The Issue Whether Charles La Guardia violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Charles La Guardia is a registered real estate salesman. La Guardia was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. in late 1974 and drew commissions from the company only in that year. La Guardia ceased to work with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. in December, 1974, when he moved to California. La Guardia's duties at International Land Services, Inc. were to contact people by phone and to attempt to sell them the services of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. La Guardia represented that Florida land was appreciating in value, that foreign investors were buying Florida land, and that upon payment of a fee, International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would list an individual's land in a brochure which would be sent to brokers in the United States and in foreign countries. The depositions presented in behalf of the Florida Real Estate Commission indicate that someone calling themself La Guardia contacted the deponents. The person represented that Florida land was appreciating in value, that foreign investors were buying Florida land, that their land could be sold at a profit, and that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would list their property in a brochure and send it to brokers in the United States and overseas. The deponents, the Karavangelos and Theo Miles, sent money to International Land Services Chartered, Inc. where their property was listed in a brochure prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and sent to at least one broker in Georgia, because Miles received a copy of his listing from a Georgia realtor. See Miles deposition, Page 11. The Karavangelos also received a copy of one of their listings with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Theo Miles stated specifically that he set the price for this parcel of land. See Miles deposition, Page 6. The Karavangelos also stated that they had set the price for their land based upon suggestions of the value of land generally expressed to them by the person who called them. Mr. Karavangelos stated that the person identifying himself as La Guardia gave him "a high sales talk like which all real estate brokers do." Evidence was received from various witnesses at the hearing that brochures were prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and were mailed by the company to real estate brokers in the United States and in foreign countries.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Charles La Guardia as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Oliver, Esquire Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Charles La Guardia 936 Bambi Drive Destin, Florida 32541 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-205 PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2956 CHARLES LAGUARDIA, DADE COUNTY Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and real estate brokerage and sales practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a licensed real estate broker, licensed under that chapter. The Respondent, Keith Ellis, while engaged in the business of real estate development, entered into a contract whereby he would purchase a parcel of land adjacent to U.S. Highway 90, the "Scenic Highway," in Pensacola, Florida. That agreement was entered into in February, 1985, with the Respondent's purpose being to commence development of the property, consisting of eight residential lots, into a single-family residential subdivision. Mr. Ellis, in embarking upon his development plan, after entering into the contract for purchase of the subject lots, found that he lacked capital necessary to finance construction of certain infrastructure for the subdivision. He sought additional funding and ultimately was referred to Robert Tegenkamp as a potential investor. He entered into discussions with Mr. Tegenkamp and ultimately the two agreed that Tegenkamp would invest $25,000 in the project. In return, as consideration, Mr. Ellis agreed to repay the $25,000 investment to Tegenkamp within six months. He also agreed to pay Tegenkamp a $25,000 profit within twelve months. He prepared a written agreement to that effect, executed March 1, 1985. The Respondent also proposed to give Mr. Tegenkamp an option on one lot, Lot Number 8, in the planned subdivision, as further consideration for Tegenkamp investing the necessary capital. This option was executed February 28, 1985. The subdivision totaled eight lots, all of equal value, as established by the opinion of the Respondent himself, who is experienced in appraising real estate, and by M. Eugene Presley, a licensed M.A.I. appraiser. It was the intent of both Ellis and Tegenkamp, at the time of the signing of the agreement, that Ellis would seek to sell all the eight lots, including the lot on which Tegenkamp held an option. Both those parties also understood that Tegenkamp could not be repaid unless the lots were sold. Tegenkamp had no desire to take title to any lot in the subdivision and understood from the outset that he would be entitled to Lot 8, (or any lot), only if Ellis was otherwise unable to repay him. The Respondent arbitrarily chose to indicate Lot 8 on the option contract, but Tegenkamp had no special desire to acquire any interest in that particular lot. The true intent of the parties was simply that Tegenkamp have an option on a lot in the subdivision to secure him, in the event the debt was not repaid by Ellis. In view of the fact that the value of each lot was identical, it did not matter to Tegenkamp on which lot he had an "option," or other form of security interest. He never expected to get title to a lot and was never told that he would, by the Respondent or any other person. The Respondent has always acknowledged that he owes the money in question to Mr. Tegenkamp and that he was obligated under the "option" to convey one of the lots to Tegenkamp, if he could not repay him. Ellis borrowed the funds for acquisition of the property, and for coverage of most development costs, from the First National Bank of Escambia County. Before the agreements between Ellis and Tegenkamp were signed, he told Mr. Tegenkamp, who also did his banking business at the same bank, of the bank's involvement in financing the project. The Respondent suggested that Tegenkamp contact the loan officers involved to reveal his interest in the project. This Tegenkamp failed to do, nor did he ever record his option agreement. Consequently, the bank acquired a first priority lien on the eight lots by the execution and recording of the mortgage from Ellis to the bank, for financing the purchase, installation of the infrastructure and payment of other development costs. When Mr. Ellis obtained the $25,000 capital from Mr. Tegenkamp, he proceeded with his development plans. He negotiated a sale of all the lots in the subdivision to Ray Lemon, a general contractor. On May 10, 1985, he entered into a written sales contract with Mr. Lemon as to all eight lots. This contract required Ellis to proceed to complete all improvements, such as paving and drainage provisions, as well as to obtain approval of the plat of the subdivision by the City of Pensacola. Mr. Ellis informed Mr. Tegenkamp of this agreement with Mr. Lemon. Thereafter, on May 28, 1985, Mr. Ellis closed the loan with First National Bank of Escambia County, giving that bank a first priority mortgage lien on the entire subdivision. Shortly thereafter, the plat of the subdivision was accepted by the City of Pensacola. Most of the improvements installed by Ellis were complete by late July, 1985. Mr. Lemon then indicated to Ellis that he was having financial difficulties and needed to delay the closing of his purchase of the eight lots. If Lemon had been able to complete his planned purchase of all eight lots on time, Mr. Ellis could have paid Tegenkamp the agreed upon $50,000 and still netted about $10,000 profit himself. In any event, shortly after Ellis learned of the delayed Lemon closing, he was approached by Dr. and Mrs. Tousignant, who were interested in purchasing Lots 7 and 8. Dr. Tousignant owned a neighboring parcel of property and wanted to preserve his view of Escambia Bay by acquiring ownership of Lots 7 and 8. The Respondent obtained Mr. Lemon's approval to sell Lots 7 and 8 to the Tousignants and also informed Mr. Tegenkamp of the proposed sale to the Dr. and his wife, as Mr. Tegenkamp himself admitted. Mr. Tegenkamp approved of Ellis selling the lots in question, and on August 25, 1985, Ellis entered into a written agreement to sell Lots 7 and 8 to the Tousignants. The sale was closed on September 17, 1985, but did not produce enough money for Ellis to pay off Tegenkamp. Tegenkamp had not demanded payment at this time anyway and the final time limit for repayment had not elapsed. Thereafter, Ray Lemon encountered more financial problems and for several months was unable to close the planned purchase of the remaining six lots. Eventually, Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 were sold to Ray Lemon and K. C. Hembree. These closings took place between January and March, 1986. The sales did not produce enough funds to pay off Tegenkamp because of development expenses which had to be covered, mortgage release amounts and interest attributable to each lot, which had to be paid to the bank holding the first mortgage. The Respondent thus retained ownership of only Lots 1 and 2 by the end of March, 1986. His ownership of these two lots was subject to the first mortgage to the bank, the principal balance of which remained at approximately $20,600. That mortgage was subsequently assigned to Ray Lemon who had payed off the bank. Lemon now holds that mortgage. The Respondent has attempted, without success, to sell the remaining two lots. Because of economic conditions prevailing, the value of each of the two remaining lots declined from an estimated $59,000 in March, 1985, to about $50,000 by April, 1986. Because Ellis did not timely pay the $25,000 required by the original agreement, Mr. Tegenkamp retained an attorney to represent him in seeking repayment. Attorney Miles Davis entered into various discussions with Ellis from November, 1985 through April, 1986. In December, 1985, Ellis had proposed to Davis that he deliver to Tegenkamp a quit claim deed conveying his interest in Lot 1 to Tegenkamp. Ellis could not give a warranty deed because title was then encumbered by the above-mentioned mortgage held by Lemon, as assignee of the bank, and because of a potential claim of lien by the paving contractor for $7,000 to $8,000. The contractor since failed to pursue and perfect his claim of lien. In February, 1986, Attorney Davis wrote to Ellis expressing a willingness to accept a quit claim deed on behalf of Tegenkamp. In April, 1986, Ellis delivered the quit claim deed to Davis, conveying his interest in Lot 1 to Tegenkamp. It was recorded in the public records of Escambia County. Davis then filed a civil suit against Ellis in May, 1986, on behalf of Tegenkamp. The parties since arrived at a settlement of that litigation whereby Tegenkamp is to receive approximately $25,000 and Lot 1 will be re-conveyed to Ellis. Tegenkamp's attorney, Miles Davis, testified that Ellis never denied owing the money to his client and every indication was that the Respondent was trying to sell the property as soon as possible to pay his obligation to Tegenkamp. Mr. Tegenkamp himself testified and acknowledged that the Respondent was not trying to take advantage of him, but was simply "someone who had gotten himself into a bad deal."
