Recommendation It is recommended that the Administrative Complaint as filed against James E. Annen, for purposes of revocation or suspension of his real estate brokers license no. 0001875 be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 J. C. Adderly, Esquire Adderly, Aloia & Dudley Post Office Box 535 Cape Coral, Florida 33904
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondents violated specified subsections of Section 475.25 Florida Statutes with regard to alleged misuse of escrow funds.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent Mary L. Cluett was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0197523 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mary L. Cluett was as a broker, c/o Cluett Realty, Inc., 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. (pre-hearing stipulation, Paragraph 2). Respondent Cluett Realty, Inc. is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0021798 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Cluett Realty, Inc. was at the address of 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida 33905. (pre-hearing stipulation, paragraph 2). The qualifying broker for Cluett Realty, Inc. is Ernest H. Cluett, husband of Mary L. Cluett. Mary Cluett is the vice-president of the corporation. On October 17, 1984, Charles and Pamela Darr signed a multiple listing agreement with Cluett Realty, Inc. to sell their home at 598 New York Drive, Ft. Myers. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2). On February 4 and 5, 1985, the Darrs and Irving and Beverly Lockner signed a contract for sale and purchase of the New York Drive house. The terms provided for purchase price of $44,000.00; a $500.00 deposit in the form of a promissory note to be redeemed by February 26, 1985; the assumption of an existing mortgage; a second mortgage in the amount of $3,000.00 and a balance to close in the amount of $2500.00. The closing date was set for "March 14, 1985, or as soon as possible". (Petitioner's Exhibit #5). The Darrs and Lockners were told on March 14, 1985 that the paperwork was not ready for closing. The Darrs had already moved out of the house and into a leased apartment and the Lockners had travelled from their home in Baltimore with furnishings to move in. Reluctantly, Pamela Darr agreed to let the Lockners move in that day and pay rent for the rest of the month. It was understood by Ms. Darr that the closing would be on April 1st. (tr. 27,28,29) On March 14, 1985, Mrs. Lockner gave Cluett Realty $1500.00. The receipt signed by Helen Weise, an employee of Cluett Realty, is marked "escrow deposit on property, 398 New York Avenue". (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). On March 22, 1985, Beverly Lockner gave Cluett Realty $500.00; the receipt signed by Mary L. Cluett is marked "Escrow, Darr/Lockner". (Petitioner's Exhibit #3) On April 15, 1985, the Lockners gave Mary Cluett another $500.00 in the form of two checks: one for $362.64 from MSC, Inc. to Irving Lockner ( a paycheck), and a personal check to Cluett Realty from Beverly Lockner in the amount of $137.36 (tr. 17,18, Petitioner's Exhibit #4, Beverly Lockner testimony p. 17) The $2500.00 was placed in the Cluett Realty, Inc. escrow account. (tr-19) The Lockner/Darr transaction closed on June 10, 1985, (Prehearing Stipulation, Paragraph 2) In the meantime, on March 26, 1985 and April 25, 1985 Mary Cluett paid the Darr's mortgage payments for April and May with checks drawn on the Cluett Realty, Inc. escrow account in the amount of $425.38 each, payable to United Mortgage Company. (Prehearing Stipulation, paragraph 2) Beverly Lockner did not give Mary Cluett permission to use the escrow money for the Darr's mortgage. She did not know the money was being taken out until she found Mary Cluett's handwritten note left on her door which indicated that closing would be on May 6, 1985 and showed that two payments totalling $850.76 had been deducted from the $2500.00 escrow account. She called Ms. Cluett and had a confrontation about the deductions. Beverly Lockner intended that the $2500.00 be used for the closing balance. When the transaction finally closed on June 10, she had insufficient funds to close so she gave Cluett Realty a third mortgage and borrowed $500.00 from Pamela Darr. (Beverly Lockner testimony, pp. 6,7,9,16 23-26) The Darrs did not give Mary Cluett permission to use the escrow money to pay the mortgage, although Ms. Darr was concerned that the mortgage be paid. On March 14th, Pamela Darr was aware that the April mortgage payment would be taken out of the escrow account when she picked up a form, alleged signed by the Lockners, with a notation at the bottom about the payment. Pamela Darr went to Mary Cluett's office at 5:30 on that day to pick up the form. (tr. 25, 118, 119, 122, Respondent's Exhibit #1) The form in question provides as follows: [Cluett Realty, Inc. letterhead] March 14, 1985 To Whom It May Concern: We Irving N. and Beverly T. Lockner buyers, of property situated 598 New York Dr., Ft. Myers, Fl. inspected the above property on March 14, 