The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Richard Shindler has been a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0395044. The last license issued was as a salesman with Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0223589. At all times material hereto, Mark H. Adler was licensed and operated as the qualifying broker and officer of Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. Adler's license is currently under suspension by agreement with Petitioner as a result of the activities complained of in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. At no time has Respondent Shindler been a director or officer of Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shindler has been the sales manager for Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. As the sales manager, Respondent Shindler sometimes helped other salesmen structure financing and helped them with other problems. Respondent Shindler was not responsible for the collection of funds from individual salesmen. Each individual salesman was responsible for collecting funds from any real estate transaction and giving those funds to Respondent Global's bookkeeper for deposit. As sales manager, Shindler was a signatory on the escrow account in order to make disbursements for small transactions mainly involving rental properties. In addition, Respondent Shindler was responsible for the hiring and firing of office personnel. However, he had no control over the contracts of other salesmen. On March 13, 1989, Respondent Shindler, as a private purchaser, made two purchase offers for two pieces of property owned by the same sellers. The purchase offers were for $115,000 and $80,000, respectively, and required that Respondent Shindler place $6,000 and $5,000, respectively, into Respondent Global's escrow account as a deposit on the purchase of the properties. Respondent Global and real estate broker Jay Hirsch were to receive commissions on the sale of the properties. Those offers to purchase disclosed in writing that Respondent Shindler was also a licensed real estate salesman. Although both offers to purchase were accepted by the sellers, the transactions involving the purchase of these properties did not close due to Respondent Shindler's inability to obtain financing, which was a contingency of the contracts. In October, 1989, demands for the release of the escrowed monies were made by the sellers and by the sellers' broker Jay Hirsch. They made demand upon Respondent Global's attorney. Additionally, Jay Hirsch made demand on Mark Adler by telephone and then by demand letter to Adler, who, as the qualifying broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for the release of the escrowed funds. Subsequent to the demands made by the sellers and their broker, Respondent Global filed a complaint for interpleader. The escrowed deposits were eventually disbursed pursuant to a settlement among the parties claiming an interest in the escrowed deposits. In March, 1990, Petitioner began an investigation of the Respondents and Adler. Investigators Castro and Rehm both participated in the investigation. Investigator Castro believed Respondent Shindler to be the office manager of Respondent Global. During the initial interview with Respondent Shindler, he produced records which indicated that a deposit of $14,265.69 had been made on January 13, 1989, into Respondent Global's escrow account. This check had been given by Respondent Shindler to Global's bookkeeper for deposit. This deposit represented proceeds from the sale of property owned by Respondent Shindler's brother Paul, and was placed in escrow in anticipation of the offers to purchase made by Respondent Shindler on the two properties involved in this cause. Investigator Rehm examined the escrow account bank records and determined that for a two-month period the escrow account balance had dropped below the minimum $11,000 balance required by the two contracts in question herein alone. Initially, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank where the escrow account was maintained had represented that it had debited the escrow account as a result of a lien placed on that account by the Internal Revenue Service. Upon further investigation, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank itself had withdrawn $3,200 from Global's escrow account to cover a shortage in Respondent Global's operating account. At all times material hereto, both Adler and Respondent Shindler were signatories on the escrow account. As part of its investigation, Petitioner served a subpoena on Maria Aguerra, Respondent Global's bookkeeper, requesting from Adler, or Respondent Shindler, or the custodian of records for Respondent Global Real Estate, all contracts, leases, agreements, monthly bank statements, deposit slips, and cancelled checks for all accounts for the period of January 1, 1989, through March 22, 1990. Some of the requested documents were initially unavailable because they had previously been sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Although Adler testified that he was initially unaware that a subpoena had been served, he was given a 30-day extension to produce the records when he met with investigators Castro and Rehm on May 1, 1990. Although Adler had both the responsibility for and control over the records of Respondent Global, he was not fully familiar with the records, and the bookkeeping was in disarray. At all times material hereto, Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for operating the Global office, for overseeing Global's escrow account, for reviewing contracts, and for being aware of the day-to-day events in the Global office. In addition, as the broker, Adler was required to be an officer of the corporation, to be a signatory on the escrow account, to have prepared and to sign the monthly escrow account reconciliations, and to respond to Petitioner if there were complaints or requests for production of documents. Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, did not reconcile and sign escrow account statements on a monthly basis since he was not aware of the requirement that he do so. However, Adler did testify that he was aware of his responsibility for escrowed funds. At no time did Respondent Shindler have the responsibility to maintain Global's escrow account or to reconcile the escrow account on a monthly basis. At no time did Respondent Shindler represent that he was the broker for Respondent Global or that he was a broker. Respondent Shindler did not state to investigator Rehm that he was acting as the broker for Global or that Adler had simply lent Adler's license to Shindler to use. At no time did Adler and Respondent Shindler enter into an agreement whereby Shindler would act as the broker for Global using Adler's broker's license, and Adler was never paid any monies for any use of his broker's license. Adler testified that his involvement with Global's business had declined as he had pursued his growing interest in performing appraisals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Dismissing Counts II, III, VII, VIII, and IX of the Administrative Complaint filed herein; Finding Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., guilty of the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint; and Ordering Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., to pay a fine in the amount of $500 by a date certain. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4522 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7-9, 11-12c, 13, 14, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 17 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12d has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The transcript of proceedings, together with Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 3, 5, and 8-14 and Respondents' Exhibit numbered 1 which were admitted in evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate - Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 - One Datran Center Miami, Florida 33156 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street 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
