The Issue Whether Respondents violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b),(e), and (q), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21V-10.033, 21V-14.012(2) and (3) and 21V-14.014, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rhoda Kurzman (Kurzman), is currently and was at all times relevant to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker in this state. Respondent, Security Realty Investments, Inc. (Security), is currently and was at all times relevant to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker corporation in this state. Security is a small company which deals primarily with the property management of its own properties. Ms. Kurzman is the president of and broker for Security. In April, 1992, Respondents came up for a routine audit. Joseph L. Wilson, then an investigative auditor for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), conducted an office inspection and escrow/trust account audit on April 14, 1992. The inspection and the audit were in four areas: 1) office 2) required office sign 3) agency disclosure and 4) broker's records, including reconciliation statements and escrow/trust accounts. Respondents maintained a trust account in an interest bearing savings account with County National Bank of South Florida. Respondents received quarterly statements from the bank. As part of the audit, Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Kurzman to produce the reconciliation statements for Security's escrow/trust account. She gave him a running journal (Pet. Exhibit 2) which she had prepared in her own handwriting. The journal was entitled " Escrow Account # 0120056458-20, County Bank, Miami, Florida 33164." There were entries beginning June 29, 1988 through December 31, 1991. The dates listed on the left side of the journal represented the dates for either deposits or withdrawals. The last deposit in the account other than interest was on March 20, 1991. There were double check marks on the right side which represented the amounts reconciled with the bank statements. The entire document contained five double check marks. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 does not reflect the dates the reconciliations took place. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 was not signed and dated by Ms. Kurzman each time the account was reconciled. Petitioner did not reconcile the account on a monthly basis. The bank statement for the period ending December 31, 1991 showed a balance of $375.54, as did the balance in the December 31, 1991 entry of the journal. The bank statement for the period ending March 31, 1992 showed a balance of $379.83. Respondents did not have any escrow security liability on these dates; thus these balances represented overages in the escrow account. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 did not contain a description or explanation for the overages. Mr. Wilson discussed the overages with Ms. Kurzman, and she indicated that the balance in the bank account resulted from accumulated interest from 1988. Mr. Wilson advised her that prior to March, 1992, an escrow account could carry an overage of only $100, but that after March 1992, overages of up to $200 could be carried in escrow accounts. Ms. Kurzman agreed to withdraw sufficient funds from the account to bring it in compliance with the allowed overage. By letter dated April 14, 1992, Ms. Kurzman advised Mr. Wilson that she had withdrawn $300 from the escrow account, bringing the balance to $79.83, and included a copy of the withdrawal slip with the letter. All the sales made by the Respondents are listed in the journal maintained by the Respondents. There have been eight sales since 1988. Some of the transactions did not result in a contract. From September 1, 1991 through October 1, 1992, Mr. Wilson conducted approximately 300 audits, 40 of which were done during the month of April, 1992. The audit of Respondents was approximately two to four hours long. Ms. Kurzman produced one sales contract during the audit, the other contracts were stored in a different location. During the audit, Mr. Wilson prepared an Office Inspection and Escrow/Trust Account Audit Form, which he and Ms. Kurzman signed. After the audit he prepared an investigative report. No specific transactions were mentioned in either document. Mr. Wilson destroyed the specific notes or tic sheets that he made during the audit. At hearing he admitted that if someone showed him one of the contracts for the transactions appearing in the journal, he would not be able to recall if he had looked at the contract during the audit. Ms. Kurzman specifically recalls the audit and her recollection of the audit is much clearer than Mr. Wilson's. At hearing Mr. Wilson was unable to recall specific transactions dealing with the alleged failure to disclose that escrow funds were being placed in an interest bearing account. He believes that they discussed names of contracts or types of situations, but can't recall because of the length of time that had passed since he performed the audit. Ms. Kurzman specifically recalls that other than the transaction in which she was the seller they only discussed one sales contract. He believes that Ms. Kurzman said that she had made oral disclosure in some but not all transactions in which there were principals other than the broker, and that there were no written disclosures. In one of the sales listed in the escrow account journal, Ms. Kurzman was the seller and had divested herself as broker during that transaction. In the Baldoria transaction, the contract required that Ms. Baldoria receive interest and the interest was paid to her. Obviously there was disclosure to Ms. Baldoria, and it appears that the disclosure was in writing. Ms. Kurzman and Mr. Wilson discussed the issue of the disclosure of interest bearing accounts during the audit. There was a disagreement between them as to when such disclosure had to be made. Having