1985 (date) and have found the property to be to our satisfaction and accept property "as is" and taking possession as Owners today. Sellers are not responsible for any maintenance on the house of any kind. (SIGNED) [Beverly Lockner Signature] (Buyer) [Irving Lockner Signature] (Buyer) WITNESS: [Mary Cluett Signature] DATE: [dated 3-14-85] NOTE: OUT OF THE ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($1,500,00) DOLLARS deposited with CLUETT REALTY ESCROW ACCOUNT THE FIRST MONTH'S PAYMENT OF $425.38 shall be made. (Respondent's Exhibit #1) The testimony of Mary Cluett and that of her employee, Helen Weise, differ substantially from Beverly Lockner's testimony regarding Respondent's Exhibit #1. Mary Cluett claims that the form was completed and signed by the Lockners in her office on March 14, 1985, and that after a phone call from Pamela Darr the note at the bottom was added before the Lockners signed. (tr- 68) She claims that by agreeing to the notation, the Lockners's clearly knew about the intended use of the escrow money for the mortgage. Beverly Lockner distinctly remembers the form. She claims that when Mary Cluett came to the house on New York Drive on March 14th, she took the blank form from her case and told the Lockners they needed to sign it that day in order to take over the house. Mrs. Lockner signed her husband's name as he had gone out to the yard. The blanks on the form were not typed in, nor was the note on the bottom. This was one of several blank forms in Mrs. Cluett's case. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, p. 6, 11-13) Helen Weise claims she typed the entire form, all but the letterhead, in the office while the Lockners were there. (tr-88) This testimony is inconsistent with the appearance of the exhibit. Mary Cluett's testimony about this form and about the purpose of the escrow money from Beverly Lockner is not plausible. For example, she claims that when the Lockners came in with the $1500.00 on March 14th the purpose was to pay the note for $500.00 referenced on the Contract for Purchase and Sale and to provide money for the mortgage payments. However, on the 14th of March, while no one knew for certain when the closing would be, it was anticipated that it would take place on April 1st. In that case only one mortgage payment would have been necessary. The amounts and timing of Mrs. Lockner's payments into the escrow account are consistent with her testimony that she was putting aside the funds necessary for closing. Assuming, for argument's sake that Mrs. Lockner did know about and approve the first payment, there is no evidence that she knew about or acceded to the second payment prior to its deduction from the escrow account. Respondent's Exhibits #2, 3, and 4 are dated May 28, 1985, May 6, 1985, and May 11, 1985, respectively. Each are notations on Cluett Realty, Inc. stationery showing the April and May deductions from the escrow account, the account number of the mortgage to be assumed, the balance required for closing and other information related to closing. Mary Cluett testified that these were delivered to Mrs. Lockner's house and copies were sent to the Darrs at the New York Avenue address as she did not know the Darr's apartment address. Pamela Darr denies receiving any of these notices. Beverly Lockner said she received only the one dated May 6th. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, P. 9) Ernest Cluett testified that the notice dated May 6, 1985 was delivered on that same date.(tr- 101) By then the second payment from the escrow account had already been made. From the testimony and evidence it is apparent that considerable confusion existed regarding the Darr/Lockner transaction. Both buyer and seller thought the deal would close on March 14th. They learned that day that it would not close and hasty arrangements were made for the Lockners to occupy the house since they had moved their belongings from Baltimore. No firm financial arrangements were made, other than an oral agreement for the Lockners to pay a pro-rated rent for the remainder of March. The closing did not take place on April 1st or the several subsequent dates that it was set, until June 10th. Meanwhile, the mortgage payments were due and no arrangements had been made for their payment. Mary Cluett prepared the March 14th form to satisfy Pamela Darr that the payments would be made, but neglected to clear the arrangement with Beverly Lockner. Mrs. Lockner figured the payments were not her responsibility because the house was not hers; the failure to close as scheduled on March 14th was not her fault. She blamed Mary Cluett for not notifying the parties sooner since she would not have left Baltimore. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, pp. 18-22)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Respondent, Linda H. Abraham, was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker under license number 0323486. During the months of February and March 1983 Martha L. Tew owned a parcel of waterfront property located in Panama City Beach which was identified as being for sale by a sign on the property reflecting her husband's real estate company. Her husband was Ronald Eugene Tew and Mrs. Tew also held a salesman's license. Mr. Tew was contacted by Gregory A. Peaden, a contractor and developer in the Panama City Beach area on several occasions prior to March 1983 with offers to purchase the Tew property. The contacts with Mr. Peaden subsequently culminated in a contract dated March 8, 1983, between Greg Peaden, Inc., and the Tews in the amount of, initially, $180,000.00. During the negotiations for the property, Mr. Peaden had introduced the Respondent to the Tews as his broker. When, at the time of Use contract, Mr. Peaden advised the Tews he wanted Respondent to get a commission for the sale, Mr. Tew refused to pay any commission indicating that Respondent had performed no service for him; that he, Tew, was a broker himself; and that he had no intention of paying any commission to the Respondent or to anyone, for that matter. After some further negotiation, a second contract was prepared and agreed upon wherein the contract price was raised to $189,000.00 and the Respondent's commission was to be paid with the additional money from Mr. Peaden. The contract in question executed by the parties on March 8, 1983, reflected that the sum of $5,000.00 deposit was paid to Linda Abraham, Inc., by check. Mr. Tew contends that at this point he was led to believe that Respondent had the $5,000.00 check and, he contends, he would not have signed the contract if he had known that the check had not been delivered and placed in Respondent's escrow account. The actual signing of the contract took place in Respondent's office, a mobile home which she shared with Mr. Peaden's business. This trailer home was described as having Mr. Peaden's office on one end, and Respondent's on the other, with the living-kitchen area in the middle used as a reception area for both businesses. Mr. Peaden contends that once the contract was signed by the Tews, he gave a check drawn on one of his business accounts, that of Peaden and Guerino, a property management company he owned, to his secretary, Judy White, to deposit in Respondent's escrow account and thereafter promptly forgot about the matter until the date scheduled for closing, two months in the future. Ms. white, on the other hand, contends that Mr. Peaden at no time gave her a check for $5,000.00 to deposit to Respondent's escrow account. It is her contention that when she received the contract after it was signed, she, on her own, inserted the receipt portion on the bottom of the second page and signed as having received it merely to complete the contract. At the time, she contends, she did not know if the deposit was received from Peaden or not. She has never signed a contract like this before without a deposit and cannot give any other reason why she did it on this occasion. She is certain, however, that at no time did Mr. Peaden ever give her a $5,000.00 check or tell her to draw one for his signature on March 8, 1983, or, for that matter, at any time thereafter. What is more, neither Mr. Peaden nor the Respondent, at any time after the signing of the contract and prior to her departure under less than friendly circumstances approximately a week or so later, ever asked her whether she had made the escrow deposit or discussed it with her at all. Ms. white contends that she left Mr. Peaden's employ because he expected her to perform certain functions she was unwilling to do. When she left his employ, she did not feel there was any unfinished business that needed her immediate attention. To the best of her recollection, there were no sales contracts or deposits left in or on her desk - only bills. According to Respondent, the $5,000.00 deposit by Mr. Peaden was to stay in her escrow account. She understood Mr. Peaden was going to arrange with the bank to borrow the entire cash payment called for under the contract, including the deposit, and when that was done, it was her intention to give him back his $5,000.00 check. Under these circumstances, the amount in escrow would never be paid to the sellers but would be returned to Mr. Peaden and the Tews would receive the entire cash amount called for by the contract from the proceeds of the bank loan. Respondent also indicated that this procedure had been followed at least once, in a prior transaction. Under the circumstances, it is clear that no deposit was ever received from Mr. Peaden nor was it placed in Respondent's escrow account. Therefore, the contract, dated on March 8, 1983, was false in that it represented a $5,000.00 deposit had been received. The check for $5,000.00 dated March 8, 1983, payable to Linda Abraham, Inc. and drawn by Mr. Peaden on the Peaden and Guerino account with the stub admitted to show the date of issuance, does not establish that it was written on March 8, 1983, as contended. This check, number 1349, comes after two other checks, 1347 and 1348, which bear dates of April 4 and September 7, 1983 respectively. Mr. Peaden's explanation that the checks were drafted out