The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(b) & (c), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker associate in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3057283. At all times material to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed with Re/Max Professionals, Inc., a real estate corporation. At the time of hearing, Respondent was licensed with Access Realty of North Florida, Inc., a licensed real estate corporation. Respondent's address of record is 757 West Duval Street, Lake City, Florida 32055. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the listing agent for a property known as 831 South West 5th Street, Live Oak, Florida (5th Street property). On March 4, 2008, Respondent listed the property as having a Commercial Intensive (CI) zoning. At the time of the listing, zoning classifications for property in Live Oak were not available on line, and could only be obtained by calling for the information. At the present time, George Curtis is employed by the City of Live Oak and handles inquiries regarding zoning for properties in the City of Live Oak. He does not recall receiving a telephone call from Respondent regarding the zoning classification for the 5th Street property. However, at the time of Respondent's inquiry, Mr. Curtis was just starting his employment with the city, and did not yet have an office. Inquiries were at that time directed to the City Clerk's office. Mr. Curtis could not state that no call was received by that office, or, if received, what information was given. The listing for the property states at the bottom, "[t]his information is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed." Respondent listed the property zoning as CI after calling to inquire regarding the appropriate zoning for the property. While she testified that her call was to the Suwannee County office as opposed to the City of Live Oak, it is found that the call must have been made to the City, given the telephone call described below. The property described in the listing is not zoned CI, but rather Commercial Neighborhood (CN). In Live Oak, CI zoning is the most intense zoning district, and is limited to major arterial roads in the city. It is intended to meet the needs of a regional population. CN zoning is intended to provide for commercial use on a more limited scale, in terms of the size of the building that can be placed and the types of uses. It is intended to meet the needs of a neighborhood area. A funeral home would not be a permitted use for property zoned CN. It would require a zoning change. A funeral home would be permitted on a property zoned as commercial general (CG). The CG category is between CI and CN. In September 2008, Respondent contacted the City of Live Oak and was referred to George Curtis about the possible use of the property on SE 5th Street as a daycare. During their telephone conversation, he told her that in order to operate a daycare on the property, the owner would need to receive a special exception to the zoning requirements. He obtained her e- mail address and sent her an e-mail with attachments regarding obtaining special exceptions. Respondent believed, based upon their conversation, that the same would be true for any business to be located on the property. Mr. Curtis does not recall telling Respondent at that time that the property was not zoned as CI. On October 16, 2008, Respondent sent the following e- mail to Mr. Curtis: Hi George, the contract for a day care on 831 SW 5th Street, Live Oak (lots 14, 15, 16, Block E, Hildreth) fell through. I now have a pending contract but the buyers want to use the property for a funeral home. Do you see any problem with this? Anne The e-mail was sent at 5:01 p.m. At 5:22 p.m., Mr. Curtis sent the following reply: Hello Anne: I believe this property was Neighborhood Commercial between Green and Ammons on the south side of 5th. C-N does not have any allowances for a Funeral Home, even as a Special Exception. A petition could be proposed to the City Council for Residential- Office or Office Zoning that does allow for the Funeral Home (with also a Special Exception) but other criteria would have to be evaluated to be sure that parting and buffering requirements could be met after any zoning change took place--which is also a process that is not guaranteed but a possibility--there is no way to predict whether the rezoning and the special exception would be approved. This would probably be a 4-6 month process start to finish plus the associated fees to try. Funeral Homes are allowed by right in General Commercial Zoning but you have to front a major street (129/90/51, etc. to get considered for that zoning…) Hope this helps -- wish I had better news… Respondent claims that she never received this e-mail, and that she never deleted it from her computer. She testified that when she did not receive a response, she called the zoning office and was told that a special exception would be required for a funeral home. She passed this information on to Mr. Wright. On October 17, 2008, Russell Wright made an offer to purchase the property on S.W. 5th Street for $45,000. The contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) has been reduced and copied several times, and as a result, is illegible in most respects. However, it can be ascertained that the contract was made on October 17, 2008, and signed by the sellers on October 22, 2008. The contract specified that closing was to take place October 31, 2008, which it did. The contract also specified