The Issue The issue is whether Kenneth Baurley should be eligible to sit for the examination to become licensed as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On July 14, 1988, Mr. Baurley's application for licensure as a real estate salesman was received by the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission). By letter dated October 3, 1988, the Commission notified Baurley that his application had been denied based on his answer to question 6 on the application. In responding to that question, Mr. Baurley disclosed that he had been involved in two criminal proceedings; in both an adjudication of his guilt had been withheld. The first case arose in 1982 on the charge of battery on a law enforcement officer, for which he received 18 months of supervised probation. The incident had its genesis in a shoving match involving Baurley and someone who turned out to be an off-duty police officer for a small municipality. The second was in 1983 for the municipal offense of prowling. Although under no obligation to do so, Mr. Baurley also stated that he had been arrested for driving under the influence in 1988. He was found not guilty on the last charge, so it has no bearing on the decision in this case. Mr. Baurley's response to question 6 was complete and truthful. At the time of these incidents, Mr. Baurley was 19 and 20 years of age. He successfully completed his probation. He has had no further relevant contacts with the criminal justice system for more than five years. Mr. Baurley is now 26 years old. He has resided in Pompano Beach, Florida since 1972, although he attended college in Tallahassee. He is employed currently as President of A Better Limousine Service, Inc. and as a supervisor at Baurley Marine Works, Inc., which is owned by his father. Prior to his employment in these two positions, Mr. Baurley worked in a business established by his brother, Baurley "No Frills" Auto Rental. Before he held these positions, Mr. Baurley attended college in Tallahassee and worked at Doc's Sports Bar and Grill and at Forest Meadows Athletic Club. He was also an adjunct instructor at Florida State University where he taught Tae Ywon Do for college credit. In the course of his employment in the positions set out in Findings 6 and 7 above, Mr. Baurley has been required to interact with patrons, sometimes under difficult circumstances. In all the positions delineated in Findings 6 and 7 (other than the position as adjunct instructor at Florida State University) Mr. Baurley has been required to handle other people's money on at least a weekly basis. Most of the positions have required him to deal with his employers' or customers' money on a daily basis. Petitioner has performed all his employment responsibilities honestly and without incident. Darlene Vlazeny, a real estate salesperson and housewife, met Mr. Baurley in a business capacity by telephone in October, 1988. At that time Mrs. Vlazeny was soliciting in-kind contributions on behalf of a school for hearing impaired children. Mrs. Vlazeny testified that Mr. Baurley's was the only limousine company which agreed to her request to provide limousine services in connection with a benefit for the school at reduced rates. Since the school benefit, Mrs. Valzeny has had social contact with Mr. Baurley. She is aware of the incidents detailed in his answer to question number 6 on his licensure application, but believes he is trustworthy, honest and has a high moral character based on her experiences with Baurley. Mrs. Vlazeny would have no reservation about working with Mr. Baurley in any professional capacity. John Belegesky, a practicing attorney for more than 30 years, has known Mr. Baurley since he was a small boy. Baurley and Mr. Belegesky's son have been friends since grade school. Mr. Belegesky is also aware of Mr. Baurley's past and believes that the acts disclosed in the response to question number 6 to be out of character for him, and the result of youthful indiscretion. Mr. Belegesky trusts Petitioner to have a key to his home, which contains many valuables, and to houseset when he and his wife are away for weeks at a time. Mr. Belegesky would have no reservation about referring his clients, including major developers, to work with Mr. Baurley, if he is licensed. Mr. Belegesky believes Mr. Baurley possesses a high moral character and is honest and trustworthy. Mr. Baurley has matured and regrets his past actions. Mr. Baurley is honest and trustworthy and is of good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Kenneth M. Baurley, be allowed to take the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman and if he passes the examination, be issued a real estate salesman license. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5537 The proposed findings of Mr. Baurley have generally been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32802 Marion E. Baurley, Esquire 1025 Vermont Avenue, North West Suite 915 Washington, D.C. 20005 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32902
