Findings Of Fact The Respondent, John L. Nuccitelli, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued License Number 0064764, and he was so licensed at all times material to the issue in this proceeding. On August 20, 1979, an arrest warrant was issued in Lancaster County, South Carolina, directing that the Respondent be arrested on the charge of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in that he flew into the Lancaster County Airport in a Douglas DC4 four engine aircraft with approximately 131 bales of marijuana. The Respondent was subsequently indicted for this offense, and on December 4, 1979, he was found guilty in the Court of General Sessions in and for Lancaster County, South Carolina, of the crime as charged. Thereafter, the Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years, and a fine of $5,000, with the provision that the prison term would be reduced to probation for five years upon payment of the $5,000 fine. On July 29, 1982, the Respondent having paid the fine imposed and having fulfilled the conditions of his probation, the Court entered its Order relieving the Respondent from the sentence previously imposed, and discharging him from further probation. The Respondent had not been involved with the law prior to the incident in question, and has not been so involved since this incident. He realizes that he made a serious mistake, one which has adversely affected both himself and his family. He is the sole support of his wife and five children, and he has only done work in the real estate field since leaving the Air Force. The Respondent and his wife have been married eight years. They have two children of their own, and three children by a prior marriage. The Respondent is a caring husband and father. He is trusted by those persons in the community who know him.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that License No. 0064764 held by the Respondent, John L. Nuccitelli, be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 1st day of November, 1982. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire 603 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carlos B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent, and his testimony during the proceeding herein, the documentary evidence received, including a prehearing stipulation executed by counsel for the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts 1/ are found. Respondent, Stewart Sax, is a real estate salesman who holds License No. 0347241. Respondent is presently employed by Choice Rentals and Realty Corporation, 3365 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The prosecution of this matter was initiated by Petitioner against Respondent based on an Administrative Complaint filed herein, signed August 3, 1981. On July 24, 1980, Respondent submitted an application for licensure with the Petitioner. In connection therewith, Respondent answered question No. 6 in the negative by asserting "No." That question reads in total: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violation), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Respondent was first arrested on April 21, 1972, when he was charged with credit card theft in Atlanta, Georgia. At this time, he was approximately 22 years old and was a student at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charges and received three years probation and a $500.00 fine based upon this plea. Respondent contends that the credit card belonged to a girl friend's mother and he initially had the right to use that credit card. Respondent was next arrested on January 25, 1974, when he was arrested for credit card theft, public indecency and public drunkenness in Atlanta. The charges on the first two counts were dismissed and Respondent received a 30-day suspended sentence on the public drunkenness charge. Respondent was next arrested on July 24, 1980, in Fort Lauderdale, and was charged with grand larceny and issuing a worthless check. The worthless check charge was nolle prosequi and the grand larceny charge was reduced to petty theft, to which Respondent pled no contest. Respondent was placed on probation for six (6) months; he paid $50.00 court costs and adjudication of guilt was withheld. On July 24, 1980, Respondent was again arrested for driving while intoxicated and with an expired driver's license. No information was issued on the driving while intoxicated charge and Respondent pled no contest to the expired driver's license charge. He paid $25.00 for court costs and adjudication was withheld. Finally, Respondent was arrested on July 30, 1980, and charged with prowling in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. These charges were dismissed. Respondent contends that he was under a great deal of pressure when he submitted his application for licensure and was of the opinion, based on representations of his former counsel, that he did not have to reveal these matters on applications, etc.; that these matters were dropped, and would not follow him in the future. (Prehearing Stipulation) As noted above, the matter was presented based upon a prehearing stipulation, prepared by counsel for the parties whereby Respondent admitted each of the allegations as contained in the Administrative Complaint with explanations for each allegation. Evidence presented at the hearing indicated that, except for the Public drunkenness charge, all remaining charges were either nolle prosequi, dismissed without any information being filed or adjudication was withheld and sentences were probated. Respondent has enjoyed success in his field as a real estate salesman since he has been licensed. Respondent as far as the record