The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the two Respondents, one individual and one corporation, on the basis of alleged violations set forth in an eight-count1 Administrative Complaint. The Respondents are charged with violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and with multiple violations of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with responsibilities and duties which include the prosecution of Administrative Complaints against licensees under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Hilda H. Bell is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0349586 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker at Sharmic Realty, Inc., at the following address: 8701 Willes Road, Unit 16-308, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc., is now, and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0243150 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the following address: 8701 Willes Road, Unit 16- 308, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. At all times material hereto, Respondent Hilda H. Bell was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker of, and an officer of Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc. On September 27, 1994, Petitioner's Investigator Margaret R. Hoskins audited Respondents' escrow accounts. The audit revealed that the Respondents maintained Property Management Escrow Account Number 00300066617 at Glendale Federal Bank, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A total trust liability for the Respondents' Property Management Escrow Account could not be determined because the Respondents did not have complete and accurate records. On August 11, 1992, the Respondents deposited $20,000.00 into their Property Management Escrow Account for a person who did not have a checking account. On August 11, 1992, the Respondents issued escrow check number 0972 in the amount of $20,000.00. On August 18, 1992, the Respondents loaned Cecil Sailsman $500.00 from the Property Management Escrow Account. On January 12, 1993, the Respondents deposited $22,496.91 in personal funds into the Property Management Escrow Account. The Respondents subsequently disbursed $15,045.00 of the personal funds from the Property Management Escrow Account.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondents are guilty of the violations charged in Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing administrative penalties consisting of the following: An administrative fine against Respondent Hilda H. Bell in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00); A six month suspension of the real estate brokerage license of Respondent Hilda H. Bell; A one year period of probation for the Respondent Hilda H. Bell, to begin immediately following the period of suspension; A requirement that the Respondent Hilda H. Bell complete additional education in the form of a seven hour course in real estate brokerage escrow management during her period of probation; and A reprimand of Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Lee H. Davis, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued against him on August 16, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, regulating the practice of persons holding real estate brokers' and real estate salespersons' licenses in Florida. Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Lee H. Davis, is and was at all times relevant to this matter licensed as a real estate broker in Florida, issued License Number 0186063. The last license issued was as an involuntary inactive broker, c/o 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204, Naples, Florida 34104. On or about August 24, 1995, Respondent executed a form 400.5 and submitted it to the Division to register as a salesperson with Sentry Realty and Property Management, Inc. ("Sentry"). At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was registered with the Division as employed by Sentry. On or about September 7, 1995, Respondent facilitated a contract for sale and purchase (the "contract") between Robert Trindle as buyer and John Petracelli as seller/builder for property described as Hallandale Park, Plat Book 12, Page 37, Block 37, Lots 6,7,8, a/k/a approximately 2801 North East 214 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. Mr. Trindle testified that he intended to purchase a townhouse to be built by Mr. Petracelli as part of a project to include 40 to 50 townhouses. The contract provided that a $3,900 deposit was to be held by "Lee H. Davis Escrow Agent." Mr. Trindle gave Respondent two checks totaling $3,900, as the earnest money deposit on the purchase price of $130,000. The first check, dated October 9, 1995, was for $1,000. The second check, dated November 3, 1995, was for $2,900. The checks were made out to "Lee H. Davis-- Escrow." Also noted on the checks was "Davena Group Inc.," which Mr. Trindle understood to be Respondent's real estate company. Each check was negotiated by Respondent within a week of its receipt. At the time of this transaction, Respondent's registered broker was John Brouillette of Sentry. Respondent did not place the escrow deposit with Mr. Brouillette, who testified that he knew nothing of the transaction at the time it occurred and never saw the contract. Respondent represented to Mr. Trindle that he would maintain the escrow deposit as broker during this transaction. Mr. Trindle did not give Respondent permission to transfer the escrow deposit to the builder/seller, Mr. Petracelli. Correspondence from Respondent indicated that he did turn the escrow deposit over to Mr. Petracelli, without informing Mr. Trindle. Mr. Petracelli never built the promised townhouses. Rather, he left the country, absconding with Mr. Trindle's escrow deposit along with monies provided by other purchasers and/or investors in the project. Mr. Trindle attempted to contact Respondent regarding the status of his escrow deposit, but was unable to reach him prior to the filing of his complaint with the Division. As of the date of the hearing, the earnest money deposit had not been returned to Mr. Trindle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner finding that Respondent has violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent, and that Respondent's real estate license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2001, 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 13th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Lee H. Davis 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204 Naples, Florida 34104 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Prehearing Stipulation, the following facts are established: This case is based on allegations by John Carosso that James J. Baruch, a licensed real estate broker, wrongfully allowed the dispersal of a deposit Mr. Carosso had made to Centennial Development Corporation on a villa to be