The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida holding license number 0005609. She is 72 years of age. The money she earns as a real estate broker helps to supplement her retirement income. In the almost 40 years that she has been broker, the only complaint that has been made against her in connection with the practice of her profession is the complaint that is the subject of the instant case. Peter Rettig is a longtime acquaintance of Respondent's. He too is a Florida real estate broker. Rettig is the operating and qualifying broker for La Costa Real Estate, Inc. In September of 1993, as a favor to Rettig, Respondent agreed to act, without compensation, as Rettig's escrow agent. Thereafter, Rettig deposited trust funds received from his buyer/clients in the "Mary A. Belotto Escrow Account" (account number 3431110272) that Respondent had established at Barnett Bank. On various occasions from September of 1993, to July of 1994, Respondent, unthinkingly, appropriated a portion of these funds for her own personal use, but acted swiftly to replace the appropriated funds with her own personal funds. As a result, no one was actually harmed by her actions. During this period of time, Respondent was suffering from severe emotional distress and a resulting inability to think clearly due to the death of her husband and the subsequent death of a close friend who had provided her with needed assistance and support following her husband's death. On January 18, 1995, Edward Gruskin, an investigator with the Department, conducted an office inspection/audit of La Costa Real Estate, Inc. and the "Mary A. Belotto Escrow Account." The inspection/audit revealed that Respondent had engaged in the conduct previously described in Finding of Fact 11 of this Recommended Order and that, in addition, she had failed to prepare and sign monthly reconciliation statements for her escrow account. Respondent now realizes that she erred in engaging in such conduct and in failing to prepare and sign these reports. She has apologized for making these errors and has promised, with apparent sincerity, not to repeat them in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and fining her $250.00, issuing her a reprimand, and placing her on probation for a period of three years for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of September, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties in their proposed recommended orders: The Department's Proposed Findings 1-2. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 3. Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 4-5. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for 5c. and 5d., which have not been incorporated in this Recommended Order because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Respondent's Proposed Findings First unnumbered paragraph: To the extent that this proposed finding states that Respondent is 72 years of age and has been a real estate broker in the State of Florida for almost 40 years, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Fourth and fifth unnumbered paragraphs: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. Seventh unnumbered paragraph- First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mary A. Belotto 1571 Southeast 23rd Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Lee H. Davis, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued against him on August 16, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, regulating the practice of persons holding real estate brokers' and real estate salespersons' licenses in Florida. Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Lee H. Davis, is and was at all times relevant to this matter licensed as a real estate broker in Florida, issued License Number 0186063. The last license issued was as an involuntary inactive broker, c/o 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204, Naples, Florida 34104. On or about August 24, 1995, Respondent executed a form 400.5 and submitted it to the Division to register as a salesperson with Sentry Realty and Property Management, Inc. ("Sentry"). At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was registered with the Division as employed by Sentry. On or about September 7, 1995, Respondent facilitated a contract for sale and purchase (the "contract") between Robert Trindle as buyer and John Petracelli as seller/builder for property described as Hallandale Park, Plat Book 12, Page 37, Block 37, Lots 6,7,8, a/k/a approximately 2801 North East 214 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. Mr. Trindle testified that he intended to purchase a townhouse to be built by Mr. Petracelli as part of a project to include 40 to 50 townhouses. The contract provided that a $3,900 deposit was to be held by "Lee H. Davis Escrow Agent." Mr. Trindle gave Respondent two checks totaling $3,900, as the earnest money deposit on the purchase price of $130,000. The first check, dated October 9, 1995, was for $1,000. The second check, dated November 3, 1995, was for $2,900. The checks were made out to "Lee H. Davis-- Escrow." Also noted on the checks was "Davena Group Inc.," which Mr. Trindle understood to be Respondent's real estate company. Each check was negotiated by Respondent within a week of its receipt. At the time of this transaction, Respondent's registered broker was John Brouillette of Sentry. Respondent did not place the escrow deposit with Mr. Brouillette, who testified that he knew nothing of the transaction at the time it occurred and never saw the contract. Respondent represented to Mr. Trindle that he would maintain the escrow deposit as broker during this transaction. Mr. Trindle did not give Respondent permission to transfer the escrow deposit to the builder/seller, Mr. Petracelli. Correspondence from Respondent indicated that he did turn the escrow deposit over to Mr. Petracelli, without informing Mr. Trindle. Mr. Petracelli never built the promised townhouses. Rather, he left the country, absconding with Mr. Trindle's escrow deposit along with monies provided by other purchasers and/or investors in the project. Mr. Trindle attempted to contact Respondent regarding the status of his escrow deposit, but was unable to reach him prior to the filing of his complaint with the Division. As of the date of the hearing, the earnest money deposit had not been returned to Mr. Trindle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner finding that Respondent has violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent, and that Respondent's real estate license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Lee H. Davis 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204 Naples, Florida 34104 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute violations of the statutes and rules regulating the practice of real estate in the State of Florida. Respondent, Benjamin C. Rolfe, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0318091 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mr. Rolfe was as a broker with Squires Realty of the Palm Beaches, Inc., 721 U.S. 1, #217, North Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent, Duane C. Heiser, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0038233 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mr. Heiser was as a broker effective February 8, 1991, at Duane C. Heiser Realty Co., 1312 Commerce Lane A1, Jupiter, Florida. On or about December 12, 1998, a Final Order was issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission and received by Mr. Heiser whereby his real estate broker's license was suspended for two (2) years from January 12, 1989, through January 10, 1991. During the month of October 1989, Mr. Heiser violated the