Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, 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 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Christopher Chillemi (Christopher), is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0136243. The last license issued to Christopher was as a broker- salesperson with Michael F. Chillemi, 3615 Lake Worth Road, Lake Worth, Florida 33460. Respondent, Michael F. Chillemi (Michael), is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0014678. The last license issued was as a broker t/a Century 21 Chillemi Enterprises, 3615 Lake Worth Road, Lake Worth, Florida 33460. Counts I-III, the rental transaction On May 18, 1993, Christopher, while licensed and operating as a broker- salesperson for Michael F. Chillemi, showed a rental unit on which they had a listing, located at 752 Lori Drive, Palm Beach County, Florida, to Ms. Rose M. Bocek. Ms. Bocek liked the apartment, but since she was currently under a lease at another residence, advised Christopher that she could not take the unit unless the owner agreed to start the lease in August 1993. Christopher advised Ms. Bocek that he would present her offer to the owner, who lived out of state, and requested a deposit check should the owner agree. Thereupon, Ms. Bocek issued her check, dated May 18, 1993, payable to "C-21 Chillemi Escrow" in the sum of $375.00, as a deposit on the apartment, and delivered it to Christopher. 1/ That evening, Christopher spoke with the owner and he agreed to lease the apartment to Ms. Bocek starting in August 1993. Ms. Bocek's check for $375 was duly deposited into the Century 21 Chillemi Enterprises' escrow account on May 19, 1993. Notwithstanding that the owner had agreed to lease the premises to her as she had requested, Ms. Bocek called Christopher on May 19, 1993, and told him she had changed her mind and did not want to rent the apartment. Christopher, after checking with the owner, advised Ms. Bocek that, under the circumstances, the owner had advised him not to return her deposit. After speaking with friends, Ms. Bocek contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission to see if it could assist her in retrieving her money and, on June 24, 1993, an investigator went to Century 21 Chillemi Enterprises' office pursuant to that complaint. Subsequently, by letter of June 24, 1993, Ms. Bocek made a written demand on Michael Chillemi, Century 21 Chillemi Enterprises, for the return of her $375.00. After speaking with the owner by phone, and receiving his permission, Michael Chillemi did, on June 25, 1993, release from his escrow account and deliver to Ms. Bocek her deposit of $375.00, and by letter of the same date notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of the disposition of the deposit. The audit of June 24, 1993 While at the premises of Century 21 Chillemi Enterprises on June 24, 1993, petitioner's investigator conducted an audit inspection of Michael Chillemi's escrow account. That audit revealed that although Michael's escrow account balanced perfectly with the sums he should have in escrow, as it had on every prior audit of his office accounts, Michael did not have a written monthly statement-reconciliation document or form upon which was included the date the reconciliation was undertaken, the date used to reconcile the balances, the name of the bank, the name of the account, the account number, the account balance and date, deposits in transit, outstanding checks identified by date and check number, and which was signed and dated by the broker, as required by Rule 61J2- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code. Rather, Michael's practice was to utilize the back of his bank statement, together with a list of all pending contracts (which included the names of the parties, the date the transaction was to close, and the amount in escrow) and his check stubs, to reconcile his trust liability. These sources of information supplied the basic information required by Rule 61J2- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, but the method employed to account for his trust liability did not result in one document reflecting the required information, and the reconciliation Michael did was not dated and signed. But for such failing, Michael's banking and accounting practices were deemed sound by petitioner's investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding Christopher Chillemi not guilty of the allegations set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Michael Chillemi not guilty of the allegations set forth in Count II of the administrative complaint, and Michael Chillemi guilty of the allegations set forth in Counts III and IV of the administrative complaint. For the violations set forth in Counts III and IV of the administrative complaint it is recommended that Michael Chillemi receive a reprimand, and that he be directed to comply with the provisions of Rule 61J2-14.012(2), Florida Administrative Code, with regard to all future reconciliations. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of April 1994. 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 April 1994.