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, recommends that the Real Estate Commission accept the application of Harry A. Yeargin. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Randy James Schwartz, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 W. O. Birchfield, Esquire 3000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Recommendation The Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission place L. B. Slater on probation for a period of one year for the failure of Slater to properly maintain the records of his escrow account. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 L. B. Slater 1940 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sexsmith is a licensed real estate broker, having held License Number 0079448 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Bellitto is a licensed real estate salesman, having held License No. 0204206 at all times relevant to Case No. 81-2630. Respondent Select Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having held License No. 0157174 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Sexsmith founded Select Realty, Inc., in 1975. He was a full time realtor until his employment by the Hollywood Fire Department in 1976. Select Realty thereafter became inactive. In 1979, Respondent Sexsmith was contacted by a Mr. Jim Holmes, who was seeking to register the corporate name, Select Realty. Sexsmith agreed to permit the name Select Realty to be used by Holmes and his associates to open a real estate office at 3045 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Sexsmith also applied to Petitioner for certification as a director and active broker with this company. His application was granted in June, 1979, and he remained affiliated with Respondent Select Realty, Inc., in this capacity until about April, 1980. Respondent Sexsmith did not participate in Select Realty operations and received no compensation for the use of his name and broker's license. He was slated to open and manage a branch office in Hollywood, but this project failed to materialize. Petitioner produced Mr. Tom Ott and Ms. Terri Casson as witnesses. They had utilized the services of Select Realty, Inc., in December, 1979 (Ott) and February, 1980 (Casson). Both had responded to advertisements in which Select Realty offered to provide rental assistance for a $45 refundable fee. These witnesses understood money would be refunded if Select Realty did not succeed in referring them to rental property which met their specifications. Mr. Ott was referred to several properties which did not meet his requirements. He sought to have his fee or a portion thereof returned, but was refused. His demand for such return was made within the 30-day contract period (PX-11). Ms. Casson was similarly dissatisfied with the referrals and sought the return of her fee within the 30-day contract period (PX-7). However, she was unable to contact this company or its agents since the office had closed and no forwarding instructions were posted or otherwise made available to her.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Select Realty, Inc., and Gary Lee Sexsmith be found guilty as charged in Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 81-2630. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against these Respondents and other Respondents named in DOAH Cases 81-2630 and 81-2490 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate broker's license of Select Realty, Inc., be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that the broker's license of Gary Lee Sexsmith be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William Grossbard, Esquire Suite 6175M 6191 Southwest 45 Street 6177 North Davie, Florida 33314 Anthony S. Paetro, Esquire Bedzow and Korn, P.A. Suite C 1125 Northeast 125 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire Spiegel and Abramowitz Suite 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith 321 Southwest 70t Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Guiseppe D. Bellitto 2635 McKinley Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Select Realty, Inc. c/o Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith last acting Director and Trustee of Select Realty, Inc. 321 Southwest 70th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. From January 24, 1994, through the present, Respondent Ernest Eric Yeghian, has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number BK- 0583985, as well as the broker/officer of Vikon Realty Corp., a broker corporation located at 131 South F Street, Lake Worth, Florida. For the two-year period preceding his licensure as a broker or, stated otherwise, from 1992 to January 24, 1994, Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. Respondent's conviction In early 1996, Respondent pled guilty to one count of bank bribery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1), pursuant to a plea agreement reached in the matter of United States of America v. E. Eric Yeghian, United States District Court, District of Rhode Island, Case No. 1:95CR00021-004. Respondent resolved, in part, to enter such plea based on advise of counsel that the banker's coercion, discussed infra, would not constitute a legal defense to the offense charged. On March 20, 1996, judgment of conviction was entered on Respondent's plea and he was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment and fined $10,000.2 The judgment further provided that upon release from imprisonment, Respondent would be on supervised release for a term of 3 years. Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of the guilty plea or his conviction within 30 days of having pled guilty or having been convicted. Respondent voluntarily surrendered to the United States Bureau of Prisons (FPC Jesup, Georgia) on April 17, 1996, and was released to a halfway house (located in West Palm Beach, Florida) on or about December 17, 1996, to serve the last 60 days of his sentence. Respondent was released from custody on or about February 14, 1997, and will have completed his probation (supervised release) on February 14, 2000. The pending complaint At some point following Respondent's licensure as a real estate broker, the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) requested a criminal background check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). That investigation was completed on November 30, 1995, and revealed that Respondent had been arrested on March 30, 1995, on the charge of bank bribery. Subsequently, the Department learned of Respondent's plea and conviction, and on December 23, 1996, filed a Uniform Complaint Form which initiated an investigation to resolve whether cause existed to believe that Respondent had violated Section 745.