that the Buyers would pay $5,000 down, and the Sellers would finance the remainder at 8 percent, with payments of $485.31. As part of the closing, the Buyers and Sellers signed an Affidavit of Buyer and Seller Regarding Contract Compliance, which stated "all of the contingencies and conditions set forth in the contract (and all addendums thereto) between the Seller and Buyer have been satisfied, performed or waived by the Buyer and the Seller " Because of the condition of Petitioner's Exhibit 3, it cannot be determined whether the form contract made any representations regarding zoning and who was responsible for determining the appropriate zoning for the property. On October 23, 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Russell Wright with attachments labeled "Petition for Special Exemption," "How the Future Land Use Plan Map - Brochure," and "Sec. 12.2 Special Exceptions." The message in the e-mail reads: Hi Russ, here's the contact person who deals with the zoning in Live Oak, and the forms for filing. I received 1 of the forms back from you, the As Is Rider but I still need the corrected Lead based paint disclosure that I sent with the AS Rider in yesterday's fax. Please complete this form and fact back to me. The Seller's [sic] are going to close at 9:00 am on Friday 31st, please let me know as soon as possible a time that would be convient [sic] for you and your wife to attend. Regards, Anne. Mr. Wright acknowledged receiving an e-mail, but not the documents. He sent Respondent the other documents required for closing. After the closing, he called her and stated that he could not locate the paperwork related to special exceptions, and on November 3, 2008, she mailed it to him. With the paperwork was the following note: Dear Russell and Marcus: I have enclosed the paperwork for the Special exception. If you have any questions you may call George Curtis at 386-362-2276. Mr. Curtis is the development manager for the City of Live Oak. Regards, Anne Mr. Wright began making renovations on the property in order to open a funeral home. In July 2009, he began the process of getting his city occupational license. He could not obtain the license because the property was not zoned for his intended use. At that point, Mr. Wright contacted city officials, including George Curtis and the Mayor of Live Oak. Mr. Curtis advised Mr. Wright that he had sent an e-mail to Respondent advising her that a funeral home could not be operated on the property with its present zoning. Mr. Wright wrote to Respondent, demanding that she compensate him for the fact that he could not open the funeral home without a zoning change. The letter stated in pertinent part: The Mayor of Live Oak and Mr. George Curtis has informed me that I can apply for a zoning change so that My Wife and I can open our business. But it will cost $750.00 to file the initial papers. And that is NOT a guarantee. To date with the down payment and monthly payments and renovation cost, your dealings have cost us $25,000 plus pain and suffering and embarrassment. And we have property that we can't use for the intention it was purchased. Ms. Hurst, we are allowing you and your firm to settle this matter out of court. Ms. Hurst we will settle this matter for the amount of $50,000.00 which is damages plus pain and suffering. If you and ReMax Professionals, Inc., are not willing to settle with us out of Court, we will retain the Attorney with whom my Wife and I have consulted. . . . It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Wright chose to believe that he could open a funeral home on the property without any further administrative action either to change the zoning or to obtain a Special Exception for its intended use. Neither belief is consistent with the credible evidence that Respondent sent him information regarding Special Exemptions and the process to obtain them. All of the information given to him is consistent with his need to follow up with the City's zoning department, which he did not do. Based on the more persuasive evidence presented in this classic, "he-said, she-said" case, it is found that Respondent did not receive the October 17, 2008 e-mail from George Curtis, but believed that a Special Exemption would be required to operate a funeral home on the property, and that she supplied information to Mr. Wright to that effect. Mr. Wright's claim that Respondent represented that the property could be used as a funeral home with no further action is rejected.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Count One in the Administrative Complaint; finding a violation of section 475.25(1)(c), as alleged in Count Two; imposing a reprimand and fining Respondent $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William Haley, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A. Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealings by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction based on representations or remarks made by the Respondent to Mr. and Mrs. Springer.