reveals, has not had any disciplinary charges brought against him since he has been licensed as a real estate salesman. Other professionals in the area have a high regard for Petitioner, both personally and professionally as a real estate salesman. Respondent is a highly intelligent real estate salesman who, it can be assumed, understood the application for licensure which he executed to become a real estate salesman. Based on the admissions contained in the prehearing stipulation and Respondent's testimony, his failure to truthfully answer all questions on his application, he (Respondent) violated the provisions of Chapter 475.17(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's real estate License No. 0347241 be REVOKED. That Respondent be afforded an opportunity to reapply for a license as a real estate salesman and that pending a decision by the Board on Respondent's reapplication for licensure, the Board spend the revocation referred to in the Recommendation above. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his real estate salesperson's license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Seeking to become a licensed real estate salesperson, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application on December 16, 1996. One of the questions on the application form asks: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? . . . [Bold] If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. [End Bold] Respondent checked "yes," but failed to attach the details or otherwise describe them on the form. As alleged, Respondent pleaded no contest to driving under the influence in July 1991, and he was adjudicated guilty. He was placed on supervised probation for one year and lost his driving privileges for six months. As alleged, Respondent pleaded no contest to the traffic misdemeanor of reckless driving and misdemeanor possession of under 20 grams of marijuana in June 1995. He was adjudicated guilty of reckless driving, and adjudication was withheld as to possession of marijuana. He was fined $630 and court costs for reckless driving. In completing the application, Respondent realized that he would have to supply the details of the criminal offenses, of which he admitted when he checked the "yes" box. However, he set aside the application for a week or two, and, when he picked it up again to finish, he forgot about the need to attach a supplement. He thus sent it in incomplete and with a personal attestation that it was complete. Despite the obvious omission from the application, Petitioner issued Respondent a real estate salesperson's license without requesting further information concerning the criminal offenses. Respondent took the licensing examination on February 17, 1997. Passing the examination, he received his license shortly after it was issued on March 24, 1997. The next contact between the parties was when Respondent received a letter, dated February 25, 1998, from Petitioner noting that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement had informed Petitioner of an arrest for the latter criminal offenses. The letter states: "To clear any ambiguity regarding your 'YES' response to the relevant application question, we request additional information." The letter also requests an explanation regarding Respondent's failure to disclose this information on his application form. The letter concludes that Respondent's application would be held in abeyance until receipt of the requested information. By letter dated March 9, 1998, Respondent explained the circumstances surrounding the latter offenses, saying that he had not disclosed the information on the original application due to embarrassment. The letter does not mention the earlier criminal offense of driving under the influence. Respondent testified at the hearing that he claimed embarrassment because he did not think that it would sound as good to say that he had forgotten about the need to add the supplement to his application. This testimony is credited. It is impossible to infer an affirmative misrepresentation or attempt to conceal in the initial application. Respondent disclosed a criminal offense, and it was abundantly clear on the face of the short application form that he had failed to describe the disclosure, as requested to do so. Perhaps Petitioner's employees missed the box checked "yes" or, finding it, forgot to follow up on the matter. Clearly, though, Respondent sufficiently disclosed the matter to preclude a finding, on these facts, of any misrepresentation or intent to conceal. Respondent's March 9 response to the February 25 letter is a different matter. Although the February 25 letter focuses its inquiry upon the latter criminal offenses and does not request a comprehensive response to the question of criminal offenses, Respondent could have also mentioned the earlier offense. This would have negated any inference whatsoever of an affirmative misrepresentation or intent to conceal in the application or at this later stage. However, even considering the shortcoming of the February 25 response, the facts still do not support the finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent intentionally concealed the criminal offenses in his application. As to the omission from the February 25 letter as a basis for discipline in itself, the Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with anything arising directly out of the contents of his February 25 letter. Likewise, Petitioner's proposed recommended order does not even mention Respondent's February 25 response.