lawful suspension order of the Commission by personally delivering rental checks to and ordering the disbursement of escrow funds from the Property Management-Operating Account, which is an escrow account, of Squire's Realty Company of the Palm Beaches, Inc. Between March 22 and March 26, 1990, the escrow account records of Mr. Rolfe, who was the qualifying broker for Squire's Realty of the Palm Beaches, Inc., were audited by Petitioner's authorized representatives. The Escrow/Trust Account Audit revealed that Respondent Rolfe failed to properly document and reconcile the Property Management-Operating Account, which is an escrow account. Mr. Rolfe was responsible for this account. Mr. Rolfe was negligent regarding the management of this escrow account by allowing a suspended licensee, Mr. Heiser, access to this account. Mr. Rolfe and Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate penalty for Mr. Rolfe's violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, would be the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 and the placement of his licensure on probation for a period of one year. They further stipulated that the administrative fine was to be paid within thirty days of the filing of the final order. They also stipulated that during his term of probation Mr. Rolfe would be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education with thirty of those sixty hours being the thirty hour management course for brokers. They further stipulated that Mr. Rolfe would be required to provide to Petitioner satisfactory evidence of his completion of those sixty hours of continuing education and that those sixty hours of continuing education are to be in addition to any other continuing education required of Mr. Rolfe to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Mr. Heiser and Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate penalty for Mr. Heiser's violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, would be the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 and the placement of his licensure on probation for a period of one year. They further stipulated that the administrative fine was to be paid within thirty days of the filing of the final order. They also stipulated that during his term of probation, Mr. Heiser would be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education with thirty of those sixty hours being the thirty hour management course for brokers. They further stipulated that Mr. Heiser would be required to provide to Petitioner satisfactory evidence of his completion of those sixty hours of continuing education and that those sixty hours of continuing education are to be in addition to any other continuing education required of Mr. Heiser to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which: Dismisses Counts I, III, and V of the Administrative Complaint; Finds Mr. Heiser guilty of having violated a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 upon Mr. Heiser and place his licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is also recommended that the conditions of probation require that Respondent Heiser pay the said administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the final order and that he be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education during his term of probation. It is further recommended that as part of the sixty hours of continuing education, Mr. Heiser be required to successfully complete the thirty hour management course for brokers, that he be required to provide satisfactory evidence of completion of such continuing education to Petitioner, and that these sixty hours of continuing education be in addition to any other continuing education required of Respondent Heiser to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Finds Mr. Rolfe guilty of culpable negligience in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 upon Mr. Rolfe and place his licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is also recommended that the conditions of probation require that Respondent Rolfe pay the said administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the final order and that he be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education during his term of probation. It is further recommended that as part of the sixty hours of continuing education, Mr. Rolfe be required to successfully complete the thirty hour management course for brokers, that he be required to provide satisfactory evidence of completion of such continuing education to Petitioner, and that these sixty hours of continuing education be in addition to any other continuing education required of Respondent Rolfe to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of December, 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 30th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Garfied & Associates, P.A. World Executive Building Suite 333 3500 North State Road 7 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, James P. Hudson, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: At all pertinent times, Respondent, James P. Hudson, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0148841 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been operating as a broker from an office at 413 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435. Respondent maintains an escrow account No. 018200602689 at Sun Bank in Boynton Beach, Florida into which he deposits trusts funds received in his capacity as a real estate broker. Sometime in the early part of September 1989, Petitioner initiated a random audit of Respondent's business. Prior to the audit, Petitioner's investigator advised the Respondent that he would need to produce all the records related to his escrow account. An investigator for Petitioner visited Respondent's office on or about September 18, 1989 to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow accounts. Based upon the investigator's review of the records, five different transactions were identified as allegedly involving delays or mishandling of escrow funds by Respondent. Those transactions are the basis for several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Each transaction is addressed separately below. The first transaction involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Fitz as buyer and Kerstin as seller (the "Fitz Contract"). Included in Respondent's files on this transaction was a copy of a contract for sale and purchase that was dated and signed by the buyer on September 6, 1989 and dated and signed by the seller on September 9, 1989. The buyer in the Fitz Contract gave Respondent a check for $1000 as a deposit to be held in escrow in connection with the transaction. The Respondent's written receipt for that check is dated September 7, 1989. The evidence established that this initial deposit check was delivered to Respondent on Thursday evening, September 7, 1989. Respondent was out of town on Friday, September 8 and returned on Monday evening, September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as a deposit on September 13. The sellers (the Kerstins) signed the contract on September 9, 1989. However, in executing the contract, they crossed out the $900,000 sales price submitted by the buyer and increased the price to $1,400,000. In other words, the sellers made a counteroffer with respect to this contract. The initial deposit was timely returned to the sellers when the counteroffer was rejected. Petitioner's investigator erroneously assumed that Respondent did not timely collect the additional deposit required under this contract. While Petitioner's investigator considered this signed contract in Respondent's files to be a binding agreement on the