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent, Irene H. Pieragowski, was a licensed real estate salesman employed by Geiger Real Estate Corporation. At some time prior to May 5, 1986, Respondent obtained a listing agreement from William and Beverly Walker to sell certain real property owned by the Walkers which consisted of two and one-half acres improved by a single-family residence. On the Sunday before May 5, 1986, Respondent held an open house at the property. The house had been advertised, and the ad indicated that the property was a single-family residence located on a two and one-half acre tract. Joseph and Ceresa Springer saw the home advertised in a real estate booklet. When they called about the home they were advised of the open house and decided to attend. The Springers were the first people to arrive at the open house. Respondent was late getting there, and she was moving about trying to open the house during the time the Springers were there. Respondent put information about the house on a counter. The information included a survey of the property and three deeds. Respondent explained that the initial acre was given to Mrs. Walker by Mr. Mickler, her father, and the house was built on that original acre. Subsequently, Mr. Mickler deeded to Mrs. Walker an additional one-half acre which was located in front of the home, and another acre located behind the house. Respondent explained that the house had been originally offered for sale with just one and a half acres of land, but, since the house had not sold, the additional acre of land had been included and the price had been lowered by $10,000. Respondent then proceeded to move about the house opening the windows and blinds. At some point, Mrs. Springer and Respondent were at the back of the house. Mrs. Springer was looking out the window and asked how far back the property went. Respondent stated that it went back to the pasture and noted that the property in the back was the extra acre. When Mrs. Springer saw how much property there was, she asked the Respondent, "Can you build back there," Respondent replied, "Yes." Mrs. Springer then mentioned that her daughter and son-in-law were going to be moving from Mobile, Alabama to the Tampa area. The entire conversation between Respondent and the Springers at the open house lasted from 5-10 minutes. The Springers did not express any real interest in the property, and Respondent got involved with other people that were at the open house. When the Springers left the open house, Mrs. Springer was very excited about the property. She knew that her daughter and son-in-law would need a place to live when they moved to the Tampa area, and Mrs. Springer thought that it would ideal for them to build a house on the back acre of the property they had just seen. That night, the Springers called their daughter, and told her about the house and the possibility of the daughter and son-in-law building their home on the additional acre of land. Prior to the open house, the Springers had been working with Les Hammond, a real estate salesman, in an effort to find a home. They had not been satisfied with the homes they had seen which were located on smaller residential lots. The home from which they had just moved was located on two acres of land which had been given to the Springers by Mr. Springer's mother. The two acres were part of a 16-acre tract owned by Mr. Springer's mother. Therefore, the Springers were looking for a home located on a greater amount of land than the normal subdivision lot. At the same time they were looking for a home for themselves, they also had been keeping an eye out for property for their daughter and son-in-law. However, until the open house, the Springers had not been looking for adjoining property or for a house that had additional acreage that could be used by the daughter and son-in-law to build their own residence. After the open house, Mr. Springer called Mr. Hammond, who was considered by the Springers to be "their" real estate agent. Mr. Springer explained that they had found a house that they liked and asked Mr. Hammond if he could show them the house again. Mr. Hammond called Geiger Realty and got the key. Mr. Hammond took the Springers to the property the next day, May 5, 1986. At that time, the Springers explained to Mr. Hammond that a real plus on the house was that another residence could be built on the back acre of land. Mr. Hammond was made fully aware of the Springers' plan to have their daughter and son-in-law build a home on the back acre. The Springers and Mr. Hammond also discussed the work that would have to be done on the house and the repairs that would be necessary. After the Springers and Mr. Hammond left the home they went back to his office and the Springers decided to make an offer on the property. Mr. Hammond prepared the sales contract. The Sales Contract contained the following provision: VII. RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, LIMITATIONS: The Buyer shall take title subject to: Zoning, restrictions, prohibitions and other requirements imposed by governmental authority; Restrictions and matters appearing on the plat or otherwise common to the subdivision ... provided, however, that none of the foregoing shall prevent use of the Property for the purpose of AAR. The language is part of a standard form contract; however, Mr. Hammond inserted the letters AAR, which referred to the zoning of the property, in the blank space after "purpose of." The zoning designation AAR allows one house per 5 acres. Prior to preparing the offer, Mr. Hammond was not aware of the zoning on the property so he called the Respondent who advised him that the property was zoned AAR. Mr. Hammond did not advise the Springers that the zoning would only allow one house per five acres, and he put nothing in the contract which conditioned the offer upon the Springers being able to build a second home on the property. Mr. Hammond explained that he just assumed that another house could be built on the property, notwithstanding