The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, Respondent was known as Linda Diane Bennett, a licensed real estate salesman, license no. 0370329, associated with Edward C. Schultz, an individual broker t/a SOS Real Estate which is located in Palm Beach County, Florida. In early February, 1988, Mindy Anderson telephoned Respondent from Texas and requested assistance in the procurement of a three month lease which Ms. Anderson needed to commence on or about February 11, 1988. It was Ms. Anderson's intention to return to the Palm Beach area for a limited time in connection with work she was to perform for Nottingham Development. As part of the agreement with Nottingham, the company was to provide her with temporary living arrangements. Ms. Anderson outlined her rental needs to Respondent who agreed to look for an apartment. After several telephone conversations with Ms. Anderson, Respondent finally offered a shared rental arrangement which would require Ms. Anderson to move in with an individual named Sally Krenzel. An associate working in Respondent's office, Dan Webber, had a rental listing on Ms. Krenzel's apartment. The listing specified a three month minimum at a seasonal rental rate of $1100 per month with a commission of $500. The roommate arrangement was suggested since Ms. Krenzel would have no time to move and since the $1100 per month rate exceeded Ms. Anderson's budget. The real estate agents, Webber and Respondent, worked out the details of the transaction whereby Anderson agreed to pay $550 per month rent to share with Krenzel and Krenzel agreed to a three month term at $350 per month. The difference, $600 over the three month period, was retained by Respondent as the commission. Respondent shared this commission with Webber after their broker received his portion. Since the entire rental arrangement was negotiated by telephone, Ms. Anderson did not know the amount of the commission to be paid by Ms. Krenzel. There is no evidence to establish whether or not Ms. Krenzel knew, in advance, the amount of rent actually paid by Anderson. On the day Ms. Anderson was to arrive from Texas, Respondent went to Nottingham Development and, in accordance with Ms. Anderson's directions to Nottingham, received a check in the amount of $2000. This check was made payable to Linda Bennett and was cashed by the Respondent. Respondent requested that the check be payable to her personally since her broker was unavailable and since Ms. Krenzel had indicated she would not let Ms. Anderson move in until the rent had been paid. Respondent then delivered $1400 cash to Ms. Krenzel. This amount was calculated as three months rent and a security of $350 which was to be returned to Nottingham at the end of the rental term if there were no damages or charges for long distance telephone calls. According to Ms. Anderson, the monies should not have been paid until she had viewed the apartment, met Ms. Krenzel, and accepted the arrangement. Later, when Ms. Anderson arrived at the apartment and met Ms. Krenzel, they determined the shared rental arrangement would not succeed. Consequently, Ms. Krenzel agreed to refund $1300 to Ms. Anderson which she did, in cash, on or about February 12, 1988. Thereafter, Ms. Anderson, through an attorney, sought the return of the monies retained by Respondent. An attorney wrote to Respondent's broker seeking a refund of the monies retained by Respondent. The refund was not made. Later, after the administrative complaint had been filed, Respondent offered to return the commission to Nottingham Development. Mr. Scott refused to accept the funds until this case could be decided. Ms. Krenzel's apartment is a two-bedroom, one bath unit. Ms. Anderson had specified two baths. Ms. Anderson claimed Respondent had told her the unit was lavishly decorated; however, Ms. Anderson described the apartment as "a dump." Respondent never personally viewed the unit and based her representations of its appearance on the information furnished to her by Mr. Webber.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent not guilty of Count 1, guilty of Count 2 of the administrative complaint, and issue a reprimand with an administrative fine in the amount of $700. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 5 is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. With the deletion of the phrase "because the unit had been misrepresented to her by the Respondent," paragraph 6 is accepted. The phrase above is rejected as a conclusion of law or irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as argument, conclusion of law unsupported by the record, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent offered to refund the $600 to Nottingham. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as unsupported by direct evidence. Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted. The remainder of paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is accepted. No conclusion is reached that Nottingham was supposed to advise Respondent to hold the funds. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as unsupported by direct, nonhearsay evidence or is not supported by the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 11, with the correction of the date being February 12, 1988, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is accepted but is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: STEVEN W. JOHNSON SENIOR ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W. ROBINSON STREET P.O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 BRUCE W. PARRISH, JR. BRUCE W. PARRISH, JR., P.A. 105 S. NARCISSUS AVENUE, SUITE 712 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 DARLENE F. KELLER DIVISION DIRECTOR 400 WEST ROBINSON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 KENNETH EASLEY GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET, SUITE 60 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Kirk was a registered real estate broker licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission at all times relative to the Administrative Complaint. Juneau Edwards negotiated a valid and binding contract for sale between Wilbur Davis as seller and Julius and Elizabeth Lau as buyers. The Laus paid $500 as a deposit under the contract on October 3, 1975 to Edwards. The contract, Exhibit 3, contains the following provisions: "Full purchase price $27,500, payable $27,500 in cash, of which the deposit shall apply as part and sale be held by said agent (Kirk Realty) in escrow pending closing of transaction, balance payable in the following manner: Cash at closing, contingent upon buyer se- curing first mortgage loan from Mid- State Federal Savings and Loan Association of Dunnellon, Florida. . ." The contract also contains a provision that the buyer forfeits his deposit if he fails to perform under the terms of the contract. The Laus submitted an application for a first mortgage in the amount of $21,000 on October 6, 1975, which was disapproved for that amount. Disapproval was communicated to the Laus by a letter from David L. Belcher dated October 15, 1975, Exhibit 7. The evidence reveals that the amount of the loan requested exceeded 80 percent of the appraised value of the Davis property by $34,000. Pursuant to the contingency provision of the contract, the contract was void when then loan request was disapproved. However, when the