parties, it is clear that the change in sales price was only initialed by the sellers and, therefore, there was no enforceable agreement. The parties to the Fitz Contract subsequently executed another written contract. This second agreement provided for a sales price of $1,100,000. That contract was executed by the buyer on September 20, 1989 and by the sellers on September 24, 1989. This second contract called for a $49,000.00 deposit upon acceptance. The buyers gave Respondent a check dated September 25, 1989 in the amount of $49,000.00. That check was deposited by Respondent in his escrow account on the afternoon of September 26, 1989. The $49,000 deposit is reflected in the bank records as being deposited on September 27, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay by Respondent in collecting or depositing the funds into escrow. The second transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Campanis as buyer and Hoffman as seller. The buyer in this transaction gave Respondent a check dated September 6, 1990 to be held as a deposit for this contract. A photocopy of the check presented to Petitioner's investigator included a handwritten note that states "hold until Friday 9/8/89." The evidence did not establish who wrote this note. The evidence established that the check was received by one of Respondent's sales associates on September 7 and left on the Respondent's desk on September 8. Respondent is the only company employee authorized to deposit checks or otherwise handle transactions involving the escrow account. As indicated above, Respondent was out of town from September 8 through the evening of September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as being credited to the escrow account on September 13. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was not delinquent in depositing these funds. The third transaction involved a contract for the purchase and sale of real property between White as buyer and Adkins as seller (the "White Contract.") The White Contract was executed by the buyer on July 26, 1989 and by one of the sellers on July 27 and by the other seller on Friday, July 28. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500.00 with an additional deposit of $1,700 upon acceptance. The initial deposit check was dated July 26, 1989. That deposit check was attached to the contract executed by the purchaser and presented to a cooperating real estate agent who was to present the proposed contract to the seller. The executed contract was not returned to Respondent until sometime during the weekend of July 29 and 30. The initial deposit check along with the additional deposit were then deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, July 31, 1989. Under the circumstances, the evidence established that there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The next transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for sale and purchase of real property between Milera as buyer and Twillie as seller (the "Milera Contract.") The Milera Contract provided for an additional deposit due upon acceptance. The contract was accepted by Twillie on August 23, 1989. The parties to the contract agreed that the time for making the additional deposit would be extended for two days. The check for the additional deposit was dated and received by Respondent on Friday, August 25, 1989. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Tuesday, August 29, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The final transaction involved a contract with the sale and purchase of real property between Gerrety as buyer and the estate of John Walsh as seller (the "Gerrety Contract.") The Gerrety Contract was executed by the purchaser on August 10, 1989. The deposit check was given to one of the Respondent's associates on that Thursday evening. The deposit check was not delivered to Respondent until after business hours on Friday, August 11. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, August 14. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money on this transaction. During the audit, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent was holding deposits on two separate rental properties in his escrow account. At the time of the audit, Petitioner's investigator was not provided with any leases or other documentation regarding these transactions even though Respondent was supposed to produce records for all sums in the escrow account. Respondent contends that he did not realize he was supposed to produce his rental files, was never specifically asked to produce these files and did not know that Petitioner was questioning these transactions until he received the Administrative Complaint in this action. While there was apparently some miscommunication at the time of the audit, adequate documentation for these rental deposits was produced at the hearing. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not maintain adequate documentation regarding these deposits is without merit. Petitioner has also charged that Respondent did not produce all of the deposit slips in connection with the escrow account and did not produce any evidence of reconciliation of the escrow account. The evidence at the hearing established that all deposit slips are available even though they were not all kept with the bank statements. Moreover, the evidence failed to substantiate the allegation that Respondent did not reconcile his escrow account. Thus, these charges were not substantiated. At the time of the audit, Respondent advised Petitioner's investigator that the escrow account included some commission money that had not yet been removed. In the past, Respondent would sometimes collect his commissions at the close of a transaction from the funds held in escrow. (Respondent no longer collects commissions in this manner.) In auditing Respondent's escrow account, Petitioner's investigator determined that there was an overage of approximately $8,178.17 in the account. Within thirty days of the completion of the audit, Respondent removed $7,500 of the overage which represented his commission on two previously closed transactions. While Respondent believed that the remaining amount of the overage was also his commission money, he refrained from removing any more money until completion of a year-end audit by his accountant. Respondent's records reflected a slight difference in the amount of the overage than the amount calculated by Petitioner during the audit. Respondent wanted to be absolutely certain that only the proper amount was removed from the escrow account. At the conclusion of the audit on September 18, 1989, Respondent signed an office inspection report form prepared by Petitioner which contained the following pre-printed statement: ...I certify that to the best of my knowledge all records pertaining to my sales escrow/trust account(s) and my rental property management account(s) have been provided to the investigator. The above violations are brought to my attention this date and thoroughly explained. I will take corrective action within thirty days and furnish photo/sketches of corrections and documents on the same... There is some confusion as to what additional documentation Respondent was expected to provide following the completion of the September, 1989 audit. Respondent did not believe he was required to provide any additional evidence to Petitioner or its investigator and no further documentation was provided by Respondent until Petitioner's investigator returned to his office in January of 1990. Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's office on January 17, 1990. At that time, $7500.00 of the overage had been removed from the escrow account. The remaining amount of the overage was removed later in January. It does not appear that Respondent provided Petitioner's investigator with copies of the rental agreements or the second contract in the Kerstin transaction during the January visit by Petitioner's investigator. Respondent contends that this information was never specifically requested. It is clear that communication between Respondent and Petitioner's investigator had deteriorated from bad to worse by the time of this January visit. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted new record keeping requirements regarding escrow accounts in July of 1989. The new rules require a written monthly reconciliation of a broker's escrow account. At the time of the audit, Respondent was not keeping the minimum written statement comparing broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance of all trust accounts as required by the new rules. Even after the audit in September, Respondent did not keep the written reconciliations in the format required by the new rules. Respondent was reconciling the account on his computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts III and IV and reprimanding him for minor and techinical violations of those counts and imposing a fine of $100.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3589 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in pertinenet part in Findings of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 15. Subordinate 23. to Findings of Fact 8, 9 and Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. This subject is also addressed in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Rejected as not established by competent susbstantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findigns of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed to some degree in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not numbered. The numbers below refer to the numerical sections contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6-9. The second two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in some degree in Findings of Fact 21. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentencess are subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The next two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentence are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The second sentence is rejected as vague. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 and 25. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18, 19 and 22. The fourth sentence is rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. This subject matter is addressed in part in Findings of Fact 19. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James P. Hudson 413 South Federal Highway Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether S. Dudley Carson, the Respondent (1) failed to comply with a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission; (2) deposited or intermingled personal or operating funds in the broker's trust account; (3) concealed a violation during the course of an investigation; (4) improperly disbursed funds from the broker's trust account; (5) engaged in fraudulent or dishonest dealing in a business transaction; and (6) is guilty of a course of conduct to the extent that he is not trustworthy. If yes, to one or more of the foregoing, what penalty should be imposed.
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, Chapters 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 61J-2, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, S. Dudley Carson, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in Florida having been issued license number 3001085 and 3004369 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On or about April 19, 1994, the Commission entered a Final Order against Respondent whereby Respondent's real estate license was placed on probation for one year. Furthermore, the Final Order required Respondent to complete a 30-hour broker management course within one year of the filing of the Final Order. The Final Order was filed on May 6, 1994, and provided in pertinent part: The licensee shall enroll in and satisfactorily complete a 30-hour broker management course within one (1) year of the filing date of this Order. These course hours are in addition to any other education required to maintain a valid and current license. Failure to complete all conditions of probation may result in a new complaint being filed. This Order shall be effective 30 days from date of filing with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. (emphasis supplied) In accordance with the provisions of the Final Order, Respondent had until May 6, 1995, in which to satisfactorily complete a 30-hour broker management course. When Respondent read the Final Order, he mistakenly believed that he had one year from the effective date of the Final Order rather than one year from the filing date of the Final Order to complete the required course. Respondent initially registered for a 30-hour management course to be offered in March 1995, but was unable to take the course due to a business conflict. At that time, Respondent did not realize that the next 30-hour course would not be offered until June 1995. In May 1995, Respondent registered for the next available course that was offered in June 1995. After registering for the June course, but prior to taking it, Respondent received a letter from Petitioner requesting that Respondent provide proof of having completed the required 30-hour course. Thereafter, Respondent immediately contacted Petitioner by telephone inquiring to how he could request an extension. Based on information obtained by telephone from Petitioner's staff, by letter dated May 18, 1995, Respondent requested an extension of time to complete the course. On May 23, 1995, Petitioner placed Respondent's request for an extension of time to comply with the educational requirement on the Commission's June 20, 1995, agenda for consideration. Thereafter, Petitioner advised Respondent's attorney, Steven Voigt, that the matter had been tabled and no formal action was taken by the Commission. Respondent completed the 30-hour broker management course on June 30, 1995, and on that same day so advised Petitioner by letter. Respondent had no further contact from Petitioner regarding his request for an extension until eleven months after the request was made and almost ten months after the Commission tabled the matter. That communication was by Administrative Complaint I that Petitioner filed against Respondent on April 21, 1996. As to the Administrative Complaint II, Respondent was licensed at all times material herein as a real estate broker for Crescent Management, Inc., and for RE/MAX on the Key. The broker is the person ultimately responsible for properly maintaining and reconciling all escrow and trust accounts. Further, the broker is charged with knowledge of and compliance with applicable laws and rules relative to trust accounts. Petitioner interprets governing regulations to preclude a broker from keeping retained earnings or commissions in an escrow account, and to remove such earnings or commissions when they accrue, but never less than at least once a month. Moreover, Petitioner interprets certain relevant provisions as prohibiting real estate brokers from maintaining "personal funds" in their escrow or trust account to pay personal or office expenses. Where an escrow or trust account has a deficit, if everyone who had funds in that account made a demand for the same, there would be insufficient funds to satisfy all claims. At all times material hereto, Respondent maintained account number 1622184907 at Barnett Bank in the name of Crescent Management, Inc. (Crescent