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Warren Keith Babb, pro se 2310 Southwest 53rd Street Cape Coral, Florida 33914 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Peter Thomas Roman. By application dated April 28, 1988, he sought licensure as a real estate salesman. By letter dated October 24, 1988, counsel for Respondent informed Petitioner of Respondent's intent to deny licensure to Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's 1985 arrest and subsequent plea in 1986 to a charge of grand theft, as well as Petitioner's suspension from membership in the Florida Bar. Question number six of the application completed by Petitioner requires a "yes" or "no" answer to the question: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? Petitioner responded to question number six by disclosing his entry of a plea of nolo contendere in the circuit court for Pinellas County, Florida, on December 29, 1986, to a charge of grand theft. Petitioner related that the incident alleged had taken place in November of 1979. Petitioner further stated that the sentencing court had withheld formal adjudication of guilt and had placed Petitioner on probation. Petitioner, a licensed attorney at the time of the alleged incident, was disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida in an opinion issued on June 2, 1988. The Fla. Bar v. Peter T. Roman, 526 So.2d 60 (Fla. 1988). Petitioner's disbarment was based on the same acts which resulted in the grand theft charge. In addition, the Supreme Court found that "[t]his case involves not only theft, but fraud on the court which strikes at the very heart of a lawyer's ethical responsibility." Fla. Bar v. Roman, p. 62. The essential facts of the grand theft charges against Petitioner were that Petitioner falsified the name of an heir in an estate where Petitioner was serving as the personal representative. Funds paid from the estate to the falsified heir were converted by Petitioner to his own use. These matters occurred between January 1978 and January 1980. Petitioner was charged with grand theft in June of 1985. He pled no contest to that charge in 1986. Thereafter adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was sentenced to five years probation a $220 fine and nine months in the Pinellas County Jail. Since the incident which is the basis for the grand theft charges filed against Petitioner, he has not been involved in any incidents or episodes of misconduct. Petitioner has been offered a job as a sales person with a local real estate firm if he is permitted to hold a real estate license. Testimony of character witnesses offered by Petitioner establishes their belief that his reputation in the community is good, despite the one criminal incident in his past, and that they believe neither the public or investors would be endangered by the granting of licensure to the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5432 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-9. Adopted in substance. Unnecessary to result. Adopted in substance. Unnecessary to result. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-8. Adopted in substance. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Roman, Esquire 2340 Main Street, Suite L Dunedin, Florida 34698 Lawrence Gendzier, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Real Estate Legal Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact By an application received by the Board on March 21, 1979, Petitioner Carole Leigh McGraw applied for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate. Question number 6 of the application form inquired about past arrests or charges for violation of law. Ms. McGraw indicated that she had been arrested and as an explanation attached a separate sheet of paper on which she disclosed that she was arrested in July, 1973 for various criminal charges pending before the Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati, Ohio. She referred the Board for further details to her attorney, James N. Perry, Esquire of Cincinnati, Ohio. No attempt was made by the applicant to conceal any of the facts relating to her outstanding charges. Subsequent to the receipt of her application the Board requested on April 10, 1979, that Ms. McGraw furnish a copy of the indictment and advise the Board of the present status of the indictment. That information was provided by James N. Perry, Esquire who indicated in his letter of April 23, 1979, that counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the twenty count indictment had been dismissed. The dismissal was on appeal and probably would be decided eventually by the Ohio Supreme Court as the issue on appeal is the constitutionality of the organized crime status of Ohio. On July 7, 1978, in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, State of Ohio, the applicant, Carole Leigh McGraw, was indicted by Grand Jury on four counts of engaging in organized crime, six counts of forgery, one count of theft in office and one count of felony theft. None of these charges has been brought to trial. Except for the foregoing indictment the applicant has never been charged with any violation of law or with being dishonest or immoral in any way.