Findings Of Fact Ciccarelli and Moreau are registrants with the Florida Real Estate Commission (Board of Real Estate), both holding registrations as saleswomen. Ciccarelli and Moreau were the real estate salespersons who handled the transaction for the sale of a residence between Dessie Wilson, the seller, and Carl Dudley, the buyer. Darlene Becker, Wilson's daughter, also owned an interest in the property but was not an actual party to the negotiations between Wilson and Dudley as mediated by Ciccarelli and Moreau. Ciccarelli and Moreau presented to Wilson the contract for sale and purchase containing Dudley's initial offer signed July 13, 1978. A copy of this contract was introduced as Exhibit 7. Wilson made a counter offer by interlineating and initialing certain terms in the contract on July 14, 1978, as indicated by her signature and date on Exhibit 2. Dudley had returned to Fort Myers, Florida, where he was living, and Ciccarelli and Moreau communicated Wilson's counter offer to him by telephone July 18, 1978. Dudley made a counter-counter offer in which he accepted the cash terms proposed by Wilson but included the cement table and benches described in Paragraph 1(c) of the contract in the purchase. The table and benches had been stricken and initialed by Wilson in her offer. Ciccarelli and Moreau annotated the contract to reflect the inclusion of these items in the sale by adding "OK for cement table and benches" to Paragraph 1(c). This contract was not initialed by Dudley before presentation to Wilson because Dudley was in Fort Myers. See Exhibit 9. Ciccarelli and Moreau presented the contract, Exhibit 9, to Wilson, who accepted the terms orally. Ciccarelli and Moreau then sent the contract to Dudley by the letter dated July 18, 1978, Exhibit 4. This letter advised Dudley to initial the contract's changes to include the cement table and benches. Dudley did so and returned the contract to Ciccarelli and Moreau, who then presented the contract to Wilson's daughter, Darlene Becker. Becker executed the contract, Exhibit 9, after it was returned. The transaction closed afterward, and a conveyance of the property and payment were exchanged. The closing was attended by Dudley and Wilson, and no objection to the terms of the contract was raised by either party. After closing a controversy arose between Wilson and Dudley concerning the transfer of the cement table and benches. Wilson returned to Dudley the table and benches which she had removed. Paragraph X of the general provisions of the contract provides that the buyer may request personal property be conveyed by absolute bill of sale.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the licenses of Ciccarelli and Moreau. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 1001, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harvey R. Klein, Esquire 333 North West Third Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 1975, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for registration as a real estate broker (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 2). That said application contained therein Question 8 which is set forth in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint and to which Respondent answered "No." (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) That thereafter the application was approved and the Respondent subsequently received his registration as a real estate broker and has been continuously registered the Petitioner as a broker since December 22, 1975 (Stipulation.) That at the time of the execution of the application, as aforesaid, Respondent'S answer to Question 8 was incorrect in that he failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain a Complaint filed against him on August 6, 1973, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, by one Kenneth Beard, an individual, which complaint alleges false representations on the part of the Respondent in a business transaction. A judgment of the aforesaid Circuit Court in the above-mentioned action was in the process of appeal at the time Respondent filed his application for registration as a real estate broker (stipulation.) Respondent testified at the hearing substantially as follows: After the civil action had been filed against him, he sought the advice of counsel who informed him that the complaint therein was defective as a matter of law. He was therefore of the opinion that there was not a viable suit against him at the time he filled out his application, and thus was not attempting to mislead or hide any facts from the Petitioner. He also felt that, since he had not, in fact, committed any fraud or misrepresented any matters to the purchaser of the business in question, a negative answer on the question in the application was justified. However, upon reflection at the hearing, he conceded that, probably he had misread the question and misconstrued its meaning. Respondent's good reputation for truth and veracity in the community and in his business dealings was attested to by past officials of the Clearwater, Largo, Dunedin Board of Realtors (Testimony of Merhige, Blanton).