of sequence is non-persuasive. Of greater probative value is the fact that neither Mr. Peaden nor Respondent bothered to review their bank statements on a regular basis. The check in question was drawn on an account not related to the construction and development business of Greg Peaden, Inc. Further, examination of Respondent's escrow account reflects that there were approximately eleven transactions over a three year period even though, according to her, she handled numerous other closings as well as this. Her explanation is that in most cases the attorney handling the closing served as escrow agent even though she was the sales broker. Her explanation is not credible. This appears to be a classic situation of movement of accounts to satisfy a particular end. The contract called for closing of the sale to be held on or before May 8, 1983, in the office of Panama Title Company. May 8, 1983, fell on a Sunday. As a result, the closing would not have been held that day, but it was not held the following day, Monday, May 9, 1983 either. Mr. Peaden admits that he had not checked with Panama Title prior to May 9 to see if everything was prepared for the closing. Instead, he contacted the title company for the first time at approximately noon on May 9. Apparently he received disquieting information because he thereafter called his attorney, Mr. Hutto, and asked him to check with the title company to see if and when the closing would be held. Mr. Hutto's inquiry reflected that the title insurance binder was ready but the closing statement and the package were not because the title company required a copy of the contract. At this point Mr. Peaden immediately had a copy of the contract delivered to the title company but later that day was advised that the closing still could not be held because of the failure to provide a survey. Mr. Hutto indicates that the reason given was that the release clauses called for in the contract required the survey to be furnished though he did not necessarily agree with that. In any event, closing was not held on May 9. At this time both Mr. Peaden and Respondent allegedly became concerned about the $5,000.00 deposit. Admittedly, neither had concerned themselves with it from the time of the signing of the contract. At this point, Mr. Peaden indicates that he examined his bank records which failed to show the deposit being made and his subsequent search of Ms. White's desk finally revealed the check, undeposited, still there. On May 11, 1983, a $5,000.00 deposit was made to the account on which the deposit check was drawn and on the same day, May 11, 1983 check number 1349, in the amount of $5,000.00 was presented against the account. When on May 10, 1983, Mr. Peaden and Respondent went to Mr. Hutto's office the primary reason for the visit was because Mr. Peaden had heard that the Tews were planning to sell the property in question to someone else at a price much higher than that agreed upon for the sale to Peaden. At this point Mr. Hutto indicated that if Peaden so desired, Hutto could "fix up the contract to jam up the works" until he could do something about it. His examination of the contract revealed that it was not recorded or acknowledged and under the laws of Florida, acknowledgment is required in order for a contract to be recorded. Hutto asked the Respondent if she had seen the parties sign the contract and when she said that she had, he had his secretary prepare a jurat. Unfortunately, his secretary prepared an affidavit type notary jurat rather than an acknowledgment and Hutto quickly admits that he did not look at it when it was given back to him. He says that if he had, he would have had it changed but in any event, without looking at what was given him, he gave it to the Respondent with the implication, at least, that she should notarize it and have the contract recorded. According to Hutto, Peaden, and the Respondent, the sole purpose for notarization and recordation was to preserve the status quo to protect Mr. Peaden's interest in the property so that the matter could be adjudicated in a lawsuit which was soon to be filed. Respondent contends she never intended any misconduct throughout this transaction nor did she do any of the things alleged in the Administrative Complaint. She contends she never saw the check which Mr. Peaden allegedly gave to his secretary for deposit to her escrow account. She merely assumed that it was given and never checked to insure that it had been placed in her account. She does not know why Mr. Peaden did not give her the check. When she took the contract to the Tews, she was operating under the assumption that the check had been received but did not verify this to insure that it had. She contends that since she represented the buyer, her duties were limited to insuring that he performed and this made it simple. She did not check on him because she had had so much experience with him, him being by far her largest account, if he said something, she believed him and when the contract was executed, she merely instructed the secretary, Judy White, to make the file and did not check on it again. As to the recordation and the notarization after the fact, she acted upon the advice of counsel, she states, and did what was suggested to her by Mr. Hutto. It should be noted, however, that Mr. Hutto did not represent her but instead represented Mr. Peaden and while because of her long-standing relationship with him and Mr. Hutto, she may have felt safe in relying on his advice, the fact remains that Hutto was not her attorney.