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, arguments of counsel and the parties, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found.2 John B. Roberts, a/k/a John B. Roberts, Sr., is registered as a real estate broker; is licensed as a broker salesman and has been issued License No. 0145010. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) As such, Respondent is subject to the licensing provisions contained in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. During times material, Respondent was the active firm member broker of, and for, Gemco Realty Corporation which was, at that time, situated with an office at 3200 North Federal Highway, Boca Baton, Florida. On or about March 26, 1979, Respondent negotiated a Contract for Sale and Purchase wherein Jerald H. Malis agreed to purchase, for $190,000.00, Tract 87, Block 71, Palm Beach Farms Co., Plat No. 3, also known as 8298 Bridal Path, as recorded in Plat Book Pages 45/54 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, from Louise and Marvin Norris. The stated property was listed for sale with Patterson and Workman, Inc., corporate brokers with offices located in Boca Raton, Florida. According to the subject contract, Respondent was to retain a $25,000.00 escrow deposit and the transaction was scheduled for closing on June 15, 1979. Marlene Patterson Rooks, a real estate broker since 1972, and a part owner of the brokerage firm, Patterson and Workman, Inc., represented the Norrises in the subject transaction. On numerous occasions from the time that the contract was entered through the scheduled closing dates, Ms. Rooks made inquiry of Respondent to ascertain whether the $25,000.00 earnest money deposit was in fact in escrow as required per contract. These inquiries were prompted based on an interoffice policy of Patterson and Workman, Inc., to verify escrow deposits when it is the listing agent and is selling through a brokerage office that it has not had prior dealings with. After repeated requests, including a personal visit to Respondent's office by Ms. Patterson, Respondent tendered to Ms. Patterson, a deposit receipt for what appears to be a $22,500.00 deposit which is, according to Respondent, a verification of the $25,000.00 earnest money deposit receipt. Respondent contends that the remaining difference was in fact placed in an escrow account of Creative Home Designs.3 Ms. Patterson had doubts as to whether the $22,500.00 deposit actually represented the $25,000.00 deposit which is the subject of this transaction inasmuch as the deposit receipt pre-dated the execution date of the subject contract by approximately one week. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 11 and 12). When Ms. Patterson was told that the subject transaction failed to close, she later received a mailgram declaring that the subject contract had been cancelled. (Respondent's Exhibit 5). Ms. Patterson immediately requested that a portion of the deposit monies be retained since, in her opinion, said commission monies had been earned by the listing agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 6). Eleanor Britter, a loan officer for First Federal of Broward, processed a loan application for the purchaser, Jerald H. Malis. The loan application was approved by First Federal at an interest rate of 11 1/2%. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13, and Respondent's Exhibit 7). On August 23, 1978, Gemco Realty Corporation's active firm member broker and owner was Michael Eisenrod. During this period, Deborah Parnell was a registered real estate salesperson associated with Gemco Realty. On August 23, 1978, salesperson Parnell negotiated a Contract of Purchase and Sale whereby Lou Demarco, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Lou Demarco individually, agreed to sell Lot 38, Block 4, Boca Raton, Bath and Tennis Club, also known as 2000 N.W. 29th Road, Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida; and to build thereon a house for purchaser de Buitrago on which contract de Buitrago gave a $15,000.00 earnest money deposit to Gemco Realty Corporation. That deposit was placed into the escrow account of Gemco Realty Corporation. (Credited Testimony of Eisenrod.) On September15, 1978, Respondent then a registered real estate salesman, became associated with Gemco Realty Corporation. In November, 1978, Respondent became registered as a real estate broker and on February 19, 1979, Respondent purchased Gemco Realty Corporation from its owner-broker, Michael Eisenrod, and became the corporation's only active firm member-broker. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) At the time of the purchase, the stated $15,000.00 deposit on the Demarco contract was in the escrow account of Gemco Realty. At this time, the Demarco contract had not closed. The Demarco contract ultimately failed to close and the parties to the contract agreed to disburse the $15,000.00 deposit as follows: $12,500.00 to purchasers; $1,100.00 to salesperson Deborah Parnell; and $1,400.00 to Michael Eisenrod, the former active firm member-broker and owner of Gemco Realty Corporation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8). Confirmation of this disbursement agreement was acknowledged by Respondent in his letter dated June 20, 1979, to Respondent's lawyer, John Downing of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pursuant to the terms outlined in the referenced letter, Respondent was to deliver to attorney Downing, his escrow check in the amount of $13,600.00 which represented the total disbursement to the purchaser and salesperson Parnell.4 Respondent has not returned the deposit monies referred to from the Demarco contract to date. Rebecca Ritter, the head bookkeeper for Royal Beach Trust Company of Palm Beach, Florida, appeared and acknowledged that Respondent had escrow accounts at Royal Beach Trust Company during the period January, 1979, through July 30, 1979. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 15). During times material herein, Respondent was the only active firm member of and for Gemco Realty Corporation. During this period, Respondent has his trust and escrow accounts in general accounts in the following banking institutions: First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Florida; Boca Raton National Bank, Boca Raton, Florida; and Royal Trust Bank of Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Florida. On April 30, 1979, Respondent issued, on its trust account at First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, checks numbered 0548 and 0549, each in the amount of $50,000.00, payable to Creative Home Designs, Inc. Neither check was honored when presented for payment and the reason being that the checks were returned due to "uncollected funds." (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Also, on April 12, 1979, Respondent issued on its trust account at First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Florida, its check No. 0592 in the amount of $3,000.00 payable to Lou Demarco, Inc., and Nicholas Brooks. This check was also not honored when presented for payment for reason "uncollected funds." Respondent's defense to these allegations are that he had in fact made the $22,500.00 deposit in a timely manner and that an additional deposit was on hand in the deposit of another company that he owned, Creative Home Designs, in the amount of $2,500.00. He contends that Ms. Patterson requested evidence to ascertain that the escrow deposit was in fact made and that such evidence was provided her. Respondent further contends that when purchaser Malis considered the contract to purchase cancelled, he merely related Malis' request to Ms. Patterson and that he presented Malis a refund in the form of a $25,000.00 check which Malis never processed. Respondent contends further that an accounting of the escrow accounts from Gemco Realty indicated that the accounts were in shambles when he purchased the operation and that there was less than the $15,000.00 deposit on hand when he assumed ownership of the