The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes, 1/ by committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0478560. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker t/a Concord Financial Realty Co. ("CFR"), 495 E. Semoran Boulevard #115, Casselberry, Florida 32708. Respondent is the sole owner of CFR. CFR carries on regular business activities that include apartment rentals and sales of real estate. On January 31, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Charles Wallman, Respondent's husband, owned all of the stock of C.L. Wallman Associates, Inc ("CWA"). 2/ Respondent's husband owned Concord Financial Services, Inc. ("CFS"). CFS was formed to sell insurance and securities. Respondent and her husband operated CFR, CWA, and CFS out of shared office space. Respondent performed bookkeeping and secretarial duties for CWA and CFS. In January, 1992, Respondent's husband (the "seller") verbally agreed ("agreed") to sell 35 percent of the stock of CFS to Mr. John Topercer (the "purchaser") for $35,000. The seller and purchaser agreed to operate the company as "partners." The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid the $35,000 purchase price in five installments from January 31, 1992, through March 12, 1992. During that time, the seller agreed to sell an additional 14 percent of the stock of CFS for an additional $13,000. The purchaser paid the additional $13,000 in three installments from April 14, 1992, through May 13, 1992. In May, 1992, the purchaser and seller agreed to another stock acquisition for $20,000. The seller would merge CFS, CWA, and CFR into a new company to be known as Concord Financial Centre ("CFC"). All of the business activities carried out by the separate companies would be consolidated into CFC. The purchaser would receive 49 percent of the stock of CFC in exchange for his 49 percent stock ownership in CFS. The seller and purchaser would operate CFC as "partners" in the same manner as originally contemplated for CFS. The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid $20,000 in five installments from June 2 through June 22, 1992, and tendered his stock in CFS. However, the purchaser never received any stock in CFC. CFC was never formed. The seller never tendered any stock in CFC to the purchaser. The seller used some of the sale proceeds to operate CFS. However, approximately $30,000 of the sale proceeds were misappropriated and used by Respondent and her husband for personal purposes including a down payment on a house and a car. On January 6, 1993, the purchaser filed a civil complaint against Respondent and her husband alleging fraud, recision, and mismanagement of corporate funds. On August 8, 1994, the purchaser received judgment against Respondent and her husband in the amount of $30,000. Respondent and her husband have not satisfied the judgment. Neither has paid any money toward the judgment, and the purchaser has been unable to satisfy the judgment. Respondent knew of the negotiations and business transactions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent performed the duties of bookkeeper and documented all of the payments made by Mr. Topercer. Respondent was present during some of the discussions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent agreed to the merger of CFR into CFC. Respondent participated in the misappropriation of the purchase proceeds for her own personal use. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Those acts were repeated and continued for more than six months. The amount misappropriated by Respondent is significant. During the three and a half years since June, 1992, Respondent has made no attempt at restitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and revoking Respondent's real estate license. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, 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 9th day of January 1996.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Lynton Oliver Thomas, was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0504596 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent Thomas was as a broker-salesperson at Pagliari Realty, Inc., 323 Northeast 167 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, L T Express Realty Corp., was a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273473 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Thomas was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. The office for this corporate entity was located at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. There was no evidence that Respondent Thomas operated his corporate entity from any other office. On May 7, 1995, Respondent Thomas, a licensed real estate broker, d/b/a L T Express Realty Corp., negotiated a contract for the sale of a house between Bruce and Ann McCormick (as sellers) and Marie S. Saintel and Carita Luc (as buyers). The buyers gave Respondent Thomas an earnest money deposit in the amount of $5,528.00. The transaction failed to close. The sellers, through their agent, attempted to make a demand upon Respondent Thomas for delivery of the earnest money deposit. The sellers' agent was unable to serve the demand on the Respondents because the Respondents had closed their offices and could not be located. Respondents had, or should have had, a good faith doubt as to the proper way to disburse the escrowed funds. Respondent Thomas, without authorization from the sellers, returned $3,000.00 of the original $5,528.00 deposit to the buyers. The balance of the earnest money deposit, in the amount of $2,528.00, has not been recovered from the Respondents. Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides the procedure real estate brokers are required to follow when competing demands are made for funds that have been received in escrow or when a broker has a good faith doubt as to how escrowed funds should be disbursed. At no time did Respondents attempt to invoke those procedures. Kenneth G. Rehm, Petitioner's investigator, visited Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. and discovered that Respondent Thomas had abandoned his registered office. Respondent Thomas failed to notify Petitioner that he closed his real estate office at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered that finds Respondents guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I-VIII of the Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for these violations, the Final Order should revoke all licenses issued by Petitioner to Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Mr. Lynton Oliver Thomas L T Express Realty Corp. 10810 Northeast Tenth Place Miami, Florida 33161 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of November, 1997 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
