The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, German H. Rodriguez, committed the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent has been licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0434907. On March 20, 1995, Respondent submitted a license renewal form to the Petitioner which resulted in the automatic issuance of a renewed license for two years, ending March 31, 1997. The license renewal form provided, in pertinent part: I hereby affirm that I have met all of the requirements for license renewal set forth by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or the professional regulatory board indicated on the reverse side of this notice. I understand that, within the upcoming licensure period, if my license number is selected for audit by the Department and/or professional regulatory board, I may be required to submit proof that I have met all applicable license renewal requirements. I understand that proof may be required by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or professional regulatory board at any time and that it is my responsibility to maintain all documentation supporting my affirmation of eligibility for license renewal. I further understand that failure to comply with such requirements is in violation of the rules and statutes governing my profession and subjects me to possible disciplinary action and, further, that any false statements herein is in violation of section 455.227 Florida Statutes, subjecting me to disciplinary action as well as those penalties provided below. I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action on my license and/or criminal prosecution as provided in section 455.2275, Florida Statutes. When Respondent executed the renewal form he did not have documentation supporting his eligibility for license renewal. Specifically, Respondent did not have a course report documenting completion of the required 14 hour continuing education course. The course report that Respondent later received from an approved real estate school noted that Respondent had started the course June 1, 1995, and had finished it June 26, 1995. Respondent knew that the 14 hour continuing education course was required by the Department for license renewal. Further, Respondent knew that the course was to be completed before the renewal came due. Respondent maintains that he intended to complete the course before the renewal because he had, in fact, requested a correspondence course from an approved real estate school, had completed the course work, and had filled out the answer sheet. Unfortunately, according to Respondent, the envelope was misplaced and he failed to timely mail the answer form to the company for scoring. Therefore, Respondent did not get credit for the work until June, 1995, when he completed the work again. As chance would have it, Respondent was selected for audit in August, 1995. By this time he had completed the continuing education course work as required by the Department for license renewal but, as indicated above, did so after the renewal form had been submitted. In response to the audit, Respondent represented that he had completed the work prior to renewal but, through inadvertence, had not gotten the course credit until after the renewal period. Respondent did not successfully complete 14 hours of continuing education prior to submitting the renewal form. Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker for ten years during which time he has never been disciplined. At the time of the renewal, Respondent was not using his real estate license and was in an inactive status.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand with an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 German H. Rodriguez 703 Southwest 89th Avenue Plantation, Florida 33324
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the respondents, Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate , Inc., should be disciplined on charges filed in a six-count Administrative Complaint, three counts for each respondent, and alleging that the respondents: (1) were culpably negligent in allowing their escrow account to have a negative balance, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989); (2) failed to maintain trust funds in a properly maintained escrow account, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1989); and (3) failed to maintain a proper office sign, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-10.024 and Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.22, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida. Dorothea L. Prisament was the active real estate broker for the corporate broker, Warricks Real Estate. On or about August 16, 1989, investigator Marjorie G. May conducted an office inspection and audit of the escrow accounts of the respondents. Ms. May also reviewed the outer office of the respondents. The entrance sign did not have the name of Dorothea L. Prisament on it; however, the sign did have Warricks Real Estate correctly identified and identified as a licensed real estate broker. Ms. May advised Ms. Prisament of the fact that Ms. Prisament's name needed to be on the sign and identified as a real estate broker. Ms. Prisament had a new sign made which fully complies with the statutes and rules. There was no evidence introduced at hearing to show that the escrow account of the respondents had a shortage in any amount; directly to the contrary, both the Department of Professional Regulation investigator and Ms. Prisament agreed that there was no shortage in the account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in light of the fact both that the respondents' violation was a very minor and technical one which was immediately corrected and that the respondents had to undergo the costs of defense of this case and suffer the mental duress of defending this case, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and reprimanding the respondents for a minor and technical violation under Counts V and VI. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine A. Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0500228. Respondent’s licensing cycle ends on March 31 every two years. He duly renewed his broker’s license prior to its expiration on March 31, 1994. During the ensuing two-year licensing term, Respondent executed on January 1, 1996, a Request for License or Change of Status and submitted the form to Petitioner. The purpose of submitting the form was to notify Petitioner that Respondent had adopted a corporate form of doing business as a real estate broker. Section A of the form contains a series of options. Respondent selected “other” and wrote in “change to corp.” Section B contains identifying information, and Respondent completed this section. Section C is irrelevant to the change that Respondent was making, and he did not fill in this section. The instructions for Section A direct the person filing the form as follows: “If this is a renewal of your license, it must be accompanied by the required fee and sign this: I hereby affirm that I have met all statutory and rule requirements regarding education for license renewal.” Respondent signed this statement even though he was not seeking a renewal of his license. The instructions for Section B told the person filing the form how to complete Section B. But these instructions required no representations. The next form generated in this case was another renewal notice, as Respondent’s license neared the end of its term, which expired March 31, 1996. This form states: “By submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department . . ., a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal.” By check dated December 30, 1995, Respondent timely submitted his license renewal fee of $95 in response to the renewal notice. He was unaware at the time that he had not met the continuing education requirement for relicensing, which called for 14 hours of education. In reliance on the implied representation that Respondent had completed the required continuing education, Petitioner renewed Respondent’s license. Later, during a random audit, Petitioner discovered that Respondent had not completed the necessary courses and commenced this proceeding. Respondent was cooperative during the audit. Upon discovering that he had not complied with the continuing education requirement, he promptly undertook the necessary coursework, which he completed by August 6, 1996.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Andrea D. Perkins Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen Frederick H. Wilsen & Associates, P.A. Law Office of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Fleming 1653 Bass Avenue Seville, Florida 32191 Robert H. Schott, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Post Office Box 8050 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8050 Alex Hager, Acting Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's loss of a real estate broker's license by a stipulated disciplinary suspension in 1983 is a proper bar to his mortgage broker application as principal broker for Center State Mortgage Company.
Findings Of Fact Terry E Christensen ("Christensen") was first licensed as a mortgage solicitor in 1983, under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. In 1984, he obtained his mortgage broker's license. The licenses were renewed in 1984 and 1985. His employer was Cenflorida Mortgage Corporation in Altamonte Springs, Florida, where he served as principal broker and vice president. (Testimony of Christensen, Petitioner's Exhibit #1.) Christensen left Cenflorida Mortgage Corporation in April 1986, and started his own company, Center State Mortgage Corporation in Longwood, Florida. He immediately filed his application with the Department of Banking and Finance ("Department") for registration as principal mortgage broker with the new company. That application was denied by letter dated May 13, 1986, for violations of Section 494.05(1)(h) and (k), Florida Statutes. The letter provides, in pertinent part: The application is denied by the determi- nation of the Division of Finance that Section 494.05(1)(h) and (k is [sic] being violated. Section 494.05(1)(h) of the Mortgage Brokerage Act states that conduct of an applicant would be cause for denial of a license. Section 494.05(1)(k) states that a licensee may be denied a license if they currently have a real estate broker or salesman license under suspension. In your particular case, our records indicate that your real estate license has been suspended for a five year period, starting June 21, 1983. (Testimony of Christensen, Petitioner's Exhibits #1 and #2.) On June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended Christensen's real estate broker's license for a period of five years. Christensen first told the Department about his real estate broker's license suspension when he applied for license as a mortgage solicitor in 1983. (Testimony of Christensen.) Subsection 494.05(1)(k), Florida Statutes, was added to the statutes effective October 1, 1985. (Chapter 85-271, Laws of Florida.) Around the same time the new law took effect, the Department commenced revocation proceedings against Christensen. By its notice docketed on September 27, 1985, and its amended notice dated March 