corporate escrow accounts. Respondent acknowledged that several checks were returned inasmuch as he was attempting to separate the new escrow deposits from the old in an effort to get a true accounting of the escrow accounts. Respondent expressed his opinion that the $15,000.00 escrow deposit respecting the Demarco transaction was never placed in the escrow account. Further, Respondent contends that to the extent that monies were made on the Demarco transaction, that that payment was partially repaid in the form of a $3,000.00 check which represented a partial payment. (Respondent's Exhibit 4). Respondent also acknowledged that he agreed to the disbursement of deposit funds from the Demarco transaction as set forth herein but that they buyer later refused to close the transaction and forfeited, in Respondent's opinion, his deposit. According to Respondent, he then attempted to get the earnest money deposits returned to the purchasers. Respondent opined that the buyer forfeited the escrow deposit tendered to Gemco Realty. Finally, Respondent contends generally that the Gemco accounts were incorrect and that he was "duped" into accepting Messr. Eisenrod's accounting as of the date that he assumed, control of the Gemco Realty Corporation's escrow accounts. Respondent also allowed that he had on deposit,, two (2) $50,000.00 checks which were returned and as a result also created checks that he had written to also be dishonored when presented for payment.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license to practice real estate as a broker be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1981. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, holding license number 0419502. Ms. Linton was the owner and qualifying broker for Respondent Key Realty Co. of Pensacola, Inc. (Key Realty). Key Realty was a licensed real estate brokerage company in Florida, holding license number 0244319. Both Respondents, and in particular Ms. Linton, have excellent character references from other active members of the real estate community. On November 7, 1989, Petitioner entered a Final Order against Respondents for escrow account violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Final Order required Respondents to submit monthly escrow account status reports. From November 7, 1989, through March 27, 1990, the Respondents did not file any escrow account status reports as required by the Final Order. Ms. Linton had turned the responsibility of filing those reports over to her accountant. However, Ms. Linton did not check to see if the escrow reports were filed by her accountant. Her accountant's full-time employment was as a contract auditor for the U.S. Navy. In October, 1989, the accountant was assigned to audit a contract in the Pacific and moved to the Pacific island which was the site of the contract. The accountant advised Ms. Linton that he would be leaving in October. After' October, 1989, the accountant no longer did any accounting work for Respondent. However, Ms. Linton did not make arrangements for the filing of the escrow account reports required by the Final Order after her accountant left the country. No sufficient excuse was offered by Ms. Linton for her failure to file or ensure the filing of these escrow reports. The Respondents' rental escrow account revealed a shortage of $2,008.14 as of March 21, 1990. The money to cover the shortage was placed in a desk drawer in the Respondent's office for deposit while the Respondent was on vacation. Her employees failed to make the deposit. Given these facts, the resultant shortage was a very minor transgression of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21-V, Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, Bank charges totaling $328 were debited from the rental escrow account from June 1989 to February 1990. The Respondent's bank, Barnett Bank of Pensacola, had erroneously charged the rental escrow account for these bank charges despite instructions from the Respondent not to do so. All of the debited bank charges were either replaced by the bank or Ms. Linton. Since it was the bank's actions which caused these charges to be made to Respondents' rental escrow account and not Respondents' actions, no violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, can be attributed to either Respondent. Several checks totaling $3,605.15 were written by Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, from the rental escrow account and later returned due to nonsufficient funds. The checks were returned for nonsufficient funds due to the bank's hold policy. Since Respondent had consummated numerous transactions with Barnett Bank of Pensacola in which the hold policy was not applied to her account, Respondent had no knowledge that the bank's hold policy would be applied to her account. No reliable evidence was presented that this set of facts constituted bad accounting methods on the part of Respondents or otherwise violated the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In the course of operating a rental management business, Respondents, on October 25, 1989, entered into a rental property management agreement with Richard and Susan Vigeant. The agreement called for monthly rental statements and disbursements. Respondents collected rental funds on behalf of the Vigeants from November, 1989, to February, 1990. However, Respondents did not provide monthly statements or deliver net rental funds to the Vigeants until March 6, 1990. Respondents were under the impression that the Vigeant's funds were to be held by the Respondents for minor repairs to the Lessor's property. The Vigeants were not under such an impression and, after numerous phone calls for more than a month, the Vigeants' requested disbursement of the net rental funds on February 20, 1990. The funds were disbursed to the Vigeants on March 6, 1990. Respondents failure to give the Vigeants monthly accounting reports as required by the rental management agreement violates Section 475.25 (1)(d), Florida Statutes. However, this violation, while not minor, is also not overly serious and should not receive severe discipline. None of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Linton or her business were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction. The evidence did show that Ms. Linton is not very good at maintaining the rental escrow account or at seeing that the rental escrow account was properly maintained. Respondents' recordkeeping is poor and in disarray. The evidence was clear that Ms. Linton does not have the inclination, desire, or capability to maintain her broker's escrow account. The strongest evidence to support this conclusion is that all of Respondent's latest difficulties with her escrow account occurred after she had already been disciplined for escrow account violations which occurred prior to the events under consideration here. 1/ Given this inability, Respondent cannot be entrusted to properly handle escrow funds given to her. Since Respondents are not competent to handle escrow matters Respondents' licenses should be revoked. The Respondent does not currently have the financial ability to pay any fines and such a penalty would not be appropriate in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Division enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of four violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker's licenses. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 24th day of September, 1990.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Harold E. Hicks, was licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0136248. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Hicks was the qualifying broker for the Respondent corporation, Service First Realty, Inc. (the corporation), whose address is 9715 N. W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33147. The Respondent corporation holds license number 0223295. Mr. Hicks was responsible for the day-to-day business operations of the corporation. Mr. Hicks was responsible for the financial records kept and maintained by the corporation. All financial records at issue in this proceedings were in the name of the corporation. In 1996, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, Kenneth G. Rehm, attempted to conduct an audit of the Respondents' financial records. This audit was in response to a complaint not at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Rehm went to the Respondents' place of business and asked for the financial records for all real estate accounts. Mr. Hicks provided the investigator with records which established a negative escrow bank balance of $761.00. Moreover, there was no monthly reconciliation for the escrow account. Based upon the bookkeeping method used, the Respondents' records did not show how much money was being held in trust for individual clients. Respondents pooled money for different rental properties into one escrow account without establishing that they maintained accurate ledger balances per client. When Mr. Rehm was unable to reconcile the accounts, he elected to offer Respondents additional time to gather the records and to prepare for a complete audit. Such audit was assigned to Petitioner's investigator, Roberto Castro. Mr. Castro attempted to complete the follow-up audit of Respondents' financial records on February 13, 1996. Once again, the audit was hampered due to the lack of escrow account records. Based upon the records that were provided by Respondents, Mr. Castro computed that Respondents had $3,922.45 in outstanding checks from the rental distribution trust account but only $2,241.58 in the account. This calculation resulted in a shortage of $1,680.87. Mr. Castro also determined that Respondents were not completing monthly escrow account reconciliations in accordance with the rule promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On May 3, 1996, Respondents were served with a subpoena to provide Mr. Castro with all escrow records from February 1995 to February 1996. Respondents did not respond to the subpoena. As of the date of hearing, Respondents have not shown monthly escrow account reconciliations in accordance with the rule promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
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 the Respondents guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondents' licenses until the Respondent Hicks has completed a seven-hour course in real estate escrow management and that such suspension be followed by a probationary period with monitoring of the Respondents' financial records to assure compliance with all Commission rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 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 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Harold E. Hicks, pro se Service First Realty, Inc. 9715 Northwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent McVety was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license numbers 0461636 and 0258678. On January 1, 1989, the Respondent purchased the company Realty Services of Southwest Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation. One of the services provided by the corporation was property management. Rents and security deposits were collected from tenants of residential leases on behalf of property owners. In some cases, Respondent McVety was acting as an agent on behalf of property owners through the corporation. In other cases, Respondent McVety or the corporation was the actual property owner. When Respondent McVety took over the management of the corporation after his stock purchase, he noticed that the escrow account into which security deposits were placed, was a non-interest bearing account. On January 23, 1989, the escrow account was changed by the Respondent from an non-interest bearing escrow account to an interest bearing account. The tenants were not notified that their security deposits were now bearing interest. On March 17, 1989, a routine audit was conducted of the Respondent's escrow accounts. During the audit, it was discovered that one hundred and seventeen of the one hundred and thirty leases stated that the security deposits were being held in an non-interest bearing account. The leases which stated that the deposits were in an interest bearing account were signed after the Respondent purchased the corporation. The one hundred and seventeen leases with a non-interest bearing escrow were signed by the tenants prior to the stock transfer. There were no allegations that interest had actually been paid by the bank on the escrow account or that there had been any failure by the Respondent to account for the interest to the tenants, the actual owners of the funds. In mitigation, the Respondent stated that once he was made aware of the problems and truly understood the Department's concerns, a letter was sent to each tenant explaining the placement of the security deposits into an interest bearing escrow account on January 23, 1989. These letters were sent on April 3, 1989. In addition, a new real estate lease was prepared on behalf of the corporation by an attorney. The purpose of the new lease was to explicitly state the rights and responsibilities of the parties regarding the interest on these accounts. In this case, no one was cheated, no secret commissions were earned, and the sums in question were trifling.
Recommendation Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent McVety be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.014, Florida Administrative Code, and is therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. This violation was originally Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Counts I and II, having been withdrawn, are dismissed. That the Respondent McVety be issued a written reprimand as the penalty for the one violation. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Copies furnished: John R. Alexander, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John A. McVety 3120 Grand Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1990. Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Department 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 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes (1991), and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondents, Shirley M. Ferguson and Dosh Realty, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed real estate brokers in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers 0393921 and 0252372, respectively, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued were as brokers, c/o Dosh Realty, Inc., 595 N. Nova Road 105A, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. At all times material hereto, Ms. Ferguson was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Dosh Realty, Inc. On or about August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson maintained and operated a branch office of Dosh Realty, Inc., at the Aliki Condominium located in Daytona Beach. On or about August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson and Carol Savage, a licensed salesperson, entered into an "Independent Contractor Agreement" whereby Ms. Savage agreed to act as a property management agent for Dosh Realty, Inc., at the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage's license was registered with Dosh Realty, Inc. The Independent Contractor Agreement between Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Savage specifically required that Ms. Savage set up "two rental accounts - Dosh Realty, Inc./ (condo name) - one account to be a general account for rentals, the other account to be a non-interest escrow account for security deposits." On August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson opened an account, number 1130222031, at Barnett Bank in Ormond Beach, Florida. Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Savage were signatories on the account. The account was not an escrow security account. Ms. Ferguson inquired of Ms. Savage about a rental escrow account for Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage informed Ms. Ferguson that security deposits were not required or received and, therefore, no escrow account was necessary. Despite the requirement of the Independent Contractor Agreement that an escrow account be established, Ms. Ferguson did not require that Ms. Savage comply with the terms of the Independent Contractor Agreement. Between August 1, 1990, and July 20, 1991, Ms. Savage, in the course of her association with the Respondents, solicited and obtained tenants to lease condominium units at the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage informed Ms. Ferguson that the agreements for these rentals were verbal. Ms. Ferguson did not insist that written agreements be entered into. Between August 1, 1990, and July 20, 1991, Ms. Savage in fact received monies as security deposits for rentals at the Aliki Condominium. Not all of the monies received by Ms. Savage were deposited in an account of the Respondents. Respondents were not notified of the security deposits and the Respondents were not aware that the security deposits had been collected. On July 20, 1991, Ms. Ferguson became aware that Ms. Savage had been collecting security deposits from tenants of the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Ferguson learned that Ms. Savage had taken the deposits and had failed to deliver the deposits to the Respondents. On or about July 20, 1991, tenants of the Aliki Condominium began to demand a return of their security deposits and Ms. Savage left the State of Florida. Ms. Ferguson reported the foregoing events to the Department and ultimately filed a complaint against Ms. Savage. Ms. Savage ultimately surrendered her license with the Department for revocation. The Respondents have not returned the security deposits received by Ms. Savage at the Aliki Condominium. Although Ms. Ferguson was very cooperative during the Department's investigation of this matter and although Ms. Ferguson did inquire of Ms. Savage concerning the manner in which rentals were handled at Aliki condominium, Ms. Ferguson did not insist, as a condition for the continued use by Ms. Savage of Ms. Ferguson's brokers license and the brokers license of Dosh Realty, Inc., that Ms. Savage use written rental agreements, require deposits and use an escrow account. Ms. Ferguson acknowledged during the investigation of this matter that monies were received at Dosh Realty's branch office at the Aliki Condominium that were not deposited in an escrow account and that she accepted Ms. Savage's representation that no written leases were entered into at the Aliki Condominium.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the Respondents have violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1991). It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Ferguson be reprimanded, placed on probation for one year and required to complete the 30 hour broker management course. DONE and ENTERED this day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of July, 1992. APPENDIX Case Number 92-1990 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 4 3. 5 4. See 5. See 8. 8 10. See 11. The exact amount of the deposits at issue was not proved by competent substantial evidence. Hereby accepted. 11 12. 12 13-14. 14 15. 15 See 17. The Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4. 5 5. 6 8. 7 11. See 9-10. 8 10-11. 9 12 and 13. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence and is not relevant. Although it is true that the exact monies Ms. Savage took were not received by the Respondents, they were responsible and could have returned monies of the Respondents. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section Hurston Building, North Tower #308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 R. Michael Kennedy, Esquire Post Office Box 4319 South Daytona, Florida 32121 Jack Ray General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando Florida 32802-1900
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the two Respondents, one individual and one corporation, on the basis of alleged violations set forth in an eight-count1 Administrative Complaint. The Respondents are charged with violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and with multiple violations of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with responsibilities and duties which include the prosecution of Administrative Complaints against licensees under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Hilda H. Bell is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0349586 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker at Sharmic Realty, Inc., at the following address: 8701 Willes Road, Unit 16-308, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc., is now, and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0243150 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the following address: 8701 Willes Road, Unit 16- 308, Coral Springs, Florida 33067. At all times material hereto, Respondent Hilda H. Bell was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker of, and an officer of Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc. On September 27, 1994, Petitioner's Investigator Margaret R. Hoskins audited Respondents' escrow accounts. The audit revealed that the Respondents maintained Property Management Escrow Account Number 00300066617 at Glendale Federal Bank, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A total trust liability for the Respondents' Property Management Escrow Account could not be determined because the Respondents did not have complete and accurate records. On August 11, 1992, the Respondents deposited $20,000.00 into their Property Management Escrow Account for a person who did not have a checking account. On August 11, 1992, the Respondents issued escrow check number 0972 in the amount of $20,000.00. On August 18, 1992, the Respondents loaned Cecil Sailsman $500.00 from the Property Management Escrow Account. On January 12, 1993, the Respondents deposited $22,496.91 in personal funds into the Property Management Escrow Account. The Respondents subsequently disbursed $15,045.00 of the personal funds from the Property Management Escrow Account.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondents are guilty of the violations charged in Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing administrative penalties consisting of the following: An administrative fine against Respondent Hilda H. Bell in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00); A six month suspension of the real estate brokerage license of Respondent Hilda H. Bell; A one year period of probation for the Respondent Hilda H. Bell, to begin immediately following the period of suspension; A requirement that the Respondent Hilda H. Bell complete additional education in the form of a seven hour course in real estate brokerage escrow management during her period of probation; and A reprimand of Respondent Sharmic Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April 1996.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, failed to reconcile their brokerage escrow account properly; failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; filed a false report or record; obstructed or hindered Petitioner’s investigator in an official investigation; failed to account for and deliver trust funds; committed various acts of fraud, misrepresentation, dishonest dealing, or culpable negligence in any business transaction; or committed any of these enumerated offenses, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Rudolph Dyer (“Dyer”) is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission (“Commission”). Respondent Golden Key Realty, Inc. (“Golden Key”) is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Dyer is the president and a director of Golden Key, and at all times relevant to this case he had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that Golden Key engaged in any conduct distinct from Dyer’s in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as “Dyer” except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission’s direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Escrow Account Irregularities and Related Misconduct On or about November 14, 2001, Petitioner