds are to be managed. However, the primary purpose of each account is to deduct expenses from the rents deposited prior to disbursing the balance of the rents to the property owners. Mr. James Alexander owns twenty-eight rental units which he co-manages with the Respondents. Between $8,000.00 to $9,000.00 from these properties are deposited into Respondents' rental escrow account each month. Due to a twenty- year business relationship regarding these properties, Mr. Alexander allows the Respondents to use his escrowed funds for whatever personal or business use is desired by the Respondents. Mr. Alexander is aware that some of his escrowed funds have been used for Respondent Ursoleo's personal business, real estate brokerage bills, and to advance other rental property owners the necessary funds for property maintenance and repairs. The only conditions placed upon the Respondents' use of the money for purposes beyond the needs of Mr. Alexander's properties are as follows: 1) Monthly accountings to Mr. Alexander of the amount of money due to him must be correct; and 2) The money used for the other purposes must be replaced in one month's time in order to be available for disbursement to Mr. Alexander. During the time period between June and July 1989, $13,145.26 of Mr. Alexander's funds were in the escrow account and were available for use by the Respondents. Mr. James Hall, an attorney in Indiana, is president of San Carlos Lodge, Inc., the owner of a mobile home park in Lee County, Florida. This park has been managed by the Respondents for thirteen years. Because the lot rents within the park are due at various times, and because some renters pay in advance, the Respondents' rental escrow account always contains funds belonging to San Carlos Lodge, Inc. In June and July 1989, $4,675.53 remained in the rental escrow account on behalf of the corporation after the monthly accountings and rental disbursements were made by the Respondents to Mr. Hall. Pursuant to its escrow agrement, San Carlos, Inc. allowed the Respondents to use the money as Respondent Ursoleo saw fit, without reservation. The only restrictions placed upon the use of the funds were: 1) Monies received on behalf of the corporation must be acknowledged as corporate funds; and 2) Funds removed must be returned to the rental escrow account within a one-month period for disbursement purposes. Between April and July 1989, Frank Helmerich owed the rental escrow account $5,756.28 for advances made from the account in order to manage and maintain his rental properties. All of these funds were not repaid within the one-month period required by the Respondents' clients, Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc. Some repayment was made with rents collected on behalf of Mr. Helmerich, but the exact amount of timely reimbursement was not presented at hearing. The Respondents' rental escrow account records do not reflect that the funds advanced to Mr. Helmerich for rental property management expenses were removed from the funds earmarked for Mr. Alexander's escrow or San Carlos Lodge, Inc.'s escrow. In addition, the account records do not show that the funds specifically removed from either account were replaced with Respondent's Ursoleo's personal funds in the amount of $5,000.00, or with rental funds received on behalf of Mr. Helmerich. Under the escrow agreement between Mr. Helmerich and the Respondents, rental income could be used to repay any and all rental property expenses. Bigelow Shopping Center Management Account The account maintained by Respondents Jewell and Ursoleo, as agent for Bigelow Shopping Center, is an operating account for the business of managing, renting, maintaining and preserving the shopping center on behalf of its owner, the Huntingburg Corporation. Mr. Olinger, an officer and shareholder of the corporation who is a banker by profession, testified that the "deficiency" in the checking account occurred because two checks from the same shopping center tenant bounced. As the funds were never received by the corporation, they were never escrowed. A review of the mathematical calculations on page 4 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 reveal that the investigator for the Division of Real Estate consistently made the same mathematical errors when she calculated the sum of the funds held in escrow in the Bigelow Shopping Center account. The entries on line 3 and line 13 in the "Total in Escrow" column in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, are negative numbers because the two checks bounced. If the investigator insisted upon adding these two numbers, which totaled $1,444.50, into the "Total in Escrow" column, she should have also subtracted them out because they were negative numbers. Instead of $11,311.50, the total escrow on the front page of the Management Account Inspection relating to the Bigelow Shopping Center bank account for July 11, 1989, should have been $9,867.00. The actual bank balance for the Bigelow Shopping Center reported by the bank to the investigator on July 11, 1989, was $10,886.37. The total of outstanding checks was $793.70. When the outstanding checks are subtracted from the reported bank balance, the difference is $10,092.67. As the escrowed amount of funds was $9,867.00, and the actual bank balance after the deduction of outstanding checks was $10,092.67, there was no deficiency in this account. Mitigation Once the deficiency was located in the rental escrow account maintained by Respondent Jewell, the Respondent Ursoleo immediately transferred $5,000.00 of his personal funds into the account on July 11, 1989. The Respondents have revamped the bookkeeping procedures within the brokerage offices. The individual escrow agreements with Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc. are no longer used by the Respondents to make short term loans to other clients who also own rental property in Lee County, such as Mr. Helmerich. The Respondents have reviewed the Department's rules relating to the maintenance of escrow accounts, and are prepared to comply with the law in the narrowest, strictest sense. Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc., did not incur any actual monetary harm as a result of the temporary deficiency of funds in the rental escrow account. The clients were never in fear that the funds would not be returned to them upon demand. The Respondents' accountings to these clients have always been accurate. The Respondents have a long-standing reputation for honesty and reliability in their business dealings that involve financial entrustments. The Respondent Ursoleo has been an active Florida realtor for thirty- seven years. There was no evidence presented of a prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended: That Respondent Ursoleo be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count IX of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent Ursoleo be issued a written reprimand and be fined $500.00. That all other charges filed against Respondent Ursoleo in the Administrative Complaint filed October 18, 1989, be dismissed. That Respondent Jewell be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count X of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent Jewell be issued a written reprimand and be fined $500.00. That all other charges filed against Respondent Jewell in the Administrative Complaint filed October 18, 1989, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6378 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected finding that all of the funds in the rental escrow account were security deposits. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted, except for the date of transfer. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #13. Reject conclusion. See HO #13 and #14. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Se HO #5 thru HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper argument and improper conclusion. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to the exhibits and Respondent Ursoleo's testimony that a general account existed. Accept the second sentence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accept Respondent Ursoleo was not aware of a shortage in the rental escrow account. Accept that the money was immediately replaced. See HO #15. Reject that the prior office manager was solely responsible for the deficiency. The proof provided at hearing demonstrated that the book- keeper may have failed to deposit the $862.50. Rejected. Legal argument as opposed to factual finding. Rejected. Legal argument as opposed to factual finding. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Legal argument. All legal arguments were considered in the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Leslie T. Arenholz, Esquire 19110 San Carlos Boulevard Post Office Box 2656 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33932 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent Kenneth M. Mossell's real estate license should be disciplined because he allegedly engaged in dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction; collected money in connection with a real estate brokerage transaction except in the name of his employer and with the express consent thereof; registered as an officer of a corporation while licensed as a salesman; operated as a broker while licensed as a salesman; and failed to account and deliver any secret or illegal profit in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (e); 475.42(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes; Rule Sections 21V-14.012(2) and (3), and 21V-5.016, Florida Administrative Code; and whether Respondent L. Jean Jones DuBrian's real estate license should be disciplined based upon the charge that she is guilty of dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in business transactions; operated as a broker under a trade name without causing said name to be noted in the Commission records and placed on her license; or operated as a member of a partnership or as a corporation or as an officer or manager thereof, without said partnership or corporation holding a valid current registration; failed to prepare and sign required written monthly escrow reconciliation statements, all in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (e); 475.42(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Rule Sections 21V-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code.
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 Florida, specifically Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Respondent DuBrian is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0306696 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o United Team, Inc. t/a ERA, 5844 Main Street, New Port Richey, Florida. Respondent Mossell is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in Florida, having been issued license number 0538751. The last license issued was as a non-active salesperson, 3432 Lori Lane, New Port Richey, Florida. Linda Sychowski, Frederick Reimer and Mary Patricia Mossell were officers of Majestic Realty and Leasing, Incorporated (Majestic), which was formed during May of 1989. Respondent Mossell was the primary financial investor. On or about April 16, 1990, Sychowski filed Majestic's annual report for 1990 with the Secretary of State listing Mary Patricia Mossell as Director/Treasurer, Sychowski as Director/President and Reimer as Director/Vice President. Respondent DuBrian was never an officer, director or shareholder of Majestic. During August 1989, pursuant to a verbal agreement, Respondent DuBrian became qualifying broker for Majestic. During August 1989, Sychowski notarized Respondent DuBrian's signature on a document titled "State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Application and Request for Licensure of a Real Estate Brokerage Corporation or Partnership." Respondent DuBrian's name appears on the portion of the form listing all corporate officers and directors. During October 1989, Respondent Mossell opened an escrow