judged the credibility of the witnesses and in particular having considered Mr. Wilson's difficulty in recalling specifics of the audit, I find that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that the Respondents failed to disclose that escrow/trust funds were being placed in an interest-bearing account. Mr. Wilson was unable to recall any contracts in which Respondents were alleged to have failed to make agency disclosure. There have been no prior audits of Respondents. No prior disciplinary actions have been taken by Petitioner against Respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondents guilty of violating Rule 21V-14.012, Florida Administrative Code and Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, reprimanding each Respondent, imposing against Rhoda Kurzman an administrative fine of $100, and requiring Rhoda Kurzman to provide within six months after the date of the Final Order satisfactory evidence to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Legal Section, Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N-308, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801-1772, of having completed a 30-hour postlicensure broker management course. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5542 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-3: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 6-7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11-13: Accepted. Paragraphs 14-19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 20-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 30: Accepted. Paragraph 31: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 32: Accepted. Paragraphs 33-34: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 35-37: Accepted in substance. 20 Paragraphs 38-40: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Kurzman, Esquire Grand Bay Plaza, Suite 702 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Theodore Gay, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Darlene F. Keller Divison Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate brokers. Respondent's real estate broker license number 0325307 was active in Florida between October 1985 and November 1987. During this period, the business address registered at the Department for AmBest Realty was: 333-31st Street North #24, St. Petersburg, Florida 33713. Respondent was the qualifying broker for this real estate firm. The real estate office at the above-mentioned address was officially closed by Respondent in November 1987. At this particular time, there had been a decrease in real estate sales throughout the state. Respondent changed careers and became a long haul trucker in order to provide for his family under the then prevailing real estate market conditions. Post Office Box 12811, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733, was acquired by Respondent in November 1987 so that he could continue to receive communications regarding his former real estate practice, if necessary. His current profession as a long haul trucker frequently required his absence from the state for days at a time. The use of the post office box allowed him to review all correspondence regarding AmBest Realty whenever he returned to St. Petersburg, Florida from his trucking route. Respondent did not surrender or account for his license to the Real Estate Commission when he closed or moved his real estate business to his home in November 1987. By statute, Respondent was required to do so within 10 days of the address change or office closure. Notification to the Board should have been done by Respondent on a form provided by the Real Estate Commission for that purpose. Respondent's license ceased to be in force when he closed the real estate office at 333-31st Street North #24, St. Petersburg, Florida. In March 1988, Respondent attempted to allow his broker license to automatically revert to inactive status, pursuant to Section 475.182(3), Florida Statutes [1987]. Although this decision ignored the previous deactivation of the license, it corroborates Respondent's testimony that the office closed in November 1987. When Respondent attempted to place the license in an inactive status in March 1988, it was his intention to reactivate his license within a four-year period if the real estate market recovered from its slump. Respondent notified the Department of his new mailing address at the post office box prior to his attempted placement of the license in an inactive status. Respondent's failure to notify the Board of the change in his business address caused the Board to improperly rely on that business address as the proper location for office inspections and the Department's review of escrow/trust accounts. In August of 1990, an investigator with the Department unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Respondent at the registered business address at 333- 31st Street North #24, St. Petersburg, Florida. The real estate office and a real estate sign were no longer at the location. Respondent was later contacted by the investigator through the home address previously listed on his license that had been replaced in March 1988 by the post office box number. The investigator requested Respondent make his escrow trust account records and supporting documentation available for inspection. Respondent advised that he was unable to comply with the request as his original escrow trust account records had been stolen in a garage burglary in late November 1987. No effort was made by Respondent to reconstruct or to aid in the reconstruction of the missing records. No additional mitigating factors were presented at hearing other than the break-in to the location where Respondent stored his original escrow trust account records.