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by having failed to notify FREC of his plea of guilty or conviction. By letter of December 27, 1996, the Department advised Respondent of the pendency of the complaint and investigation, and proposed to schedule a meeting to discuss the complaint. The letter further provided that "[y]ou may submit a written response to the information contained in the complaint within 20 days after receipt of this letter." Respondent was interviewed by the Department's investigator on December 30, 1996, and by letter of January 3, 1997, he submitted a written response to the complaint, as well as an excerpt from court documents that explained his version of events (Respondent's Exhibit 4), and character reference letters that had been submitted to the federal judge (Respondent's Exhibits 6-13). Respondent's response to the complaint included the following explanation regarding his arrest and conviction: In 1983, I graduated from high school. I had been accepted by the University of Massachusetts and began my studies there in the fall of that year. It soon became apparent to me that even though I was doing well at school, I had to drop out . . . to assist my family financially. . . . I began to work full time as a laborer in a scrap metal yard in the winter of 1983. As I continued to work as a laborer and save my earnings, I began to learn as much as I could about the real estate business. In 1984, a friend and I pooled our savings and purchased our first property, and [sic] abandoned tenement in Providence's Armory district. I moved in and completely renovated the building from top to bottom myself. I then advertised and sold the home. We reinvested the profit into two similar properties. Fortunately, these properties also were sold at a profit. We continued to repeat this process many times over the next 3-4 years, also doing all the work ourselves. * * * In early to middle 1987, it became apparent to me that, due to the rapidly rising prices of real estate in Rhode Island, attractively priced existing properties would continue to be more and more scarce. I decided that it would be more cost effective to begin building new properties. However, since I was inexperienced at this type of development, I decided to associate with partners who were older and more seasoned. A partnership was formed to build 48 condominiums in North Providence. We agreed that my role would be to supervise the day to day construction and that they would secure the bank financing for the project. The construction began in early 1986. Most everything went well and soon we were selling the condominiums at a profit. Around that time, one of my partners introduced me to a college friend of his, an attorney named George Marderosian. Mr. Marderosian began to do work for the partnership as well as becoming my personal attorney. Early in 1987, Mr. Marderosian became aware of [a] piece of property, selling at a reasonable price, which was suitable for the same type of condominium development. Because the first project was going well, it seemed a [sic] natural to proceed and do this project as well. . . . In early 1987, . . . [my partner and I] decided to put a deposit on the land. I then spent the next 8-10 months verifying the zoning, getting permits for water and sewer service, having engineering and construction plans prepared, etc. This along with the eventual supervision of the construction was my usual role. In the course of this work, I provided all of this development information to Mr. Marderosian, who was preparing the application for the bank loan. The application was made for the loan in the fall of 1987. I learned in late 1987 that the loan was approved and was gratified because I had invested the better part of one year in preparing the project. . . . After I was told our loan was approved (and only several days before the closing) Jay Moore, my partner in both the old and new projects, explained to me that he had been approached by our loan officer, Kenneth Annarummo, who was looking for money. I am not entirely sure about the exact circumstances. However, I am sure that this first approach was not to me personally. My best recollection is that Mr. Moore explained to me that Mr. Annarummo told him he wanted $20,000 and that he had reluctantly agreed to give it to him. I do recall discussing the matter with our attorney. He told us that he, not being a customer of the bank himself, could give money to Mr. Annarummo. He instructed Mr. Moore and me to give him $10,000 and he would take care of the rest. With so much at stake and so much already invested, I simply wanted to put the problem behind us. I rationalized that it was just part of doing business. However, while I could not say exactly what law was being broken, I realized paying Mr. Annarummo was wrong. In early 1988, I found another property I felt was an excellent value. . . . I spent the first 7-8 months of 1988 doing all the due diligence work on the site. I put down a deposit on the land, spent money on engineering, environmental tests, wetlands studies, etc. By summer 1988 all the research and 3 separate appraisals seemed to indicate the property was an excellent value. In approximately August, 1988 I applied for the loan for this property. About a month later, while I was home during the work week with a broken arm I called to my office to check my messages. There was a message to call Mr. Annarummo at his bank in reference to my loan application. I called Mr. Annarummo and he told me that the loan committee had approved my loan and that the loan could close within several weeks. About one week later during the early evening I was home, again, with the same broken arm. I was not expecting anyone. There was a knock on my door, It was Mr. Annarummo and his wife. He had never been to my home before and he was not invited on that occasion. At first, I did not know why he