Recommendation That the Complaint against Respondent, William D. Folz, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Jones Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Richard B. Moritz, Esquire 801 West Bay Drive Suite 704 Largo, Florida 33540
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Brian H. Morgenstern, holds and at all times material hereto held, Florida Real Estate Salesman's License No. 0320190. From February 4, 1983 to December 2, 1983, Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of E & I Realty, Inc. Mr. Ira Messinger was the qualifying broker for E & I Realty, Inc. On July 12, 1983, Respondent, purporting to act on behalf of E & I Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a two-year lease agreement between Craig Brass, lessor, and James Joss, lessee, for condominium unit No. 705, Towers of Oceanview, 400 Leslie Drive, Hallandale, Florida. Pursuant to the express terms of the lease agreement, the lessee agreed to pay a monthly rental of $450.00 for the first year, and a monthly rental of $475.00 for the second year. In consideration for securing the lease agreement, Dr. Brass agreed to pay a broker's fee of $925.00, representing one month's rent for the first and second year of the term. Respondent delivered an E & I Realty receipt to Dr. Brass evidencing the receipt of the first month's rent, the last month's rent, and a security deposit, for a total sum of $1,375.00. From this $1,375.00 the receipt evidenced a deduction of $925.00 as a broker's fee, and delivery of the balance of $450.00 to Dr. Brass. There is disagreement between the parties whether the Respondent actually received $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss. Respondent insists that Mr. Joss, an acquaintance, could only raise $450.00 so be and Mr. Messinger "agreed" to forego receipt of the broker's fee of $925.00 and, in effect, loan such sum to Mr. Joss. There is, however, no promissory note or other memoranda to commemorate such an agreement. Mr. Messinger insists that his office made no such agreement, that he had no knowledge of the transaction, and that no monies were ever received by his office. Dr. Brass testified to a conversation on a speaker phone between Mr. Joss and the Respondent wherein the Respondent admitted receiving the funds. Further, Kenneth Rehm, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, personally interviewed Respondent and the Respondent admitted he had collected the full $1,375.00 and that be had retained $925.00 as a broker's fee. Respondent further insists that his version of the incident is given credence by the commission structure he had with Mr. Messinger. Under their agreement, Respondent was to receive 90 percent of any commission earned on business he produced. Therefore, Respondent argues, it would be "foolish" for him to risk his license for $92.50 (10 percent of the $925.00 commission). While Respondent's argument appears at first blush to have merit, the value of money is relative. On February 23, 1984, Respondent entered into a written agreement with Dr. Brass to pay him $350.00 within 17 days in consideration of which Dr. Brass would not file any complaints with anyone, including the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent did not have the funds necessary to pay Dr. Brass, and in point of fact has never paid Dr. Brass. If Respondent did not have $350.00 to circumvent these proceedings, then $92.00 may well have been of import to him. The clear and consistent testimony of Dr. Brass, Ira Messinger, and Kenneth Rehm, Respondent's conflicting statements and testimony together with his demeanor, render Respondent's testimony inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer finds that the Respondent did in fact receive $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss, that he delivered $450.00 to Dr. Brass, and retained $925.00 for his own use and benefit without the knowledge or consent of his registered broker.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a registered salesman with the Commission since November 2, 1972. On or about June 14, 1979, Respondent submitted to the Commission an application for registration as a salesman which contained the following questions: 17. (a) Has any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation been denied, revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation, upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law; or is any proceeding now pending? (b) Have you ever resigned or withdrawn from, or surrendered, any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation, while such charges were pending? Respondent responded negatively to both the above quoted questions on his application form. In reliance on these statements, the Commission registered the Respondent as a real estate salesman on November 22, 1972. Prior to his submission of an application for registration as a Florida real estate salesman, Respondent had been a practicing attorney in the State of New York. In the course of his practice of law, Respondent had been investigated by the Brooklyn Bar Association and charged with defrauding clients of proper shares of settlements; failing to maintain a special escrow account, and commingling personal funds with those of his clients; giving false testimony before a Grievance Committee of the Brooklyn Bar Association; failing to obtain court approval of infants' settlements; filing numerous retainer and closing statements which he knew to contain false information; failing to file retainer and closing statements with the Judicial Conference; grossly neglecting the prosecution of clients' cases; concealing the infancy of clients and failing to have guardians appear for infants in court action; representing conflicting interests; and engaging in systematic solicitation of negligence cases. While the above-mentioned charges were pending, Respondent submitted his resignation as a member of the Bar of the State of New York, effective February 1, 1971. Respondent's resignation was accepted by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York by Opinion issued March 1, 1971. On February 24, 1970, Respondent applied for membership in the Florida Bar. In his application for membership in the Florida Bar, Respondent answered falsely to an inquiry concerning whether any charges or complaints, formal or informal, had ever been made or filed, or proceedings instituted against him while practicing law in any other jurisdiction. Subsequently, Respondent's license to practice law in Florida was revoked by Opinion of the Florida Supreme Court dated July 21, 1971.