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, James E. Willis t/a AmBest Realty be found not guilty of Count I of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent be found guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count II, based upon his failure to preserve and make available to the Department all escrow trust account records with supporting documentation, as required by Rule 21V-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code. That the privilege of Respondent Willis to reinstate his real estate broker's license be suspended for three years, subject to a reduction in the suspension term if the escrow trust account records are reconstructed and presented to the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 14th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: JAMES H GILLIS ESQUIRE DPR - DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W ROBINSON ST ORLANDO FL 32801 1772 JAMES E WILLIS, AMBEST REALTY PO BOX 12811 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733 2811 DARLENE F KELLER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DPR - DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W ROBINSON ST ORLANDO FL 32801 1772 JACK McRAY ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the law of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent Gustavo Mejido is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0059653 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued said Respondent as a broker was for the address of the offices of G.M. Realty, Inc. Respondent, G.M. Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0208962 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 715 S.W. 73rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. Respondent Gustavo Mejido was at all times pertinent hereto the qualifying broker for Respondent G.M. Realty, Inc. On August 30, 1990, Hector Sehwerert, an investigator employed by Petitioner, conducted an office inspection and audit of the office account and of the escrow/trust account maintained by Respondents. The audit reflected that there was a shortage in the escrow/trust account in the amount of $1,006.68. Respondents' sales escrow/trust liability was $88,220.00 while the balance of the escrow/trust account was $87,213.32. Respondents were unable to immediately explain the cause of the shortage, but on the same day the shortage was detected, Respondent Mejido caused the shortage in the escrow/trust account to be corrected. He caused the sum of $1,006.68 to be transferred from Respondent G.M. Realty's operating account to its escrow/trust account. The undisputed testimony at the formal hearing was that the discrepancy was caused by a clerical mistake. Respondents failed to reconcile its escrow/trust account for the month of July 1990, and for subsequent months as required by the rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. While Respondents had utilized its own system of reconciling its books for 14 years without having any other difficulty, this system was defective because the reconciliation did not include a determination of the total amount of escrow liability. Respondents have agreed to use the reconciliation method recommended by the Petitioner in the future. The licenses of Respondents have not been previously disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondents have violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, and which issues a letter of reprimand to said Respondents for such violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 16th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Florida Department of Professional Regulation Real Estate - Legal Section Hurston Building - North Tower Suite N-308 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Armando E. Lacasa, Esquire 3191 Coral Way Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0376 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-6a. are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6b. are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the finding that the month audited was July 1990, not August 1990. The remaining proposed findings are rejected as being the recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondents are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.
The Issue The issues in this cause are presented through a bid protest filed by Hobbs Construction questioning the notice of the Florida Department of Transportation which rejected all bids on State Project No. 49010-3543, Franklin County, Florida, in which Hobbs was the apparent low bidder. In particular, Hobbs challenges the rejection of its bid, wherein the Department has claimed that Hobbs has failed to meet the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise contract requirements.
Findings Of Fact On June 14, 1984, Hobbs Construction and Development, Inc., submitted an application for recognition by the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, to perform work for the department in an additional work class for which Hobbs had not previously qualified. On June 22, 1984, this request for qualification was approved as evidenced by the correspondence of that date from J. Ted Barefield, Chief of Bureau of Contracts Administration, Department of Transportation, addressed to Hobbs. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number two admitted into evidence. The Notice of Qualification was received by Hobbs on June 26, 1984. Having been recognized in the new classification, Hobbs was entitled to qualify as a bidder on Budget Item 3112655, which is also known as State Project No. 49010-3543, Franklin County, Florida. (Prior to the new classification or qualification of Hobbs, Hobbs was entitled to purchase the plans for the aforementioned job, but was not entitled to receive the actual bidding documents [specifications] related to the job.) On June 26, 1984, the date that Hobbs was informed of its qualification to pursue the subject job in Franklin County, it obtained the bid packet, job specifications, from the Department of Transportation. Even before qualification, Hobbs being interested in the Franklin County job made attempts on June 21, 1984, to contact Disadvantaged Business Enterprise subcontractors, known as DBE subcontractors, realizing that the contract called for participation by a DBE subcontractor(s). Glen Powell Contracting, Inc., Lynnhaven, Florida, and Bryan L. Therman Contractors, Inc., of Chipley, Florida, were among the DBE subcontractors which Petitioner was interested in and attempted to contact. It was contemplated that those contractors would perform the installation of rip rap which constituted a high percentage of the project work. Oglesby and Hugg, a DBE subcontractor, was also contacted about installation of rip rap and indicated that they were not interested in the project. The contact with Therman was by talking to someone in hips office, leaving a message for Therman to call the Hobbs representative. The Therman group did not make a return call. Glen Powell and another official within the Glen Powell corporation, reviewed the project with officials of Hobbs' Construction Company and indicated that Powell would not be able to give a quote for the subcontracting rip rap work given the nearness of the time to submit the bid. Powell had been reached on June 25, 1984, and made the assessment of the bid materials on June 26, 1984, at which point he declined to give a price quote for the subcontracting rip rap work. Several DBE grassing subcontractors were also contacted by Hobbs and declined to perform work given the location of the project and the small amount of grassing to be installed. When the bid was submitted by Hobbs, the only DBE subcontractor that was listed was Black Olive Nursery and Landscaping of 21053 N.W. 37th Court, Miami, Florida. That class of work was landscaping in the amount of 9,599.30, which is approximately .6 percent of the Hobbs bid proposal in the amount of $1,585,170.30. Hobbs submitted the bid on the Franklin County project in time to meet the June 27, 1984, bid opening. When the bids were opened, Hobbs bid reported above was the apparent low bid for the project. As was the custom of the Department of Transportation, its Contracts Awards Committee met to determine the acceptability of the bids for the Franklin County project and to decide whether to go forward with the project in the face of the bids offered. At that time, the committee being of the belief that Hobbs and the second low bidder both failed to meet DBE participation requirements of the contract and being persuaded of the need to modify the plans and revise the specifications related to the installation of rip rap it was decided to reject all bids. That decision was by unanimous vote of the Contracts Award Committee of the Department of Transportation and this advice was accepted by the agency head. A copy of the minutes of that committee, which reflects the decision of the committee, may be found as Department's exhibit number two. On July 24, 1984, Hobbs was noticed of the Department's intent to reject all bids for reason that the Department desired to revise the plans and specifications and in view of the fact that, according to the Department, Hobbs had failed to meet the DBE contract requirements. A copy of this Notice of Bid Rejection may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number one admitted into evidence. That notice affords an opportunity for Hobbs to challenge the bid rejection through request for a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes hearing. Hobbs timely availed itself of that opportunity leading to the formal hearing which is the subject of this recommended order. To meet the DOE requirements of the contract, it was necessary for Hobbs to designate 2 percent of the contract amount for DOE subcontractor participation. In the alternative, if Hobbs was unable to achieve that goal, it was necessary for Hobbs to provide sufficient information to show that it had made a good faith effort to meet the goal. The issues joined in this case concern whether Hobbs timely provided its explanation of its good faith efforts to obtain DBE participation in the project and if that explanation was provided in a timely fashion, whether it was sufficient information to demonstrate good faith compliance. Within the specifications, a copy of which is found as joint exhibit number one, there are found Supplemental Special Provisions dating from May 31, 1984. Subarticles 2-5.3.2 and 2-5.3.3, deal with the question of DBE participation and the need to submit good faith efforts. The language of those provisions is as follows: 2-5.3.2 Submittals for Contracts with Goals: For all contracts for which DBE and/or WBE contract goals have been established, each contractor shall meet or exceed or demonstrate that it could not meet, despite its good faith efforts, the contract goals set by the Department. The DBE and WBE participation information shall be submitted with the Contractors bid proposal. Award of the Contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE and WBE participation information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. The Contractors bid submission shall include the following information (Submitted on Form No. 141-12 - DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1): The names and addresses of certified DBE and WBE firms that will participate in the contract. Only DBEs and WBEs certified by the Department at the time the bid is submitted may be counted toward DBE and WBE goals. A description of the work each named DBE and WBE firm will perform. The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE and WBE firm. 2-5.3.3 Submittals for Evaluating Good Faith- Efforts: If the DBE or WBE goal is not met, sufficient information to demonstrate that the Contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals shall be submitted. In evaluating a contractor's good faith efforts, the Department will consider: Whether the Contractor, at least seven days prior to the letting, provided written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, or