was there. He stepped inside and told me that he wanted to speak to me about something. He said he had a car loan that he wanted to "get rid of." I genuinely did not know what he was talking about and I asked him what he meant. In response he bluntly stated that he wanted me to pay off his car loan. I did not know what to say. I responded that I would have to get back to him and, with little else said, he and his wife left. After he left, I tried to put the approach out of my mind and pretend it never happened. I thought perhaps he wouldn't bother me anymore or be too embarrassed to bring it up ever again. A few days passed and I was back at work and I got a phone call from Mr. Annarummo. He started to press me for an answer. Again, I told him I'd have to get back to him. Quite plainly, I did not want to pay him money, but I also did not know what to do. I told him I had a customer in my office and I'd have to get back to him and hung up. By then it was obvious to me that he was not going to drop the issue. I contacted Mr. Marderosian and told him what had happened and I asked him how I should handle it. Mr. Marderosian said to me that it was unfortunate that Mr. Annarummo was doing this to me but if he handled the situation for me that would solve the problem for the time being. We agreed that in future projects I should develop a relationship with another bank so I would not be placed in such a tight position. (At the time, Mr. Annuarummo also controlled the day to day funding of the two major projects in which I was involved) I agreed to give him the money. Inherently, I knew then and clearly know now that what Mr. Annarummo was demanding and what George Marderosian helped me to do, was wrong. At those particular moments I felt I had only two choices. to give him the money or to refuse to do so. I did not want to give him the money because he had no right to it. Besides, I knew it was wrong and probably illegal. I did not want to refuse because I felt Mr. Annarummo had the power to ruin or at the very least severely disrupt everything I had been working to build my whole life and most importantly the livelihood and support of my family. I felt stuck in the middle with only two bad choices. Eventually, my fear of the potential ramifications of not appeasing Mr. Annarummo in conjunction with Mr. Marderosian offering an apparent way out led me to make the decision I made. It was a wrong decision. With the benefit of hindsight, I now see that there was a third choice. I could have brought Mr. Annarummo's approach to the attention of his superiors at the bank and/or the appropriate authorities. This experience is indelibly burned into my consciousness. I am older, wiser and more secure in my judgement. If ever I were to find myself confronted with this type of situation again, my reaction would be completely contrary to what I have done in the past. . . . (Respondent's Exhibit 14.) Respondent explained his failure to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of his plea or conviction within 30 days of having pled guilty or having been convicted, as follows: . . . it was my absolute intention to address this issue with the F.R.E.C. upon returning home (which I did just 12/17/96). I clearly am in error in terms of the timetable for notification which I now understand should have been within 30 days of the plea or conviction. I, wrongly, was under the impression that notification was required prior to resuming the use of ones' license. I should have known the notification procedure and I am clearly at fault for not doing so in the required time frame. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, at page 3.) Thereafter, on April 18, 1997, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which charged that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, "by having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate salesperson or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing" (Count I), and Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by "not having informed the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty (30) days of having pled guilty or having been convicted of a felony" (Count II). According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought for such violations was stated to be as follows: . . . The penalty for each count or separate offense may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 3 At hearing, Respondent offered testimony consistent with the explanation he had previously offered the Department, discussed supra. Respondent also observed that, at the time, he was fearful that if he refused the banker's demands, the banker would interrupt the funding that had been obtained for the projects. Respondent further testified that he fully disclosed the circumstances to his attorney and on the attorney's advice delivered the funds (to the attorney) for delivery to the banker. Finally, Respondent averred that he never misrepresented or withheld any material facts regarding the projects during the loan process; had no involvement in structuring the loan transactions; and only agreed to pay the banker (on advice of counsel) to avoid disruption of the previously approved funding. In Respondent's view he was not offering money (a bribe) for something he was not entitled to, but was being extorted by the banker to receive that to which he was entitled (the approved funding). Respondent's explanation regarding the circumstances surrounding the events which led to his conviction is credited. Respondent also offered credible proof that he cooperated fully with the government; that he accepted responsibility for his actions; and that he suffered a significant penalty for his misjudgment. The proof further reveals that the events which led to his conviction occurred over 11 years ago (when Respondent was 22-23 years of age); that in the 7 years Respondent has been licensed in Florida (as a salesperson or broker) no complaints have been filed against him; that among those who know of him, Respondent is considered honorable and trustworthy; and that his involvement in the events leading to his conviction was more likely attributable to naivete than guile. Finally, the proof demonstrates that Respondent continues to provide financial support for his parents and that loss of licensure would impose a severe financial hardship on Respondent and his family.