conducted a routine audit of Dyer’s records. Pursuant to the audit, Catherine Rivera (“Rivera”), Petitioner’s investigator, determined that as of October 31, 2001, the balance in Dyer’s escrow account was $127. Rivera determined further that Dyer’s trust liability, i.e. the total amount of money that Dyer should have been holding in escrow on his clients’ behalf, was $2,870. Thus, there existed a shortfall of $2,743 in Dyer’s escrow account. In light of this discovery, Rivera requested that Dyer provide additional records, including previous bank statements and the reconciliation statements that licensed brokers must prepare each month showing either that their trust liabilities and bank balances are in agreement or explaining why they are not. Dyer was unable to produce these records, whereupon Rivera advised him that Petitioner would initiate disciplinary proceedings. On or about April 26, 2002, after being formally notified of pending administrative charges arising from the aforementioned deficiencies concerning his escrow account and associated records, Dyer sent Rivera a letter in which he a) admitted having failed to reconcile his bank balances and trust liabilities and b) informed Rivera that “immediately after the audit [on November 14, 2001,] steps were taken to close out all escrow deposit accounts being held by the company.” In fact, Dyer continued to use his escrow account to hold funds in trust through June 2002; as it happened, the escrow account would not be completely closed until July 29, 2002. The undersigned is not convinced, however, that Dyer lied to Petitioner about closing the escrow account, as Petitioner here contends. Rather, given the ambiguity of the language used (“steps were taken”), the undersigned accepts Dyer’s explanation that what he intended to communicate was that activity in the escrow account was being allowed to wind down in an orderly fashion——which was substantially true. Continuing to investigate the matter, Rivera arranged to meet with Dyer at his office on June 19, 2002, to review the previously requested bank records and files. When Rivera arrived on that date, however, Dyer again failed to provide the desired documents. As a result, Rivera scheduled yet another appointment to inspect records at Dyer’s office. The next such meeting would take place on July 29, 2002. In the meantime, Petitioner served a subpoena duces tecum on Dyer’s bank and obtained a complete set of bank records, including canceled checks, pertaining to Dyer’s escrow account. On July 29, 2002, Dyer finally provided reconciliation statements for his escrow account pursuant to Rivera’s longstanding request. These statements were self-contradictory and woefully inadequate, but, if nothing else, they clearly demonstrated (and the undersigned finds) that the escrow account balance fell significantly short of Dyer’s total trust liability during the months of May through August 2001, inclusive. Indeed, there is no dispute (for Dyer admitted at final hearing), and it is hereby found, that at all times relevant to this case, Dyer was commingling trust funds with other funds, to the point that the escrow account effectively became an operating account of Golden Key. Dyer also produced documents purporting to be copies of checks drawn on his escrow account. At least seven of these copies were not genuine reproductions of the respective originals but were, instead, fakes.1 Specifically, in five instances, the payee of an escrow-account check was, according to the copies that Dyer produced, an individual whom, the inference is clear, Dyer owed escrowed funds. In reality, each such check actually had been made payable to and been uttered by Golden Key, which latter facts are irrefutably established by the bank-produced records.2 Dyer admitted that the above-described copies of checks he had produced to Petitioner were fakes, but he denied having personally altered the underlying documents to create the false copies, blaming an unnamed accountant for that misdeed, and he disclaimed advance knowledge of the tampering. The undersigned, however, does not fully believe Dyer’s explanation. Dyer had exclusive authority over the escrow account and substantial control over Golden Key’s operations. The undersigned finds it inconceivable that a stranger to the subject transactions could have knowingly falsified these particular checks, in the manner shown, without Dyer’s active assistance. Therefore, while acknowledging the possibility that Dyer himself might not have altered the documents in question, the undersigned finds that he was, at the very least, aware of and knowingly complicit in the attempted deception. The Fanfan Transactions On or about June 13, 2001, Dyer facilitated a contract between Herinslake, as seller, and Francique Fanfan (“Fanfan”), as buyer, for the purchase and sale of real property commonly known as 5435 Northwest Tenth Street, Plantation, Florida. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500 and an additional deposit of $500 to be placed with Dyer within ten days after the buyer’s acceptance. Dyer received $500 from Fanfan on June 19, 2001. In evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 9 is a $500 money order dated June 18, 2001, which names the sender (maker) as “Fan Fan” and lists as his address “601 W Oakland Pk Blvd, Ft Lauderdale 33311.” The undersigned infers that Petitioner’s Exhibit 9 is, in fact, a copy of the money order that Fanfan tendered to Dyer on June 19, 2001, as a deposit on the contract to purchase property from Herinslake. Petitioner alleges (and Dyer disputes) that some time after June 19, 2001, Dyer collected the agreed-upon second $500 deposit from Fanfan, making a total of $1,000 being held in escrow on Fanfan’s behalf. Petitioner asserts that Petitioner’s Exhibit 7, which is a $500 money order dated July 9, 2001, payable to Golden Key, is proof of the second deposit. Petitioner further alleges that after the contract between Herinslake and Fanfan failed to close (which is undisputed), Dyer returned $500 to Fanfan and kept $500 (which is disputed). Taken together, the testimony of Dyer and that of his former salesman, Elysee Joseph, is imprecise, confusing, and somewhat in conflict as it relates to Fanfan. They agree, however, that when the Herinslake-Fanfan transaction fell apart, Dyer returned Fanfan’s entire deposit——of $500. Dyer also points out that months later he assisted Fanfan in the purchase of a condominium unit located at 2800 Northwest Fifty-Sixth Avenue, Lauderhill, Florida. His testimony is corroborated by the settlement statement from that transaction, which is in evidence as part of Petitioner’s Exhibit 11. The settlement statement identifies the seller as Evelyn Goodison; names Francique Fanfan, “a single man,” as buyer; and indicates that the transaction closed on April 10, 2002. According to the settlement statement, Fanfan had placed a $1,000 deposit against the purchase price, and the testimony at final hearing established that Dyer had held this sum in escrow pending the closing. The undersigned finds that Petitioner has failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Dyer retained $500 belonging to Fanfan in connection with the aborted contract between Herinslake and Fanfan, for several reasons. First, the money order dated July 9, 2001, a copy of which is in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 7, appears not to have been tendered by Francique Fanfan, the alleged victim here. This particular money order identifies the sender as “Michelle Fanfan” and gives as her address “2076 Kimberly Blvd, N Lauderdale, Fl 33068.” There is no evidence whatsoever in the record regarding Michelle Fanfan, and hence no finding can be made that she was in any way related to Francique Fanfan, who (the evidence shows) was a single man. Moreover, Michelle Fanfan’s address does not match Francique Fanfan’s address as reported in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9. Second, the undersigned believes that it is highly unlikely Fanfan would have continued to do business with Dyer if, as Petitioner alleges, Dyer