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record contained herein, I make the following findings of fact. The Department is the agency responsible for licensing, regulating, and disciplining real estate broker-salespersons in the State of Florida. Respondent's Florida real estate broker-salesperson license number 0389600 was originally issued on December 19, 1983. His real estate license was active in Florida between June 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993. During this period, Respondent was registered as a broker-salesman for Klein and Heuchan, Inc., located in Clearwater, Florida. Respondent's real estate license expired on or about July 1, 1993, and was activated on March 14, 1995. Between March 14, 1995 and July 31, 1995, Respondent was a broker-salesperson with Viewpoint Realty in Belleair Bluffs, Florida. During the dates at issue in this proceeding, Respondent's real estate license was invalid. In the summer of 1993, Respondent was employed as a mortgage loan consultant by Savings of America, St. Petersburg, Florida. In this position, Respondent worked directly with real estate brokers to provide financing for the sale of real estate transactions in the Tampa Bay area. On or about July 1, 1993, Respondent took steps to place his broker-salesperson license with Ahmanson Investments, the real estate division of Savings of America. On June 29, 1993, Respondent completed a Department form entitled "Request for License or Change of Status" (Request). The Request indicated that the broker employer for whom Respondent would be employed was Ahmanson Investments. After completing the "Applicant Section" of the form, Respondent submitted the Request to his supervisor, who then forwarded it to Mary Adair, the broker of record for Ahmanson Investments. The "Broker/Employer Section" of the request was completed and executed by Mary Adair. The completed Request was forwarded to the Regional Office of Savings of America to be distributed to the proper authorities. Respondent was told by Savings of American/Ahmanson Investments that the Department had been notified that Respondent's broker-salesperson license had been transferred to Ahmanson Investments. Based on representations of his employer, Savings of America, Respondent believed that the Request had been properly filed with the Department and that his real estate license was in effect. Respondent learned after August 1994, that the Request was never sent to the Department by Savings of America. As a result of Respondent's improper reliance on Savings of America to file the Request, Respondent did not file the Request with the Department. By statute, Respondent was required to notify the Department within ten (10) days of any address change or change in employer. By failing to properly notify the Department, Respondent's license ceased to be in effect when he placed it with and was employed by Ahmanson Investments in July 1993. Respondent operated as a real-estate broker-salesperson while employed with Ahmanson Investments although his Florida real estate license ceased to be in effect during the time he was so employed. In August 1994, Respondent contacted Juanel Topper of Topper Realty, Inc., about purchasing a house that was listed by Topper Realty, Inc. Respondent indicated to Ms. Topper that he was interested in purchasing the house as a personal residence for himself and his wife. On or about August 14, 1994, Ms. Topper showed the property to Respondent and his wife. Respondent visited the property three or four times after his initial contact with Ms. Topper and asked Ms. Topper several questions regarding the property. During one of his discussions with Ms. Topper concerning the property, Respondent gave Ms. Topper a business card bearing the name "Stewart S. Angel Realty, Realty CRS CRB-Developer". The card listed a toll free telephone number, a Florida telephone number, and a St. Petersburg, Florida address. Printed on the top left hand corner of the card was "Michigan- Florida". The business card given to Ms. Topper had a line drawn through the word "Florida" that was printed in the top left corner. The Respondent is a licensed real estate broker in Michigan and testified that Stewart A. Angel Realty is a Michigan company. However, the Stewart A. Angel Realty card lists only a Florida address. Although there is a toll free telephone number printed on the card, the only other telephone number on the card is a Florida number. The information on the card makes it appear that Stewart A. Angel Realty is a Florida business. In August 1994, Ms. Topper telephoned Respondent to answer several questions he had concerning the property. Ms. Topper called one of the telephone numbers shown on the "Stewart S. Angel Realty" business card that Respondent had given to her. The answering machine for that number stated that the name of the business called was "Angel Realty". Ms. Topper confirmed with the Department that Angel Realty was not registered in Florida. When Respondent initially inquired about the property, he did not reveal to Ms. Topper that he was an agent. However, on a previous occasion, Respondent had given Ms. Topper a business card which indicated that he was a conventional loan consultant for Savings of America. The business card had the following designations listed immediately after Respondent's name: "GRI, CRS, and CRB". On or about August 24, 1994, Respondent advised Ms. Topper that as an active real estate broker, he wanted to participate in the commission paid if in fact he purchased the property. Ms. Topper confronted Respondent about not revealing to her initially that he was a broker and would want to share in any commission earned as a result of the sale of the property. Respondent believed that Ms. Topper was aware that he considered himself to be a licensed real estate broker-salesperson. Respondent's belief was based on previous business dealings between himself and Ms. Topper as well as the fact that she had received Respondent's Savings of America business card. Respondent did not purchase the property which was the subject of discussions between Respondent and Ms. Topper. No agreement was ever executed by the Respondent and Ms. Topper regarding the sale/purchase of the property. Neither was any money ever exchanged between the parties regarding the sale or purchase of the property. Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker-salesperson for almost twelve years and has not had any other complaints filed against him prior to the instant case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated Sections 475.42(1)(a), 475.23, and 475.25 (1)(c) and (e), Florida Statutes; issuing a written reprimand; and imposing a $1,000.00 to be paid in accordance with this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3608 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59 (2), Florida Statutes. The following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1. Accepted and incorporated. Paragraph 2. First sentence rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Second sentence accepted. Paragraphs 3-9. Accepted and incorporated. Paragraph 10. First sentence rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. The evidence showed that in initial discussion with Ms. Topper, Respondent did not reveal that he was agent. Second sentence accepted. Paragraph 11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street #N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-2465 Stewart S. Angel, Jr. Post Office Box 41465 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743-2465 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 Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: Respondent, Robert E. Zimmerly (Zimmerly) is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license No. 0127833, with last known address of 500 Hinson Avenue, Haines City, Florida and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker. Respondent, Haines City Realty, Inc. (Haines City) is a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued registration No. 0146307, with its last known business address of 500 Hinson Avenue, Haines City, Florida and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a corporate real estate broker. Haines City's license is currently in an inactive status. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Zimmerly was the sole broker, of and for Haines City, and was its President. Several weeks prior to April 23, 1981, the date N. B. Willoughby (Willoughby) signed the first offer to purchase the property (offer), Zimmerly along with Barbara Costello (Costello) and Chancellor I. Hannon (Hannon) showed the property described as "Lots 230 and 233 of the Lucerne Park Fruit Association Subdivision, P1at Book 3, Page 67, Public Records of Polk County, Florida" (property), consisting of approximately 20 acres and contiguous to the city limits of Winter Haven, Florida to Willoughby, a prospective buyer, along with Ray Workman (Workman), Willoughby's associate. Costello at the time was a sales person for American Realty of Haines City, now known as American Realty of Polk County, Inc., (American Realty). Zimmerly was representing Haines City. Hannon was representing Ridge Holding Association, Inc., (seller) the owner of the property. The property had originally been listed with Haines City but presently was considered as being listed with American Realty. Subsequent to having seen the property, Willoughby instructed Zimmerly to prepare an offer to purchase, with a purchase price of $70,000, subject to the condition, among others, that the seller would obtain a special exception for a mobile home park. A deposit check for $500 was submitted along with the offer. Costello submitted the offer to Hannon for seller. Sometime around April 25, 1981, Hannon notified Costello that the seller had rejected Willoughby's offer because of the condition concerning a special exception for mobile home park. Within a day, Costello notified Zimmerly of the rejection. Zimmerly requested rejection in writing which Hannon did not furnish until May 11, 1981 due to his involvement in personal matters. Willoughby was not notified of seller's rejection of his first offer until around May 11, 1981. On April 27, 1981, after a verbal notification by Costello of rejection of Willoughby's offer, Zimmerly prepared and submitted an offer to purchase (Ridge offer) from Ridge Crest, Ltd., Agent, (This was apparently meant to be Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd.) signed by Bob Zimmerly, a general and limited partner, to seller, with a purchase price of $72,000, subject to the condition, among others, that seller furnish a letter requesting a special exception for mobile homes park. The Ridge offer was submitted to Hannon for the seller and was accepted by seller on May 5, 1981. On May 18, 1981 Willoughby submitted his second offer to purchase (second offer), with deposit, to seller through Zimmerly. The second offer was identical to the first offer except for the deletion of the condition requiring a special exception for mobile home park. Zimmerly did not advise Willoughby at this time, or at any other time material to the transaction, that Zimmerly was involved in an attempted purchase of the property through Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd. even though the Ridge offer had been accepted on May 5, 1981. Although the Ridge offer indicated a closing date of May 15, 1981, the transaction did not close for reasons not clear in the record, until May 27, 1981. The warranty deed and the mortgage deed executed on day of closing shows Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd. as the Grantee and Mortgagor, respectively. The deposits submitted with both of Willoughby's offers were timely refunded by Zimmerly. Willoughby was notified by Hannon after the closing that his second offer was rejected. On November 6, 1980, a limited partnership known as Ridge Crest Villas Ltd., was filed with the Secretary of State. The record is not clear, but apparently this limited partnership was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report and on October 14, 1981, an identical limited partnership, with the same name was filed with the Secretary of State. Both limited partnerships listed Robert E. Zimmerly as a general partner with 5 percent interest and listed Robert E. Zimmerly and Dolores J. Zimmerly as limited partners with 45 percent and 50 percent interests, respectively. Respondent Zimmerly's testimony was that: (1) he wanted a written (firm) rejection before notifying Willoughby because of previous dealings with Willoughby; (2) it is not uncommon to use limited partnerships in real estate transactions because of the availability of tax advantages when using a limited partnership; (3) he was acting for Jones and Destefano when he made the offer and purchased the property in the name of the limited partnership; (4) he intended for Jones and Destefano to own the property through the limited partnership and took a promissory note for the down payment; (5) he did not advise Willoughby of his involvement in the purchase of the property, other than in general terms "that some fellows from up north are interested" (Destefano is "from up North") because he had been taught in real estate schools, and it was his policy, not to discuss one prospective buyer's offer with another prospective buyer; and (6) it is common practice to have a "backup" offer as with Willoughby's second offer because you are never sure if a particular transaction will close. Mainly, this testimony went unrebutted by the petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes 1981) For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of Reprimand and impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 308 P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire P.O. Drawer J Lakeland, Florida 