hand delivery, with receipt, to all certified DBEs and WBEs which perform the type of work which the Contractor intends to subcontract, advising the DBEs and WBEs (a) of the specific work the Contractor intends to subcontract; (b) that their interest in the contract is being solicited; and (c) how to obtain information about and review and inspect the contract plans and specifications. Whether the Contractor selected economically feasible portions of the work to be performed by DBEs or WBEs, including where appropriate, breaking down contracts or combining elements of work into economically feasible units. The ability of a contractor to perform the work with its own work force will not in itself excuse a contractor's failure to meet contract goals. Whether the Contractor provided interested DBEs or WBEs assistance in reviewing the contract plans and specifica- tions. Whether the DBE or WBE goal was met by other bidders. Whether the Contractor submits all quotations received from DBEs or WBEs, and for those quotations not accepted, an explanation of why the DBE or WBE will not be used during the course of the contract. Receipt of a lower quotation from a non-DBE or non-WBE will not in itself excuse a contractor's failure to meet contract goals; provided, however, a contractor's good faith efforts obligation does not require a contractor to accept a quotation from a DBE or WBE which exceeds the lowest quotation received from any subcontractor by more than one percent. Whether the contractor assisted interested DBEs and WBEs in obtaining any required bonding, lines of credit, or insurance. Whether the contractor elected to subcontract types of work that match the capabilities of solicited DBEs or WBEs. Whether the Contractor's efforts were merely pro forma and given all relevant circumstances, could not reasonably be expected to produce sufficient DBE and WBE participation to meet the goals. Whether the Contractor has on other contracts within the past six months utilized DBEs and WBEs. The above list is not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive and the Department will look not only at the different kinds of efforts that the Contractor has made but also the quality, quantity, and intensity of these efforts. These provisions are under the general heading of Preparation of Proposals related to Articles 2 through 5. Subarticle 2-5.3.2 indicates that the bidder shall establish its participation information related to DBE subcontractor with the bid proposal or if the goals are not met, demonstrate that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. The contract is awarded upon condition that the DBE participation goals are met, or upon establishing that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals and that the goals were not attainable. The form known as the DBE Utilization Form No. 1 was provided in this instance. It contemplates information as to success in meeting the DBE goals. A copy of that form may be found as part of the joint exhibit one. It contains no specific place to explain the good faith efforts that were made by the Petitioner to achieve those goals, in view of the Petitioner's lack of success in meeting the goals and Hobbs didn't submit good bid information with its bid. The bid was also submitted under the ausnices of Rule 14-78.03, Florida Administrative Code (May 1984). The first effort which Hobbs made at describing his alleged good faith efforts to employ the assistance of DBEs came on August 29, 1984, in correspondence of its project manager. This correspondence is found as State of Florida, Department of Transportation's exhibit number three and is correspondence directed to another official within Hobbs Construction. This statement of efforts to obtain minority or DBE participation in the project was along the lines of testimony given in the course of the hearing. No information, related to compliance, was given to the Department of Transportation prior to its notice of intent to reject the bid of July 24, 1984. Having no obligation to request that information from Hobbs, the Department of Transportation did not attempt to stir Hobbs into action on the issue of indication of good faith, prior to its notice of intent to reject Hobbs bid. Hobbs' explanation was eventually advanced ate the final hearing. Factually, even if one were to assume that the Petitioner could submit its prebid letting efforts at good faith compliance with the DBE goals, at a time beyond the filing of its bid proposal, the efforts do not comport with the concept of good faith as described in Subarticle 2-5.3.3 of the bid proposal and Section 14-78.03, (2)(b) 4.b., Florida Administrative Code related to an assessment of the efforts at good faith compliance. In this sense, Hobbs failed to afford sufficient time for DBE subcontractors to provide responses to the opportunity to offer quotations for the subcontracted work. The Subarticle and Rule contemplate seven days notice prior to the bid letting. The contracts made by the Petitioner were less than seven days prior to the letting of June 27, 1984. This left the one subcontractor who expressed some interest in the project, Powell, inadequate time to offer its price quote. Petitioner tries to explain its position on the question of the timeliness of its attempt by stating that it only became qualified five days before the bid letting and was only informed of that qualification one day before th opening. Given the fact that the Petitioner made application for such qualification on June 14, 1984, only thirteen days before the bid letting, its tardiness did not leave adequate time to afford potential DBE subcontractors the opportunity to respond to the work opportunity envisioned in this project. Finally, given the close proximity in time between the efforts of the Petitioner to seek DBE participation and the bid letting date and the problem related to the Petitioner's late expression of an interest in qualification for this class of job, Petitioner cannot be said to have offered much in the way of quality and intensity in the efforts to enlist DBE subcontractors for this project, as envisioned by the Subarticle and Rule provisions describing good faith efforts at compliance.