had cheated him out of $500 on an earlier deal. Thus, the very fact that Fanfan purchased the Goodison property through Dyer tends to refute Petitioner’s charge. Finally, Fanfan, the alleged victim, did not testify at the final hearing, and consequently there is no direct evidence that Dyer took $500 from Fanfan. The Charges In counts I and VII of its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to properly prepare monthly escrow-reconciliation statements. Petitioner’s position is that in maintaining records showing significant shortages in the escrow account for a period of approximately six months, and by failing to take corrective action regarding the shortages, Respondents failed to comply with Rule 61J2- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and hence violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In counts II and VIII, Petitioner alleges that Respondents committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner’s position is that Respondents committed fraud or misrepresentation when they tendered false or forged documents to Rivera during the course of her official investigation. In addition, Petitioner asserts that Respondents committed culpable negligence towards the individuals who placed their funds in trust with Respondents. In counts III and IX, Petitioner asserts that Respondents obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner’s position is that Respondents willfully interfered with Rivera’s investigation by submitting fraudulent documents to the investigator. In counts IV and X, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having made or filed a report or record which the licensee knew to be false, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(l), Florida Statutes. Petitioner’s position is that Respondents knowingly tendered false copies of canceled checks to Rivera. In counts V and XI, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Petitioner’s position is that Respondents failed to account for and deliver the second deposit allegedly received from Fanfan in connection with the Herinslake-Fanfan transaction. In counts VI and XII, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Petitioner’s position is that during the six months of concern, Respondents’ escrow account funds were regularly several thousand dollars less than the trust liability. Ultimate Factual Determinations Dyer failed to prepare written monthly reconciliation statements as required by Rule 61J2-14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and thus he violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner therefore has established the charges set forth in counts I and VII of its Administrative Complaint, by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence does not establish that Dyer committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction. There is no persuasive evidence that Dyer intended to harm (or actually harmed) any of his clients. While Dyer did participate in a dishonest scheme to deceive Rivera by producing false copies of his canceled checks, this particular wrongdoing occurred, not in a business transaction, but rather in connection with a regulatory investigation. Thus, Dyer did not violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Counts II and VIII were not proved. Dyer attempted to obstruct or hinder Rivera’s investigation by producing copies of canceled checks that he knew were false and misleading. Petitioner has clearly established that Dyer violated Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, which in turn constitutes a violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as charged in counts III and IX of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence does not support the charge that Dyer violated Section 475.25(1)(l), Florida Statutes, which prohibits the filing false reports and records, because the altered documents that Dyer produced to Rivera were not signed by Dyer—— at least not in the sense contemplated by the statute, which specifies that “such reports or records shall include only those which are signed in the capacity of a licensed broker or salesperson.” Counts IV and X thus were not proved. The evidence does not clearly establish that Dyer failed to return a deposit of $500 to Fanfan after his deal with Herinslake fell through. Thus, counts V and XI, which allege violations of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, were not proved. Dyer failed to maintain trust funds in a segregated escrow account, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Petitioner therefore has established the charges set forth in counts VI and XII of its Administrative Complaint, by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: (a) finds Respondents guilty as charged in counts I, III, VI, VII, IX, and XII of the Administrative Complaint; (b) revokes Respondents’ respective real estate licenses; and (c) imposes an administrative fine of $3,000 against Respondents, jointly and severally. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' licenses as real estate broker and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Florida Real Estate Commission was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of real estate salespersons, brokers, and brokerage operations in Florida. The Respondents, Arthur B. Karns and Karns Real Estate Inc., were a licensed real estate broker and brokerage corporation, respectively. Sharon Thayer has been an investigator with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation's Division of Real Estate for over 3 1/2 years. As a part of her duties, she is required to conduct random, no-notice inspections of real estate brokerage offices in Florida. As a part of these inspections, she conducts audits of the broker's escrow account and over time has conducted approximately 1,000 audits. In her audits, she follows a standard audit procedure to reconcile the trust liability of the broker with the escrow account bank balance. In early September, 1991, Ms. Thayer conducted an escrow audit and office inspection of the Respondent's company. During her initial visits, on September 3 and 5, 1991, she requested he furnish her with the office records pertinent to his trust escrow account. Respondent promptly provided most of the records excepting only the account reconciliation forms required by the Commission. When Respondent provided Ms. Thayer with the records, including what he felt were the reconciliations, she reviewed them and then discussed them with him, indicating wherein they were deficient and what, in addition, she would need. In her initial report, completed on the conclusion of the initial visit, she indicated there was an overage of $3,452.75 in the Respondent's escrow account. This figure was in error. She also noted that Respondent was not accounting for his trust liability and indicated he had 5 days in which to take corrective action and provide documentation of the action taken. When she returned for a follow-up visit on September 20, 1991, Ms. Thayer noted that the original note of overage had been in error and that the account now balanced. To achieve balance, however, she referred to the original $500.00 in seed money Respondent had used to open the escrow account. This covered errors in the account as of December, 1990 and service charges. Without this, she noted, the account would have been short by $446.45. Ms. Thayer determined that the Respondent had opened his escrow account with $500.00 of his own funds as seed money. She contend this was improper as the Department allows only $200.00 of seed money which is to be reported each month on the account reconciliation. The $200.00 "limit" is relatively recent. At the time in issue, she claims, the "limit" was set, by unwritten, unpublished Department policy, at $100.00. The only evidence of the existence of such a policy is an article in the Fall, 1991 FREC newsletter, written by Howard M. Gunter, Jr., then Chairman, which notes: There is an unwritten rule that currently allows a broker to keep a minimum amount in his escrow account to cover bank charges, .... The