constructed. James J. Baruch was associated with Wyn Pope Associates, Inc., as a realtor and salesman over a period of several years and on several projects which Mr. Pope developed. On the Gasa Tiempo project, the developer was Centennial Development Corporation and sales were handled by Wyn Pope Associates, Inc. This corporate realtor was formed using James J. Baruch's realtor's license. During their association, Wyn Pope and James Baruch had always agreed that no deposits would be accepted which could not be used for construction after the mortgage commitment. In the past Mr. Baruch had rejected contracts which did not allow such use of the deposit. The Casa Tiempo contracts all contained such a provision and deposit monies were invariably used for construction with the knowledge of the purchasers. Only the contract with John Carosso was changed to provide for an escrow and to prohibit use of the deposit for construction. Mr. Baruch did not prepare or negotiate this contract and his only connection with the Carosso sale was to witness Mr. Carosso's signature. The contract was negotiated and altered by Wyn Pope without Mr. Baruch's knowledge or consent. Neither Mr. Baruch nor Wyn Pope Associates was a party to the contract and the contract said that the deposit would be held in escrow, but did not specify an escrow agent. As a party to the contract, Centennial acknowledged receipt of the deposit and thereby agreed to hold it in escrow. Since Mr. Baruch was not an officer or in any way a part of Centennial Development Corporation, he had no authority to approve or modify the contracts and no reason to believe that he needed to review each contract himself. Mr. Baruch was therefore not authorized to control the deposit which according to the terms of the contract was made to Centennial Development Corporation. Although the contract was signed July 6, 1979, no deposit was received until July 17, 1979. The changes regarding escrow, although typed in, were each initialed, indicating that the contract was changed after execution and witnessing. Given the ten-day delay and initialing, it is likely that the changes regarding the deposit were made in the contract after Mr. Baruch had witnessed Mr. Carosso's signature and as a condition of the deposit being actually paid. In that case, Mr. Baruch would have no way of knowing that the standard contract had been modified unless he checked each contract submitted by other salesmen. Contrary to paragraph 9 of Petitioner's Complaint, Mr. Baruch never had actual knowledge of the terms of the Carosso contract until the project was taken over by Casa Tiempo Builders, Inc., in May, 1980. Mr. Baruch received no commission on the Carosso sale and never received any part of the deposit. Mr. Baruch completely severed his connection with Wyn Pope Associates, Inc., and Casa Tiempo in March, 1980, and did not profit in any way from the additional deposits demanded and received by Joseph Falso in May, 1980. On or about August 7, 1980, John Carosso entered into an agreement for the completion of his villa in which he released Centennial Development from all claims connected with his deposit. John Carosso was injured by the use of his deposit only in that he lost the option of withdrawing his deposit and rescinding the contract. He could not have finished his home at the original contract price even if the deposit remained in escrow. All the homes in the project had appreciated greatly in value between the contract of July 6, 1979 and the May, 1980 meeting, thus it was to each owner's advantage to pay the 7,500 and complete construction. Because of this appreciation, Mr. Carosso could have paid the $7,500 and immediately sold the house in May, 1980 for enough to return his entire initial deposit plus a profit. One Mr. Hmeilewski, a contract vendee, did so with the help of the new management of Centennial. Selling his contract would thus have enabled Mr. Carosso to be in a better position than rescission and return of the deposit. He preferred to have the house at the increased price. Respondent's position is that he was not responsible for the deposit and should not be sanctioned for the events stipulated to, especially since no actual damage was incurred by Mr. Carosso and all claims against the Developer and escrow holder Centennial Development Corporation were released by Mr. Carosso.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against James J. Baruch be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation State Office Building 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nicholas Rockwell, Esquire McCUNE HIAASEN CRUM FERRIS & GARDNER, P.A. 25 South Andrews Avenue Post Office Box 14636 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Bldg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, James P. Hudson, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: At all pertinent times, Respondent, James P. Hudson, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0148841 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been operating as a broker from an office at 413 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435. Respondent maintains an escrow account No. 018200602689 at Sun Bank in Boynton Beach, Florida into which he deposits trusts funds received in his capacity as a real estate broker. Sometime in the early part of September 1989, Petitioner initiated a random audit of Respondent's business. Prior to the audit, Petitioner's investigator advised the Respondent that he would need to produce all the records related to his escrow account. An investigator for Petitioner visited Respondent's office on or about September 18, 1989 to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow accounts. Based upon the investigator's review of the records, five different transactions were identified as allegedly involving delays or mishandling of escrow funds by Respondent. Those transactions are the basis for several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Each transaction is addressed separately below. The first transaction involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Fitz as buyer and Kerstin as seller (the "Fitz Contract"). Included in Respondent's files on this transaction was a copy of a contract for sale and purchase that was dated and signed by the buyer on September 6, 1989 and dated and signed by the seller on September 9, 1989. The buyer in the Fitz Contract gave Respondent a check for $1000 as a deposit to be held in escrow in connection with the transaction. The Respondent's written receipt for that check is dated September 7, 1989. The evidence established that this initial deposit check was delivered to Respondent on Thursday evening, September 7, 1989. Respondent was out of town on Friday, September 8 and returned on Monday evening, September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as a deposit on September 13. The sellers (the Kerstins) signed the contract on September 9, 1989. However, in executing the contract, they crossed out the $900,000 sales price submitted by the buyer and increased the price to $1,400,000. In other words, the sellers made a counteroffer with respect to this contract. The initial deposit was timely returned to the sellers when the counteroffer was rejected. Petitioner's investigator erroneously assumed that Respondent did not timely collect the additional deposit required under this contract. While Petitioner's investigator considered this signed contract in Respondent's files to be a binding agreement on the parties, it is clear that the change in sales price was only initialed by the sellers and, therefore, there was no enforceable agreement. The parties to the Fitz Contract subsequently executed another written contract. This second agreement provided for a sales price of $1,100,000. That contract was executed by the buyer on September 20, 1989 and by the sellers on September 24, 1989. This second contract called for a $49,000.00 deposit upon acceptance. The buyers gave Respondent a check dated September 25, 1989 in the amount of $49,000.00. That check was deposited by Respondent in his escrow account on the afternoon of September 26, 1989. The $49,000 deposit is reflected in the bank records as being deposited on September 27, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay by Respondent in collecting or depositing the funds into escrow. The second transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Campanis as buyer and Hoffman as seller. The buyer in this transaction gave Respondent a check dated September 6, 1990 to be held as a deposit for this contract. A photocopy of the check presented to Petitioner's investigator included a handwritten note that states "hold until Friday 9/8/89." The evidence did not establish who wrote this note. The evidence established that the check was received by one of Respondent's sales associates on September 7 and left on the Respondent's desk on September 8. Respondent is the only company employee authorized to deposit checks or otherwise handle transactions involving the escrow account. As indicated above, Respondent was out of town from September 8 through the evening of September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as being credited to the escrow account on September 13. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was not delinquent in depositing these funds. The third transaction involved a contract for the purchase and sale of real property between White as buyer and Adkins as seller (the "White Contract.") The White Contract was executed by the buyer on July 26, 1989 and by one of the sellers on July 27 and by the other seller on Friday, July 28. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500.00 with an additional deposit of $1,700 upon acceptance. The initial deposit check was dated July 26, 1989. That deposit check was attached to the contract executed by the purchaser and presented to a cooperating real estate agent who was to present the proposed contract to the seller. The executed contract was not returned to Respondent until sometime during the weekend of July 29 and 30. The initial deposit check along with the additional deposit were then deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, July 31, 1989. Under the circumstances, the evidence established that there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The next transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for sale and purchase of real property between Milera as buyer and Twillie as seller (the "Milera Contract.") The Milera Contract provided for an additional deposit due upon acceptance. The contract was accepted by Twillie on August 23, 1989. The parties to the contract agreed that the time for making the additional deposit would be extended for two days. The check for the additional deposit was dated and received by Respondent on Friday, August 25, 1989. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Tuesday, August 29, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The final transaction involved a contract with the sale and purchase of real property between Gerrety as buyer and the estate of John Walsh as seller (the "Gerrety Contract.") The Gerrety Contract was executed by the purchaser on August 10, 1989. The deposit check was given to one of the Respondent's associates on that Thursday evening. The deposit check was not delivered to Respondent until after business hours on Friday, August 11. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, August 14. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money on this transaction. During the audit, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent was holding deposits on two separate rental properties in his escrow account. At the time of the audit, Petitioner's investigator was not provided with any leases or other documentation regarding these transactions even though Respondent was supposed to produce records for all sums in the escrow account. Respondent contends that he did not realize he was supposed to produce his rental files, was never specifically asked to produce these files and did not know that Petitioner was questioning these transactions until he received the Administrative Complaint in this action. While there was apparently some miscommunication at the time of the audit, adequate documentation for these rental deposits was produced at the hearing. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not maintain adequate documentation regarding these deposits is without merit. Petitioner has also charged that Respondent did not produce all of the deposit slips in connection with the escrow account and did not produce any evidence of reconciliation of the escrow account. The evidence at the hearing established that all deposit slips are available even though they were not all kept with the bank statements. Moreover, the evidence failed to substantiate the allegation that Respondent did not reconcile his escrow account. Thus, these charges were not substantiated. At the time of the audit, Respondent advised Petitioner's investigator that the escrow account included some commission money that had not yet been removed. In the past, Respondent would sometimes collect his commissions at the close of a transaction from the funds held in escrow. (Respondent no longer collects commissions in this manner.) In auditing Respondent's escrow account, Petitioner's investigator determined that there was an overage of approximately $8,178.17 in the account. Within thirty days of the completion of the audit, Respondent removed $7,500 of the overage which represented his commission on two previously closed transactions. While Respondent believed that the remaining amount of the overage was also his commission money, he refrained from removing any more money until completion of