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent's guilty of failing to return an earnest money deposit upon demand, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and of failing to comply with the directives of this statute when conflicting demands were made upon him concerning escrowed property. By Administrative Complaint issued on September 2, 1981, the Petitioner seeks to revoke or suspend the Respondent's real estate license, or otherwise discipline him, for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(b) and Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner presented two witnesses in support of the Administrative Complaint, together with eleven exhibits which were received in evidence. The Respondent testified in his own behalf, along with one other witness, and introduced two exhibits which were received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and exhibits in evidence, the stipulations of the parties, and the observed candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the following are found as facts: The Respondent, Robert W. Browning, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued License No. 0112998. The Respondent has a 25 percent interest in a Florida Partnership known as WTBS. The remaining partners are Orian P. Wells, John S. Thompson, and Luther W. Strickland. The Partnership WTBS purchased many acres of land in Dixie County, Florida from Georgia- Pacific, platted this land into lots, and offered these lots for sale. The Respondent was the registered real estate broker responsible for sales of property for the Partnership WTBS, and he was the person who had the authority to sign all closing documents in connection with transactions on behalf of the partnership. Dale Herring a licensed salesman working for the Respondent, conducted sales of the Dixie County parcels while acting under the brokerage license of the Respondent. Dale Herring negotiated a contract dated December 13, 1980, in which Robert and Frances Harburg agreed to purchase approxi- mately 14 acres of the Dixie County property. Mr. Harburg wrote a check for $2,850, payable to the Respondent, and gave the check to Dale Herring as a deposit on the property described in the contract. The Respondent placed this deposit check in his escrow account. The Respondent signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Harburgs on behalf of the Partnership WTBS, as Seller, on December 16, 1980. This purchase and Sale Agreement contained the following pertinent provisions: Closing was to take place December 29, 1980. Graded-road access would be completed within four weeks of the contract. Conveyance of the property was to be by warranty deed. Seller would pay for stamps on the deed, title insurance, survey, and real estate commission. Paragraph 10 of this Agreement states: "If the Seller fails to perform any of the covenants of this contract, the [deposit] paid by the Buyer, at the option of the Buyer, shall be returned to the Buyer on demand. The closing was to take place by mail. When the Harburgs did not receive their closing docu- ments on the date set for closing, they telephoned the Respondent's real estate office. The Respondent did not return their call. The Harburgs received the closing documents January 5, 1981. The documents received conflicted with the Purchase and Sale Agreement by indicating: Conveyance was to be by contract for deed rather than by warranty deed. The Purchaser could not transfer the property without approval of the Seller. If the Seller could not give clear title to the property for any reason, the purchase price could be refunded with no interest. The contract for deed provided for a five day default period. The contract for deed required the buyer to pay certain monies to Georgia-pacific in the event of a release request. The contract for deed required the Buyer to pay for stamps on the deed. After reviewing the submitted closing documents, Mr. Harburg sent a letter to the Respondent dated January 7, 1981, requesting the return of his earnest money deposit because the closing documents submitted were in conflict with the sales contract. The purpose of this letter was to put the Respondent on notice of the Harburg's dissatisfaction with the submitted documents. The Respondent did not reply to Mr. Harburg's letter of January 7, 1981. The Harburgs visited the subject property on January 19, 1981, and found that there had been no material progress made on completion of the graded access road as required by the Purchase and Sale Agreement. On January 20, 1981, Mr. Harburg sent a second letter to Mr. Browning, requesting the return of his earnest money deposit because: The closing papers were received seven days late. The closing papers were in conflict with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The graded access road was not completed. Upon receiving no reply from the Respondent, the Harburgs retained Richard Oehler, Esquire, to recover their earnest money deposit. Mr. Oehler wrote to the Respondent on February 6, 1981, demanding the return of this deposit within ten days. The Respondent replied to Mr. Oehler on February 10, 1981, agreeing to return the deposit upon resale of the subject property. The Respondent indicated that this would be within 30 days. Mr. Oehler wrote the Respondent on February 12, 1982, advising that the Harburgs would not wait 30 days, and that if the deposit was not returned immediately the Harburgs would file suit to recover the deposit. Mr. Oehler talked with the Respondent on February 9, 1981, March 13, 1981, March 30, 1981, and April 6, 1981, without success in securing return of the deposit. The Harburgs filed suit seeking return of the deposit in September, 1981. In mid-1981, the Respondent withdrew the deposit money from