the zoning designation, because the Springers had told him that Respondent had told them that another house could be built on the back acre. He also relied on the fact that there were other homes built on one acre plot in that area and that the original house had been built on an acre and a half. Later that night, Mr. Hammond called Respondent and said that the sales offer had been completed and asked when it could be presented to the sellers. Respondent and Mr. Hammond agreed that Respondent would go to Mr. Hammond's office and they would present the offer to the Walkers by telephone conference call. Respondent began the call stating that an offer had been on the property, and Mr. Hammond then explained the terms of the offer. During the conversation, Mr. Hammond did not mention that the Springers had any intention to build a second residence on the property. Further, Mr. Hammond did not advise Respondent of the Springers' intentions or that the Springers had attended her open house. Respondent had no way of knowing that the people who were making the offer were people she had seen at the open house. The Walkers accepted the offer, and on July 26, 1986 the sales transaction closed. Respondent attended the closing as did the Springers. It was the first time that she realized the Springers were people that she had seen at the open house. She had not seen them or spoken to them since the open house. There were no discussions about the viability of building a second residence on the property between the Respondent and the Springers or Mr. Hammond until after the transaction had closed. Mr. Hammond and his daughter Kathy Hamm, who is also a real estate salesperson and works with her father, testified that prior to the closing, Mr. Hammond called Respondent concerning the zoning, and she confirmed that an additional residence could be built on the property. However, Respondent testified that the only conversation she had with Mr. Hammond concerning the zoning occurred after the closing when the Springers learned that the existing zoning classification did not permit building a house on the rear acre. Respondent's testimony is more credible considering the prior inconsistent statement made by Mr. Hammond when his deposition was taken, and his vague recollection of the alleged telephone conversation. The testimony of the witnesses regarding what was said at the closing was also contradictory. Ms. Walker, Ms. Alday, the closing agent, and the Respondent each testified that there was no conversation at the closing regarding constructing another house on the property. However, Ms. Hamm and Mr. Hammond testified that Mr. Springer asked Respondent about building another house on the property and Respondent responded that they could. Neither Mr. Springer nor Mrs. Springer recalled asking any question about building on the property, but testified that Respondent simply announced "and you can build on that property, too." Considering the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, I find the testimony of the Respondent and Ms. Walker to be the most reliable. Ms. Walker sat next to respondent during the closing and left the room with the Respondent. Ms. Walker was in a position to hear anything that Respondent may have said, and Ms. Walker was quite certain that nothing was mentioned about building anything on the back acre of the property. After the closing, Mr. Springer and his son-in-law talked to Hillsborough County building officials about obtaining a permit to construct a residence on the back acre of land and discovered that the zoning of the property was such that another residence could not be built on the property. There was no evidence presented that there were any other limitations on building on the back of the property. Indeed, on the night of the closing, Mr. Springer advised Mr. Mickler that he was thinking about building a garage/workshop in the back to house his antique automobiles. There was no evidence presented to suggest that he could not have built the garage behind the house. The Respondent never marketed the property as being anything other than a single family residence and did not misrepresent its zoning limitations. The Springers simply assumed that the extra acre could be used for a second residence. The Springers never asked the Respondent whether a second residence could build on the rear acre, and she never told them that another residence could be built on the property. Although Respondent indicated to Ms. Springer at the open house that they could "build" in the back of the house, there was no intent on Respondent's part to mislead the Springers into believing that a second home could be built on the property. Ms. Springer admitted that she did not tell Respondent that what she was thinking of building was another house. Further, the Springers apparently were not certain that another house could be built on the property when they first told Mr. Hammond about the house. When Mr. Springer was asked what he mentioned to Mr. Hammond about the property, Mr. Springer replied, "Well, that we liked it okay and it was nice that there was an extra acre that we probably could build on. He was aware of our intentions." (e.s.)