a year-end audit by his accountant. Respondent's records reflected a slight difference in the amount of the overage than the amount calculated by Petitioner during the audit. Respondent wanted to be absolutely certain that only the proper amount was removed from the escrow account. At the conclusion of the audit on September 18, 1989, Respondent signed an office inspection report form prepared by Petitioner which contained the following pre-printed statement: ...I certify that to the best of my knowledge all records pertaining to my sales escrow/trust account(s) and my rental property management account(s) have been provided to the investigator. The above violations are brought to my attention this date and thoroughly explained. I will take corrective action within thirty days and furnish photo/sketches of corrections and documents on the same... There is some confusion as to what additional documentation Respondent was expected to provide following the completion of the September, 1989 audit. Respondent did not believe he was required to provide any additional evidence to Petitioner or its investigator and no further documentation was provided by Respondent until Petitioner's investigator returned to his office in January of 1990. Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's office on January 17, 1990. At that time, $7500.00 of the overage had been removed from the escrow account. The remaining amount of the overage was removed later in January. It does not appear that Respondent provided Petitioner's investigator with copies of the rental agreements or the second contract in the Kerstin transaction during the January visit by Petitioner's investigator. Respondent contends that this information was never specifically requested. It is clear that communication between Respondent and Petitioner's investigator had deteriorated from bad to worse by the time of this January visit. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted new record keeping requirements regarding escrow accounts in July of 1989. The new rules require a written monthly reconciliation of a broker's escrow account. At the time of the audit, Respondent was not keeping the minimum written statement comparing broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance of all trust accounts as required by the new rules. Even after the audit in September, Respondent did not keep the written reconciliations in the format required by the new rules. Respondent was reconciling the account on his computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts III and IV and reprimanding him for minor and techinical violations of those counts and imposing a fine of $100.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31st day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3589 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in pertinenet part in Findings of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 15. Subordinate 23. to Findings of Fact 8, 9 and Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. This subject is also addressed in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Rejected as not established by competent susbstantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findigns of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed to some degree in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not numbered. The numbers below refer to the numerical sections contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6-9. The second two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in some degree in Findings of Fact 21. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentencess are subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The next two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentence are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The second sentence is rejected as vague. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 and 25. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18, 19 and 22. The fourth sentence is rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. This subject matter is addressed in part in Findings of Fact 19. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James P. Hudson 413 South Federal Highway Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b),(e),(k), and Section 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J-14.009, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tam N. Shigley (Shigley) was provided notice of the final hearing in this case by Notice of Hearing by Video dated December 6, 1996. The final hearing was scheduled to commenced at 9:00 a.m. on January 31, 1997. The Administrative Law Judge and counsel for Petitioner waited until 9:15 a.m. to commence the hearing, but Shigley did not appear. Shigley did not advise either the Division of Administrative Hearings or the Petitioner that she would not be appearing at the final hearing. Shigley is now and was at all times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida real estate salesperson, issued license number 0465639. On March 27, 1994, Shigley was employed by First Nationwide Mortgage. She negotiated a contract between Bich Hue and Minh Huynh (hereinafter Buyers) and Lois A. Hopwood (hereinafter Seller) for the purchase of a house located in Sunrise, Florida. Shigley was listed as the contract escrow agent on the contract. Shigley received a check for $5,500 from the Buyers as a deposit to be held in escrow until the closing. Shigley cashed the check and did not deposit the proceeds of the check in an escrow account. Shigley’s employer was unaware that Shigley had accepted the check, had cashed the check, and had not deposited the check in the escrow account. At the closing of the real estate transaction, Shigley did not have the $5,500 which she had received from the Buyers and stated that she had lost the money. On May 23, 1994, Shigley entered into an agreement with the seller in which she agreed to pay the Seller the $5,500 within six months and that if she did not repay the money within the specified time that the Seller would report Shigley’s actions to the Real Estate Board. Shigley did not repay the money to the Seller. Michael Millard filed a complaint with the Broward County Sheriff’s Department in March, 1995, alleging that Shigley had absconded with $1350 which he had given her as a deposit on a lease. On March 14, 1995, Harvey Kosberg filed a complaint with the Department of Business and Professional alleging that Shigley, while registered as a salesperson with Rainbow Realty had acted as a broker and took and kept money in her name. The Department undertook to investigate the allegations of Mr. Kosberg and was unable to locate Shigley. She did not have a telephone listing, and the post office did not have a forwarding address for her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Tam N. Shigley violated Sections 475.25(1)(b),(e),(k), and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J2-14.009, Florida Administrative Code and revoking her license as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1997. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 11th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation/Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Tam N. Shigley 5834 Autumn Ridge Road Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations of misconduct in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Deering, was licensed as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0563366. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Advantage, was licensed as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273342. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Deering, was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for Respondent, Advantage. On October 22, 1992, Petitioner conducted an office inspection and audit of Advantage. The audit reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's security deposit escrow account (Number 027000122700) in the amount of $580.00, calculated as $6,600.00 in total trust liability, but only $6,020.00 as a reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's rental distribution escrow account (Number 27000121900) in the amount of $369.40, calculated as $3,174.82 in total trust liability, but only $2,805.42 as reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected that Deering, as the qualifying broker, failed to sign and properly reconcile Advantage's escrow accounts by comparing the total trust liability with the reconciled bank balance of the escrow accounts for the months of September and October, 1992. Marie Deering, Respondent, Deering's, wife and a corporate officer of Respondent, Advantage, signed the reconciliation form for the months of September and October, 1992. It appears from the record (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondents' Licensure file) that Roger J. Kathman was the Broker of Record for Respondent, Advantage until August 21, 1992, when he resigned. Apparently, part of the problem stemmed from using a form developed by the previous real estate agency which was not the form suggested by the Petitioner for this purpose. Since being advised about the form and that comparing the total trust liability of each escrow account with the reconciled the bank balance of each escrow account and signing the reconciliation form was the responsibility of the broker of record, Deering has been properly fulfilling that responsibility and reporting on the correct form. The total trust liability of Advantage's security deposit escrow account should have been $5,700.00 rather than the $6,600.00 indicated by the audit because the $900.00 included in the audit figure from the San Juan lease should not have been included since this amount was not to be escrowed pursuant to the lease. This was a verbal agreement between the parties that was later executed as an addendum to the lease. Advantage's reconciled bank balance for the security deposit escrow account should also be $5,700.00, calculated as $6,020.00 reflected in the audit, minus $1,000.00 that was erroneously disbursed from the Rental distribution escrow account (also called the property management escrow account) instead of the security deposit escrow account , plus $680.00 that was erroneously deposited into the rental distribution escrow account instead of the security deposit escrow account ( $6,020.00 - $1,000.00 + $680.00 = $5,700.00). The total trust fund liability of the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $3,174.82 as reflected in audit plus $0.60 to correct bookkeeping error ($3,174.82 + $0.60 = $3,175.42). The reconciled bank balance for the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $2,805.42 reflected in the audit, plus $1,000.00 transferred from the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, minus $680.00 transferred to the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, plus a deposit of $50.00 to correct an error made in crediting a tenant account with $50.00 more than was deposited from tenant ($2,805.42 + $1,000.00 - $680.00 + $50.00 = $3,175.42). Although there were clerical or bookkeeping errors made in the handling of Advantage's escrow accounts, there was no evidence that Deering failed to immediately deposit funds received in trust in an escrow account, albeit not always the correct one. After the audit, Respondent, Deering promptly and properly corrected the escrow accounts and accounted for the funds resulting in balanced escrow accounts. While the Respondents were negligent in the handling of the escrow accounts, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Respondents were culpably negligent or that there was a breach of trust. The Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida has never been disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent Deering and Respondent Advantage guilty of technical violations of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes. For such violations, Respondent Advantage should be given a written reprimand and Respondent Deering should be given a written reprimand and required to complete a 30-hour broker management course. Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. In making this recommendation, consideration has been given to the mitigating factors in relation to the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21V-24, Florida Administrative Code. Also, taken into consideration was the purpose of regulating any profession, the protection of the public by requiring compliance with those laws governing the profession. In this case, the recommended penalties will serve that purpose, the public has not been harmed, compliance has been accomplished and the penalty sufficient to remind the Respondents to be more diligent in the future. Adding any further penalty, including an administrative fine, would be unduly punitive. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0606 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Unnecessary. 2.-12. Adopted in substance as modified by Findings of Fact 1 through 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 8 through 13. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower #308A 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Albert R. Deering, Pro se c/o Advantage Realty of Sarasota, Inc. t/a Century 21 Advantage 4121 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Powell should be disciplined for irregularities in the handling of an escrow deposit by a real estate firm for which he was the qualifying broker.