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0228 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of facts. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-41 Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Danny L. Kepner SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE Seventh Floor, Seville Tower Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents for alleged violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(a), (c), (d), and (i), F.S., Section 475.25(3), F.S., and Rules 21V-10.07 and 21V-12.06, F.A.C., as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated September 29, 1977. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Petitioner announced that Respondent Walter L. Medlin is no longer registered with the Real Estate Commission, and that therefore he should be dismissed as a party Respondent. The request was granted by the Hearing Officer. Walter L. Medlin, as authorized representative of International Land and Investment Corporation, and Donna L. Allen, were advised of their rights in an administrative proceeding and they acknowledged that they understood the same.
Findings Of Fact Respondent International Land and Investment Corporation, Kissimmee, Florida, is registered with Petitioner as a corporate real estate broker and was so registered during the year 1975. At that time, Walter L. Medlin was registered with Petitioner as a real estate broker and also as president and active firm member of International Land and Investment Corporation. Respondent Thomas F. Wells, Kissimmee, Florida, is registered with Petitioner as a real estate broker and was so registered in 1975. Respondent Donna L. Allen, is registered with Petitioner as a real estate salesman and was so registered in 1975 with the firm of International Land and Investment Corporation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-4) During the month of August, 1975, Mrs. Mildred E. Bartlett, then residing in Hialeah, Florida, and her son, John B. Pate, visited Kissimmee, Florida, to make inquiries concerning the purchase of residential property in the area. At the time, Mrs. Bartlett was attempting to sell her residence in South Florida and was financially unable to purchase another residence until a sale had been effected. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate) Respondent Wells showed Mrs. Bartlett and her son Lots 10 and 12 of a platted subdivision in Osceola County known as Neptune Shores. The two lots had homes constructed thereon which were approximately 75 percent completed. Prior to 1973, Wells and Medlin had purchased the property comprising the Neptune Shores Subdivision, and Wells had dedicated the plat of same on May 15, 1973, as the owner thereof. Lots 10 and 12 were thereafter sold to one Art Raska, who constructed the unfinished homes thereon, but thereafter defaulted on a mortgage on the property. The mortgage was foreclosed by the First Merritt Mortgage Corporation, Merritt Island, Florida, who thereby became the owner of a portion of the subdivision, including Lots 7, 10, and 12. International Land and Investment Corporation purchased a number of the lots at that time. At no time during Mrs. Bartlett's discussions with Wells and Medlin did they reveal their past and present interests in the Neptune Shores Subdivision, although she was furnished a copy of the plat. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate, Raines, Medlin, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) Mrs. Bartlett expressed interest to Wells in purchasing Lots 10 and 12 as homes for herself and son, but told him that she would have no money to purchase the property until she sold her present house, and that therefore any purchase agreement would have to be contingent upon such a sale. Wells told her that he would check into the matter and ascertain the selling price. After returning home, Mrs. Bartlett received a telephone call from Wells during which he informed her that he would need $1,500.00 as earnest money in order that he could tell the mortgage company that he had an interested party and was holding money in his escrow account. On or about September 9, Wells wrote to her and enclosed an unsigned option contract between First Merritt Mortgage Corporation and herself which recited that for a consideration of $2,000.00 the purchaser could purchase Lots 10 and 12 for an additional sum of $44,000.00 on or before January 15, 1976. It further provided as follows: Seller will agree to cooperate with purchasers efforts to complete construction. This contract will be null and void and deposit returned if purchaser is unable to obtain the necessary permits by October 10, 1975. Evidence of a Certificate of Occupancy granted by Osceola County on either Lot 10 or Lot 12 shall extend the option period until March 1, 1976. The letter accompanying the proposed option agreement stated: "Please sign these if everything is in order and make the checks out to Thomas F. Wells, Broker, so I can deposit to an escrow account rather than have the mortgage company hold your money." The letter further stated that a "Judge owned Lots 14 and 15 for which he had paid $9,600.00 each, and that the price of Lot 11 would be $8,000.00. Although Mrs. Bartlett and her son contemplated completion of construction on the two houses which they intended to use for future residences, they had no intention of performing such work until they had purchased the property. After receipt of the option agreement, Mrs. Bartlett informed Wells that she did not want an option contract whereby she could lose her deposit if she were unable to purchase the property, but wished to have a contract of purchase and sale contingent upon the sale of her present residence. Wells told her that he would send her another contract with different wording, but did not do so. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, Respondent's Exhibit 1) During succeeding weeks, Wells urged Mrs. Bartlett to have the unfinished homes completed in order that she could qualify for a mortgage loan on Lost 10 and 12. Although she discussed this possibility with Wells, she ascertained through discussions with local financial consultants that this would be impossible due to her financial situation and that of her son. On September 21, 19975, Mrs. Bartlett and her son met with Wells and Medlin in Kissimmee. At the meeting, Mrs. Bartlett gave Medlin $200.00 for an option to purchase Lots 8, 9, and 11 in the Neptune Shores Subdivision for $6,600.00, $7,400.00 and $7,700.00, respectively, from International Land Investment Corporation by various dates in 1976. The option agreement, which was dated September 21, 1975, reflected a typewritten signature for Mrs. Bartlett, but she did not sign the same after being informed by Medlin that it was unnecessary for her to sign it. He scratched out her name on the contract and signed it himself as president of the corporation. The document was witnessed by Wells and Pate. Mrs. Bartlett was told by Medlin that he would hold the three lots in reserve for her in the event she wished to purchase them at a later date. Mrs. Bartlett had brought with her the proposed option contract previously sent to her by Wells, which provided for a $2,000.00 payment for the option to purchase Lots 10 and 12. She did not sign the contract, but gave him a check for $1,500.00 which Wells put in his escrow account on September 22. Mrs. Bartlett believed that this money was protected since it was to be placed in escrow; however, she acknowledged the fact that the $200.00 which she had given as an option on the other lots was an acceptable risk and that she did not mind losing that amount if the larger purchase of Lots 10 and 12 was not successful. Wells and Medlin both testified that Mrs. Bartlett was well aware that she was also risking the $1,500.00 and that she was concerned only about her ability to protect herself from being compelled to purchase the property in the event her present home did not sell or if she was unable to obtain mortgage financing on the new purchase. It is found from the evidence that their testimony is not credible in this respect. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate, Medlin, Wells, Respondent's Exhibit 2) Medlin had previously contacted an official of the First Merritt Mortgage Corporation, but learned that it was not interested in taking Lots 10 and 12 off the market for an option agreement. He then negotiated a contract of sale and purchase of Lots 7, 10, and 12 from First Merritt Mortgage Corporation for a total price of $46,000.00 with an earnest money deposit of $4,000.00. It provided for closing on or before January 15, 1976. The contract was dated September 19, 195 and executed on that date by D. L. Allen on behalf of International Land and Investment Corporation. It was witnessed by Wells and Medlin. On September 23, 1975, it was executed by First Merritt Mortgage Corporation. The corporation also required that Medlin agree to guarantee performance by the buyer and he therefore signed the agreement in an individual capacity. The contract provided that no real estate commission would be paid on the transaction. Mrs. Bartlett was not informed at the September 21st meeting that these contract negotiations were pending. In late September, Wells told Mrs. Bartlett that the mortgage company wanted more earnest money and that an additional $2,500.00 would be necessary for this purpose. Mrs. Bartlett gave him a check for that amount, but later depleted her account before it cleared the bank because Wells had not provided her with a purchase contract. Wells showed Mrs. Bartlett a proposed option agreement D. L. Allen and herself which provided for a payment of $4,000.00 for the right to purchase Lots 10 and 12 on or before January 15, 1976, for the total sum of $46,000.00. It further provided as follows: "As a part of the consideration for the Seller having executed this Option: the Buyer agrees to diligently pursue the completion of the houses located on said property. All repairs or improvements will be made at no cost to the Seller and will provide the Seller with Lien Waiver at the completion of each improvement. All repairs or improvements will become the property of the Seller in the event this transaction is not completed." There was no signature block on the agreement for the purported purchaser of the option. Mrs. Bartlett had been told by Wells and Medlin at the September 21st meeting that "Mr." Allen was a "big investor" who would guarantee her commitments. In fact, Allen was Respondent Donna L. Allen who was then employed by International Land and Investment Corporation. On September 30, Wells wrote a check in the amount of $4,000.00 to Walter F. Medlin, Trustee, and on the same date Medlin wrote a check to First Merritt Mortgage Company in a like amount. Medlin's check was erroneously dated October 30, 1975. On October 3rd, the option contract was signed by D. C. Allen, and mailed to Mrs. Bartlett by Wells. On October 6, Wells' bank notified him that Mrs. Bartlett's check for $2,500.00 had been returned for insufficient funds. After various telephone conversations and a visit by Wells to Mrs. Bartlett's home, another check for $2,500.00 was sent to Wells on October 21, which he had converted to a cashier's check on October 24. The $2,500.00 represented funds that had been borrowed by Pate and given to his mother to transmit to Wells. Both Bartlett and Pate were under the impression that the additional payment would be placed in Wells' escrow account and retained until a sales contract was executed. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate, wells, Medlin, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In November, 1975, Mrs. Bartlett telephoned Wells and told him that she wanted a return of her money. Wells told her that he would have to consult with D. L. Allen because he had turned the money over to that individual in payment of the option that had been taken on the property. Thereafter, Allen executed an "amendment" to the agreement which was prepared by Medlin and witnessed by Medlin and Wells. The document stated in part that if the "buyer," on or before November 25, 1975, could not provide sufficient evidence as to the availability of funds to close the transaction on or before January 15, 1976, the option would terminate and funds paid by the buyer to Allen would be refunded out of proceeds of closing upon the sale of the property by Allen to a third party. By letter of November 21, 1975, Allen wrote to Bartlett referring to the option amendment and stating in part: "In view of your recent conversation with Mr. Tom Wells in which you indicated that you had no intention of accepting that Ammendment [sic] and considering that I have not received a copy of the Ammendment [sic] signed by you indicating your acceptance, I am hereby cancelling my offer to ammend [sic] the original Option. I also wish to remind you that in the event that you do not exercise that Option and comply with each and every part of that agreement there will be 'no liability to refund the money paid therefor.'" By a mailgram sent on November 24, 1975, Bartlett advised Wells that he had until November 28 to return the $4,000.00 being held in escrow which she had requested in a November 20 telephone conversation, or she would report the matter to the district attorney's office and the Real Estate Commission. Wells responded with a letter which stated that her deposit on the option contract was given to the seller as consideration for executing the option, and that he was willing to "make every effort I can to negociate [sic] the matter with Allen. Negociations [sic] seemed to be the only possible course of action for recovery of your money." On November 26, 1975, Allen wrote to Bartlett wherein she stated that since Bartlett had executed the option agreement whereby she had agreed to "deligently [sic] pursue" the completion of the houses located on the property, she had breached the terms of the option contract. It further stated that since she had made demands for reimbursement of the $4,000.00 payment, that such action could only be interpreted as abandonment of the agreement, and that she (Allen) therefore declared the option contract null and void and was retaining the $4,000.00 as partial consideration for having executed the agreement. This letter was also prepared by Medlin for Allen's signature. (Testimony of Bartlett, Wells, Medlin, Kimmig, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Wells and Medlin had previously agreed that they would split a 10 percent commission on any sale of Lots 10 and 12. After executing the purchase agreement on the property with First Merritt Mortgage Corporation, it was agreed between Wells and Medlin that Wells would receive $1,000.00 as a real estate commission. Allen had originally funded the $4,000.00 deposit to be made on the property by Medlin. Medlin had told her that she would receive Lot 7 if the deal was completed; however, he intended to give her only an "interest" in the lot. She received her original $4,000.00 back in October, 1975, when she signed the option agreement. The reasonable market value of Lot 7 was $6,000.00 to $8,000.00. The purported purchase of the property by International Land and Investment Corporation was not consummated on or before January 15, 1976, and the $4,000.00 was forfeited. Mrs. Bartlett never received return of the $4,000.00 which she had transmitted to Wells. (Testimony of Bartlett, Wells, Medlin, Raines, Kimmig)
Recommendation That the registration of International Land and Investment Corporation as a corporate real estate broker be suspended for a period of two years, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. That the registration of Thomas F. Wells as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of two years pursuant to subsections 475.25(1)(a), (c) and (i), Florida Statutes. That the registration of Donna L. Allen as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of six months, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. Thomas C. Oldham Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr. Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 International Land and Investment Corporation Walter L. Medlin Post Office Box 2252 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frank G. Finkbeiner, Esquire 341 N. Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Donna L. Allen c/o Monarch Realty of Osceola Inc. 521 Vince Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741
The Issue Whether Respondent, Andrey Barhatkov, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Facts are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate sales associate issued License No. 660647 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a sales associate with All American Realty, Inc., 227 North John Young Parkway, Kissimmee, Florida 34741. On or about July 5, 2005, Respondent prepared a residential sale and purchase contract on behalf of a buyer and faxed the contract to Jerome Fortson, who is not a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, broker associate, or broker, for Mr. Fortson to present to the buyer and obtain the buyer's signature. Having obtained the buyer's signature, Mr. Fortson later appeared on behalf of the buyer at the closing. Respondent was not present at the closing. Respondent admitted that he had Mr. Fortson show the real estate property to the buyer, that he had an arrangement with Mr. Fortson to show properties for him, and that Mr. Fortson was to report back to him for follow-up. Respondent acknowledged that Mr. Fortson was a mortgage broker and that they had an informal business referral agreement wherein Mr. Fortson would arrange financing for buyers that he had shown properties. In the course of this activity, Mr. Fortson, who represented himself as a sales representative for the buyer, contacted the listing agent for information regarding the property and showed the property. Respondent never met the buyer. The real estate agent representing the seller was not aware of Respondent's involvement in the transaction until he requested his share of the commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order finding that: (1) Respondent, Andrey Barhatkov, violated Subsections 455.227(1)(j) and 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes; Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson be suspended for one year, followed by one year of probation; Respondent be fined $2,000; (4) Respondent be required to attend such remedial ethics and educational courses as are determined appropriate by Petitioner; and (5) Respondent be required to pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 25th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division on Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Andrey Barhatkov 408 Pinewood Drive Davenport, Florida 33896 Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Charles Vincent Suter (Suter), is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0502107 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a salesman for Tom Roderick Realty, 2440 Palm Ridge Road, Sanibel, Florida. He has been licensed as a salesman since September 1987. Through a mutual friend, Mary Jane Briney, Suter was introduced in 1988 to Norma Winkler, a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana, who occasionally visited Sanibel Island near Fort Myers on vacation during the winter months. Winkler was interested in renting a three bedroom condominium on the beach in January and February 1989. Briney recommended to Winkler that she rent a unit at an apartment/condominium complex known as Janthinia located on Sanibel Island and that she use respondent as her rental agent. Relying on Briney's recommendation, Winkler agreed to rent the unit and telephoned Suter in September 1988 and requested that he make reservations for her. Although Suter did not normally handle rental transactions, he agreed to assist Winkler and thereafter made reservations with Executive Services, Inc. (ESI), a corporation which managed various units in the Sanibel area including Janthinia. On September 21, 1988, Suter sent Winkler a letter confirming her reservations for Unit 2A at Janthinia with an arrival date of January 26, 1989 and a departure date of February 23, 1989. The total rent, including tax, was $7,091.23. Suter