33802 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0500228. Respondent’s licensing cycle ends on March 31 every two years. He duly renewed his broker’s license prior to its expiration on March 31, 1994. During the ensuing two-year licensing term, Respondent executed on January 1, 1996, a Request for License or Change of Status and submitted the form to Petitioner. The purpose of submitting the form was to notify Petitioner that Respondent had adopted a corporate form of doing business as a real estate broker. Section A of the form contains a series of options. Respondent selected “other” and wrote in “change to corp.” Section B contains identifying information, and Respondent completed this section. Section C is irrelevant to the change that Respondent was making, and he did not fill in this section. The instructions for Section A direct the person filing the form as follows: “If this is a renewal of your license, it must be accompanied by the required fee and sign this: I hereby affirm that I have met all statutory and rule requirements regarding education for license renewal.” Respondent signed this statement even though he was not seeking a renewal of his license. The instructions for Section B told the person filing the form how to complete Section B. But these instructions required no representations. The next form generated in this case was another renewal notice, as Respondent’s license neared the end of its term, which expired March 31, 1996. This form states: “By submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department . . ., a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal.” By check dated December 30, 1995, Respondent timely submitted his license renewal fee of $95 in response to the renewal notice. He was unaware at the time that he had not met the continuing education requirement for relicensing, which called for 14 hours of education. In reliance on the implied representation that Respondent had completed the required continuing education, Petitioner renewed Respondent’s license. Later, during a random audit, Petitioner discovered that Respondent had not completed the necessary courses and commenced this proceeding. Respondent was cooperative during the audit. Upon discovering that he had not complied with the continuing education requirement, he promptly undertook the necessary coursework, which he completed by August 6, 1996.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Andrea D. Perkins Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen Frederick H. Wilsen & Associates, P.A. Law Office of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's registration as a real estate salesperson, without prejudice to the filing of a proper application. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 s. Grace Fararo Mazon Rt. 1, Box 40 R-5 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Ms. Grace F. Mazon c/o Marguerite L. Rhea 816 North West 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32601
The Issue The issue to be resolved herein concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this proceeding. Embodied in that general issue are questions concerning whether the Petitioners are the prevailing parties; whether they meet the definition of "small business" parties, including the net worth amounts, enumerated in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as well as whether the disciplinary proceeding against both Petitioners was "substantially justified". See Section 57.111(3)(e) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practices of real estate salesmen and brokers by the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Included within those duties is the duty to investigate conduct by realtors allegedly in violation of Chapter 475 and related rules and to prosecute administrative penal proceedings for which probable cause is found as a result of such investigations. At times pertinent hereto, both Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Cosyns, (then Pauline Sealey) were licensed realtors working as independent contractors for Mariner Properties, Inc. and V.I.P. Realty Inc. The complete file of the underlying proceeding DOAH Case No. 86-0140, was stipulated into evidence. That file included the Administrative Complaint filed against these Respondents and the Recommended and Final Order, which Final Order adopted the Recommended Order. The findings of fact in that Recommended Order are incorporated by reference and adopted herein. During the Petitioner's case, counsel for Petitioner voluntarily reduced the attorney's fees bills for both Petitioners such that Ms. Maxwell's bill is the total amount of $2,695.50 and Ms. Cosyns' bill is $17,200, rather than the original amounts submitted in the affidavit. Respondent acknowledged in its proposed Final Order that the fees and costs submitted by the Respondent were thus reasonable. The testimony the Petitioners presented through depositions, transcripts of which were admitted into evidence into this proceeding, was unrefuted. That testimony demonstrates that both Ms. Cosyns and Ms. Maxwell were prevailing parties in the administrative proceeding referenced herein brought by the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation. They were individually named as Respondents in the Administrative Complaint whereby their professional licenses were subjected to possible suspension or revocation for alleged wrong doing on their part. There is no dispute that they were exonerated in that proceeding and are thus prevailing parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners are also "small business parties". In that connection, they both were independently licensed Real Estate professionals during times pertinent to the underlying proceeding and were acting in the capacity of independent contractors for all the activities with which the administrative complaint was concerned. Each established that her net worth is below the limit provided by Section 57.111 as an element of the definition of "small business party". The reasonableness of the fees having been established in the manner found-above and the Petitioners having established that they meet the definitional requirements of prevailing small business parties, there remains to be determined the issue of whether the proceedings against the two Petitioners were "substantially justified", that is, whether the proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a State agency." See Section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The facts concerning each Petitioner's case regarding the three counts of the Administrative Complaint relating to them are as found in the Recommended Order incorporated by reference herein. Respondent Maxwell was charged in the complaint with having worked in conjunction with an office manager, Mr. Hurbanis of V.I.P. Realty, in conspiring with him to submit a fraudulent