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds the Respondent not guilty of the offense charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of the offense charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and that for such offense Respondent receive a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1999.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In responding to question 14(a) of the application, Petitioner answered that his license, as a real estate broker, had been revoked for non-payment of an administrative fine. (Respondent's exhibit 1). Petitioner attached to his application a copy of a transcript of an administrative hearing held in DOAH Case No. 84-0981. A final order was entered in that case based on a stipulation wherein Petitioner agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 within 30 days of entry of the final order. Petitioner has not paid the administrative fine as he agreed. Petitioner admitted during hearing that he had not paid the fine and made an offer during the hearing herein to pay that fine in as much as he failed to pay it earlier since he did not have the wherewithal to pay the fine. Petitioner is now employed as a sales representative with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1/ Petitioner's license as a real estate broker was revoked by Respondent based on his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed in an earlier case (DOAH Case No. 86-145, Respondent's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this of 27th day of January, 1989. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Arthur Steinhardt, on September 27, 1972; July 5, 1973; and November 17, 1975 applied to take the examination given to applicants for registration as real estate salesman by the FREC. All of these applications were denied on grounds that applicant had failed to give complete answers to questions on the application and had failed to show that he met the statutory qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character. At the instant proceeding the FREC's attorney stipulated that the giving of incomplete answers on the application was no longer an issue and that the FREC had been fully apprised of the applicant's past record of conviction. Applicant, who is presently 59 years old, was convicted in 1969 of grand larceny and uttering a forgery, and sentenced to prison for a term of six months to three years. He was released after serving nineteen months and applied for a pardon on May 19, 1971. On June 15, 1972 he was granted a pardon and his civil rights were restored. Since his release from prison he has worked as office manager for his sister who is a licensed mortgage broker and real estate broker. Applicant filed for bankruptcy and was discharged by the referee in bankruptcy in 1973. For the past six years he has had no further brushes with the law. The conviction for which applicant was imprisoned involved a family dispute and the ownership of family assets is presently in litigation with applicant and his sister attempting to recover estate assets from a brother. One witness, a member of the Florida Bar, testified to the good character and business reputation of the Applicant. One affidavit of good character has been received as late-filed Exhibit 2.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Jeffrey C. Barnes, is a 60-year-old male who maintains a residence in Illinois and is currently a licensed realtor in Illinois and Wisconsin. On April 9, 2007, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation received the Petitioner’s application to become a licensed real estate broker in Florida. The Petitioner responded affirmatively to a question on the application form which asked, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) . . ., even if you received a withhold of adjudication?” The Petitioner’s reported criminal history began with an incident on November 19, 1985, when the Illinois police stopped him for driving 53 M.P.H. in a 40 M.P.H. zone. Upon discovering that the Petitioner was driving with a suspended license, the police arrested him and found a small glass bottle containing cocaine on his person. The police also found 23 individually-wrapped packets of cocaine in the Petitioner’s vehicle. Because of this incident, the Illinois authorities charged the Petitioner with unlawfully possessing a controlled substance with the intent to deliver more than 30 grams. On February 18, 1986, an Illinois police officer witnessed the Petitioner driving erratically and pulled his car over. While asking for the Petitioner’s license, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the car. Upon looking into the car, the officer saw a bottle containing cocaine hanging from one of the Petitioner’s pockets. During a subsequent search of the Petitioner and his car, the police discovered drug paraphernalia and more cocaine. The police also administered a sobriety test which the Petitioner failed. The Petitioner was 38 years old during the incidents described above. Ultimately, the Petitioner was convicted on two counts of manufacturing and delivering a controlled substance, one count of possessing cannabis, and one count of possessing a controlled substance (i.e., cocaine). The Petitioner was released in 1990 after serving four years in prison. The Commission considered the Petitioner’s licensure application on July 18, 2007 during