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie Powell, was at all relevant times a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0070494. Mr. Powell was the sole qualifying broker of Future Investments & Development II Co., Inc., trading as ERA Thompkins and Saunders Realty Company (hereafter, T & S), 2734 N.W. 183rd Street, Suite 206, Miami, Florida 33056. On or about November 12, 1990, Guillermo Castillo, a licensed real estate broker for Emerald Enterprises, Inc., received a listing agreement from Horace B. Miller to sell residential property (a duplex) owned by Miller located at 2331 N.W. 103rd Street, Miami, Florida. The property was listed with the Multiple Listing Service. On or about February 27 or 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received a telephone call from Willie J. Thompkins of T & S saying he wanted to show the Miller property to a prospective buyer. On or about February 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received through the mail slot at his office a written offer from George R. Howell of Dorchester, Massachusetts, to buy the Miller property, with a business card of Jerry Saunders of T & S. On or about March 6, 1991, Guillermo Castillo met with Horace Miller to review the Howell offer. At Miller's request, Castillo made some changes to the contract to reflect that Miller was selling the duplex in "as is" condition. Miller signed the contract and initialed the changes, and Mr. Castillo signed the contract on behalf of Emerald Enterprises, and called Willie J. Thompkins to tell him the contract had been signed. The next day, Mr. Castillo went to the office of T & S and dropped off the contract for the buyer to consider the seller's changes. A day or two later, a representative of T & S telephoned Guillermo Castillo and told Mr. Castillo that the buyer had accepted the seller's changes to the contract; Mr. Castillo then notified Miller. Mr. Castillo later received from T & S the signed contract with Mr. Miller's changes initialed by Mr. Howell. The contract was also signed by Mr. Thompkins of T & S. The contract called for a $1,000 deposit to be held in escrow by T & S (Exhibit 5, Paragraph IIa). Guillermo Castillo contacted T & S to check on the progress of the sale. He learned that J.P. Mortgage was handling the buyer's mortgage loan application. Castillo contacted J.P. Mortgage and was told that the loan was proceeding normally. After the contractual closing date of April 29, 1991, had passed without the closing taking place, Castillo contracted J.P. Mortgage again, but was told that they were no longer processing the loan. Castillo requested that J.P. Mortgage send him a letter to that effect, and he received a letter dated May 2, 1991, stating that J.P. Mortgage was withdrawing as the lender because the buyer failed to return the mortgage loan application. Castillo informed Horace Miller of the situation and Miller instructed Castillo to write to T & S making a claim to the buyer's deposit under the contract of sale. On May 4, 1991, Castillo sent a letter to T & S claiming the deposit for the seller. Paragraph Q of the contract provided for the seller to retain the buyer's deposit as liquidated damages if the buyer failed to perform the contract. On or about May 9, 1991, Guillermo Castillo received from Mr. Thompkins, the manger of T & S, a letter dated May 1, 1991, but postmarked May 6, 1991, ". . . requesting that the . . . file be cancelled" due to ". . . communication problems with . . . Mr. Howell," and citing unsuccessful attempts to contact Howell by telephone and by mail. When Castillo received that letter he contacted T & S to point out the seriousness of the matter and to press for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit. On May 9, 1991, Castillo received a telefax from Mr. Thompkins of T & S stating that the Howell deposit check had been returned for insufficient funds and attaching a copy of the returned check. Prior to his receipt of this telefax, Castillo had not taken any independent steps to verify whether T & S had actually received the Howell deposit. He had relied on the contract, which had been executed by a licensed salesman and believed he did not require further verification that the escrow deposit had been made. Neither Mr. Castillo nor Mr. Miller dealt with the Respondent, Mr. Powell, at any time concerning the sale of the Miller property. T & S received George Howell's $1,000 deposit in the form of a check on March 4, 1991, drawn on a Massachusetts bank and deposited it in its account with First Union National Bank which was used as the escrow account, account number 15462242336, on March 5, 1991. The check was charged back to the account twice, on March 11, 1991, and on March 26, 1991. Mr. Powell was a signatory on that escrow account. After Guillermo Castillo received the May 9, 1991, telefax, he notified Horace Miller. Mr. Miller had not taken any steps on his own to verify whether T & S had received the deposit because he had confidence in his broker to let him know right away if there were any problems with the sale. By May 9, 1991, Horace Miller had already incurred expenses preparing the property for closing, and had lost rent by terminating a tenancy in the property. Because the transaction never closed, Mr. Miller sustained financial damage, some of which he might have avoided if he had been notified earlier of the buyer's dishonored escrow deposit check. On or about May 28, 1991, Miller filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, which Sidney Miller investigated. He found that the person introduced to him during his investigation at T & S as Willie Powell was not actually the Respondent. In March 1991, Mr. Powell had not seen the bank statements for the T & S escrow account for several months, and had not signed the written monthly escrow account reconciliation statement for the month of October 1990 or for any subsequent month. Mr. Powell was serving as the qualifying broker of T & S for a salary of $75 per month and no commissions. He was not active in the management of the firm. He would come to the office of T & S approximately three days per week to check files and sign listing agreements, and he would call in to see if there were any problems, messages or documents to sign. He essentially loaned his brokers' license to those who operated T & S as an accommodation because he had known the Thompkins family for 25 years. Mr. Powell argues in his proposed order that "the adequacy of [Mr. Powell's] monthly reconciliations were impeded by frauds perpetrated upon him by persons at [T & S]" (PRO at page 9, paragraph 5). It is obvious that there were problems at T & S, since a person there misrepresented himself to the Department's investigator as Mr. Powell. The full extent of the misconduct there is unclear. There is no proof in this record that salespersons at T & S had fabricated escrow account statements for Mr. Powell. Had Mr. Powell proven that he performed monthly reconciliations with what turned out to be falsified records of T & S, his argument might be well taken. The record, unfortunately, shows that no reconciliations were done. Had Mr. Powell