(T-26) Therefore, it does not appear that the Springer's relied on Respondent's comment at the open house as establishing that a second home could be built on the property. Indeed, the Springers relied on Mr. Hammond to take care of their interests, and he was the only one who knew what their plans were. Finally, Mr. Springer stated that even if he had known that another residence could not be built on the property, he didn't know whether that knowledge would have kept him from purchasing the property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3992 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected, to the degree that it states that Mr. Hammond was advised by Respondent that a second single-family residence could be constructed on the property, by contrary finding based on the evidence. Accepted. Rejected, as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Rejected for the reasons previously stated. Rejected as immaterial since Respondent was unaware that the Springers' desired to build a second residence on the property. Rejected, to the extent it indicates that Respondent was aware of the Springers' plan, as contrary to the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1.-7. Accepted, generally. Accepted to the degree it constitutes a finding of fact. Accepted, generally. Accepted, generally. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire DPR-Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 323802 A. J. Musial, Jr., Esquire Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Hellender violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Hellender is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0038269 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Hellender had a listing for the sale of real property owned by Horace E. and Margaret C. Young. An offer to lease with option to purchase was made by Richard W. and Diane B. Milligan through their realtor, Susan Seligman, who was in contact with Seligman several times November 26 concerning the availability of the property and terms of the lease-purchase agreement. Both the Youngs and the Milligans did not live in the Orlando area where the two realtors and property were located. Susan Seligman, a broker-salesperson, presented Ralph E. Hellender with a Contract for Sale and Purchase when she met with Hellender between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on the evening of November 26, 1976. This offer, which was received into evidence as Exhibit 1, expired at 12:00 noon on November 27. Hellender took the contract and indicated that he would communicate the offer to the Youngs. Susan Seligman did not accompany Hellender to communicate the offer as is the general custom, because she needed to pick up her children from a football game that evening. Mrs. Ingrid Hellender, a broker salesperson, received a call later on the evening of November 26, 1976, from Susan Seligman. The general topic of the call was the fact that the contract which Seligman had given Mr. Hellender earlier that evening provided for conventional financing of the purchase, and Seligman had second thoughts about the Milligans' desires on financing. She requested that she be given the opportunity to check with the Milligans to determine whether they intended to use conventional or FHA financing. At this point a conflict developed in the testimony of Mrs. Seligman and Mrs. Hellender regarding whether Mrs. Seligman requested that Mr. Hellender hold the contract or whether Mrs. Seligman requested that he present the offer with reservations concerning the nature of the financing. In any event, Mrs. Hellender advised her husband to hold the contract. Similarly, a conflict exists in Mr. Hellender's and Mrs. Seligman's testimony concerning whether Hellender said that the offer has been accepted by the Youngs. Mrs. Seligman stated that Mr. Hellender advised her on November 27, 1976, that the Youngs had accepted the offer. Hellender stated that he did not present the offer and therefore there was no basis for him to communicate an acceptance to Mrs. Seligman and did not communicate an acceptance to her. It should be particularly noted that Mrs. Seligman stated that on November 27 she had Mr. Hellender agreed that the Milligans should execute a new contract on Hellender's forms when the Milligans were to be in Orlando on December 1, 1976. It is also noted that Mrs. Seligman did not request telegraphic confirmation of the acceptance by the Youngs of the offer which she initially submitted to Mr. Hellender, although telegraphic confirmation is the generally accepted practice when dealing with an out-of-city seller and was not standard practice in the real estate firm with which Mrs. Seligman worked. The Hearing Officer discounts the testimony of Mrs. Seligman that Hellender told her the Youngs had accepted the offer because she did not request written confirmation of the acceptance, and because Mrs. Seligman stated that a second written offer was to be prepared on December 1, 1976. All the realtors who testified stated that it was the custom to obtain telegraphic confirmation of an offer from an out-of-town seller. Mr. Seligman, the broker for Mrs. Seligman's company, stated this was the general procedure for his company. Although the record is unclear whether Mrs. Seligman talked with Mr. Hellender before noon or after noon, she was aware the offer expired at noon November 27 and she did not press for written confirmation of acceptance before noon. Instead, she agreed to the preparation of a second offer is totally contrary and repugnant to any theory of acceptance of the first offer. Therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that there was no acceptance of the first offer communicated by Hellender to Mrs. Seligman. Mrs. Seligman may have formed the opinion that there was an acceptance because