real estate sales contract to a lending institution for purposes of financing. This allegedly involved submitting a contract to the lending institution with an inflated purchase price in order to secure one hundred percent financing, the scheme being more particularly described in that portion of the findings of fact in the Recommended Order related to Jean Maxwell. In fact, Ms. Maxwell did not work in the realty office as charged in the Administrative Complaint, but rather was employed by Mariner Properties, which may have been a related company. The contract in question, although alleged to be fraudulent was, in fact, a bona fide contract which was a legitimate part of the Real Estate transaction submitted to the bank for financing purposes, about which the bank was kept fully advised. All details of the transaction were disclosed to the lender. Maxwell was specifically charged with concealing the true contract from the lender in order to enhance the percentage of the purchase price that the bank would finance, done by allegedly inflating the purchase price in a second contract submitted to the bank. It was established in the disciplinary proceeding that no such concealment ever took place. In fact, Ms. Maxwell was purchasing a lot from her own employer, Mariner Properties. Two contracts were indeed prepared for the purchase of Lot 69, a single family lot on Sanibel Island. In fact, however, the difference of $42,875 and $49,500 in the stated purchase price, as depicted on the two contracts, was the result of continuing negotiations between Ms. Maxwell and the seller, who was also her employer. The difference in the two prices depicted on the contracts was the result of, in effect, a set-off to the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, representing certain employee discounts and real estate commission due from the employer and seller to Ms. Maxwell, the purchaser. As Petitioners' composite Exhibit 5 reflects, the lender involved, North First Bank of Ft. Myers, Florida, was fully apprised of all the details concerning this transaction at the time it was entered into and the loan commitment extended and closed. Mr. Allan Barnes, the Assistant Vice President of North First Bank revealed, in the letter contained in this exhibit in evidence, that there was no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts to his institution by Ms. Maxwell. This letter is dated April 18, 1984. The other related letter in that exhibit, of May 2, 1984 from attorney Oertel to attorney Frederick H. Wilson of the Respondent agency, thus constitutes notice to the agency well before the complaint was filed, that no concealment or misrepresentation to the lender involved had occurred and the charges were requested to be dismissed. In spite of the fact that the agency was on notice of this turn of events well before the filing of the Administrative Complaint, it proceeded to file the complaint and to prosecute it all the way up to the date of hearing, requiring Ms. Maxwell's attorney to attend the hearing to defend her interests. At the hearing, counsel for the Department acknowledged that there was no basis for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell and voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to her. The Respondent's witness, Investigator Harris, in his deposition taken September 11, 1984, acknowledged that he did not discuss any details concerning the investigation, with attorney Frederick Wilson, who prepared the complaint, nor did he confer with him by telephone or correspondence before the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was prepared solely on the basis of the investigative report. The investigative report came into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. It reveals that Mr. A. J. Davis the president of Mariner Group and Mariner Properties, who was Jean Maxwell's employer and the owner of the lot in question, signed one contract and his Executive Vice President signed the other. In spite of this, the investigative report does not reveal that the investigator conferred with either Ms. Maxwell, or the sellers concerning this transaction. He conducted a general interview of A.J. Davis concerning the alleged "problem" in his office of "double contracting," but asked him no questions and received no comment about the Jean Maxwell transaction whatever. Nor did the investigator confer with Mr. Allen Barnes or any other representative of North First Bank. If the investigation had been more complete and thorough, he would have learned from Mr. Barnes, if from no one else, that the bank had knowledge of both contracts and all details of the transaction underlying them and there had been no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts regarding the transaction by Ms. Maxwell. This information was learned by attorney Oertel as early as April 18, 1984 by Mr. Barnes' letter, referenced above, and it was communicated to the agency by Mr. Oertel on May 2, 1984. Nevertheless, the complaint was filed and prosecuted through to hearing. Therefore, the prosecution and filing of the Administrative Complaint were clearly not substantially justified. If the Department had properly investigated the matter it would have discovered the true nature of the transaction as being a completely bona fide real estate arrangement. Former Respondent, Pauline Sealy Cosyns was charged with two counts, III and V, in the Administrative Complaint at issue. One count alleged, in essence, that Ms. Sealey had engaged in a similar fraudulent contract situation regarding the sale of her residence to a Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Floyd. The evidence in that proceedings revealed no concealment of any sales contract occurred whatever with regard to the lending institution or anyone else. The facts as revealed at hearing showed Ms. Cosyns and the Floyds, through continuing negotiations after the original sales contract was entered into, amended that contract and executed a second one, in order to allow Ms. Cosyns to take back a second mortgage from the Floyds. This was necessary because Mr. Floyd, an author, was short of the necessary down payment pursuant to the terms of the original contract, because his annual royalty payment from his publishers had not been received as the time approached for closing. The second contract was executed to allow for a second mortgage in favor of the seller, Ms. Cosyns, in order to make up the amount owed by the Floyds on the purchase price agreed upon, above the first mortgage amount. The testimony and evidence in the disciplinary proceeding revealed unequivocally that the lending institution, Amerifirst Mortgage Company, was fully apprised of the situation and of the reason for the two contractual agreements. The $24,000 second mortgage in question is even depicted on the closing statement issued by that bank. There was