Management Account). Rental security deposits and owners' funds were kept in the Crescent Management Account. The checks drawn on this account were styled "operating escrow." Stephanie Aucoin was employed by Respondent as an officer manager for Respondent from August 1992 through April or May 1995. While employed as the officer manager and in regard to Crescent Management, Ms. Aucoin's duties included determining which bills and expenses were to be paid and to whom and the amount to be paid. Ms. Aucoin was also responsible for preparing checks via computer and presenting the checks to Respondent for his review and signing. Respondent trusted Stephanie Aucoin and relied upon her to properly prepare the checks. The following checks drawn on the Crescent Management Account between January 1994 and February 1995 are the subject of the instant case: Check No. 5458 dated January 3, 1994, made payable in the amount of $246.40 to Pelican Press; Check No. 5460 dated January 3, 1994, made payable in the amount of $74.67 to Prestige Printing; Check No. 5347 dated January 21, 1994, made payable in the amount of $11,100.91 to RE/MAX on the Key; Check No. 5391 dated February 2, 1994, made payable in the amount of $82.00 to the Division of Real Estate; Check No. 6439 dated July 25, 1994, made payable in the amount of $237.83 to Sarasota Board of Realtors; Check No. 7388 dated December 31, 1994, made payable in the amount of $19,700.11 to RE/MAX on the Key; and Check No. 7005 dated February 16, 1995, made payable in the amount of $4,119.29 to American Express. Respondent signed and authorized five of the seven checks noted in the above paragraph. The checks signed by Respondent were Check Nos. 5458, 5460, 5347, 5391, and 6439. It is undisputed that Check No. 7388 dated December 31, 1994, made payable in the amount of $19,700.11 to RE/MAX on the Key, contained Respondent's forged signature and that Stephanie Aucoin had forged Respondent's signature. Contrary to Ms. Aucoin's testimony, Respondent did not request or authorize Ms. Aucoin to issue the check or sign his name to the check. Respondent had not seen this check prior to Petitioner's Investigator Hayes showing him a copy of the check during the May 1996 audit. The last check in question is Check No. 7005 dated February 16, 1995, made payable in the amount of $4,119.29 to American Express. Although she was not an authorized signatory on the Crescent Management Account, Stephanie Aucoin signed her own name on this check. Respondent never authorized or directed Ms. Aucoin to pay his American Express bill using the Crescent Management Account. Stephanie Aucoin's testimony lacks credibility. After Ms. Aucoin's employment was terminated, she filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The claim was denied by the appeals referee by decision dated August 17, 1995, finding that she "had been signing checks without the owner's permission and had forged the owner's signatures on some of the checks . . . claimant was using company funds to pay her personal bills." On May 16, 1996, Stephanie Aucoin made the following statement in her sworn Petition For Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence filed against the Respondent: "Dudley Carson is under investigation for commingling of funds (escrow) and tax fraud . . . the chief investigator (Marie Hayes) had informed me that these charges are of a valid nature and that I could possibly be in danger by Mr. Carson." The statement of Ms. Aucoin is false in that Marie Hayes never made such a statement to Stephanie Aucoin. During the course of Stephanie Aucoin's employment as officer manager for Respondent, Ms. Aucoin and Respondent developed a romantic relationship, beginning in November 1993. The personal relationship was an intermittent one, with Respondent terminating the relationship with Ms. Aucoin three different times, first in late February 1994, next in late November 1994, and finally in early March 1995. Eventually, Respondent believed that Ms. Aucoin had been diverting business funds for her personal use. Based on this belief, Respondent fired Ms. Aucoin on or about April 28, 1995. Soon after he fired Stephanie Aucoin, Respondent employed Chip Harris to review the Crescent Management escrow records and bank statements. The records were in poor order, and it was determined that there was a shortage of escrow funds in the bank account. As soon as practicable, Respondent deposited personal funds into the Crescent Management Account to cover the shortage: $25,000 on July 10, 1995, and $20,063.09 on July 13, 1995. Respondent has made no claim to the $45,063.09 that he deposited into the Crescent Management Account for the benefit and protection of those persons entitled to the trust funds. The proper course of action to be taken by a broker upon discovery a shortage in an escrow account is to replace the missing funds as soon as possible. On July 25, 1995, Petitioner audited Respondent's escrow account's maintained by Respondent for Carson and Associates Ltd., Inc., t/a RE/MAX on the Key and Crescent Management, Inc. Petitioner found that all accounts were in good order and balanced. The two deposits of $25,000 and $20,063.09 had been made into the Crescent Management Account on July 10, 1995, and July 13, 1995, respectively, and prior to the July 25, 1995, audit. Nevertheless, the investigator did not question Respondent about the deposits nor did Respondent volunteer information concerning the deposits. On May 10, 1996, Petitioner completed an audit of the escrow accounts maintained by Respondent for Carson and Associates Ltd., Inc., t/a RE/MAX on the Key and found that all accounts balanced. On May 15, 1996, Petitioner completed an audit of the escrow account maintained by Respondent for Crescent Management, Inc., and found the account to be in good order and balanced. During the time period pertinent to this proceeding, Crescent Management, Inc. earned a 15 percent rental management fee on all rental funds collected. The Crescent Management Account was labeled as an "operating escrow account" and the source of all funds in this account consisted of rent payments by tenants. Of the rents deposited into the account, 15 percent belonged to Respondent as an earned rental management fee and the balance belonged to the owners after deducting payment of the owners' expenses. As each check from the Crescent Management Account was issued, either the "Owners'" account was charged or the "Fee, Property" account was charged. The "Fee, Property" account consisted solely of the funds generated by the 15 percent management fees. Each month, the accounts were reconciled and if there was a shortage or overage of funds, corrective action was taken. The accounting procedure implemented by Respondent and described in paragraph 30 above utilized real estate property management software program, RPM. This program had been recommended to Respondent by one of Petitioner's investigators in 1993. Under this system, one account is set up on computer and all transfers are made internally. Respondent is no longer using this accounting method, but now uses Quick Books, a recognized bookkeeping system, without any apparent problems. In regard to the checks noted in paragraph 16 above, Petitioner alleges that these seven checks were "unauthorized disbursements" in that Respondent used the escrow account to directly pay personal and office overhead and related expenses. However, Petitioner acknowledged that if earned fees in the escrow account were used for third party payments, there is no misappropriation. Furthermore, Petitioner's investigator supervisor testified that where there is no shortage of the escrow funds, the practice implemented by Respondent