also advised Winkler that she needed to furnish a 10% deposit, or $709.12, within ten days to secure the reservation. On September 30, 1989, Winkler sent a check in the amount of $709.23 made payable to Tom Roderick Realty. The check was deposited into the firm's escrow account the same day. On October 4, 1989, the realty company issued a check in the same amount to ESI as a reservation deposit for Winkler. After the deposit was forwarded to the real estate firm, Winkler changed her date of arrival in Florida from January 26 to January 20 but kept her date of departure the same. On December 9, 1989, ESI confirmed Winkler's reservation for those dates and sent a 10% commission to the realty company. The rental fee was shown as $8,395.42 less the deposit, or a total amount still due of $7,686.30. On January 30, 1989, Suter was paid $352.75 as his share of the commission. Approximately a week before her scheduled arrival, Suter telephoned Winkler and advised her the total amount due was $8,686.30, or $1,000 more than was reflected on ESI's statement. However, Winkler had requested that Suter furnish her with a VCR, liquor, piano and other items so Suter estimated the total bill would be approximately $1,000 greater than the rent still due. On January 20, 1989, Winkler, her sister, niece and a neighbor flew from Indianapolis to Fort Myers. They were met at the airport by Suter and two mutual friends. That same morning, and before Winkler arrived, Suter received by mail Winkler's check in the amount of $8,686.30. When Suter received Winkler's check, he immediately deposited it in his own checking account and not the firm's account. The check was made out to Suter, and not the realty firm, since Winkler had suggested that she make it out in that manner. Upon depositing the check, Suter immediately asked the bank to verify if it was good, and after receiving assurances that it was, he went across the street and wrote a $7,686.30 check to ESI to pay for Winkler's rent. When Winkler, Suter and other members of the group reached Janthinia, Suter advised Winkler that he owed her a refund. Winkler told him not to worry, that she would settle up later. She then had Suter purchase a quantity of liquor and obtain a VCR for her apartment. During one of the social gatherings attended by Winkler and Suter a few weeks later, the two had a falling out. At that point, Winkler telephoned Suter's broker and told him she was due money from Suter. On February 7, the broker confronted Suter around 4:00 p.m. regarding Winkler's allegation. Suter readily acknowledged that Winkler still had money due and that he would immediately pay her. He also acknowledged that the money had been placed in his own bank account rather than the broker's escrow account. Although Suter volunteered to hand carry a check to Winkler that afternoon, she insisted he pay it to the broker who would then write her a check. Suter did so within the hour and Winkler later received a check for $1,000 from the real estate firm. The broker then made an inquiry with the Division concerning Suter's actions, and upon advice from a Division attorney, filed a complaint against Suter. Winkler was described by a longtime friend as a 1,dangerous person", a "troublemaker", and someone who had caused problems for many persons over the years with various types of accusations, most of which were unfounded. Suter denied that he knew it was unlawful to deposit the rent check in his personal account since he considered the transaction as a favor for a friend. He blamed the entire episode on Winkler who became mad at him for paying too much attention to a young widow, and not Winkler, at a dinner party in early February 1989. There was no intent on the part of Suter to use the deposited funds in an illicit manner or to defraud his broker and Winkler. Even so, Winkler's check should have been deposited in the broker's escrow account. There is no evidence that Suter has ever been disciplined by the Division on any prior occasion. Further, Suter's initial reluctance to give a statement to an investigator was founded on the valid reason that he first wished to consult an attorney.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts II, III, and IV of the administrative complaint and that Count I be dismissed with prejudice. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be given a $500 fine to be paid within thirty days from date of order. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6 and 8. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. 12-13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 14. Partially adopted in findings of fact 7 and 8. 15-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. 17-18. Partially adopted in finding of fact 12. 19-21. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Respondent: 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. Partially adopted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. Partially adopted in findings of fact 5 and 6. 8-9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 10-11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. 14-15. Rejected as being unnecessary. 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Note - Where findings have been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being cumulative, unnecessary, subordinate, irrelevant or not supported by the more credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jerrold S. Stern, Esquire P. O. Box 112 Sanibel, FL 33957 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene Keller, Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Respondent Martha M. Bustillo is a real estate broker licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0401092. At all times material hereto, she has been the qualifying broker for Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc. Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., is a real estate brokerage corporation licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0237551. At no time material hereto has Respondent Olga Venedicto been licensed in the State of Florida as either a real estate broker or as a real estate salesperson. In July of 1992 Thomas F. Sevilla contacted Virmar Investments, looking for a house to buy. Olga Venedicto took his phone call and told him that she would help him. Sevilla went to Venedicto's "office" at Virmar Investment and began working with her. Venedicto gave Sevilla her business card which represented that she is the vice president of Virmar Investments, Inc., and carries the notation "registered real estate brokers." In addition to giving him her card which carried her name, Virmar's name, and the word "brokers" in the plural form rather than the singular form, Venedicto specifically told Sevilla that she was a broker. Venedicto and Bustillo took Sevilla to see a house which he decided to buy. He gave Venedicto his check for $2,000 as a deposit and instructed her and Bustillo to make an offer on that house. Venedicto told him she would put the money in Virmar's escrow account. Instead, the money was deposited in Virmar's operating account. Sevilla did not buy that house, and Venedicto and Bustillo took him to see a second house. Sevilla decided not to make an offer on that house and asked Venedicto to refund his money. It took a month before Sevilla received a check from Venedicto. Although the check was marked "deposit return," the check was not written from Virmar's account but rather was a check from a Mega Group Corp. for only $1,675. When Sevilla attempted to cash that check, it was dishonored three times, with the notation "N. S. F." Finally, the check was honored by the bank. Sevilla had expected to receive his entire $2,000 deposit. Neither Venedicto nor Bustillo had ever told him in advance that they would keep part of his money. Although Respondents' attorney during the final hearing implied that his clients may have kept part of Sevilla's money to pay for a survey and credit report, Sevilla had not agreed in advance to pay for a credit report, and no evidence was offered as to what house Sevilla might have purchased a survey on or for what reason. Further, neither Venedicto nor Bustillo gave him a copy of any survey or credit report nor was he ever shown one or advised that either would be obtained. When Sevilla inquired as to why he was reimbursed the lesser amount, only then did Venedicto tell him that Respondents were keeping part of his money for a credit report. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar authorized and assisted Venedicto in her performance of acts and services requiring licensure as a salesperson relative to the transaction with Sevilla. Rita and Carlos Benitez listed their house for sale with Pedro Realty. Gladys Diaz was the listing agent at Pedro Realty. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto brought Carlos Martinez and his wife to look at the Benitez house. Gladys Diaz was present at the time. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto subsequently came to Diaz' office and presented to Diaz and Carlos Benitez an offer on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Martinez. Respondent Venedicto represented herself to be a realtor and Respondent Bustillo to be Venedicto's partner and broker. Respondent Venedicto discussed the contract and price with Diaz and Benitez while Respondent Bustillo observed Venedicto's presentation. The offer had previously been signed on behalf of Respondent Virmar by Respondent Venedicto who represented to Diaz that the signature on the offer was that of Respondent Venedicto. Mr. Benitez signed the document, and Diaz then took the offer to Mrs. Benitez to obtain her signature. Mrs. Benitez also signed the offer, thereby completing the contract. Thereafter, delays ensued because Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were not in a financial position to be able to purchase the home. Respondent Venedicto contacted Mrs. Benitez and attempted to re-negotiate the contract. During those negotiations which were not successful, Respondent Venedicto represented herself to Mrs. Benitez as being a licensed real estate agent. In response to Mrs. Benitez' inquiries, Respondent Venedicto gave Benitez her business card carrying the names of Venedicto and Virmar and the notation "registered real estate brokers." As to the portion of the transaction involving Mrs. Benitez, all of her contact with the three Respondents in this cause was with Respondent Venedicto. Venedicto gave Benitez advice regarding proceeding with the sale and handled the negotiations. Prior to September 24, 1992, Hector F. Sehweret, an investigator for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, requested that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar produce certain records for inspection by him. He spoke with Respondent Bustillo on a number of occasions to no avail. He offered to give her time to gather the records if necessary, but she never did. On September 24, 1992, he served Respondent Bustillo with a subpoena for those records. She still failed to produce them. Thereafter, she would not return his phone calls, and when he came to the office of Virmar Investments, Respondent Bustillo would hide from him. Neither Respondent Bustillo nor Respondent Virmar have ever produced the records subpoenaed. Further, no explanation has been given for the failure of Respondents Bustillo and Virmar to produce their records. Although the attorney for Respondents implied during the final hearing that the records may have been destroyed by Hurricane Andrew, there is no evidence to support that implication; rather, the evidence is uncontroverted that the building housing the real estate office of Respondents Virmar and Bustillo was not damaged by Hurricane Andrew. Ileana Hernandez is a realtor and a mortgage broker licensed in the State of Florida. She met Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto during a real estate transaction. In November of 1991 Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto contacted Hernandez regarding obtaining money in exchange for a second mortgage on certain real property. At the time, Respondents did not tell Hernandez the identity of the owner of the property, but Hernandez was given the address of the property and was advised that the market value of the property was approximately $79,000. Hernandez was subsequently advised that Respondent Venedicto (a/k/a Olga Bichara) was the owner of the property. It was agreed that Respondent Venedicto would execute and record the promissory note and mortgage in the amount of $15,500. Hernandez, who knew that Respondent Bustillo was the president of Terra Title, gave her a personal check payable to Terra Title in the amount of $15,000 on November 26, 1991. Respondent Venedicto, who had promised Hernandez that the promissory note and second mortgage would be recorded, never recorded those documents. Further, Respondents never delivered the original copy of the promissory note and mortgage to Hernandez despite her repeated demands. Hernandez later discovered that Respondent Venedicto was not the sole owner of the property which she had attempted to mortgage but jointly owned the property with her son. Accordingly, Respondent Venedicto's signature would not be sufficient to perfect a mortgage on the property. Hernandez also discovered that the mortgage, represented by Bustillo and Venedicto to be a second mortgage, was not. There were already two mortgages on the property. Had Hernandez known the true ownership and the true encumbrances on the property, she would not have loaned Venedicto the $15,000 because that raised the total amount of mortgages on the property to be in excess of the value of the property. Three checks which were subsequently written by Respondent Bustillo from the operating accounts of Respondent Virmar and of Mega Group Corp. were dishonored by the bank with the notation "N. S. F." As a result of those checks, Hernandez obtained default final judgments against Respondent Virmar and against Mega Group Corp., which final judgments are still unsatisfied. Prior to that time, however, Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo approached Hernandez regarding their need to borrow $35,000 to be re-paid in 30 days in conjunction with some real estate development in which Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo were involved. Respondent Venedicto and Respondent Bustillo each individually represented that Hernandez would have her money back in 30 days. Respondent Bustillo told Hernandez that Respondent Venedicto was in business with Bustillo and was selling real estate in Mexico. Bustillo asked Hernandez to make the check payable to Bustillo's company Terra Title. Hernandez went to the offices of Respondent Virmar and handed her personal check made payable to Terra Title to Respondent Venedicto. When the 30 days had passed with no payments to Hernandez, she went to Virmar Investments and made Respondent Venedicto sign a promissory note for $35,000. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Hernandez had recovered only $15,000 of the $35,000 loan made to Respondent Venedicto and had recovered only the principal amount of the money supposed to have been secured by a second mortgage on real property. Hernandez is still owed $20,000 in principal alone.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the license of Respondent Martha M. Bustillo, revoking the license of Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., and requiring Respondent Olga Venedicto to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days from the entry of the Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3328, 93-3329, and 93-3330 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-18, 20-29, and 31-33 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 30 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 25, 26, 28, 37, 42, 49-52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 69, 71, and 73 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 6, 11-17, 19-22, 30- 36, 43, 46-48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 67 and 68 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 10, 23, 29, 61, 64, 65, 70, 72, and 75 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 24, 27, 38-41, 44, and 45 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 59, 66, 74, and 76-78 are rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Ofer M. Amir, Esquire Amir & Associates, P.A. 8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 500 Plantation, Florida 33324 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds certified general contractor's license no. CG CA03134. On or about February 3, 1973, Respondent, d/b/a John B. Roberts Construction Company, entered into a contract with Dominick A. Conte, 4319 Tranquility Drive, Highland Beach, Florida to construct a home for $58,000. It is this contract which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint. In addition to that contract, the Respondent entered into another contract with Mr. Conte to build a triplex for a total contract price of approximately $152,000. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint filed on or about April 6, 1976, copy of which was duly served on the Respondent and incorporated herein by reference, alleges that the owner paid the contractor $57,000 and he left the home partially built with no work started on the triplex. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the contractor issued a check on a closed account to Mr. Conte for $16,000 and Respondent never made good on that check. The Respondent and Mr. Conte applied for and received a construction loan commitment from Delray Beach National Bank to construct the house for Mr. Conte. The above parties also applied for a construction loan commitment to construct the triplex in the total amount of $151,000. The Respondent and Mr. Conte received a construction loan commitment for that project in the amount of $131,000. Respondent suggested that Mr. Conte deposit $16,000 as equity for the construction loan commitment for the triplex in the form of a check which was given to Respondent, drawn on Delray Beach National Bank. According to the evidence, this check drawn in the amount of $16,000 was never deposited by Roberts as was the understanding that Mr. Conte had received from him to the effect that the $16,000 was to be utilized for equity for the triplex agreement. When Mr. Conte encountered difficulties with Respondent in the construction of his personal home, Mr. Conte demanded the return of the $16,000 check. The Respondent gave him a check drawn on a closed account. Respondent admitted that the account had a nominal amount i.e., less than $100 on deposit when the $16,000 check was given to Mr. Conte. When Mr. Conte could not obtain the $16,000 from the Respondent, he instituted a civil suit and received a judgement in the amount of $18,500 against the Respondent. In December, 1972, Mr. Conte advanced Respondent $1,000 to obtain various permits and on January 5, 1973, he advanced Respondent an additional $3,000. Respondent commenced construction of the home in March, 1973 and according to the contract he was scheduled to complete it in November, 1973. At that time, according to Mr. Conte, Respondent was only about 50 percent complete at that juncture. At that time the mortgage construction loan was approximately $58,800 and Respondent had received draws of approximately $36,904. Mr. Conte advised the contractor during October that construction would have to speed up or he would be unable to meet the scheduled completion date. Sometime in late October or early November, Respondent abandoned the house. Mr. Conte admits that there were some modifications to the house that he agreed to pay and they were approximately $600 for stone work and approximately $1,300 for additional air conditioning and heating capacity. He received a roofing bill in the amount of $6,000 and when it was not paid, he received a notice of intent to file a lien. He received other bills totalling approximately $800 of which approximately $300 was for window glass and $500 represented an additional amount owed for plumbing expenses. He withdrew the balance of the mortgage commitment (approximately $22,000) and he paid an additional amount of between $20,000 to $25,000 to complete the construction. Further in