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Kalunian was registered as a real estate broker with FREC holding Certificate Number 0045958. Kalunian's registration with FREC was suspended by FREC in an emergency suspension order dated September 21, 1978. On or about July 18, 1978, Harry and Joan Soden, as buyers, entered into a contract with Warren and Barbara Grund, as sellers, for the sale and purchase of real property. In connection with that sale, the buyers entrusted the sum of $2,000.00 with Kalunian as an escrow money deposit. The closing for this transaction was scheduled for October 1, 1978, and at no time prior to the scheduled closing did the parties to the transaction authorize the disbursement of the escrow money deposit. On or about June 23, 1978, John and Wanda Carlantonio, as buyers, entered into a contract with Ralph and Margarie Steigerwald, as sellers, for the sale and purchase of real property. In connection with that contract, the buyers entrusted the sum of $7,000.00 with Kalunian as an escrow money deposit. The closing for this transaction took place on September 15, 1978. However, at the time of the closing, the $7,000.00 escrow money deposit was not accounted for. At no time prior to the closing did the parties to the transaction authorize a disbursement of the escrow money deposit. On or about July 8, 1978, Diane Maholland, as buyer, entered into a contract with Rita Auletta, as seller, for the sale and purchase of real property. In connection with that contract the buyer entrusted the sum of $9,500.00 with Kalunian as an escrow money deposit. The closing of the transaction took place on September 6, 1978. However, at the time of the closing, the $9,500.00 escrow money deposit was not accounted for. At no time prior to the closing did the oarties to the transaction authorize a disbursement of the escrow money deposit. On July 31, 1978, the balance in Kalunian's escrow account was $501.13. On August 6, 1978, a letter from Kalunian was discovered in Kalunian's office. In that letter, Kalunian admitted that he had converted funds from his trust account for his own use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing stipulated facts and conclusions of law as found above, I recommend that the Defendant be issued a private written reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Randolph, Esquire Randolph & Randolph P. O. Box 1546 209 West Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 33494 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the two Respondents, one individual and one corporation, on the basis of alleged violations set forth in an eight-count1 Administrative Complaint. The Respondents are charged with violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and with multiple violations of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with responsibilities and duties which include the prosecution of Administrative Complaints against licensees under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Hilda H. Bell is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0349586 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker at Sharmic Realty, Inc., at the following address: 8701 Willes Road, Unit 16-308, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc., is now, and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0243150 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the following address: 8701 Willes Road, Unit 16- 308, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. At all times material hereto, Respondent Hilda H. Bell was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker of, and an officer of Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc. On September 27, 1994, Petitioner's Investigator Margaret R. Hoskins audited Respondents' escrow accounts. The audit revealed that the Respondents maintained Property Management Escrow Account Number 00300066617 at Glendale Federal Bank, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A total trust liability for the Respondents' Property Management Escrow Account could not be determined because the Respondents did not have complete and accurate records. On August 11, 1992, the Respondents deposited $20,000.00 into their Property Management Escrow Account for a person who did not have a checking account. On August 11, 1992, the Respondents issued escrow check number 0972 in the amount of $20,000.00. On August 18, 1992, the Respondents loaned Cecil Sailsman $500.00 from the Property Management Escrow Account. On January 12, 1993, the Respondents deposited $22,496.91 in personal funds into the Property Management Escrow Account. The Respondents subsequently disbursed $15,045.00 of the personal funds from the Property Management Escrow Account.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondents are guilty of the violations charged in Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing administrative penalties consisting of the following: An administrative fine against Respondent Hilda H. Bell in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00); A six month suspension of the real estate brokerage license of Respondent Hilda H. Bell; A one year period of probation for the Respondent Hilda H. Bell, to begin immediately following the period of suspension; A requirement that the Respondent Hilda H. Bell complete additional education in the form of a seven hour course in real estate brokerage escrow management during her period of probation; and A reprimand of Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent John A. Neilson is guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent John A. Neilson is guilty of failure to account or deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes. Whether John A. Neilson is guilty of failure to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent John A. Neilson is guilty of failure to notify the Petitioner of an escrow deposit dispute or good faith doubt as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.032, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state 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 20.30, Florida Statutes, 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 broker having been issued license number 0342188 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker-salesperson, percentHenry Gauthier, Jr. t/a/ Brevard Business Brokers, 1325 N. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931. Between January 21, 1992 and April 9, 1993, Respondent John A. Neilson was the qualifying broker of Cocoa Beach Realty. Henry L. Gauthier became Respondent Neilson's employing broker about April 9, 1993. On February 6, 1993, Respondent Neilson solicited and obtained a contract between seller Ila M. Martin and buyers Charles F. and Belle L. Mosser for the purchase of the house at 465 Skylark Boulevard in Satellite Beach, Florida. According to the contract the buyers entrusted Respondent Neilson with a $3,000.00 earnest money deposit. The transaction was scheduled to close on April 7, 1993. A few days prior to closing the buyers discovered that there was a cluster of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) cases in the area of the home as evidenced by newspaper articles. At no time material did Respondent Neilson disclose the cluster problem in the area to Mosser. The buyers told Respondent Neilson that they would not close because of the ALS cluster in the area. They also advised they were not ready to close for other reasons. On April 8, 1993, Respondent Neilson closed his brokerage and disbursed the $3,000.00 to Mr. Gauthier without the consent of the buyers. Respondent Neilson then became a broker salesperson with Mr. Gauthier as qualifying broker. On April 8, 1993, Gauthier disbursed the deposit, half to the seller and half to Respondent Neilson, without the knowledge or consent of the buyers, and without a written release. By letter dated April 17, 1993, the buyers made a demand upon Gauthier for the return of their deposit. At no time did the Respondents deliver the deposit to the buyers or notify the Petitioner of conflicting demands or good faith doubts about the disbursal of funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent John A. Neilson be found guilty of having violated Sections 475.25(1)(d)1,(1)(k), and (1)(e), Florida Statutes as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent John A. Neilson be found not guilty of having violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED that Respondent John A. Neilson be reprimanded and fined $1,500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)9., Florida Statutes. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-15. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. None COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 John A. Neilson Brevard Business Brokers 1325 N. Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Henry L. Gauthier, Jr. Brevard Business Brokers 1325 N. Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent, Antonio Prado, has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license no. 0138312. Respondent, Antonio Prado, is the President and qualifying broker for a real estate company called Bayside International Realty, Inc. Respondent, Bayside International Realty, Inc., has been issued real estate license no. 1001760. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. On January 13, 1995, an investigator employed by the Department conducted an office inspection and audit of the Respondents' place of business. During the course of the audit, the investigator discovered that the escrow account for the business contained $1,000.00. None of the $1,000.00 was, in fact, "trust funds" owed or belonging to a third party as Respondents have not held "trust funds" since August, 1990. The investigator advised Respondent that he was not allowed to hold personal funds in excess of $200.00 in the company escrow account. Based upon that information, Respondent immediately, on January 13, 1995, removed $800.00 from the escrow account leaving a balance of $200.00. The purpose of holding $1,000.00 in the account related to a Barnett Bank policy which required the minimum balance of $1,000.00 to avoid service charges on the account. Respondent, Antonio Prado, has not been active in the real estate practice for several years and was unaware of changes to the escrow policy dating back to December, 1991, which prohibit more than $200.00 of personal funds in an escrow account. Respondent, Antonio Prado, has been licensed for 19 years and has never been disciplined for any violations of the real estate law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order determining the Respondent, Antonio Prado, committed only a minor technical violation of Section 425.