is just "very poor bookkeeping." In January 1994, the following checks referenced above were issued: Check No. 5458 for $246.40 to Pelican Press, Check No. 5460 for $74.67 to Prestige Printing and Check No. 5347 for $11,108.91 to RE/MAX on the Key. All three of these checks are listed on the January 1994 Trust Account Reconciliation form prepared on February 8, 1994, and signed by Respondent. At the end of January 1994, there was an overage of $1,532.09, representing "Management Fees." The corrective action taken was to remove the $1,532.89 overage and put it in the operating account. Thus, the funds used for payment of these checks were not trust funds, but fees earned by Respondent and to which he was entitled. Check No. 5391 dated February 2, 1994, for $82.00 was payable to the Division of Real Estate for payment of renewal fees. The check cleared the Crescent Management Account on February 18, 1994. The bank statement for February reflects that on February 1, 1994, the account had a beginning balance of $52,109.45, eighteen deposits and credits totaling $95,676.64, and 135 checks and debits totaling $71,799.87. At the end of the statement period, on February 28, 1994, the Crescent Management Account had a balance of $75,986.22. The funds used to pay the $82.00 check when it cleared the bank came from the "Fee, Property" split of the operating account and represented funds generated from the broker's 15 percent rental commission fee. Accordingly, trust funds were not used in regard to payment of this check. Check No. 6439 dated July 25, 1994, for $237.83 and payable to the Sarasota Board of Realtors cleared the Crescent Management Account on August 2, 1994. The bank statement for the period August 1, 1994, through August 31, 1994, reflects that the account had a beginning balance of $45,409.21, 15 deposits totaling $50,287.19; 102 checks and debits totaling $37,184.09; and an ending balance of $58,512.31. The funds used to pay the $237.83 check came from the "Fee, Property" split of the operating account and represented funds generated by the broker's 15 percent rental commission. Trust funds were not used to pay this check. Check No. 7388 dated December 31, 1994, for $19,700.11 payable to RE/MAX on the Key for overhead expenses cleared the Crescent Management Account on January 31, 1995, with funds from the "Fee, Property" split of the operating account with funds generated by the broker's 15 percent rental commission. The bank statement for the period ending January 31, 1995, reflects a beginning balance of $177,991.84; 15 deposits totaling $137,308.35; and 111 checks and debits totaling $116,469.67, resulting in an ending balance of $197,830.52. Trust funds were not used to pay this check. This check appears on the Trust Account Reconciliation form for the month of January 1995, performed on February 9, 1995, and signed by Respondent on that date. According to the Reconciliation Statement, there was a shortage in the trust account of $961.97, resulting from an overpayment to a customer. The amount of the shortage is the difference between the broker's trust liability of $179,159.46 and the adjusted account balance of $178,197.49. The Reconciliation statement further noted under "corrective action taken" that the "customer will reimburse." Check No. 7005 dated February 16, 1995, for $4,119.29, payable to American Express appears on the Trust Reconciliation Statement for the period ending February 28, 1995, performed on March 10, 1995, and signed by Respondent. The Reconciliation Statement shows that the account was in balance with no overages or shortages. The monthly bank statements for the period ending February 28, 1995, reflects a beginning balance of $197,830.52; 13 deposits of $95,753.08; 115 checks and debits totaling $75,951.56, with an ending balance of $217,632.40. The check cleared the Crescent Management Account on February 17, 1995, with funds from the "Fee, Property" split of the operating account with funds generated by the broker's 15 percent rental commission. Trust funds were not used to pay this check. Respondent has been disciplined on two prior occasions. In Case Nos. 92-83432 and 92-84338, Petitioner entered a Final Order on July 20, 1993, which adopted a Stipulation between Respondent and Petitioner. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations, but was reprimanded, fined $300, and required to take a 30-hour broker management course. The underlying administrative complaint in this matter, based on an August 7, 1992, audit by Petitioner, alleged that (1) Respondent's escrow account was not properly reconciled and had an overage of approximately $661.50; (2) Respondent failed to inform clients that a certain escrow account was an interest bearing account; and (3) Respondent's required office sign was incorrect in that letters were not all at least an inch in height and the words "Lic. Real Estate Broker" were not included. On May 6, 1994, a second Final Order was entered against Respondent in FDBPR Case Nos. 93-84352 and 93-5419. This Final Order required Respondent to pay a fine of $300 and placed Respondent on probation for a year. The administrative complaint which served as the basis for the final order was filed on January 25, 1994, and was based on a September 20, 1993, audit and investigation performed by Petitioner at Respondent's request. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent had failed to properly reconcile his rental escrow accounts for July and August 1993 and had a total escrow shortage of $842.31. The September 20, 1993, audit was performed at the request of Respondent. During May of 1993, the Respondent had concerns as to the proper handling of the rental property management escrow account by his bookkeeper. As a result of these concerns, Respondent contacted Petitioner and requested that Petitioner conduct an audit. In response to Petitioner's request, Petitioner conducted an audit on September 20,1993, which revealed a shortage in the escrow account of $842.31. It was determined that this was due to errors by the bookkeeper. Therefore, the bookkeeper immediately replaced the escrow account funds. The Respondent then terminated the bookkeeper's employment. Nonetheless, the Petitioner filed an eight-count Administrative Complaint on January 20, 1994, against the Respondent charging escrow violations. The Respondent admitted the facts alleged in the January 20, 1994, Administrative Complaint and requested an informal hearing. The Commission heard the matter on April 19, 1994, and a Final Order was filed on May 6, 1994, providing for a reprimand, a $300 fine and completion of a 30-hour broker management course. The Respondent paid the fine and timely completed the course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(e) Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed on April 21, 1996, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. RECOMMENDED that all counts of the Administrative Complaint issued September 23, 1996, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Wilsen, Esquire Gillis and Wilsen, P.A. 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations of misconduct in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Deering, was licensed as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0563366. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Advantage, was licensed as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273342. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Deering, was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for Respondent, Advantage. On October 22, 1992, Petitioner conducted an office inspection and audit of Advantage. The audit reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's security deposit escrow account (Number 027000122700) in the amount of $580.00, calculated as $6,600.00 in total trust liability, but only $6,020.00 as a reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's rental distribution escrow account (Number 27000121900) in the amount of $369.40, calculated as $3,174.82 in total trust liability, but only $2,805.42 as reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected that Deering, as the qualifying broker, failed to sign and properly reconcile Advantage's escrow accounts by comparing the total trust liability with the reconciled bank balance of the escrow accounts for the months of September and October, 1992. Marie Deering, Respondent, Deering's, wife and a corporate officer of Respondent, Advantage, signed the reconciliation form for the months of September and October, 1992. It appears from the record (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondents' Licensure file) that Roger J. Kathman was the Broker of Record for Respondent, Advantage until August 21, 1992, when he resigned. Apparently, part of the problem stemmed from using a form developed by the previous real estate agency which was not the form suggested by the Petitioner for this purpose. Since being advised about the form and that comparing the total trust liability of each escrow account with the reconciled the bank balance of each escrow account and signing the reconciliation form was the responsibility of the broker of record, Deering has been properly fulfilling that responsibility and reporting on the correct form. The total trust liability of Advantage's security deposit escrow account should have been $5,700.00 rather than the $6,600.00 indicated by the audit because the $900.00 included in the audit figure from the San Juan lease should not have been included since this amount was not to be escrowed pursuant to the lease. This was a verbal agreement between the parties that was later executed as an addendum to the lease. Advantage's reconciled bank balance for the security deposit escrow account should also be $5,700.00, calculated as $6,020.00 reflected in the audit, minus $1,000.00 that was erroneously disbursed from the Rental distribution escrow account (also called the property management escrow account) instead of the security deposit escrow account , plus $680.00 that was erroneously deposited into the rental distribution escrow account instead of the security deposit escrow account ( $6,020.00 - $1,000.00 + $680.00 = $5,700.00). The total trust fund liability of the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $3,174.82 as reflected in audit plus $0.60 to correct bookkeeping error ($3,174.82 + $0.60 = $3,175.42). The reconciled bank balance for the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $2,805.42 reflected in the audit, plus $1,000.00 transferred from the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, minus $680.00 transferred to the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, plus a deposit of $50.00 to correct an error made in crediting a tenant account with $50.00 more than was deposited from tenant ($2,805.42 + $1,000.00 - $680.00 + $50.00 = $3,175.42). Although there were clerical or bookkeeping errors made in the handling of Advantage's escrow accounts, there was no evidence that Deering failed to immediately deposit funds received in trust in an escrow account, albeit not always the correct one. After the audit, Respondent, Deering promptly and properly corrected the escrow accounts and accounted for the funds resulting in balanced escrow accounts. While the Respondents were negligent in the handling of the escrow accounts, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Respondents were culpably negligent or that there was a breach of trust. The Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida has never been disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent Deering and Respondent Advantage guilty of technical violations of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes. For such violations, Respondent Advantage should be given a written reprimand and Respondent Deering should be given a written reprimand and required to complete a 30-hour broker management course. Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. In making this recommendation, consideration has been given to the mitigating factors in relation to the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21V-24, Florida Administrative Code. Also, taken into consideration was the purpose of regulating any profession, the protection of the public by requiring compliance with those laws governing the profession. In this case, the recommended penalties will serve that purpose, the public has not been harmed, compliance has been accomplished and the penalty sufficient to remind the Respondents to be more diligent in the future. Adding any further penalty, including an administrative fine, would be unduly punitive. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0606 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Unnecessary. 2.-12. Adopted in substance as modified by Findings of Fact 1 through 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 8 through 13. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower #308A 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Albert R. Deering, Pro se c/o Advantage Realty of Sarasota, Inc. t/a Century 21 Advantage 4121 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0333239, doing business at 120 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 105, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as Vaca Realty. On or about February 12, 1996, Respondent obtained a contract for sale and purchase on a property owned by Daryl Cohen. The purchasers, Donald H. Wilker and Patricia C. Wilker, executed the contract and tendered an initial deposit of $100. Respondent held the listing on the Cohen home and upon receipt of the signed contract, placed the initial deposit as well as a second deposit in the amount of $1,900 into the Vaca Realty operating account. The $2,000 deposit was never placed into a real estate escrow account or other proper depository. The contract between the Wilkers and Cohen was scheduled to close April 1, 1996. Prior to closing, the Wilkers notified Respondent that they were canceling the contract due to the condition of the roof. The parties were unable to agree as to the condition of the roof and the buyers announced their intention to not accept the home with the defects depicted in the roof inspection they had received. On April 2, 1996, Respondent sent a release of deposit form to the Wilkers, which they refused to execute. Such release would have authorized Respondent to release the deposit with $1,000 going to the Seller, Mr. Cohen, and $1,000 going to Vaca Realty. Thereafter, the Respondent was aware that the parties retained legal counsel with regard to the contract dispute. Despite her knowledge of the ongoing disagreement, Respondent did not notify the Florida Real Estate Commission regarding the deposit issue. On or about August 23, 1996, the Seller executed a Release and Cancellation of Contract form that directed Respondent to disburse $1,500 to the Wilkers and $500 to Daryl Cohen. This agreement had been signed by the Wilkers on August 13, 1996. Notwithstanding the terms of the foregoing agreement, on September 18, 1996, Respondent issued two checks from her operating account: one to the Wilkers in the amount of $1,500 and the other to Cohen in the amount of $250. Respondent is currently on a suspension as a result of a Final Order entered in DBPR Case No. 94-82411, which was affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 97-1069, on December 17, 1997, mandate issued January 5, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's license for six months, require Respondent to complete additional courses in escrow management, and direct that Respondent's escrow account be audited, at Respondent's expense, for at least one year after the reinstatement of her license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1998. 