Mr. Hellender agreed to the terms presented in the first offer, but her agreement to a second offer to be prepared is in fact and law inconsistent with any assertion that the first offer was accepted. Mrs. Seligman stated, that it is clear from the actions of Mr. Hellender, that they expected a second contract to be presented in behalf of the Milligans. This explains his call to Mrs. Seligman advising her on December 5 that there was activity of the property. It also explains why December 6 he did accept a second offer on the property which was presented by Joe Deligna which he and Delinga communicated to the Youngs together as is the general custom after no offer was presented by the Milligans on December 1. Lastly, it explains why Hellender contacted Mrs. Seligman immediately after the Youngs had accepted the offer by the Maccagnanos and confirmed it telegraphically.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Ralph E. Hellender. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1978. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mark A. Koteen, Esq. Post Office Box 3431 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Donald L. Katz, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0111863. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o KLF, Inc., 7991C Johnson Street, Hollywood, Florida 33024. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent was a member of the Veteran Administration (VA) Fee Panel, and appraised properties for the VA in Broward, Dade and the upper half of Monroe Counties. On or about October 2, 1989, Unified Mortgage Company, which apparently held a mortgage guaranteed by the VA on the property and was in the process of foreclosure, requested that respondent do an "as is" appraisal of the residential property located at 11950 SW 176th Street, South Miami, Dade County, Florida. Consequently, respondent undertook to appraise the property as requested, and thereafter submitted an appraisal report to the VA which identified the property that was appraised as being located at 11950 SW 176th Street, South Miami, Florida, and estimated its market value at $32,900.00. Unfortunately, respondent had erroneously identified the residential property located at 11940 SW 176th Street, which lay immediately next door to the subject property, as the property to be appraised and, consequently, his appraisal was not of the correct property. Such error was, however, promptly caught by the VA, and there was no apparent damage to anyone as a result of respondent's error. Regarding the origin of such error, the proof at hearing demonstrated that the two residential properties, which lay next to each other, were quite similar, although not identical, and that their improvements were in similar states of disrepair. Each property was abandoned, both were boarded up, their lots were extremely overgrown, and neither had any identifying sign or number. As a consequence of such difficulties, although exercising his best judgment, respondent erred in his identification of the correct property. Such error was not, however, shown to have resulted from any act or failure on his part that a reasonable appraiser under similar circumstances would have done differently. To the contrary, petitioner offered no proof as to what, if anything, respondent could or should have done, that he did not do, to correctly identify the property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which dismisses the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of May 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 8th day of May 1992.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint dated March 20, 1991; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent has been a real estate licensee having been issued salesman's license no. 0455312. In March, 1989, Respondent met with Thomas and Cheryl Bellaw regarding the purchase of real property. The Bellaws were interested in investment property which would enhance their retirement options. Respondent showed the Bellaws a 7.5 acre tract which he claimed could be subdivided into smaller lots and resold at a substantial profit. As an inducement to convince the Bellaws to make the purchase, the Respondent drew several plans to show how the tract could be divided, made resale projections to compute the buyers' estimated profits from the subdivision of the land, and gave the buyers sales comparables from other lots to justify the figures he presented. In truth, the tract could not be subdivided and was the subject of a county ordinance which prohibited its division. Respondent knew that the tract could not be subdivided but nevertheless encouraged the Bellaws to complete the purchase. Once the purchase was completed, the Bellaws listed the property for resale with the Respondent at a substantial increase. At no time prior to the purchase by the Bellaws or prior to the subsequent relisting, did the Respondent advise the Bellaws that the tract could not be subdivided. When the listing produced no offers, the Bellaws investigated and discovered that the tract they had purchased had been illegally subdivided earlier from a 10 acre parcel. Respondent admitted that the 10 acres had been owned by a married couple who, in the course of their divorce, quitclaimed part to the wife (the portion not sold to the Bellaws) and part to the husband (the portion purchased by the Bellaws), and that this subdivision was impermissible. The Bellaws then went to the county for relief. They sought after-the- fact permission to