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and, in recognition of Respondent's exemplary record as a broker, which, along with his willing, immediate action to correct the error, demonstrates sound judgment, issue a letter of reprimand and guidance regarding escrow account rules and regulations. All other allegations against these Respondents should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0038 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are rejected as statements of fact as they are restatement of argument or comment made at the hearing. Paragraphs 3 through 6 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Theodore R. Gay Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Rhode Building Phase II 401 Northwest Second Avenue N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Antonio Prado, pro se and as President of Bayside International Realty, Inc. 1390 Brickell Avenue, Suite 230 Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact On December 30, 1993, the Department received an application to organize a proposed new trust company to be located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and to be called Columbus Trust Company (Columbus). Four individuals to be associated with Columbus are foreign nationals: Arturo Vinueza and Mario Yepes are proposed board of directors members; and Catalina Landes and Pedro Ycaza are major stockholders of Columbus. All other directors and stockholders of Columbus are citizens of the United States. They are: Charles C. Hardwick, III, Michael Hollihan, and Timothy S. Reed. All of the individuals listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 attended the public hearing. Mr. Vinueza is the proposed chief executive officer for Columbus. He is a graduate of the University of Miami and has more than thirteen years of banking and trust experience. Mr. Vinueza has served as manager or managing director of Citibank, N.A., Quito, Ecuador; Banco Popular International, Nassau; The Jersey Private Bank and Trust, Nassau; and Banco Popular del Ecuador, Miami Agency. Charles C. Hardwick, III, a proposed director, is a graduate of the University of Colorado, College of Law. He has more than twelve years of experience in international finance. Timothy S. Reed, a proposed director, is a graduate of Dartmouth College, and is a career banker, having retired from Citibank, N.A., New York, after more than thirty years of continuous service. He has served as general manager of Banco Popular del Ecuador, Miami Agency, for the past three years. Michael Hollihan, a proposed director who will serve as chief investment officer, has a degree in economics from the University of Wisconsin. He has completed graduate course work in economics at the University of South Carolina, and has been engaged in the business of international trade, finance and investments for more than twenty years. Mr. Hollihan was previously employed by Banco Central del Ecuador. For the past four years he has served as President of JPBT Advisors, Inc. in Miami. Mario Yepes, a proposed director, also has a degree in economics and was a teacher at the university of Colombia. He worked for a number of years for Bank of America, both in Miami and in Venezuela. Catalina Echevaria Landes, a major stockholder, is a business woman and interior designer. She has her own business located in Miami. Pedro Ycaza, a major stockholder, has a degree in business from a university in Ecuador. He worked for various banks in Ecuador for a number of years before joining Banco Popular in 1986. The Applicants seek to organize Columbus to provide trust services and investment management services to individuals having business or personal interests in the Miami area, and to JPBT Advisors, Inc. JPBT Advisors, Inc. advises certain mutual funds specializing in international investments. The Applicants propose to expand such services gradually to include private banking and investment management services to international investors residing or doing business in Miami and Dade County, Florida. The existing business of JPBT Advisors, Inc., which has annual revenues of approximately $3 million, will contribute to the income of Columbus during its initial period of operations as the bank develops its personal trust and investment management business. The proposed board of directors consists of individuals having many years of banking and business experience in the areas of international finance and asset management. Both Mr. Vinueza, the proposed chief executive officer, and Mr. Reed, a proposed outside director, have had direct experience as officers of financial institutions within the past three years and are presently employed in such capacities. The initial capital for Columbus will be $2 million. The initial capitalization of Columbus is adequate in relation to is proposed business activities. The corporate name of Columbus is reserved with the Department of State. Columbus will have suitable quarters in the Barnett Bank building located at 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami. Columbus' application was prepared by Richard Hunt, a financial consultant, who has been engaged in the business of providing such consulting services to organizing financial institutions for more than 25 years. The economic study and demographic analysis of the market for fiduciary services in Dade County, prepared by Mr. Hunt, concluded that the organization of Columbus will serve the convenience and advantage of its expected clients. The local conditions in Miami are favorable to Columbus' business plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. 94-6306 All proposed findings of fact were submitted by stipulation of the Department and Columbus. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol-Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Rod Jones Shutts and Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801 Albert T. Gimbel Chief Banking Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Jeffrey D. Jones Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DIVISION OF BANKING IN RE: Application for Authority to Organize a State Chartered Trust Administrative Proceeding Company to be located at Number: 3328-B-11/94 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, DOAH Case Number: 94-6306 Dade County, Florida (Columbus Trust Company) / FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER Having considered the facts and information contained in the application for authority to organize and operate Columbus Trust Company (Applicant), 1 have determined that the Applicant has met all six (6) statutory criteria set forth in Section 658.21, Florida Statutes, or can meet those criteria by complying with specific conditions. Accordingly, the application is approved, subject to the conditions specified herein.