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 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Lloyd H. Falk, Esquire 600 Southwest 4th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints against real estate professionals, including real estate brokers and their qualified corporations. Respondent Edward J. Zibro is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0359349 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Ed Zibro 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 0251315 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Edward J. Zibro is now and was at all times material hereto an officer of and qualifying broker for Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. The Respondents' offices are now and were at all times material hereto located at 2803 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 202, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondents and Pamela L. Mereider, d/b/a/ Earthrise Realty, Inc. (Mereider) submitted to arbitration through the Fort Lauderdale Area Board of Realtors, Inc. a dispute involving the right of Mereider to share in a commission check which had been deposited in Respondents' escrow account. By an award entered December 4, 1987, Respondents were ordered by the arbitration board to pay Mereider the sum of $1,800.00 within ten days of the date of the award. Respondents had not paid the award at the time of the final hearing. On February 15, 1989, the County Court in and for Broward County, Florida, issued a final judgment ordering the Respondents to pay to Mereider the sum of $1,800.00 plus arbitration costs of $100.00 and court costs of $58.00. This final judgment was based on the arbitration award dated December 4, 1987, which the Court found to be binding on the parties. Respondents had not satisfied the final judgment at the time of the final hearing in this proceeding. On November 13, 1987, Respondents, as agents for the seller, obtained a contract for the purchase of Crystal Lakes Chevron Station by Werner Hatzelhoffer (Hatzelhoffer). Hatzelhoffer, as buyer, placed an $11,000.00 deposit in trust with Respondents. On or about March 16, 1988 Hatzelhoffer's bank was notified that his application for financing this transaction through the Small Business Administration had been rejected. Hatzelhoffer did not obtain financing and the transaction did not close. On August 17, 1988, Hatzelhoffer requested in writing that Respondents return the $11,000.00 deposit with interest. Based on the terms of the contract executed by the parties, Respondents and the seller of the property disputed that Hatzelhoffer was entitled to a refund of the deposit. Hatzelhoffer later requested the return of the deposit money by telephone and went to Respondent's office in person to demand the refund of the deposit. On October 25, 1988, Hatzelhoffer's attorney made written demand of Respondents for the return of Hatzelhoffer's deposit. On April 21, 1989, Respondent Edward J. Zibro advised Petitioner for the first time of the conflicting demands on the escrow deposit and requested an escrow disbursement order from Petitioner. Petitioner opened an escrow disbursement case and, on May 2, 1989, Gerri E. Barnoske, a complaint analyst for Petitioner, requested in a letter certain information from Respondents relating to the escrow dispute. Respondents did not receive this letter. On June 2, 1989, Ms. Barnoske wrote to Respondents a second time. This second letter advised that the previously requested information had not been received and that failure to cooperate could result in disciplinary proceedings being brought. The second letter also advised Respondents to let Petitioner know if the matter had been settled. The dispute involving Mr. Hatzelhoffer's deposit was amicably resolved on May 30, 1989. On May 8, 1989, the seller and his wife executed an agreement which released any claim they may have had to the escrowed funds and which authorized Respondents to negotiate a settlement with Hatzelhoffer. Respondents were also authorized by the release instrument executed by the seller on May 8, 1989, to retain as their commission for the failed transaction any sums they could get Hatzelhoffer to agree was due the seller. As a result of the settlement, Hatzelhoffer was reimbursed $6,500.00 and Respondents retained $4,500.00. Upon receiving Ms. Barnoske's letter dated June 2, 1989, Respondent Edward J. Zibro advised Ms. Barnoske that he had not received her letter dated May 2, 1989. He further advised that the escrow dispute had been settled and enclosed a statement signed by Mr. Hatzelhoffer on May 30, 1989, which acknowledged that the matter had been resolved. On June 22, 1989, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondents which contained four counts. Count I and Count II charged Respondent Edward J. Zibro and Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc., respectively, with having failed to account and deliver a share of a commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, based on the dealings with Mereider. Count III and Count IV charged Respondent Edward J. Zibro and Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc., respectively, with having failed to account and deliver a deposit in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, based on the dealings with Hatzelhoffer. Respondents denied the allegations of the Administrative Complaint and timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order which finds as follows: Respondent Edward J. Zibro guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; Respondent Edward J. Zibro guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; and Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475,25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order entered by Petitioner assess administrative fines against Respondents as follows: Against Edward J. Zibro in the amount of $500.00 for the violation of Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Against Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. in the amount of $500.00 for the violation of Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Against Edward J. Zibro in the amount of $500.00 for the violation of Count III of the Administrative Complaint. Against Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. in the amount of $500.00 for the violation of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order entered by Petitioner suspend the licenses and registration of the Respondents for a period of six months or until such time as the administrative fines are paid and the final judgement in favor of Pamela L. Mereider, d/b/a Earthrise Realty, Inc. is satisfied, whichever occurs first. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE 89-4205 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact contained in the first sentence of paragraph 17 are adopted in material part by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact contained in the second sentence of paragraph 17 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in Paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of paragraph 19 are rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Edward Zibro Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. 2803 East Commercial Boulevard Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