his escrow account, and deposited it into the escrow account of the attorney who represented both himself as broker and WTBS as Seller of the subject property. The Respondent neither offered to rectify the conflict in the closing documents, nor did he advise the Harburgs of any dispute between them and the Seller, WTBS, con- cerning their right to the earnest money deposit. The Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission concerning the dispute between the Buyer and Seller as to their rights to the earnest money deposit. The lawsuit filed by the Harburgs in September, 1981, was dismissed upon the return of their earnest money by the Respondent in February, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Robert W. Browning, be found guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and that his license be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 1st day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 1st day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Allen C. D. Scott, Esquire 12 North University Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carlos B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32501 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Milton I. Markowitz, was a licensed real estate broker doing business in the State of Florida. Respondent acted as the individual broker for Ford Realty, Inc. At some time, apparently in 1979, Respondent and Jack Arias discussed the possibility of forming a corporation to be known as Miltjack Investments, Inc., for the purpose of acquiring a piece of property (the property) in Pompano Beach, Florida, owned by Richard F. Brohamer. By Deposit Receipt dated December 10, 1979, an offer to purchase the property was submitted by Miltjack Investments, Inc. to the seller through Cronan Realty, another real estate broker. Respondent signed the Deposit Receipt as president of Miltjack Investments, Inc. The Deposit Receipt, by its terms, indicated that the sum of $10,000 had been placed in escrow with Ford Realty, Inc. as a deposit on the purchase price of $567,000. In fact, Respondent knew when he signed the Deposit Receipt and forwarded it to the seller that Miltjack Investments, Inc. was a non-existent corporation. In addition, Respondent also knew that he had been given a $10,000 check by Jack Arias, his coinvestor, with the knowledge that the check could not be covered by sufficient funds, and that it would not be placed in escrow by Ford Realty, Inc. At no time during the negotiations involved in this proceeding did Respondent ever communicate to the seller, or Cronan Realty, that the $10,000 deposit was not being held in escrow or that Miltjack Investments, Inc. was not an existing corporation. After the aforementioned Deposit Receipt was forwarded to the seller, the seller made a counter offer by Deposit Receipt Contract dated January 11, 1980. This instrument contained several changes, but was, in fact, at some point signed on behalf of Miltjack Investments, Inc. by Jack Arias, as secretary-treasurer, and Mr. Arias' signature was witnessed by Respondent. Like the initial Deposit Receipt, this latter agreement also recited that the $10,000 deposit was in escrow with Ford Realty, Inc. Unlike the initial agreement, however, the agreement of January 11, 1980, indicated that Cronan Realty, Inc. was to act as escrow agent. Pursuant to this agreement, Cronan Realty, Inc. made demand upon Ford Realty, Inc. for the $10,000 deposit, so that it could fulfill its obligation under the last mentioned agreement. Upon receipt of this demand, Jack Arias made demand upon Respondent to return the $10,000 check to him, which Respondent did, and apparently Mr. Arias destroyed the check some time thereafter. For reasons not clear from the record in this cause, the transaction involving the sale of the property never closed.
Findings Of Fact On January 17, 1975 Respondent pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, of knowingly and unlawfully aiding and abetting Larry E. Williams in the receipt of compensation, that is, a political contribution in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) for Edward J. Gurney with intent to unlawfully defeat the purposes of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a Department of the United States; in violation of Title 18 USC 1012 and 2(a) as charged in Count I of the Information. The court adjudged Respondent guilty as charged, withheld the imposition of sentence and placed Respondent on probation for a period of one year. Violation of the above provisions of the U.S. Code constitutes a misdemeanor. In defense of his conduct Respondent testified without contradiction that he was a member of a venture called Minorca Arms formed for the purpose of building apartments to be financed by FHA. The approval of the application for financing had been delayed by FHA and one member of the venture, Walton, who was heading the venture, told Respondent that he, Walton, thought that if a $5,000 donation to Senator Gurney's campaign in a cash contribution was made to Williams it might assist in getting the commitment out of FHA. Shortly thereafter Williams, who Respondent never saw before or after the visit, came to Jacksonville, was picked up by Walton, brought by Respondent's office where an envelope containing $5,000 was picked up by Williams. No mention of the FHA commitment or anything related there to was made during the few minutes Williams was in Respondent's office. The project was subsequently approved by FHA as was two additional projects subsequently applied for. Respondent has been a registered real estate broker in Florida for approximately 30 years. Since 1947 he has been engaged in sales, promotion, development, and construction of real property. During this period he has had business dealings with Stockton, Whatley, and Davin, Inc. involving millions of dollars. He enjoys an excellent reputation in the community for his work in community affairs, as well as in business dealings with his associates and others with whom he has been involved. He has never before been convicted of a crime or been involved with a complaint by the Florida Real Estate Commission against his license.