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Carole Leigh McGraw for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carole Leigh McGraw 4180 South West 52nd Court Apartment #1 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against the Respondent, Jack V. Quick, alleging that the Respondent has been found guilty of crimes against the laws of the United States, which crimes directly relate to the activities of a licensed broker or salesman or involve moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it is charged that the Respondent was found guilty on or about December 11, 1979, of certain offenses, namely counts Three, Four, Five and Six of an indictment dated July 31, 1979. Those offenses involved: (1) the willful and knowing conspiracy with others to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana, (2) the use and arrangement for the use of telephonic communications in the aforementioned enterprise, two counts, and (3) travel in interstate commerce to carry out the business of distributing a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code; Section 846, Title 21, United States Code; and Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, brought an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jack V. Quick, setting forth those allegations as are found in the Issues statement of the Recommended Order. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and on February 9, 1981, that hearing was conducted. The case was presented on the basis of the introduction of Joint Exhibits A, B and C, by the parties. Joint Exhibit A is an indictment by the Grand Jury in the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, Case No. 79-7-VAL, placed against the Respondent Jack V. Quick who is referred to in the indictment as Jack Vernon Quick. Joint Exhibit B is the Judgment and Commitment Order of the U.S. District Court in the aforementioned case arising from a finding/verdict directed to the aforementioned indictment. Joint Exhibit C is the Judgment of the United States Court of Appeal, for the Fifth Circuit, directed to the judgment of the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division. From the position taken by the parties in this action and the documents stipulated to by the parties, the following facts are found: Respondent, Jack V. Quick, is a real estate broker, licensed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. The Respondent, Jack V. Quick, under the name Jack Vernon Quick, was indicted by the Grand Jury of the United States District, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, Case No. 79-7-VAL on the following Counts: COUNT ONE From on or about August 17, 1978, to and including on or about August 19, 1978, within the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, wilfully and knowingly did transport and cause to be transported and did aid and abet the transportation in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to the State of Georgia, David Karl Roberts who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, confined, kidnapped, abducted, carried away, and held by the said defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, for ransom, reward and otherwise, that is, for the purpose of obtaining a particular hoard of one thousand pounds of marijuana or the return of the defendant's downpayment of $68,000 on the purchase price of $138,000 of the said marijuana; in violation of Sections 1201(a)(1) and (2), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT TWO From on or about August 17, 1978, to and including on or about August 19, 1978, within the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, wilfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to violate Section 1201 (a)(1), Title 18, United States Code, that is, to wilfully and knowingly transport in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to the State of Georgia, David Karl Roberts, who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, confined, kidnapped, abducted, carried away and held by the said defendant for ransom, reward and otherwise, to wit, for the purpose of obtaining a particular hoard of one thousand pounds of marijuana or the return of the defendant's downpayment on said marijuana. OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect that objects thereof the defendant performed the following overt acts: On or about August 17, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion by the defendant and others from the residence of James Mann Ervin to the residence of defendant JACK VERNON QUICK, both residences being in the State of Florida. On or about August 18, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion from the residence of defendant JACK VERNON QUICK in Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, by the defendant JACK VERNON QUICK and others. On or about August 19, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion from Valdosta, Georgia, to defendant JACK VERNON QUICK's residence in Tallahassee, Florida, where he was held against his will by the defendant and others. All in violation of Section 1201(c), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT THREE From on or about July 1, 1978, to and including on or about August 18, 1978, in Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly combine, conspire and confederate and agree together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit an offense in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, to wit, to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute approximately 1,000 pounds of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance; all in violation of Section 846, Title 21, United States Code. COUNT FOUR On or about August 16, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did use and cause to be used a facility in interstate commerce, that is, telephonic wire communications from Tallahassee, Florida, to Adel, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT FIVE On or about August 18, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did travel in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT SIX On or about August 18, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did use and cause to be used a facility in interstate commerce, that is, telephonic