his testimony he recalled adding approximately $600 for stone work and approximately $500 for marble work. He testified that there were no further additions to the house. He completed the house in February, 1974. At the time the Respondent abandoned the house, he had completed the foundation, the concrete block work, framing, stucco work, the roof was partially completed and the walls were erected. For this work, the contractor received approximately $40,000 from Mr. Conte. Respondent testified that there was a problem with the mortgage commitment on the triplex and that he later returned a check for the $16,000. Respondent testified that when he left the Conte project, he had expended approximately $52,000 from the construction loan draws and that his total expenditures for the project amounted to $86,083, including his profit. It is undisputed that the parties have entered an agreement to construct a house for a total price of $58,000. Mr. Conte testified without contradiction that he made some changes in the plans which amounted to approximately ($1,900) nineteen hundred dollars which he paid over and above the contract price. Although Respondent argues that at the time that he abandoned the Conte project, he had expended approximately eighty-six thousand dollars ($86,000), there was no proof of that testimony despite the agreement and stipulation of all parties that the undersigned would consider such proof when submitted within a stated period of time. Respondent submitted a portion of his checking account which he maintains establishes his position, however, it suffices to say that the documents submitted only establish that monies were paid but the critical link of tieing such amounts to the Conte's project was not established. The undersinged has considered the various additions to the project. Additionally it was noted that Respondent is a custom home builder and is experienced in the making of contracts for homes such as the one he undertook to construct for Mr. Conte. Since he takes the position that the contract price did not cover, according to him, the numerous changes in the Conte home, he is obliged to establish via some contract or Quantum Merit theory that Mr. Conte got more than he paid for as per their agreement. For it is easy to project that according to Mr. Conte's figures, the contract price would not have been adequate to complete the house based on the draw schedule and the construction progress. Thus at this rate, the project under Respondent's cost-basis, would have exceeded ($172,000) one hundred seventy-two thousand dollars. Clearly Respondent being well versed in the construction of custom homes, knew or should have known that in order to proceed with this project, he would need to renegotiate the contract based on the cost projections at the stage when he abandoned the project. Instead he did not attempt to renegotiate the contract and abandoned the job. He left the project subject to materialmen liens which Mr. Conte paid. Based on these facts, I find and conclude that Respondent failed to account for the amount of money that he drew from the Conte construction loan. Having done so, in view of the record evidence establishing that the project could not be completed within the contract price and the failure of Respondent to establish that the amounts withdrawn from the construction loan account were utilized on the Conte project or that he would be able to fulfill the terms of his contractual obligations, I find that he has engaged in a diversion of funds as alleged.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent has engaged in a diversion of funds as alleged, I recommend that his certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of six (6) months. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John B. Roberts 5172 Northeast 14th Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= Mr. John B. Roberts c/o Glenwood Builders 261 E. Palmetto Park Rd. Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Dear Mr. Roberts: At a formal hearing held in Pompano Beach, Florida on July 21, 1976, by the Division of Administrative Hearings, it was recommended that John B. Roberts' certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of sixty days. On March 4, 1977, at the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board's montly meeting, the Board voted to dismiss the case against you, therefore the Administrative Complaint is hereby dismissed. Your Certified General Contractor's License remains in full force and effect. Sincerely, FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD J. K. LINNAN Executive Director cc: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building 229 E. Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. James C. Brady, Esquire Zealy & Brady 2691 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 400, Mercede West Building Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306
Findings Of Fact On November 15, 1976, the Outrigger Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, through its president, Ervin Freeman, and its Secretary, Joan Dimon, executed a warranty deed conveying all right, title and interest, in and to certain property located at Northeast 135th Street and Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida, to Petitioner, Biscayne South, Inc. (hereafter Biscayne South), a Florida corporation. The warranty deed was recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, on November 16, 1976. On November 22, 1976, Biscayne South executed a mortgage deed in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, as a second mortgage on the same parcel of land to secure the payment of a promissory note in the principal sum of $1,500,000.00 which note was made by Outrigger Club, Inc., on the same date in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors. On November 22, 1976, Outrigger Club, Inc., as the "borrower" executed a future advance agreement with Fidelity Mortgage Investors as "lendor". The future advance agreement provides for the advancement of the sum of $1,500,000.00 to be secured by a prior mortgage dated October 27, 1972, executed by Outrigger Club, Inc., in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, which mortgage provided for future advances. On November 22, 1976, a construction loan and disbursement agreement was executed by the parties thereto which provided that the $1,500,000.00 advance be paid to Miami National Bank as disbursement agent for the benefit of Biscayne South. On November 23, 1976, the mortgage deed and the future advance agreement were recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida, and on that same date, the warranty deed was rerecorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida. Because the 1.5 million dollars was paid to Miami National Bank to be disbursed for future construction work on a draw-down basis, Outrigger Club, Inc., the grantor, never received the 1.5 million dollars. The warranty deed provides in paragraph 9 thereof that the conveyance is subject to: a second mortgage wherein the Outrigger Club Inc., is mortgagor and the trustees of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, is mortgagee, dated the day of November, 1976, which said mortgage is given as additional collateral for payment of certain sums as provided under a settlement and release agreement between the Outrigger Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Lawrence F. Lee, Jr., and others as trustees of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust dated the 16th day of January, 1976. Neither the Department of Revenue nor Biscayne South have introduced evidence to establish that such a mortgage in fact exists or if it did, the value of such mortgage. The only mortgage in evidence is Respondent, Department of Revenue's Exhibit 2, which shows Biscayne South as mortgagor rather than the Outrigger Club, Inc., as recited in the warranty deed. However, the future advance agreement introduced as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, establishes the existence of a mortgage encumbering the subject property in which the Outrigger Club, Inc., is mortgagor and Fidelity Mortgage Investors is mortgagee. Such mortgage is dated October 27, 1972, and not dated with the month of November, 1976, as recited in paragraph 9 of the warranty deed. As recited in the future advance agreement, the mortgage of October 27, 1972, secured an indebtedness of $7,214,000.00. The mortgage provided that future advances could be made to Outrigger Club, Inc., not to exceed in the aggregate $16,500,000.00. The future advance agreement provides that an additional advance of $1,500,000.00 is to be made to Outrigger Club, Inc., thereby increasing the indebtedness represented by the October 27, 1972, mortgage to the aggregate sum of $8,715,000.00. In other words, the buyer of the property sought to borrow an additional 1.5 million dollars. The lender, in order to achieve priority of lien to secure its loan, treated the funding as an advance against a preexisting mortgage originally binding the seller, but then delivered the 1.5 million dollars directly to Miami National Bank for the benefit of the buyer. Accordingly, the seller never received the proceeds of the loan but rather participated in a "book transaction" for the benefit of the buyer and the lender.