4, 1986, the Department informed Christensen that it intended to suspend or revoke his mortgage broker's license under Chapter 494 on the basis of his prior activities as a real estate broker. Those prior activities were the subject of a civil consent judgement against Christensen and his realty company and resulted in the stipulated suspension of his real estate broker's license addressed above. The Department's administrative proceeding #85-28-DOF was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned DOAH Case No. 86-0328. (Petitioner's Exhibits #3 and #4.) The parties stipulated to the facts, and on June 10, 1986, DOAH Hearing Officer, J. Lawrence Johnston, issued his Recommended Order recommending dismissal of the complaint. The Recommended Order provides: * * * 3. In this case, Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), has not established in the evidentiary record or anywhere else in the official record of this case that the real estate broker license of Respondent, Terry E. Christensen (Christensen), was suspended based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. As seen in the Procedural Background, Christensen sufficiently generally placed in issue whether suspension of his real estate broker's license was based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. The Department did not succeed in pre-hearing procedures to specifically eliminate the issue. The facts stipulated by the parties are not sufficient to prove that the suspension of Christensen's real estate broker license was based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. Although a copy of the Administrative Complaint in the Florida Real Estate commission case was referred to in the copy of the Florida Real Estate Commission Stipulation that was filed in this case, it was not attached to the Stipulation or otherwise made part of the evidentiary or official record in this case. This Hearing Officer is therefore given no choice but to conclude that the Department has not proven its case. * * * (Petitioner's Exhibit #5.) The Department adopted the Recommended Order in its entirety and dismissed the case. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7.) From 1983 until mid-1986, Christensen processed approximately five hundred mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. To his knowledge, no complaints have ever been made to the Department regarding Christensen's activities as a mortgage solicitor or broker. (Testimony of Christensen, Petitioner's Exhibit #6.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued granting the mortgage broker's license to Terry Christensen. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 7th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2498 The following constitute my specific rulings on the proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S FINDINGS OF FACT 1-3. Adopted in Paragraph #1. 4-5. Adopted in Paragraph #5. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Paragraph #3. 8-12. Adopted in Paragraph #4. 13. Rejected as unnecessary. 14-15. Adopted in Paragraph #4. 16-18. Rejected as unnecessary. RESPONDENT'S FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Adopted in Paragraph #1. 2-4. Adopted in Paragraph #4. 5. Rejected as unnecessary. 6-8. Adopted in Paragraph #4. 9. Rejected as immaterial. 10-11. Adopted in Paragraph #2. 12-16. Rejected as immaterial. 17. Adopted, as to the first sentence, in paragraphs #3 and #4; otherwise, rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Gorham Rutter, Jr., Esquire Suite D 338 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert Good, Esquire Suite 501 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of failing to account for and deliver a share of a real estate commission, as required by Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, and, if, so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0314643. Petitioner does business under the name, Blue Ribbon Realty. Petitioner employs several real estate salesmen in her brokerage business. Virginia M. Poole is a licensed real estate salesman. During 1988, she was looking for a house to buy. At the time, she was working in a hotel as a cashier. While working at the hotel, Ms. Poole met Mary Asian, who was also working at the hotel. At the same time, Ms. Asian was and remains a real estate salesman working at Blue Ribbon Realty. In a period of several weeks, Ms. Asian showed Ms. Poole several houses and presented at least one offer with a small deposit. One day while driving on her own, Ms. Poole came across a house that appealed to her. At or prior to this time, Ms. Poole had placed her salesman's license with Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole negotiated a sales contract with the seller. The contract was signed by Ms. Poole and the seller on November 10, 1988. By a separate commission agreement signed the same date, the seller agreed to pay Respondent a commission equal to 3% of the sales price. The closing took place on December 14, 1988. The closing agent duly paid Respondent the sum of $2172, which represents 3% of the purchase price. Respondent cashed the check and received the proceeds thereof. Under the agreement between Ms. Poole and Respondent, Ms. Poole was to be paid one-half of all commissions that she earned for Blue Ribbon Realty. At the closing, Ms. Poole asked about her share of the commission. Refusing to pay anything to Ms. Poole, Respondent told her, "You get it any way you can." Respondent believed that Ms. Asian, not Ms. Poole, was due the salesman's share of the commission, which by agreement was one-half of the sum paid to Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole, who never listed or sold any properties for the two or three months that her license was placed with Respondent, had placed her license with another broker over ten days in advance of the December 14 closing. Under the agreement between Respondent and her salesmen, no commission was due any salesman who left Blue Ribbon Realty more than ten days prior to a closing. The reason for this policy was that much work had to be done in the ten days preceding a closing, and it was unfair to require others to perform the work while paying the salesman's share of the commission to a departed salesman. After repeated attempts to obtain payment of the $1086 due her, Ms. Poole filed a legal action against Respondent in Orange County Court. The defenses raised by Respondent apparently proved unavailing. On April 12, 1989, Ms. Poole received a final judgment in the total amount of $1197.44, including interest and costs. Although the filing date does not appear from the face of the exhibit, a Notice of Appeal was served on Ms. Poole on June 30, 1989. Subsequent attempts to recover on the judgment were unsuccessful. At this point, Ms. Poole filed a complaint with Petitioner. Respondent never requested the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order determining who was entitled to the disputed half of the commission, never sought an adjudication of the dispute by court through interpleader or other procedure, and never submitted the matter to arbitration with the consent of the parties. The only thing that Respondent has done in this regard is to deposit the contested sum in the trust account of her attorney, apparently pending the resolution of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to account or deliver a share of a commission to one of her salesmen, issuing a written reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000. ENTERED this 23 day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Attorney Raymond O. Bodiford P.O. Box 1748 Orlando, FL 32802 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Darrell J. Leamy is entitled to licensure in the State of Florida as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact Darrell Leamy was previously licensed in Florida as a real estate salesman and broker. He was also licensed in the State of Wisconsin. On May 22, 1980, in a Department of Professional Regulation Administrative Complaint, Mr. Leamy was charged with four counts of various violations of Chapter 475 F.S. Mr. Leamy requested a hearing but did not appear at the hearing. On July 8, 1981, Hearing Officer William Thomas recommended revocation of Leamy's real estate license. (DOAH Case #80-1776). The Board of Real Estate adopted that recommendation in a Final Order filed on September 9, 1981. The order was not appealed. On February 24, 1983, the State of Wisconsin, Department of Regulation and Licensing revoked Leamy's Wisconsin real estate license after his ex-wife informed the agency that his Florida license was revoked. Darrell Leamy's account of the incidents leading to the 1981 revocation includes the admission of several material elements of the administrative complaint. He and his wife made an offer and purchased a house that, at the same time, he had shown in his professional capacity to prospective buyers. He presented an offer on behalf of those prospective buyers, while revealing to them only that other persons were very interested in the property "and that they should make their best offer". Later, with respect to that same transaction, he received a check in the approximate amount of $1,500.00, representing a share of the sales commission and payable to his broker-employer, United Farm Agency. His wife deposited the check in the couple's personal bank account. Although he found out about his wife's deposit within a day, he did nothing to correct the error. Mr. Leamy contends that the circumstances surrounding the incidents should exonerate him, that he did give the prospective buyers a fair opportunity to make a higher offer. Further, his wife (now his ex-wife) was jealous of his employer's daughter, who was making romantic overtures at the office, so she didn't want him to go back to that office to take the check. His failure to attend the prior administrative hearing was due to dire predictions of the outcome by his lawyer, the death of one of his witnesses, and the discovery that another witness had a drinking problem and could not remember him. Mr. Leamy's case for licensure concentrated on the peculiar circumstances of the prior charges and his assertion that those complaints were the only ones he experienced in his active real estate practice in Florida and Wisconsin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 17th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Darrell J. Leamy 834 Okaloosa Street Orlando, Florida 32822 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212, 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents negotiated the sale of real property and collected a commission on said sale without the requisite real estate license issued by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty of prosecuting Administrative Complaints filed against real estate practitioners pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent Rene Larralde, Jr., is a citizen of the State of Florida. At no time relevant to this proceeding did Larralde hold a Florida-issued license as a real estate sales associate or real estate broker. Respondent Maxous, Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation formed on August 10, 2004. Larralde is president and registered agent of