wire communications from Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1), and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3). On December 11, 1979, the Respondent was found not guilty of the aforementioned Counts One and Two. On December 11, 1979, the Respondent was found guilty of Counts Three, Four, Five and Six and was sentenced to five (5) years under Count Three or until otherwise discharged as provided by law, to be followed by special parole for two (2) years. On each of the Counts Four, Five and Six, the Respondent was given a five (5) year sentence to be served to run concurrently with the sentence set forth in Count Three. On November 7, 1980, in an action on Summary Calendar, United States Court of Appeal, for the Fifth Circuit, No. 79-5729, the court upheld the aforementioned judgment entered December 11, 1979, by the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division. The appellate court order of affirmance was issued as a mandate on December 4, 1980.
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 1977, Marin completed the application for registration as a real estate salesman and forwarded it to the FREC. The application was received December 27, 1977. The application contains the following question. 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned, or parolled? Marin answered the question with the word "No". However, the evidence shows that Marin was arrested December 31, 1974, with the crime of grand larceny which charge was reduced to petty larceny. It was Marin's understanding that his arrest record had been expunged by an attorney hired for that purpose when, in fact, it had not. It was for this reason that Marin answered the foregoing question in the negative.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ann K. Croasdell, was a registered real estate broker at all times material hereto. She has been issued License No. 0141344. In 1977 or 1978, Respondent met William Young at a neighborhood barbecue. About a year after this initial meeting, Young attended a real estate school owned and operated by Respondent. At that time a business relationship developed between them which lasted until approximately September, 1980. In 1980, Bruce Rhodes, then an investigator with the Maitland Police Department, was assigned a case wherein residences up for sale were being burglarized. There were no signs of forcible entry to these homes and each one had a multi-lock box used by realtors to show the homes. Thus, the person who was burglarizing the homes was referred to as the "multi-lock burglar". During the course of the investigation, evidence was obtained which pointed to William Young as the multi-lock burglar. The evidence consisted of statements from various witnesses. Subsequently, a search warrant was issued and served on William Young's apartment. Young was eventually arrested and pled guilty to grand theft in the second degree and other unrelated charges. He is currently serving a seven and a half year prison sentence at Lawty Correctional Institute, Lawty, Florida. 5.. During the investigation into Young's activities, Respondent was interviewed by the Maitland Police Department on several occasions. The first such interview took place on November 13, 1980, at the Maitland Police Department and was conducted by Sergeant Walter Steeb and Investigator Bruce Rhodes. The Respondent was not under arrest nor was she compelled to appear, but came voluntarily at the request of the Maitland Police Department. At the initial interview, the Respondent acknowledged accompanying Young to residences with multi-locks that were for sale, but stated she did not see Young take anything. On December 1, 1980, the Respondent again appeared at the Maitland Police Department at their request. She again appeared voluntarily and was not under subpoena, under arrest or charged as a suspect. At this December 1, 1980, interview, Respondent gave three separate statements to Investigator Bruce Rhodes of the Maitland Police Department. These statements and her subsequent statements differ substantially from the information she gave to the Maitland Police Department on November 13, 1980. Two of the three December 1, 1980, statements concern the return of property. One statement acknowledged the returning of a set of golf clubs to Officer Rhodes on Thursday, November 20, 1980. In this statement, Respondent stated that while she was with William Young, he entered the garage of a house in Sweetwater and came out with a man's set and a Woman's set of golf clubs which he placed in the trunk of her car. Respondent admitted, both at a prior deposition and at the final hearing, that she knew these golf clubs were stolen. At the deposition, she stated she intended to keep the set of woman's golf clubs, knowing they were stolen. The circumstances surrounding the taking of the golf clubs corroborates the fact that the Respondent knew these clubs were stolen. On the day in question, the Respondent and William Young were out looking at homes and pulled up in the driveway of a house that was for sale. The house had no multi-lock, but Young gained entrance through an open side door to a garage. He entered the garage and removed a man's and a woman's set of golf clubs, which he placed in Respondent's car. Respondent did not go into the garage with Young, but remained in the car. She did, however, get out of the car to open the trunk for Young to put in the two sets of golf clubs. In addition to the facts surrounding the golf clubs, Respondent has also admitted, on several occasions, to having taken two sets of yellow towels from a home in Wekiva. These admissions came in the form of the