account at Citizens and Southern Bank (C & S) on behalf of Majestic. Respondent Mossell and Sychowski were signatories on the C & S account and Respondent Mossell signed as Secretary of the corporation. On September 20, 1990, Sychowski notified the Department of Professional Regulation that Respondent DuBrian had been terminated as broker of record for Majestic. President Linda Sychowski denies that she had any understanding that Respondent DuBrian would operate an independent real estate company outside of Majestic or that DuBrian would receive commissions for real estate activities except through Majestic. Sychowski is not a real estate licensee and relied upon Respondent DuBrian's competency as a broker. During April 1990, Sychowski signed check numbers 119 and 120 drawn on Majestic's escrow account. Those checks were payable to Respondent Mossell's wife, Mary Patricia Mossell, as reimbursement for the return of a security deposit and cleaning services. Sychowski learned, subsequent to Respondent DuBrian's termination, that DuBrian operated a real estate brokerage company out of her home independent of her activities as a broker with Majestic. She learned of DuBrian's other brokerage activities during a deposition in conjunction with a civil suit filed by DuBrian against Majestic. During October 1989, Jonathan Rummey entered into a lease agreement to rent property at 5416 Aloha Boulevard. Rummey paid monthly rent pursuant to the agreement and vacated the property during October 1990. Initially Rummey paid rent to Majestic and later DuBrian notified him that she had moved to another real estate company and that the rent was to be paid directly to her. Rummey understood that DuBrian was acting as an agent for the landlord and, as such, was receiving a commission from the landlord. Respondent Mossell was aware that Respondent DuBrian was conducting a real estate rental business from her home. Mossell knew this when DuBrian was hired as the qualifying broker for Majestic. Mossell permitted DuBrian to continue operating her independent rental brokerage business. Mossell allowed this since he thought that it would not be financially prudent for DuBrian to leave her ongoing business and hire on with a new firm, Majestic, which had no rental accounts. During April 1989, Scott Spoerl entered a lease agreement with Respondent DuBrian for rental property he owned. The agreement provided that rental payments would be made to Respondent "L. Jean DuBrian, Registered Real Estate Broker." Respondent DuBrian received ten percent of the rents collected as her fee for providing rental services to Spoerl. Spoerl received checks for his portion of the rent from Respondent DuBrian's account entitled "L. Jean Jones DuBrian Escrow Account." During May 1990, DPR Investigator Marjorie May conducted an inspection and escrow account audit of Majestic. At the time, Respondent DuBrian was Majestic's qualifying broker. During that audit, Investigator May discovered that Respondent DuBrian was not preparing and signing monthly reconciliation reports. During October 1988 Walter Hankinson, Jr., and his wife entered into an agreement to rent property for $500 per month from DuBrian. The Hankinson's paid monthly rent to Respondent DuBrian personally. The Hankinsons vacated the property during January 1992. The bank account entitled "Kenneth Mossell or Jean DuBrian, Special Account Number One," account number 1519555601 maintained at Barnett Bank had statements dated October 11, 1989, and November 9, 1989. No other statements were issued for that account. Two checks were drawn on the above-referenced account, one payable to and endorsed by Kathy Renquist and one dated October 23, 1989, payable to cash. The latter check was endorsed and cashed by Respondent Mossell. The referenced account was a personal and not a business account. Escrow accounts are usually identified as such. Banks label escrow accounts as such because the account is not directly charged. When bank accounts are set up, the account is designated as the customer instructs. The customer signs the signature card after the account title is typed in. During July 1989, Arthur Wagenseil entered a lease agreement to rent property from Respondent DuBrian. Respondent DuBrian represented the landlord and the monthly lease payments were paid directly to her. In July 1989, James Irwin entered a one year lease agreement with Wagenseil. As part of the agreement, Irwin paid Respondent DuBrian a ten percent (10%) commission of rents received. Typically, Respondent DuBrian received the rent from the tenant, deducted the necessary expenses and her commission, and remitted the balance to the landlord (Irwin). Respondent DuBrian advised Irwin that she had arranged with Majestic to keep her clients and business the way she was doing it at the time. During July 1989, Edmund Lekowski entered a two year lease agreement to rent property, paying $390 per month in rent to Respondent DuBrian as agent for the landlord. In May 1989, Frederick Reimer participated in the formation of Majestic as a director and principal. The other officers of the corporation were Sychowski and Mary Patricia Mossell. Majestic was established to engage in the business of renting and leasing realty. Reimer is not licensed as a real estate salesperson or broker. Reimer met Respondent DuBrian when she applied for and was hired as the broker for Majestic. Respondent Mossell was a part owner of Majestic and, as noted, was the primary financial investor. The corporate escrow account was maintained at C & S Bank and Respondent DuBrian was not a signatory on the account. Respondent DuBrian was employed at Majestic to meet the requirement of having a broker on staff. Reimer relied on Respondent DuBrian's knowledge of real estate law. Reimer was unaware of Respondent's DuBrian's operation of a separate rental/leasing business from her home. Respondent DuBrian was not an officer of Majestic nor did she inform Reimer of the legal requirement that she be an officer of the corporation