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Rodney G. Green, held real estate broker license number 0113068 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent, Charter Realty, Inc. (Charter), is a corporation licensed as a broker and is the holder of license number 0224926 also issued by Petitioner. When the events herein occurred, Green was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Charter Realty, Inc. The offices of Charter are located at 800 Westwood Square, Suite C, Oviedo, Florida. Respondent Green is also the owner of Rodney G. Green, Inc., a building and development company. Its office is located in the same building as Charter, where they share a common reception area. Each entity has a separate telephone number. Around June, 1984, Rodney Green was attempting to sell seven commercial lots known as Green's Commercial Addition to Oviedo located in Oviedo, Florida. Green was the owner of the seven lots. He had a large For Sale sign on the property which carried the name and telephone number of both Charter and Rodney G. Green, Inc. Green had an understanding with associates in his real estate office that if a prospective buyer called on the Charter telephone line concerning the lots, he would give a sales commission to the associate who answered the call if a sale materialized. Otherwise, he intended to sell the lots through his development company and not through the real estate firm. Hassan Soltani, an electrical engineer, wished to buy a commercially zoned lot in Oviedo on which to construct a building for his newly formed corporation, Bio-Med Engineering, Inc. After seeing Green's property, he telephoned the offices of Charter Realty, Inc. Green's wife answered the call, advised him that Green personally owned the property, that Charter was not involved in the transaction, and that it would be sold by Rodney G. Green, Inc. rather than Charter. She referred him to Green who reiterated this same advice to Soltani. On or about June 21, 1985, Soltani executed a contract to purchase Lot 7 of Green's Commercial Addition. The contract provided for a $35,000 sales price, a $1,750 deposit, and a closing date of July 27, 1984. When he executed the contract, Soltani advised Green that the lot would be purchased by a partnership made up of Soltani, Claire M. Marachel and John T. Tobin, Jr., the latter two employees at Soltani's firm. Soltani also told Green that the partnership had $20,000 cash counting the $1,750 deposit, and would obtain the remaining $15,000 prior to closing by selling a $20,000 stock certificate held by Marachel. Based on this representation, Green did not provide any contingency clauses in the contract for borrower financing. The only contingency clause was one requiring Green to "fill Northeast corner of lot to within one foot of existing grade." It is noted that Green accepted the Soltani offer over that of another buyer because no financing would be required on the Soltani contract. About a week before closing, Soltani telephoned Green to inquire when the lot would be filled. Green thereafter had the lot filled in accordance with the contract. On July 27, the date of closing, Soltani advised Green that Marachel had had difficulty in getting the stock certificate transferred to her from the stock broker, and they needed an extension of time to close on the contract. Green did not wish to extend the closing date because he had a closing on other property across the street and needed cash immediately. Soltani offered to increase the cash deposit to $20,000 which could be used by Green to close on the other property in return for an extension of the closing date to August 15, 1984. Soltani also agreed to seek bank financing from a local bank recommended by Green. Green accepted these terms and all parties executed an amendment to the contract extending the closing date to August 15, 1984. Soltani also gave Green an additional $18,250 as deposit on the land. The deposit was placed in the bank account of Rodney G. Green, Inc. and was temporarily used by Green to close on the other property. There was still no contingency clause in the contract for buyers' financing. In early August, Green made Soltani and his partners an appointment with a loan officer at a local bank. The loan officer agreed to loan Soltani $15,000 conditioned upon all three partners filing financial statements and a partnership agreement, and Marachel liquidating her stock and purchasing a $20,000 certificate of deposit at Barnett. When the August 15 deadline was not met, Green orally agreed to another extension of time on the closing date since Soltani continued to express an interest in purchasing the property. Around the first September, Soltani told Green he was not going to furnish the bank with the requested documents and asked if Green would provide owner financing on the $15,000 balance. Green responded he could not. At a later date, Soltani called Green's office twice requesting to talk to Green and to obtain a refund of his deposit. Green's wife answered both times and told Soltani he would have to speak to Green. Green attempted to return the calls but was unsuccessful in reaching Soltani. Soltani then sent Green a letter on October 4, 1984 demanding a return of his deposit no later than October 11, 1984. He also filed a complaint with Petitioner on or about October 18, 1984. Before Green could respond to the letter, an investigator from Petitioner's office visited Green for the purpose of auditing his escrow account. The investigator found that the $20,000 deposit was not in Charter's escrow account and advised Green to place it in the account at once. Green did so on October 23, 1984, and two days later refunded the entire deposit to Soltani, Marachel and Tobin. He did so to avoid "problems" with Petitioner, but considered Soltani to have breached the contract by failing to close on the specified closing date. The instant disciplinary action was instituted a few months later.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint herein be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Margaret A. Wharton, Esq. P. O. Box 1172 Oviedo, FL 32765
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed, and as of the date of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, held license No. HB-0008511 as a mortgage broker and was president and principal broker of Bay Area Financial Services, Inc. He has held such license since November 1979. He sold the business in April 1980 and has reapplied within six months for an individual license. The application was received on May 16, 1980. Pursuant to Rule 3D-40.03(3), Florida Administrative Code, Respondent is treated as a current licensee, and as an applicant. From October 25, 1977, until June 12, 1979, Respondent was employed as vice-president and principal mortgage broker by United Companies Mortgage and Investment of St. Petersburg, Inc., hereinafter UCMI, a mortgage brokerage firm. United Companies Financial Corporation, hereinafter UCFC, is a Louisiana corporation, authorized to do business in Florida. The company engages in the business as a mortgage lender. On August 31, 1978, UCMI by and through its broker, Respondent, made a loan to "James G. Anderson" and "Lorraine Anderson, his wife," and accepted a note in the amount of $14,500.00 made by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," together with a first mortgage also made by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson, his wife," as security for the repayment of the loan. The first mortgage purported to encumber Lot 25, Oak Harbor Subdivision, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 5, page 94, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. On August 31, 1978, UCMI, for value, assigned the note and mortgage to UCFC. The Respondent has no objection as to the authenticity and genuineness of Exhibit 11, a copy of a contract for sale of real estate which, on its fact, was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," as purchasers of certain real property from the seller, Linda Carol Querry, a/k/a L. C. Querry. The document reflects that the purchase price be $18,500.00, payable $100.00 in cash as a deposit, $900.00 cash within twenty-four hours, $4,500.00 additional deposit at time of closing, and $13,000.00 mortgage balance. (Exhibit 2). Anderson acknowledged his signature on this document but has no recollection of signing it. On August 31, 1978, a Notice to Customers, required by federal law, was executed by "James G. Anderson and his wife Lorraine," setting forth the disclosure requirements of Regulation Z. The lender is reflected as UCFC and the broker as UCMI of St. Petersburg. Respondent Hughes executed such document as a witness to the signatures of "Mr. and Mrs. Anderson." On August 31, 1978, a promissory note was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson" promising to pay UCMI the sum of $14,500.00. (Exhibit 3). On August 31, 1978, a document entitled Consummation of Loan Secured by Real Property, was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," as the borrowers. (Exhibit 4). On August 31, 1978, a document entitled Notice to Customer Required by Federal Law was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," as the borrowers. (Exhibit 5). On August 31, 1978, a document regarding the loan transaction was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," acknowledging receipt of the "Good Faith Estimates," and certain other materials. (Exhibit 6). On August 31, 1978, a Notice to Purchaser-Mortgagor was executed by "James G. Anderson and his wife, Lorraine Anderson" acknowledging receipt of such notice. (Exhibit 7). On August 31, 1978, an Owner's Affidavit was executed by "James G. Anderson and his wife, Lorraine." (Exhibit 8). On August 28, 1978, a loan application was executed by "James G. Anderson" for the $14,500.00 to be secured by a first mortgage. Respondent personally handled the application as indicated on the application itself. (Exhibit 1). On August 31, 1978, check No. 15-39091 was executed by Respondent Hughes, as authorized representative of United Companies, Inc., as payor, to James G. Anderson and Title Consultants, as payees, in the amount of $11,014.58. The check was endorsed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson." (Exhibit 10). On August 31, 1978, a Warranty Deed was executed by Linda Carol Querry, a/k/a L. C. Querry, as seller of certain real property to "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson, his wife." Respondent Hughes executed the document as a witness to Linda Querry's signature and execution. The property described in the Warranty Deed is the identical property mortgaged by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson" to secure the loan from UCMI and UCFC. (Exhibit 13). On August 31, 1978, a Mortgage Deed was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson, his wife," as mortgagors, to UCMI of St. Petersburg, as mortgagee, as security for the repayment of the loan. Respondent Hughes executed the Mortgage Deed as a witness