December 1, 1980, statement made to Bruce Rhodes, and subsequently, at a deposition taken on August 17, 1981, in the case of State of Florida v. William Young. At her deposition of August 17, 1981, Respondent explained how she entered the house with a multi-lock key and took the towel sets which consisted of two towels, two hand towels and two washcloths. Additionally, in response to the question as to whether she stole the two sets of towels, she answered "yes," that she did. Respondent did not alert the authorities to these burglaries, nor did she attempt to turn in the stolen golf clubs or towels. Her only excuse for her activities was a claimed fear of William Young. Although Respondent established that Young was abusive to women, there was no indication that she or a member of her family was in any real danger. Rather, she participated with Young as a willing accomplice.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent's real estate broker's license for a period of five years. 2/ DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Respondent took the examination for real estate salesman and was licensed December 16, 1982. His license was last renewed in December 1984 (exhibit 1 and Price testimony). At all times relevant hereto he was licensed by Respondent as a real estate salesman. By judgment dated-May 10, 1985, Buford D. Price was convicted of murder in the third degree, possession of cocaine, and possession of narcotic paraphernalia. Respondent was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment on the murder charge, imposition of sentence was withheld on the narcotic charges and he was placed on probation for five (5) years to run consecutively to the imprisonment. Respondent expects to be released from prison by June 1988 although his current release date is June 8, 1989. For the past three months he has been working outside prison on the highways and in communities. Prior to his arrest and incarceration Respondent worked principally for property management companies and Pulte Homes. As owners of the property leased or sold their salesmen do not need a real estate license to sell or lease such property only.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jerry R. Erickson, who is now thirty years old, made application on May 29, 1986 for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld". Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: February 10, 1984 incurred several felonies, all drug and alcohol related, there were several incidents in my past that were drug and alcohol related. (See attached letters). A subsequent background check by respondent revealed the following arrests and/or convictions: 1980 - Arrest for driving while under the influence. 1982 - Arrest for trespassing after warning and assault and battery. 1982 - Arrest and conviction for driving while under the influence. 1983 - Disorderly intoxication ar- rest. 1984 - Arrest and conviction for armed burglary, kidnap, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, and burglary to a business. Although arrested on the above five occasions, he was convicted only twice. For the most recent conviction in 1984, Erickson was allowed to enter into a negotiated plea whereby he received 455 days incarceration, two years community control, and ten years probation, each to run consecutively. 1/ Because of his record, petitioner's application for licensure was denied by respondent on September 15, 1986. Erickson's problems are directly related to alcohol and drug addiction. Its origin began at age thirteen when he was given valium by his parents for hyperactivity. Following this exposure to drugs, Erickson freely admits that he abused alcohol and drugs until early February, 1984. Having taken a large dose of valiums over a 48 hour period, and still not being able to sleep, Erickson entered a drug store on February 9, 1984 and demanded, at gunpoint, an ampule of morphine to help him calm down. For that episode, he was arrested and charged with a number of serious crimes. Apparently recognizing that Erickson's underlying problem of drug and alcohol addiction was the reason for his actions, the State allowed Erickson to enter a negotiated plea if he could master his addiction problem. He has successfully done so and is now under community control until November, 1986. After that, he must serve 10 years probation. In addition, he must receive an annual psychological review during the term of his probation. In addition to his own testimony, a psychiatrist, executive vice- president of a bank, and the chief of the public defender's criminal trial division testified on Erickson's behalf. All were aware of Erickson's background and prior legal problems. Erickson was described as being responsible, mature, reliable and honest. The banker stated he would have no hesitation in using Erickson in a real estate transaction and that Erickson has met all obligations on several loans with the bank. The public defender described Erickson's conduct as "exceptional", and that he is one out of perhaps five hundred clients who has been assigned to community control. All felt Erickson had rehabilitated himself. Erickson desires to become a real estate salesman, and eventually to obtain a broker's license. He is married, has a child, and is employed at a West Palm Beach newspaper. He was most candid and forthright in his testimony and appeared to the undersigned to have rehabilitated himself by reason of good conduct and lapse of time since his 1984 conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application for licensure as by examination as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 31st day of October, 1986.