done them, the problem here should have been uncovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Willie Powell guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, finding him not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and taking the following disciplinary action against him: Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 to be paid within 30 days of the date of the final order adopting the recommended order. Placement of the license of Mr. Powell on probation for a period of one year beginning on the date of the final order and providing that during that period he shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Legal Section, Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N-308, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801-1772, of having completion a 30-hour postlicensure education course in real estate brokerage management, in addition to any other education required of him to remain current and active as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, and that he be required to submit to the Commission during that year his monthly trust account reconciliations. Cf. Rule 21V-24.002(3)(i), Florida Administrative Code, on penalties for violation of Rule 21V-14.012(2), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of July 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 day of July 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-0192 Rulings on Findings proposed by the Commission: Adopted in Findings 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 15. Rulings on Findings proposed by Mr. Powell: Adopted in Finding 1 with the exception of the license number. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Generally adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as subordinate to Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary, the reconciliation was not one done shortly following the month of March reconciling the account for March 1991. It was done during the investigation conducted by Mr. Miller and took place between approximately June 20 and July 10, 1991. Adopted in Finding 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as unnecessary, or subordinate to Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite N-607 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Division of Real Estate, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, (the "division" or the "department,") created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and, in part, comprised of the Florida Real Estate Commission, provides "[a]ll services concerning [Chapter 475, Florida Statutes], including ... recordkeeping services, examination services, legal services, and investigative services, and those services in Chapter 455 [general provisions in regard to the state's regulation of professions and occupations] necessary to perform the duties of [Chapter 475, Florida Statutes]." Section 475.021, Florida Statutes. Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, is the law which regulates real estate brokers. Respondent, Maria E. Vaca t/a Vaca Realty, is now, and at all times material to this case, has been a real estate broker licensed by the State of Florida. The number of her license, originally issued in June 1, 1981, is 0333239. Her license, current through September 30, 1997, shows the location of her brokerage to be 120 E. Oakland Park Boulevard 105, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33334. Books, Accounts and Records to be Available Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes, requires that "[e]ach broker shall keep and make available to the department such books, accounts and records as will enable the department to determine whether such broker is in compliance with the provisions of this chapter." Rule 61J2-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, implements Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes. The rule provides: A broker who receives a deposit as previously defined shall preserve and make available to the BPR, or its authorized representative, all deposit slips and statements of account rendered by the depository in which said deposit is placed, together with all agreements between the parties to the transaction. In addition, the broker shall keep an accurate account of each deposit transaction and each separate bank account wherein such funds have been deposited. All such books and accounts shall be subject to inspection by the BPR or its authorized representatives at all reasonable times during regular business hours. Attempts at an Audit In March of 1994, the department decided to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow account. Two of the department's investigators, Monroe Berger and Margaret Hoskins, with fifteen years of experience at the department between them, scheduled a meeting with Ms. Vaca for April 11, 1994, in order to conduct the audit. Ms. Vaca, indicating that her records were in storage, cancelled the meeting. A second meeting was scheduled for April 20, 1994, in order to allow Ms. Vaca to retrieve the records. Ms. Vaca failed to attend the meeting. Instead, she transmitted by facsimile to Investigator Hoskins copies of nine bank statements under the name of "Vaca Realty Trust Account," for what appears to be the period from June 5, 1993 through April 5, 1994. (Generally monthly statements, one of the statements appears to be for the first quarter of 1994, from January 6 through April 5, 1994.) There were no reconciliation statements attached to the bank statements. The bank statements provided were insufficient to conduct an audit of the escrow account. On April 21, 1994, another meeting was scheduled with Ms. Vaca for April 29, 1994. In addition, Investigator Berger sent Ms. Vaca a letter confirming the April 29, 1994, meeting and asking Ms. Vaca to bring with her specific records necessary to allow the audit to be conducted. Investigator Berger wrote: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of 4-21-94. It is unfortunate that some personal problems have caused you to cancel the two previous appointments with Investigator Hoskins. In any event we are looking forward to seeing you on 4-29-94 at 1:00PM, at which time you will provide your office records for the last year. They will include but not be limited to (i) Trust liability reconciliations, (ii) Bank statements with cancelled check vouchers and deposit slips and (iii) files relating to both closed and open transactions. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Ms. Vaca failed to appear for the April 29, 1994, meeting. Again, another meeting was schedule, this one for May 2, 1994. Ms. Vaca failed to appear for the May 2, 1994 meeting. On September 22, 1994, Investigator Berger and his supervisor, Don Piersol, went to Ms. Vaca's office to conduct the audit. Ms. Vaca did not have her escrow account records on hand. She agreed, however, to bring them to a meeting scheduled for October 10, 1994. At the October 10, 1994 meeting, Ms. Vaca provided a check book but she did not provide any trust liability reconciliations or deposit slips for the previous year's transactions. Without these records an audit cannot be conducted. In addition, Ms. Vaca did not provide all files relating to open and closed transactions for the previous year, which also are necessary to conduct an audit. Ms. Vaca remembers missing only one, (perhaps two) of the meetings scheduled by the department and that because of the emergency hospitalization of her father. Certainly, her father's illness excuses abrupt cancellation of a meeting. This record is clear, however; Ms. Vaca repeatedly failed to produce the required records. Production at Hearing At hearing, Ms. Vaca produced six bank statements for what appears to be the period of the first week of September 1993 through May 5, 1994. (Five of these statements match five of the nine statements faxed to the department in April of 1994. Again, the statements are for one month's time, with the exception of the quarterly statement for the first quarter of 1994.) Attached to each of the six bank statements is a Real Estate Trust Account Monthly Statement Reconciliation form including a "Brokers Trust Liability Reconciliation." Had the reconciliation statements been provided earlier, there still would not have been enough records provided for an audit to be conducted. Deposit slips and cancelled check vouchers, records necessary to conduct the audit, have never been provided the department. Nor has Ms. Vaca to date produced all the files of transactions, open or closed, conducted during the year prior to whenever an audit has been attempted. As of the date of hearing, Ms. Vaca continued to fail to appreciate what records should be provided the department, records she was clearly on notice of as deemed necessary to an audit by the department at least since Mr. Berger's letter in April of 1994. This record does not disclose any legitimate reason for Ms. Vaca's repeated failure to produce the requested records. As of the date of hearing, an audit had still not been conducted of Ms. Vaca's escrow accounts because the department has never been given access to the records necessary to conduct the audit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission suspend the license of Maria E. Vaca t/a Vaca Realty for six months and that at the end of the suspension Ms. Vaca be placed on probation for as long as it takes to attend and complete a seven-hour course in management of escrow accounts. In addition, probation should be conditioned upon production of the records the Department needed to conduct the audit attempted in 1994. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY, 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 27th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-2347 1. Paragraphs 1 through 16, insofar as material, are adopted, with the exception of the statement in paragraph 8 that respondent sent by facsimile "six copies of her escrow account bank statements to Investigator Hoskins." (e.s.) Respondent sent copies of nine bank statements by facsimile. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Ms. Maria E. Vaca 1731 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
The Issue An Administrative complaint dated April 13, 1999, alleges that Respondent Mr. Stevens violated several provisions of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, when he failed to return an earnest money deposit to a buyer after being directed to do so by the seller, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The issues in this proceeding are whether Mr. Stevens committed the violation and if so what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Collie E. Stevens, has been licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate broker since 1986. Prior to that year he was licensed as a real estate salesperson in Florida. In 1996 Mr. Stevens represented the seller, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in the sale of a home in Orange County, Florida. On October 1, 1996, Doris Wright executed an Offer to Purchase and Contract of Sale for the home. When she signed the contract Ms. Wright gave the broker, Mr. Stevens, a check for $675.00 as an earnest money deposit. Mr. Stevens deposited the check into his escrow account. Later, in October or November 1996, Ms. Wright withdrew her offer to purchase the property. The VA regional office provided a notice to Mr. Stevens dated November 20, 1996, directing him to return the earnest money deposit to Ms. Wright. Mr. Stevens never returned the money to Ms. Wright although she made several requests through his secretary and made several attempts to contact him directly. Mr. Stevens alleges that he is entitled to retain at least $250.00 of the $675.00 deposit because that was the mortgage company's fee for processing Ms. Wright's mortgage application. Mr. Stevens claims that Ms. Wright authorized him to pay that fee on her behalf when she was not in town; Ms. Wright does not dispute that claim. Mr. Stevens also argues that he should be entitled to the remainder of the deposit money because Ms. Wright cancelled a listing agreement for him to sell her house. Ms. Wright disputes this claim and Mr. Stevens did not produce any contract or document evidencing such an agreement. During the pendancy of his dispute with Ms. Wright over entitlement to the deposit Mr. Stevens never notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of the dispute nor did he submit the matter to arbitration, mediation, or any court. Mr. Stevens insists that he could have worked out his differences with Ms. Wright and that he was always willing to give her $425.00, left after deducting $250.00 for the processing fee from the $675.00 deposit. In 1996, in another case, Mr. Stevens was disciplined by the Florida Real Estate Commission for culpable negligence or breach of trust, failure to give notice of his representation of a party, failure to maintain trust funds in an escrow account, and failure to preserve and make available brokerage records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order finding that Collie E. Stevens is guilty of a violation of Sections 475.25(1)(d)1. and 475.25(1)(0), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that the Florida Real Estate Commission suspend his license for two years and require him to complete a 7-hour escrow management course and a 60-hour post-licensure course, and that he pay the costs associated with this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 19th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea D. Perkins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 308N Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Collie E. Stevens Son Set Free Realty, Inc. 2294 North U.S. One Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