April, 1992 edition of the Central Palm Beach County Association of Realtors' Realtor Review advises of new FREC rules, one of which allows a broker to maintain up to $200.00 of his own or the company's funds in the escrow account to keep it open or to pay for bank monthly service charges. Ms. Thayer's investigation also appeared to indicate that in January, 1991, Respondent disbursed an $850.00 security deposit to lessors of a rented unit when the actual deposit collected was only $500.00. This was also determined to be in error. The evidence demonstrates that on January 3, 1991, Respondent drew check number 1040 on his escrow account to open an escrow account for the Alexandre to Livingston rental. The deposit of $1,700.00 in that case included an $850.00 security deposit. This money was not disbursed to the client, however, as it was placed in an escrow account for that lease. In any case, the security deposit should have been only $500.00 as that was all that had been collected by the prior agent and transferred to the Respondent. When the deposit was made here, Respondent, whose practice was to collect the first and last month rent in advance, along with a security deposit of one month rent, mistakenly assumed the prior agent had done the same. When he learned of his mistake, by letter dated September 13, 1991, he notified the Alexandre's of the mistake and noted the excess $350.00 would be paid back to Karns Real Estate, Inc. Therefore, the extra $350.00 in the trust account had been placed there by Respondent from his own funds, not from any client funds and was due back. Since the $96.45 in bank charges were also accounted for previously and deducted, there was in actuality no shortage. Ms. Thayer also discovered that with regard to two contracts for the sale of real property, both dated in early May, 1991, between E. Buwalda as seller and Ronald Cecere as buyer on one, and Cecelia Barraclough as seller and Jeanne Cecere as buyer on the other, $100.00 in cash was accepted as a partial down payment on each, with each contract calling for an additional deposit of $2,900.00. A special clause in each contract provided: The purchaser will post a Certificate(s) of Deposit with a face amount of at least $3,000.00 with Karns Real Estate, Inc. to be held in escrow as and for the $2,900.00 additional deposit. The Certificate(s) of Deposit can be returned to the Purchaser if and when the Purchaser posts $2,900.00 in cleared funds to cover the additional deposit. In fulfillment of that clause requirement, the Ceceres deposited with the Respondent CD Numbers 020002358756 and 020002359408, from Nova Savings Bank, each in the amount of $2,000.00, the former dated October 24, 1990 and the latter dated December 3, 1990, both showing Jeanne A. Cecere as trustee for Patrick J. and Ronald P. Cecere. The certificates also reflected they were "Not Transferable except on the books of Nova Savings Bank." By his own admission, at no time did Respondent notify either of the sellers that the certificates he held on their behalf as additional deposit were not transferable outside the Nova Savings Bank. At the same time he received the certificates as deposit on the Barraclough property, Respondent also received an additional $1,000.00 in cash to constitute the balance of the $3,000.00 deposit called for in the contract. Aside from a letter from the Ceceres' chastising the Department for its action against Respondent and expressing outrage that the agency should have a negative opinion as to the propriety and legality of the Respondent's activities, there is no independent evidence of any additional deposit placed with regard to the Buwalda contract. In any event, when the matter was noted by Ms. Thayer, the Ceceres, by checks dated September 5, 1991 in the amounts of $1,900.00 each, made payable to Karns Realty, Inc., replaced the two certificates. When Ms. Thayer discussed this matter with Mr. Karns, he seemed surprised at her concern. He indicated he felt accepting the certificates was the same as taking jewelry as security. However, he promised to get replacement security and, as was seen, did so immediately. Ms. Thayer was also concerned about the Respondent's apparent inability to properly reconcile his escrow account with the related bank balance. Her audit revealed he was using a lengthy, self-developed form to balance the checking account statement but this is not enough. There is no requirement that any particular form be used, but the Commission had developed a sample form which contains all the information required in a proper reconciliation and Department rules set out those requirements. On May 13, 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation, in a letter to all real estate brokers, indicated the concern of the Commission that brokers be aware of and comply with their responsibilities regarding monthly escrow account reconciliation. The letter cited the provisions of Commission Rule 21V-14.012 which, while noting there is no official form to be used, reminds brokers the reconciliation must contain certain required information. The sample form, referenced above, requires a bank reconciliation and, in addition, a trust liability reconciliation. Ms. Thayer concluded Respondent had, indeed, completed a full bank reconciliation, but had not completed the additionally required trust liability reconciliation and merged the two. Notwithstanding Respondent's continuing protestations that he had done a complete reconciliation, the evidence indicates rather that he has not. As Respondent's own exhibit, an extract from the 1991 Gaines & Coleman continuing education book points out at paragraph 23 on page 7, the provisions of the rule on escrow reconciliation "is much more than a mere balancing of checkbook accounts." The evidence demonstrates Respondent did no more than that and his reconciliations were not adequate. Mr. Geil, who assisted Ms. Thayer in the audit, has reviewed between 100 and 150 offices in addition to Respondent's office. Of all of these, he would rate Respondent among the 5 or 6 brokers who did the most detailed reconciliations, but he cannot say, from what he saw of Respondent's records, whether Respondent was making a bona fide effort to do an accurate reconciliation. It is clear, however, that, as Respondent repeatedly asserted at hearing, everyone makes mistakes, and Respondent's delicts, established by the evidence, do not show any fraudulent or criminal intent. As Ms. Thayer noted, she found no evidence of fraud, theft or an abuse of trust money for Respondent's own purposes, and the Commission has received no complaints about him from any of his clients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing Counts I through VI of the Administrative Complaint, but placing the licenses of Respondents, Arthur B. Karns and Karns Real Estate, Inc. on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions, specifically including post licensure education, as the Commission may require, and imposing a reprimand on the Respondent, Arthur B. Karns. RECOMMENDED this 21 day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 23 day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-1266 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 to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated except for the word shortage which should be prefaced by the work "apparent." Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First three sentences accepted. Balance is a comment on the evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and resolved in favor of Respondent. Accepted and resolved in favor of Respondent. 6A -C. Accepted and discussed within the body of the Order. 6D. Not a Finding of Fact but a discussion of the evidence. 6E & F. Not relevant. 7A - C. Not a Finding of fact but a statement of evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate Hurston Building, N-308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Arthur B. Karns,. pro se Karns Real Estate, Inc. 6346-63 West Lantana Road Lake Worth, Florida 3343 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