Maxous. Respondent Glinda G. Hatfield has held licenses as a Florida real estate broker and a Florida real estate associate. As of the date of the incident relevant to this proceeding, Hatfield's real estate broker's license was in an inactive status. Hatfield had failed to meet one of the continuing education requirements for renewal of her license that year. She was not aware of that fact until notification by the state relevant to the issues in this proceeding. Upon receiving notice, Hatfield took the necessary measures to have her license re-instated to active status. Hatfield assisted Larralde in forming Maxous. It was Hatfield's responsibility, as the licensed real estate broker in the new entity, to make sure Maxous was duly registered with the state as a real estate broker. Hatfield went to the Melbourne Association of Realtors to register the business once it had been incorporated. Hatfield did not understand that the business also had to be registered through the Florida Real Estate Commission in Tallahassee. Not being aware of that requirement, Hatfield never registered Maxous with the state. Rather, she paid the fees associated with registration of the company with the local real estate association and made the erroneous presumption that the company could then operate as a licensed real estate broker in the state. On or about February 27, 2008, certain parties entered into a Contract for Sale and Purchase (the "Contract") of property located at 1033 June Drive, Melbourne, Florida (the "Property"). Maxous was designated as the listing broker in the Contract. On April 21, 2008, the sale of the Property closed, as evidenced by a HUD Settlement Statement. The Settlement Statement indicates a real estate commission in the amount of $5,964.18 for the sale. The Settlement Statement indicates $2,982.09 (one half of the commission) is to be paid to Maxous and the other half of the commission to be paid to Exit One Realty. Exit One Realty was the listing agent for the Property, but had not been made aware of the impending sale. As the sole listing agent, Exit One Realty would normally expect to receive the entire broker's commission at the time of closing. However, Exit One Realty was not even aware of the sale of the Property until it received its commission. It appears that Maxous, through the person of Larralde, held itself out as the listing broker and assumed ownership of the commission on the sale of the Property. Larralde did, however, designate Exit One Realty as another broker in the sale who was entitled to half of the commission. At the time of the transaction involving the Property, Maxous was not registered with the State of Florida as a real estate broker. Larralde was not licensed as a real estate sales associate. In order to consummate this sale (and others like it), Larralde had established Maxous. It was apparently Larralde's intent, although he did not appear at the final hearing, to use Hatfield's status as a licensed broker to legitimize Maxous' status as a brokerage firm. Hatfield was amenable to that arrangement. Hatfield was designated as the vice-president of Maxous when the company was formed. As previously noted, Hatfield went to the Melbourne Association of Realtors for the purpose of registering Maxous as a brokerage entity. Hatfield paid the necessary fees to the association for the registration of Maxous with the local real estate association, and, upon inquiry from that office, felt that she had done everything necessary to allow Maxous to operate as a broker. Thus, at the time of the aforementioned transaction, Maxous was not a legitimate broker in the State of Florida. Hatfield assumed she was the registered broker for Maxous; assumed Maxous was duly registered with the state; and assumed that her broker's license was current. In matter of fact, none of those assumptions proved true. Clearly Hatfield did not attempt to circumvent or avoid the requirements for real estate brokers. Rather, she was mistaken about what had to be done regarding registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission. She did not know that her license had been deemed inactive for failure to complete a continuing education class. Neither Larralde, nor anyone else testified at final hearing as to what their knowledge was concerning these matters. It cannot be determined whether Larralde knew Maxous was not a registered brokerage firm and that the transaction relating to the Property was improper. However, Larralde did share the commission with Exit One Realty. It is clear from Hatfield's testimony at final hearing that she did not intend to defraud anyone or to do anything illegal or improper. However, her actions were improper nonetheless. It is not clear from the testimony whether Hatfield received any of the commission provided to Larralde. However, to her credit, Hatfield, upon learning of the violations set forth above, unilaterally ceased doing business as a real estate agent or broker. She acknowledged her mistake and took immediate action to make sure she would not make any further mistakes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate: (1) imposing a fine in the amount of $5,000 against Respondent, Rene Larralde; (2) imposing a fine of $5,000 against Respondent, Maxous, Inc; (3) imposing a fine of $250 against Respondent, Glinda G. Hatfield; (4) requiring Hatfield to pay the costs of the investigation in this matter; and (5) suspending Hatfield's real estate license for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-Suite 801 North Orlando, Florida 32801 Joseph G. Colombo, Esquire 2351 West Eau Gallie Boulevard, Suite 1 Melbourne, Florida 32935