simply no concealment and no effort to conceal any facts concerning this transaction from the lender or from anyone else. The investigation conducted was deficient because the investigator failed to discuss this transaction with the lender or with the purchasers. He discussed the matter with Ms. Sealy-Cosyns and his own deposition testimony reveals, as does his investigative report, that he did not feel that he got a complete account of the transaction from her. She testified in her deposition, taken prior to the instant proceeding, that she indeed did not disclose all facts of the transaction to him because she was concerned that he was attempting to apprehend her in some "legal impropriety". Therefore, she was reluctant to be entirely candid. The fact remains, however, that had he conducted a complete investigation by conferring with the lender and the purchasers, he would have known immediately, long before the Administrative Complaint was filed and the matter prosecuted, that there was absolutely no basis for any probable cause finding that wrong-doing had occurred in terms of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Thus, the facts concerning the prosecution as to Count III against Pauline Sealy-Cosyns, as more particularly delineated in the findings of fact in the previous Recommended Order, reveal not only that Ms. Cosyns was totally exonerated in the referenced proceeding, but that there was no substantial basis for prosecuting her as to this count at all. Concerning Count V against Ms. Cosyns, it was established through the evidence at the hearing in the disciplinary case that she was merely the listing agent and did not have any part to play in the drafting of the contract nor the presenting of it to the lender. Because there was no evidence adduced to show that she had any complicity or direct involvement in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction involved in Count V of the Administrative Complaint at issue she was exonerated as to that count as well. It is noteworthy here that a statement was made by counsel for the agency, appearing at pages 20 and 21 of the transcript of the proceeding involving the Administrative Complaint, which indicates that the agency, based upon its review of certain documents regarding Counts III and V, before hearing, felt that indeed there might not be a disputed issue of material fact as to Mrs. Cosyns. The agency, although acknowledging that a review of the documents caused it to have reason to believe that it was unnecessary to proceed further against Ms. Cosyns nevertheless did not voluntarily dismiss those counts and proceeded through hearing. Be that as it may, the investigation revealed that Ms. Cosyns acknowledged that she knew that there were two contractual documents involved, but the investigation also revealed that Ms. Cosyns was only the listing agent. The selling agent was Mr. Parks. The investigation revealed through interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Parks and Mr. Hurbanis, the office Manager of V.I.P. Realty, that Ms. Cosyns, as listing agent, was merely present when the offer from the buyers was communicated to the office manager, Mr. Hurbanis, and ultimately to the sellers, the Cottrells. There was no reason for the investigator to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the drafting of the contracts nor with the communication of them to the lending institution involved. That was done by either Mr. Parks or Mr. Hurbanis or by the buyers. The investigation (as revealed in the investigative report) does not show who communicated the contract in question to the lender. The investigation was simply incomplete. If the investigator had conferred with the buyers, the sellers and especially the lender, he could have ascertained-whether the lender was aware of all the facts concerning this transaction and whether there was any reason to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the arrangement and the details of the transaction. It was ultimately established, by unrefuted evidence at hearing, that indeed Ms. Cosyns did not have anything to do with the transaction, nor the manner in which it was disclosed to the lender. The fact that she was aware that two contracts had been prepared did not give a reasonable basis for the investigator to conclude that she had engaged in any wrong-doing. The report of his interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Hurbanis and Mr. Parks, as well as Donna Ross, does not indicate that he had a reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Cosyns had engaged in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction, including the conveyance of a bogus contract to the lending institution involved, nor for that matter, that Mr. Hurbanis or Mr. Parks engaged in such conduct. In order to ascertain a reasonable basis for concluding whether Ms. Cosyns was involved in any wrongful conduct, he would have had to obtain more information than he did from these people or confer with the lender, the buyer or the seller, or all of these approaches, before he could have a reasonable basis to recommend to the prosecuting agency that an Administrative Complaint be filed against her concerning this transaction. In fact, he did not do so, but the Administrative Complaint was filed and prosecuted through hearing anyway, causing her to incur the above-referenced attorney's fees. It thus has not been demonstrated that there was any substantial basis for the filing and prosecution of Count V of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cosyn. Thus she is entitled to the attorneys fees referenced above with regard to the prosecution of the Administrative Complaint in question.
Findings Of Fact The testimony revealed that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. The application revealed that Defendant Frank Viruet (FREC Progress Docket 2856) was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice President of the company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; that Lee Klein was to become President and Director of the company. Testimony shows that Carol Bauman is the wife of Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket 2857); that Lee Klein is the sister of Carol Bauman and that Jeffrey Bauman (FREC Progress Docket 2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing said corporate application For registration with the Commission, evidence reveals that the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that along with each change, a new application For corporate registration was later filed with the commission. It was noted that the stated officers and active firm members broker remain as stated in the initial corporate application For registration. Thus, it can be concluded For all legal purposes that the above corporate entities are one and the same. Count I of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, reveals