to the signatures of "Mr. and Mrs. Anderson." (Exhibit 9). On August 31, 1978, UCMI, by and through its principal broker and vice president, Respondent Hughes, assigned the Anderson mortgage and note to UCFC. The applicable Florida law governing this matter is Chapter 494, Florida Statutes (1977), and as amended in the 1978 Supplement, and Chapter 3D- 40, administrative rules regulating mortgage brokerage, Florida Administrative Code. In August 1978, James G. Anderson, who worked in the Sanitation Department of the City of St. Petersburg, also worked part-time repainting houses purchased for resale by Vic Vogel, a speculator. While so employed, Anderson had seen Respondent a few times in the company of Vogel, but had never formally met Respondent. Vogel offered to sell one of these houses to Anderson on terms that would require no down payment by Anderson, who would thereafter make monthly payments similar to the rental payments he was then making. Further, there would be no "red tape" and Anderson would be buying a home rather than renting one. Anderson trusted Vogel, who assured Anderson he would take care of all the details. The house Anderson agreed to buy was on 11th Street and 20th Avenue South in St. Petersburg and was one of the houses Anderson had worked on in his part-time job with Vogel. In the contract to purchase signed by Anderson (Exhibit 11) the block for the legal description of the property is blank. The various other spaces on the form now showing the purchase price, down payment, etc., were blank when signed by Anderson. For several years prior to 1977 Anderson had been living with Lorraine Walker but never held her out as his wife. The signature "Lorraine Anderson" on all exhibits except Exhibit 14, the quitclaim deed from Anderson to United Companies Financial Corporation, were signed by someone other than Lorraine Walker. At the instigation of his attorney, Anderson and Lorraine Walker signed Exhibit 14 to clear up foreclosure proceedings that had been instituted against Anderson. The closing of the sale of property to Anderson took place at the offices of United Companies at 300 S. Duncan Street, Clearwater, Florida on 31 August 1978. Anderson was picked up by Vogel and driven to the closing. Accompanying Vogel was Mike Robertson, an associate of Vogel; Linda Querry, Vogel's girl friend, who signed the deed conveying the property to Anderson; and an unidentified black woman. While awaiting Respondent's arrival for the closing, Vogel took the group to lunch. At the closing, Anderson signed numerous documents and other people, including the black woman who obviously signed "Lorraine Anderson," also signed these documents as witnesses and/or notary. Anderson does not recall having seen Verona Krnjaich, who notarized his signature on the documents he signed at the closing and Ms. Krnjaich does not recall a closing at which Anderson was present. However, she testified that her normal practice is to notarize only documents notarized in her presence, and that she follows this practice at all closings. On the other hand, she has good recall of faces seen at closings but does not believe she ever saw Anderson before this hearing. Anderson testified that he trusted Vogel and signed whatever documents Vogel asked him to sign; that all the documents bearing his signature were blank when he signed them; that he did not know the black woman in the room at the closing or that when she signed these documents she did so in the name of Lorraine Anderson; that the closing took place on the second or third floor of a building just off U.S. 19 between Clearwater and St. Petersburg; that he doesn't know the address of this building but could return to it, and in fact, a few months prior to this hearing, took one of Petitioner's agents to the building where the closing took place; that he received no copy of any document signed by him at the closing; that he thought he was buying a house from Vogel; and that he expected Vogel to notify him after the closing when he could move in and how much he would pay each month. Vogel did not again contact Anderson and apparently has left the area. A few months prior to this hearing Anderson accompanied one of Petitioner's agents to show the agent where the closing occurred. The building to which the agent was taken by Anderson is two-storied and occupied by Ellis National Bank. In August 1978 there was no other occupant of this building and the second floor was unfinished but contained restrooms and some offices occupied by bank employees. Anderson made no cash payment before, at, or after the closing on this house; nor did he ever move into it. The legal description on the deed conveying the property to Anderson is for property located at 626-27th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida, and not for the house at 11th Street and 20th Avenue South which Anderson thought he was buying. After Anderson became delinquent on his mortgage payments Respondent went to Anderson's home one Sunday afternoon demanding payment of the delinquent monthly payments owed by Anderson. The latter told Respondent he hadn't bought any house from the lender, owed no money, and wasn't going to pay. Respondent shortly thereafter turned the case over to the United Companies' attorney, who instituted foreclosure proceedings. When served with these papers Anderson took them to his lawyer. After some of the facts surrounding this transaction became apparent, the assignee of the mortgagee accepted a quitclaim deed to the mortgaged property from Anderson. Lorraine Walker accompanied Anderson to the lawyer's office and signed the quitclaim deed "Lorraine Anderson" (Exhibit 14). The deed signed by L. C. Querry conveying Lot 25 to Anderson (Exhibit 13) conveyed the property to "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson, his wife." Respondent had known Vic Vogel for five or six years prior to August 1977 and had been involved in ten or twelve transactions in which Vogel had picked up distressed property, refurbished it and sold it. Anderson had few debts and readily qualified for the mortgage loan without considering the income of Lorraine or his income from his part-time work. He understood he was buying the house without any down payment, and, in fact, Anderson paid nothing down when he signed the contract and he produced no cash at the closing. The only disbursement made at closing was by the mortgagee, whose check for $11,014.58 (Exhibit 10) was payable to Title Consultants and Anderson. The latter endorsed this check and presumably Title Consultants disbursed to the seller. Closing statements for the buyer and seller were not in the files of UCMI or Title Consultants, nor was a contract to purchase in which the description of the property to be bought was shown. Respondent's witness testified that she reviewed all documents prior to a closing; that she recalls the Anderson transaction; doesn't recall who prepared those documents but believes she typed them; that documents were never signed in blank and the blanks subsequently completed; that she did the credit check on Anderson; and that all documents used in the closing were completed in full before the closing at which they were signed by Anderson and the person signing as Lorraine Anderson. A check with the credit bureau should have disclosed Anderson's marital status as not married and this witness was unable to explain the failure to pick this up when Exhibit 1, the loan application, was verified with the credit bureau. Respondent testified that he recalled the Anderson transaction on 31 August 1978 but later in his testimony stated he did not recall this specific transaction. He believes he followed his usual procedure and explained the various documents to Anderson before the latter signed them. Prior to 1978 he had closed many transactions for UCMI without a contract to purchase having been executed. The loan application is mailed to the main office of United Companies in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and telephonic approval is given by Baton Rouge. Accordingly, it was not unusual for Anderson's loan application to be prepared 28 August 1978, the original mailed to Baton Rouge and approval received in time to close the transaction on 31 August 1978. The contract upon which this house was conveyed, and the closing statements of buyer or seller, were not presented at this hearing. Witnesses testified these documents were missing from the files in which they would be expected to keep. Regardless of this, it is uncontradicted that Anderson made no payment at closing and, if any payment was made prior to closing, any such payment would have been accounted for by the escrow agent. It is also evident that no such accounting was made. By signing a note and mortgage for $14,500.00 Anderson purported to purchase a house for slightly more than $11,000.00, which is the amount of the check endorsed by Anderson at closing and which sum presumably went to the seller. Some $3,000.00 was retained by the lender as prepaid finance charges ($1,567.67) and brokerage fee ($1,545.45). (Exhibit 2.) Accordingly, the mortgage of $14,500 represented approximately 130% of the amount paid for this house. This fact was known, or should have been known, to Respondent, who presumably was representing his principal, UCMI, the lender at this closing. Respondent was paid a fixed salary by UCMI and did not receive additional compensation for each transaction he closed. UCMI suffered a financial loss on the repossession of the house from Anderson and filed suit against Industrial Valley Title Insurance Company (Exhibit 15).
Recommendation From the foregoing it is concluded that Respondent was guilty of concealing material facts from UCMI involving the transaction with Anderson at which UCMI was mortgagee, and that, as a result, UCMI suffered injury. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Robert E. Hughes' license as a mortgage broker be suspended for a period of six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Franklyn J. Wollett, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George W. Greer, Esquire 302 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October 1980.