Laus met with Edwards and Kirk they advised them that the loan had not been approved in the amount requested, but did not demand the refund of their $500.00 deposit. Instead, when Kirk and Edwards suggested that Davis be advised and negotiations for a lower price for different terms be undertaken, the Laus assented to this. Arrangements were made by Kirk for such a meeting between Davis and the Laus; however, the Laus did not attend this meeting because they had become interested in a second house which they ultimately purchased. On October 23, 1975, the Laus applied for a mortgage to Mid-State to purchase another house using their initial application and changing the amount of the loan request to $17,500. This application was approved and the Laus closed on the second house. The Laus did not tell Kirk of their other negotiations on the second house and Kirk learned of the Lau's contract for the second house through Mid-State. After contracting to purchase the second house, the Laus contacted Kirk Realty requesting a refund of the $500 deposit paid on the Davis contract. Kirk visited the Laus at their new house and advised them that he considered them in default under the Davis contract. Kirk distributed the money to Davis and Kirk Realty on December 5, 1975 under the forfeiture provisions of the contract.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the factors in mitigation mentioned above, would recommend that Kirk be ordered to pay Lau $500 and receive a letter of admonition. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1977. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX A The proposed findings regarding the contract and its provisions between the Laus and Davis presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings regarding the negotiations before and after the disapproval of the loan application between the Laus and Juneau Edwards, a/k/a Zerban, presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings regarding the submission of the loan application to Mid-State Federal Savings and Loan Association and its disapproval presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The testimony of Belcher in his deposition clearly established that it was disapproved for the amount sought. The proposed findings that the Lau-Davis contract was valid presented in paragraph 2 of the Proposed Recommendation Order is contained in paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the Laus failed to make demand for their deposit presented in paragraph 3 of the Proposed Recommended Order is contrary to the testimony and evidence which indicated that the Laus delayed in making demand for return of their deposit as found in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order and later requested their money back after contracting to purchase the second house as found in paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the Laus breached the contract is a legal conclusion contrary to that reached by the Hearing Officer based upon the contingency provision of the contract which made the contract contingent upon approval of the Lau's loan application. When that application was disapproved, the contact became void. Therefore, the Laus could not have breached it. The Lau's representations to Kirk that Kirk should continue negotiations with Davis does not create another contract between Davis and the Laus; however, it can and has been considered in mitigation of the impression the Laus gave Kirk regarding their continued interest in the Davis property which lead Kirk to the erroneous conclusion the Laus had breached the contract. The proposed finding that there was no violation of Section 475.25(1)(c) presented in paragraph 4 of the Proposed Recommended Order Conclusions of Law is contrary to the evidence and testimony. The Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered by the Hearing Officer this 19th day of August, 1977. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Daniel Hicks, Esquire Tucker, Hicks, Blanchard, Brannen, Dirlam and Stillwell, P.A. Post Office Box 24 Ocala, Florida 32670 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, an Agency of the State of Florida Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3182 MARION COUNTY vs. CASE NO. 77-685 TYREE C. KING, t/a KIRK REALTY, Respondent. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondents be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondents promptly return the rental agreement fee to Narendra Patel in accordance with their agreement on the record in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license issued by Petitioner should be revoked or suspended, or the licensee be otherwise disciplined, for alleged violation of Sections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.25(3) Florida Statutes as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with that of other respondents by Order of the undersigned Hearing Officer dated August 8, 1977. The consolidated cases heard on November 7, 1977 are as follows: Case No. 77-1269, Florid Real Estate Commission vs. John Glorian and General American Realty Corporation Case No. 77-1275, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. James Henkel Case No. 77-1277, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Alfred Landin Case No. 77-1278, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Joseph Macko The evidence in this case consisted solely of the testimony of the Respondents in the above listed four cases, and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 withdrawn) which consisted of certain written material furnished to prospective clients by the Florida Landowners Service Bureau, including a listing and brokerage agreement sample form. Petitioner sought to elicit the testimony of Kenneth Kasha and Theodore Dorwin, but both of these prospective witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to testify in this case. After inquiring into the basis of their claims, the Hearing Officer permitted the same and they were excused from the hearing. Both individuals based their claims on the fact that they are currently under criminal investigation by state law enforcement authorities with respect to their prior activities as real estate brokers in advance fee transactions. Although Petitioner contended that Dorwin had waived his privilege by testifying in prior administrative proceedings brought by the Florida Real Estate Commission which led to the revocation of his broker's license, and that Kasha also had waived his privilege by testifying in an administrative proceeding brought by the Florida Division of Land Sales and Condominiums concerning advance fee sales, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that any such waivers did not extend to the instant proceeding. Petitioner then sought to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of Dorwin and Kasha in the aforementioned administrative proceedings, but such admission was not permitted by the Hearing Officer because the Respondents herein had not been afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses at the time they gave such testimony. Respondent Alfred Landin is now a registered real estate salesman and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a registered salesman in the employ of General American Realty Corporation, a registered corporate broker (Petitioner's Exhibit 7).