a regularly-scheduled meeting in Orlando, Florida. The Petitioner was present, but he was not represented by an attorney. During the aforementioned meeting, the Commission made the following findings of fact: (a) “[a]pplicant’s criminal record is as revealed in [his] application; (b) “[a]pplicant’s testimony or evidence in explanation/mitigation was unpersuasive;” and (c) “[a]pplicant’s criminal history is recent in time.”2/ Based on the findings of fact described above, the Commission concluded the Petitioner had “engaged in conduct or practices which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license.” The Commission also concluded the Petitioner had been “[c]onvicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, . . . a crime which directly relates to activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing.” Ultimately, the Commission elected to deny the Petitioner’s application by concluding “it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida.” The Commission’s decision was memorialized in a “Notice of Intent to Deny” rendered on August 8, 2007. The Petitioner responded by filing a petition disputing the facts on which the Commission’s decision was based. Specifically, due to the lapse of time since his convictions and subsequent good conduct, the Petitioner asserted he satisfied the criteria for licensure set forth in Section 475.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes. During the December 11, 2007 formal hearing, the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and described how he has worked in the information technology field for over 35 years. In addition, the Petitioner described his charitable and civic activities in considerable detail. The Petitioner attributed his convictions to a serious cocaine addiction. While incarcerated, he participated in substance abuse programs and describes his time in prison as a blessing. The Petitioner testified that he has had no further involvement with illegal drugs since his release from prison. During his testimony at hearing, the Petitioner revealed that he had sold 3.5 grams of cocaine to a friend in the presence of an undercover police officer, a crime not disclosed to the Commission in his licensure application. The Petitioner was not specific about when this crime occurred, but he believed that he was 25 or 30 years old at the time. While it is uncertain whether the Petitioner’s sale of cocaine actually resulted in a conviction which had to be expressly disclosed to the Commission in his licensure application, his claim that this crime was fully disclosed casts doubt on his credibility. In addition to his own testimony, the Petitioner offered the testimony of his brother, Pastor Christopher Barnes. When asked about the Petitioner’s character, Pastor Barnes expressed his opinion that the Petitioner’s arrest and convictions were responsible for the turn-around in the Petitioner’s life and present day exemplary good character. The Petitioner also offered the testimony of his wife, Ms. Janet Victoria. They met in late 1991 or early 1992 and have been married since 1997. Ms. Victoria works as a real estate broker in Illinois, and the Petitioner began working for her in 2004. Reverend James Dean Millar also testified on the Petitioner’s behalf that he and the Petitioner met in 2003, that the Petitioner has been involved in charitable endeavors and that the Petitioner regularly attends church services. All of the Petitioner’s witnesses responded affirmatively when asked if they knew the Petitioner to be honest, truthful, trustworthy, and a person of good character. They also responded affirmatively when asked if they knew whether the Petitioner had a good reputation for fair dealing. However, their statements were more in the nature of conclusions, lacking any specific detail to support their opinions. No specific instances were related where the Petitioner demonstrated honesty, morality, or ethical behavior. Also, none of the witnesses can be considered “disinterested.” The testimony and evidence indicated the Petitioner is accomplished in the fields of information technology and real estate sales.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 2008.
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent, Robert A. Whittemore, III, for registration should have been denied.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert A. Whittemore, III, filed an application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Petitioner Commission on April 18, 1978. The application was denied, and Respondent by letter requested an administrative hearing to "prove that I do meet with the qualifications" for licensure. Respondent was sent notice of hearing on two (2) occasions by mail, and the notices were not returned. He did not appear to testify and sent no representative to testify in his behalf. Respondent had been licensed as a real estate broker in New York, New York, which license expired on October 31, 1973. The application submitted by Repondent showed that he was convicted of conspiracy in the third degree by the Supreme Court in the State of New York on August 19, 1976, and of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree on December 5, 1976, and sentenced on June 16, 1976. Thereafter a certificate of relief from disabilities on his real estate license was issued by a justice of the Supreme Court, State of New York, on October 20, 1977. Said certificate was submitted by Respondent at the time of his application for registration. No memorandum of law was submitted by either party involved in this administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent's application for registration be denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of August, 1979. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Robert A. Whittemore, III 5501 North Ocean Boulevard Ocean Ridge Palm Beach, Florida 33435