that according to the certificate filed with the Commission's chairman dated December 3, which was offered into evidence by Plaintiff and admitted, during the period November 1, 1975 to the date of said certificate, i.e., December 3, 1976, which covers all dates material to the complaint herein, no registration was issued to or held by either of said corporations, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., Noble Realty Corporation or Deed Realty, Inc. This was further confirmed by the testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet, who was to have become the active firm member broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. entered into a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976 (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation.) The unrebutted testimony of Plaintiff Reagan reveals that he observed during his investigation of this cause a building directory on the ground entrance floor to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 and a similar display on the building directory which was located on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in Room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. and that from January 2 to January 16, approximately 575 calls were made from the stated phones all during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but failed to recall specifically the number of calls nor did he have records to substantiate this fact. Bernard Bauman testified that from such solicitations, approximately 4 listings were obtained accompanied by an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing. When he was advised by the Commission's Investigator that the operation they were conducting was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the company and that all who are engaged in real estate activities therein were in violation of the license law (Chapter 475, F.S.) the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was further confirmed and unrebutted by plaintiff Reagan. As to Count II, the evidence established that, as stated above, the Defendants Bernard and Jeffrey Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to out-of-state property owners that listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. Both Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman admitted that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers. Bernard Bauman's testimony reveals that no monies received were returned to senders. There is no evidence introduced to show that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman knew, at the time of soliciting, that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation. As to Count III, plaintiff alleges that the above acts as set Forth above established a course of conduct by defendant upon which his revocation or registration should issue.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Bobbie G. Scheffer, who holds license No. 0073955, was a real estate broker for Rivard Realty, Inc. in Fort Walton Beach, Florida; and Ralph S. Ecoff was a licensed real estate salesman, employed by Rivard Realty, Inc. He holds license No. 0454969. In the spring of 1988, another salesman in the employ of Rivard Realty, Inc., Wayne Thompson, obtained the listing for the three-bedroom, one-story house at 28 East Casa Loma Drive in Mary Esther, Florida, from its then corporate owner, Roman Acts, Inc. He received information about the property from a representative of the corporation. Without verifying the information, Mr. Thompson entered it into a computer. Misled by the owner's representative, he reported the house's age as eight years. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. In fact, the house had been built in 1974. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. A public water supply serves the house, but a septic tank, not a public sewer, receives wastewater from the house. Aware of these matters, Mr. Thompson, when confronted with a blank on a form labelled "WATR/SEW", filled in "Pub. Wat." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. No more than another letter or two could have been squeezed into the blank on the form displayed on a computer video terminal. Respondent Ralph S. Ecoff saw the house in the course of showing it to prospective buyers, and decided to buy it himself. After a representative of Roman Acts, Inc. accepted his offer (but before the closing), Mr. Ecoff and a partner set about refurbishing the house. Mr. Ecoff, a septuagenarian who bought the house with the intention of reselling it, finds computers intimidating. Still another real estate salesman in the employ of Rivard Realty, Inc., Steve Kehran, volunteered to enter a revised listing in the multiple listing service computer, to let it be known that the property was again for sale. As instructed by Mr. Ecoff, Mr. Kehran raised the price and "changed the blurbage" (to read "EVERYTHING NEW AGAIN. COMPARES WITH NEW HOME. LOW INTEREST RATE," etc.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. In keeping with Mr. Ecoff's instructions, Kehran relied on the superseded listing for other information about the house. That is why the age of the house was again inaccurately reported as eight years. Extrapolating innocently but inaccurately from the earlier listing's "Pub. Wat.," Mr. Kehran assumed public sewers accompanied the public water supply and filled in the "WATER/SEW" blank with the abbreviation "Comm Sew." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. Mr. Ecoff had read the listing from which Mr. Kehran took the information but, he testified, he did not read it carefully. Whether he read over what Mr. Kehran wrote at any time before the Stacys complained of the inaccuracies is not clear. Mr. Ecoff has said all along that he was aware the property had a septic tank. He testified to this effect at hearing and also testified that he was aware the house was more than eight years old when the Stacys agreed to buy it. If he had read the listing Mr. Kehran entered in the computer for him with proper care and due regard for the importance of its accuracy, he would have discovered the misinformation it contained. Although Mr. Stacy had physical possession of a multiple listing sheet bearing the information Mr. Kehran introduced into the computer data bank at Mr. Ecoff's behest, while he and his wife drove around with Ms. Scheffer, looking at houses, and may well have read it at that time, the evidence did not show that either Ms. Scheffer or Mr. Ecoff reiterated the information verbally. (It was not clear whether Mr. Stacy retained the sheet Ms. Scheffer furnished him after seeing the house.) Engaged by a mortgage company, an appraiser who was familiar with the neighborhood reported the true age of the house, but put its "effective age" at ten years, after two visits to the property. The appraiser's report, which