Findings Of Fact General American Realty Corporation was first registered by Petitioner as a corporate broker in 1970. In 1972 John Glorian became the president of the firm and active broker. He was hired by Richard T. Halfpenny who was the owner and principal stockholder at the time. Alfred Landin, a registered real estate salesman, joined the firm in February, 1975. At that time, General American was in the business of selling acreage property in Florida. In the summer of 1975, Glorian recommended to Halfpenny that the firm become involved in the "advance fee" business. Such transactions in the trade involved the telephone solicitation of out-of-state landowners to list their land in Florida for sale with a Florida broker for a prescribed fee which would become part of any sales commission if and when the particular property was sold. Halfpenny expressed no objections to the idea and Glorian thereafter contacted Theodore Dorwim who was then associated with Florida Landowners Service Bureau in Miami. Kenneth Kasha was the President of that firm which was involved in the advance fee business. Glorian introduced Dorwin to the firm's salesmen, who included Joseph Macko, James R. Henkel, and Landin. Dorwin instructed these personnel in the method of soliciting prospective clients and provided an outline of the information that was to be given to those individuals called by the salesmen. He told the General American personnel that once the property was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau, it would be advertised in newspapers and catalogs, and that bona fide efforts would be made by his organization to sell the property. (Testimony of Glorian, Landin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 5-6). General American commenced its advance fee operation approximately August, 1975. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out-of-state landowner picked from a computer print-out list and inquire if he would be interested in selling his property at a higher price than he had paid for its. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing his property, his name was provided to Florida Landowners Service Bureau who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell his property. Also enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to Florida Landowners Service Bureau which would be credited against a ten percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, Florida Landowners Service Bureau agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one-year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to ,sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring, and cataloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would "analyze" the property, comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property, and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the course of their calls to prospects, Macko, Henkel, and Landin advised them that thee property would be advertised internationally and in the United States, and that bona fide efforts would be made by Florida Landowners Service Bureau to sell the property. All salesmen represented themselves to be salesmen for that organization. Henkel told prospects that foreign investors were buying Florida property; however, In fact, he was unaware as to whether any property had ever been sold by Florida Landowners Service Bureau and never inquired in this respect. Henkel and Landin had observed copies of the literature sent to prospects in the General American office, but Macko had only seen the listing agreement. After the promotional literature was sent to a prospect, the General American salesmen made what were called "drive" calls to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls, the salesmen had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee initially was $250 and was later raised to $350. The salesman received approximately one third of the fee. Glorian was paid several hundred dollars a month by General American, but received no portion of the listing fees. He was in the office once or twice a week to supervise the activities of the salesmen who made their telephone calls during the evening hours. Halfpenny was seldom there and did not take an active part in the advance fee operation. None of the salesmen or Glorian were aware that any of the property listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau was ever sold and none of them ever saw any advertising, although Land in saw a catalog of listings at one time. Although Macko customarily recommended a listing price of the property to prospects based on the general rise in value of land since the date of purchase, Henkel merely accepted the price desired by the property owners. General American terminated its advance fee business in early 1976 after being advised that Petitioner was conducting investigations into the advance fee business (Testimony of Macko, Landin, Henkel, Glorian). All of the Respondents in these cases testified at the hearing that they had made no false representations to prospects during the course of their telephone conversations and otherwise denied any wrongdoing.
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent Alfred Landin be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire and Louis Guttman, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Stanley M. Ersoff, Esquire 1439 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33135