subdivide the 10 acre parcel so that their tract would be able to receive a building permit. That relief was denied. Consequently, the Bellaws have been unable to assure that a building permit can be issued for their property and are unable to use the tract for the purpose for which it was purchased. Respondent should have known of the county ordinance which prohibited the subdivision of the 10 acre tract as it had been enacted some seven to eight years prior to the transaction which is the subject of this case. A prudent real estate licensee checks governmental restrictions which might impair the marketability of a parcel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted but is irrelevant to the allegations of this case. Paragraphs 4 through 14 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Paul Edward Ebbert, Jr. 1000 Abernathy Lane, #206 Apopka, Florida 32703 Paul Edward Ebbert, Jr. 770 Lake Kathryn Circle Casselberry, Florida 32307 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue At issue herein is whether Respondents' real estate licenses should be revoked or suspended or whether they should be otherwise disciplined for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1977) by failing to disclose a fire-damaged attic to the purchasers of a house.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondents Maureen Ann O'Malley and Frederick E. Lewis held real estate license numbers 0065689 and 0052102 respectively. Respondent O'Malley was employed as a broker-salesman by Respondent Lewis, who operated under the trade name of Lewis Realty with offices in Atlantic Beach, Florida. On or about May 17, 1979, Respondent O'Malley negotiated a contract for the sale of a house owned by Respondents to James E. and Gloria Gipson, husband and wife (Respondents' Exhibit No. 1). The house was located at 825 Plaza Drive, Atlantic Beach, Florida, and the total purchase price was $28,500. In November, 1965, a fire had occurred in the attic of the Gipson's house causing damage to the electrical wiring, and leaving portions of the rafters and attic floor in a charred and blackened condition. However, no structural damage occurred. Shortly after the fire, some of the trusses in the roof were reinforced with two by fours in order to insure the structural integrity of the premises. The house has been sold on a number of occasions since the fire occurred, and before the Respondents purchased the house in early 1979, the most recent sale was 4 or 5 years earlier. The attic is a small space between the roof and the ceiling, and is reached by climbing a ladder and crawling through an opening in the ceiling. It is too small to stand in, cannot be used for living purposes, and its value is limited to storing boxes, suitcases and the like. Prior to the closing, the Gipsons were advised by O'Malley to inspect the property, and if any problems existed, they would he corrected at Respondents' expense. The Gipsons visited the house on at least one occasion before the closing, and were given the keys for the purpose of measuring curtains and installing a television antenna. However, at no time did they inspect the attic, or were they apprised by the realtor of the fact that a fire had occurred. The attic was finally inspected by Mr. Gipson several days after the house was purchased. He found portions of the attic charred, and covered with ashes and soot. Upon being advised by the Gipsons of the attic condition, O'Malley had a contractor check the attic for structural damage. There being none, she then offered to provide cosmetic repairs by spraying it with silver paint, and laying plywood strips on the floor. However, this was unsatisfactory to the Gipsons. Respondent O'Malley did not disclose the attic condition to the Gipsons because (a) she considered the matter to be "immaterial", particularly since there was no structural damage to the attic, (b) the house had been sold on several occasions since the fire, and (c) she was not aware of any prior complaints. Respondent Lewis had only limited contact with the Gipsons, and was not involved in the negotiation of the sale of the house.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings; fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Maureen Ann O'Malley be found guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(a) Flrida Statutes (1977), by reason of failure to disclose to or buyers a fire-damaged attic in a residence located at 825 Plaza Drive, Atlantic Beach, Florida. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent O'Malley be given a private reprimand. It is further RECOMMENDED that the charges against Respondent Frederick E. Lewis be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myron S. Dunay, Esquire 912 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Maureen Ann O'Malley 1195 Mayport Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Mr. Frederick E. Lewis c/o O'Malley Real R:tote 1195 Mayport Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the "Department"), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Maureen Teresa Mobley, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0647773. On or about January 22, 1997, Respondent filed an application with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer "Yes" or "No" to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered item 9 by checking the box marked "No." The application concluded with an "Affidavit of Applicant," which was acknowledged before a Notary Public of the State of