recited inaccurately, as the listing had, that a public sewer served the property, was furnished to the mortgage company that financed the Stacys' purchase. Once the report reached the mortgage company, it was available to the Stacys, although they did not in fact see it, as far as the evidence showed, before the closing, which took place on August 24, 1988. On or before January 1, 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Stacy will be required to cause pipe to be installed to connect the house to a public sewer main, itself yet to be laid. Mr. Stacy has been told the hook-up will cost $1,600.00 over and above the $600.00 it will cost to install the connector. Even so, the evidence did not establish that the house's dependence on a septic tank affected its market value in 1988. The evidence also failed to show that the house's age materially affected its value. Ms. Scheffer encourages salespersons in her employ to take advantage of courses the local Board of Realtors offers, and scheduled Mr. Ecoff for every such course available. She has not personally instructed salespeople to verify information sellers give them by independent inspection. Perhaps because the practice of relying on sellers' representations is widespread, the multiple listing sheets all bear the disclaimer, "INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT NOT GUARANTEED." The evidence did not show how carefully Ms. Scheffer read the inaccurate listing that salesmen in her employ generated, or that she would have been or should have been aware of the inaccuracies, however carefully she had examined the listing. Although Mr. Ecoff said he knew there was a septic tank on the property because the grass was so green in part of the backyard, Mr. Stacy testified that the septic tank is buried in front of the house. It was not proven that even an experienced real estate broker like Ms. Scheffer should necessarily infer an actual age of more than eight from an effective age of ten years. In short, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that respondent Scheffer actually knew or had reason to know the listing was inaccurate.
Recommendation It is, in accordance with Rule 21V-18.008, Florida Administrative Code, recommended: That petitioner suspend respondent Ecoff's license for thirty (30) days. That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint, insofar as it alleges that respondent Scheffer violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(a), 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Phillip F. Niles, is and was, at times material to this matter, a licensed real estate broker. His license number is 0173298. Respondent's license was inactive from August 2, 1996, through March 31, 1997. It was invalid due to non-renewal from March 31, 1997 through May 28, 1997. From May 29, 1997 through August 20, 1997, Respondent was an active broker. From August 21, 1997 through June 10, 1998, Respondent was an inactive broker. From June 11, 1998, through the date of the formal hearing, Respondent was an active individual broker. The address of his last license was 1700 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. Sam L. Berry owned a condominium located at 840 Center Street, Unit 101, Holly Hill, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the property). Sometime prior to April 27, 1997, Mr. Berry asked Respondent to sell the property. Mr. Berry wanted to receive $20,000 for the property. Mr. Berry told Respondent that he could keep any amount of the sales price in excess of $20,000. Respondent placed an advertisement for the sale of the property in the newspaper. Thereafter, he prepared a Contract for Sale and Purchase (the contract) for the sale of the property with $20,000 as the sales price. The buyer's name was John Richards. Meanwhile, Peggy Holloway became interested in the property after seeing Respondent's advertisement. Ms. Holloway contacted Respondent at the number referenced in the advertisement. Subsequently, she met Respondent at the property. At that time Respondent's broker's license was inactive. Ms. Holloway made an offer on the property. In order to make a commission or profit on the sale, Respondent decided to sell the property to her. He changed the existing contract by marking through Mr. Richard's name and adding Ms. Holloway's name as the buyer. Respondent changed the sales price on the contract to $23,000. On April 27, 1997, Ms. Holloway signed the contract as the buyer. That same day, Mr. Berry signed the contract as seller. As part of the contract, and pursuant to Respondent's instructions, Ms. Holloway made a check out to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $500. Respondent assured Ms. Holloway that he would place the money in an escrow account. The contract stated that the $500 deposit would be held in escrow. Respondent did not place Ms. Holloway's money in escrow. He cashed her check and kept the $500. At all times material to the transaction Ms. Holloway believed that Respondent was a licensed real estate broker. Additionally, the contract contained language stating that Respondent was a real estate broker. During subsequent conversations with Ms. Holloway about financing arrangements for the purchase of the property, Respondent appeared drunk. As a result of those conversations, Ms. Holloway became suspicious about Respondent's intentions and his competence to handle the real estate transaction. Ms. Holloway contacted Petitioner and learned that Respondent's license was inactive. On or about May 6, 1997, Ms. Holloway telephoned Respondent. She told him that she did not want to go through with the contract. She demanded that Respondent return her $500 deposit. Respondent failed to return Ms. Holloway's $500 deposit. Ms. Holloway then began to deal with Respondent's brother, Peter Niles, who is an attorney. Respondent's brother prepared a document for Mr. Berry to sign acknowledging receipt of the $500 deposit. Mr. Berry signed the document prepared by Respondent's brother even though Respondent never gave the $500 deposit to Mr. Berry. Ms. Holloway eventually decided to deal directly with Mr. Berry. They agreed on a sale price and closed the transaction with no assistance from Respondent, his brother, or any other individual. Ms. Holloway sued Respondent in the County Court of Volusia County, Florida. In Case No. 97-31586, the County Judge entered a judgment against Respondent in favor of Ms. Holloway. Respondent had not satisfied the judgment as of the date of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for a period of ten years and requiring him to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000 within one year of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip F. Niles 5747 Sweetwater Boulevard Port Orange, Florida 32127 Phillip F. Niles Apartment 503 100 Seabreeze Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