and a signatory on the escrow account. Leo Huddleston, an investigator with Petitioner, met with Respondents DuBrian and Mossell on March 19, 1991, at which time Respondent DuBrian acknowledged that she was not a signatory on the Majestic escrow account because she was not a stockholder or shareholder. During the March 19, 1991 interview, Respondent DuBrian advised Huddleston that she was conducting a rental business, as a broker, separate and distinct from Majestic. During the March 19, 1991, meeting, Respondent DuBrian advised Investigator Huddleston that she was unaware that radon and agency disclosures and written monthly reconciliations were required. Also, during that meeting with Investigator Huddleston, Respondent Mossell advised that he was a signatory on the Majestic escrow account and that he withdrew $310 from that escrow account when a Mr. Schlatterman vacated some rental property that was leased from Majestic. Respondent Mossell's withdrawal was based on repayment and reimbursement to his wife for cleaning the Schlatterman's vacated apartment and a $250.00 cash refund of a security deposit that Mary Mossell had given to the tenant, Schlatterman. Respondent Mossell did not provide Investigator Huddleston with documentation for the claim on the Schlatterman's security deposit. In this regard, the Schlatterman's experienced an emergency and had to vacate on a weekend when the banks were closed. At the time of Investigator Huddleston's interview of Respondents during March 1991, Respondent DuBrian acknowledged that while she was employed as qualifying broker for Majestic, she was also operating an independent rental business. Investigator Huddleston's investigation of the Petitioner's records revealed that Respondent DuBrian was only registered as qualifying broker for Majestic and for no other company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that: Respondent L. Jean Jones DuBrian's real estate license be suspended for a period of six (6) months and that she be issued a written reprimand and ordered to complete 24 hours of post licensure education within the period of suspension or as soon thereafter as is practicable. Respondent Kenneth M. Mossell be reprimanded and ordered to complete 18 hours of post licensure education within one year of the issuance of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1992. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 92-1072 AND 92-1322 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order: Paragraph 17, rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 19, rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Paragraph 37, rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 57, adopted as modified, Paragraph 40, Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 L. Jean Jones DuBrian 7326 Baltusrol Drive New Port Richey, Florida 34654 Kenneth Milton Mossell 3432 Lori Lane New Port Richey, Florida 34655 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the two Respondents, one individual and one corporation, on the basis of alleged violations set forth in an eight-count1 Administrative Complaint. The Respondents are charged with violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and with multiple violations of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with responsibilities and duties which include the prosecution of Administrative Complaints against licensees under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Hilda H. Bell is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0349586 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker at Sharmic Realty, Inc., at the following address: 8701 Willes Road, Unit 16-308, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc., is now, and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0243150 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the following address: 8701 Willes Road, Unit 16- 308, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. At all times material hereto, Respondent Hilda H. Bell was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker of, and an officer of Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc. On September 27, 1994, Petitioner's Investigator Margaret R. Hoskins audited Respondents' escrow accounts. The audit revealed that the Respondents maintained Property Management Escrow Account Number 00300066617 at Glendale Federal Bank, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A total trust liability for the Respondents' Property Management Escrow Account could not be determined because the Respondents did not have complete and accurate records. On August 11, 1992, the Respondents deposited $20,000.00 into their Property Management Escrow Account for a person who did not have a checking account. On August 11, 1992, the Respondents issued escrow check number 0972 in the amount of $20,000.00. On August 18, 1992, the Respondents loaned Cecil Sailsman $500.00 from the Property Management Escrow Account. On January 12, 1993, the Respondents deposited $22,496.91 in personal funds into the Property Management Escrow Account. The Respondents subsequently disbursed $15,045.00 of the personal funds from the Property Management Escrow Account.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondents are guilty of the violations charged in Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing administrative penalties consisting of the following: An administrative fine against Respondent Hilda H. Bell in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00); A six month suspension of the real estate brokerage license of Respondent Hilda H. Bell; A one year period of probation for the Respondent Hilda H. Bell, to begin immediately following the period of suspension; A requirement that the Respondent Hilda H. Bell complete additional education in the form of a seven hour course in real estate brokerage escrow management during her period of probation; and A reprimand of Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 2nd day of April 1996.