Florida, as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. (Emphasis added.) On March 3, 1997, Respondent passed the salesperson examination and was issued license number 0647773. From March 15, 1997, through April 7, 1997, Respondent was an inactive salesperson. From April 8, 1997, through the present, Respondent has been an active salesperson associated with Betty K. Woolridge, an individual broker trading as B. K. Woolridge and Associates, currently in Tampa, Florida. Steve Pence, Investigative Supervisor for the Department, investigated Respondent’s criminal history. He discovered that Respondent had "a problem" with a worthless check charge. Mr. Pence obtained a Certificate of Disposition from the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida. The Certificate indicated that on November 4, 1992, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor charge of obtaining property with a worthless check, an offense that occurred on July 25, 1991. The Certificate further indicates that adjudication was withheld. After Mr. Pence concluded his investigation, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid criminal disposition, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes" and sought to take disciplinary action against her license. According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought . . . 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. . . . At the hearing, Respondent testified that six or seven years ago, she wrote a check for $19.00 that was not cleared at her bank. She had moved during this period, and for some reason the notification did not reach her. When she found out the check had not been paid, she went directly to the intended payee and made the payment. A year later, she was stopped for a minor traffic violation and was arrested on an outstanding warrant for her arrest on the worthless check charge. At the time, she thought the matter had been taken care of and had no idea there was warrant out for her arrest. Respondent testified that she went before the judge, who noted that she had made good on the check more than a year before her arrest. Respondent admitted pleading no contest to the charge. However, Respondent’s understanding of "adjudication withheld" was that the judge had dismissed the charge, provided she pay the court costs. She never saw the Certificate of Disposition until Mr. Pence brought it to her attention several years later. Respondent's explanation for her failure to disclose the worthless check charge on her application is credited. It is found that, at the time she submitted her application, Respondent did not intend to mislead or deceive those who would be reviewing her application. In so finding, it is observed that Respondent's testimony was candid and her understanding of the disposition of the matter was reasonable, given the passage of time since the events in question, the minor nature of the underlying charge, and the fact that the judge acknowledged she had long since made good on the $19.00 check at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Leonard H. Johnson, Esquire Schrader, Johnson, Auvil and Brock, P.A. Post Office Box 2337 37837 Meridian Avenue Dade City, Florida 33526-2337 William Woodyard Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Kimbler Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32302-1900
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Real Estate Salesman's License No. 0355517 issued by the Board of Real Estate. Petitioner is employed as a real estate salesman at Norma Star Realty, Key Largo, Florida. During October, 1980, the Respondent applied for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Board of Real Estate. His application was approved, and the Respondent was admitted to the examination, which he passed. The Board of Real Estate issued a real estate salesman's license to the Respondent during December, 1980. In applying for licensure, the Respondent filled out the Board of Real Estate's standard application form. Paragraph 6 of the form sets out the following inquiry: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations) without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? The Respondent answered "No" to this inquiry. The Respondent has been arrested on several occasions. On July 29, 1964, he was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a charge of sodomy. On August 6, 1964, he was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a charge of rape. On May 22, 1966, he was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the charge of notorious cohabitation. On January 31, 1969, he was arrested in Miami, Florida, on the charge of board bill fraud. All of these charges were ultimately dismissed. The Respondent was neither tried nor convicted in connection with any of the charges. The Respondent had been licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Michigan. While in Michigan, he retained counsel, now deceased, who advised him that all of the Las Vegas arrests had been expunged from the Respondent's record, and that the Respondent could respond in the negative to inquiries as to whether he had ever been arrested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Michael Timothy McKee. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 10th day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold W. Braxton, Esquire 45 S.W. 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Arthur L. Miller, Esquire 9101 S.W. 66th Terrace Miami, Florida 33173 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