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a registered real estate broker in Florida be suspended for six months and that she pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 6th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur Shell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 John D. O'Brien, Esquire P. O. Box 1218 Panama City, Florida 32402 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Respondents' Florida real estate licenses should be disciplined for violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S., by dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction; Section 475.25(1)(d)1. F.S., failure to account for or deliver funds; Section 475.25(1)(k) F.S., failure to maintain trust funds in their real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; and Section 475.25(1)(e) and Rule 61J2-10.032(1) F.A.C. for failure to provide written notification to the Real Estate Commission upon receiving conflicting demands within 15 business days of the last party's demand or upon a good faith doubt as to who is entitled to any trust funds held in the broker's escrow account and failure to institute one of the settlement procedures as set forth in Section 475.25(1)(d)1., F.S. within 15 business days after the date the notification was received by the Division.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.165, F.S., Chapters 120, 455, and 475, F.S. and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent Norman Rivers, Jr. is and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker, issued license number 0189212 in the accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Route 1, Box 344, Alachua, Florida 32615. Respondent Norman Rivers Jr., Realty, Inc. is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker having been issued license number 0214407 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. The last license issued was at the address of Route 1, Box 344, Alachua, Florida 32615. At all times material hereto, Respondent Norman Rivers, Jr. was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Norman Rivers Jr., Realty, Inc. On December 5, 1994, Respondent showed Charles E. and Elizabeth A. Smith (husband and wife) a tract of land located in Dixie County, Florida. Afterward, Respondent Norman Rivers, Jr. sent a $57,500 offer to Charles E. Smith for his signature. On December 7, 1994, Mr. Smith signed the offer and forwarded it with a $2,875 deposit to the Respondents. The next day, the Seller, Ed Dix, accepted the Smiths' offer. The contract provided that if the deal did not close on December 23, 1994, "...if the said Buyer fails to perform the covenants herein contained within the time specified, therefore said deposit made by the Buyer may be forfeited at the option of the Seller, as liquidated damages, upon 10 days' notice to the Buyer, and one half thereof shall be retained by or paid to said Realtor and the remainder to the Seller, unless because of expense incurred the latter shall agree or had agreed in writing to a greater percentage being paid to the Realtor,..." The property sale did not close on December 23, 1994. At some point in time, Mr. Smith conversed with Respondent Rivers by telephone and told him he could not afford to purchase the property since a greater amount would have to be financed and because his wife could not be persuaded to go through with the deal. He told Mr. Rivers that he would like Mr. Rivers to return any amount remaining in excess of Mr. River's expenses but that Mr. Rivers could retain his expenses. Mr. Rivers told Mr. Smith that his expenses had used up the entire $2,875 binder. Mr. Smith accepted this representation. He testified that he "considered the issue closed" at that point. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Smith made subsequent demands for all or part of the binder. The administrative complaint herein was urged quite some time later by Mrs. Smith. The Respondents affirmatively demonstrated that Mr. Rivers' business practice from 1991 to 1995 and continuing to date, is to promptly refund deposits upon a Buyer's request, if the Seller agrees. The significance of this evidence is that if a clear demand for refund or audit had been made by Mr. Smith, Respondents probably would have made some accounting and refund. In this case, Mr. Rivers did not do so because he did not consider that he had a clear- cut request to refund a deposit. Despite Mr. Smith's testimony that his final telephone conversation with Mr. Rivers as related above in Finding of Fact 11, occurred before Christmas 1994 and Mrs. Smith's deposition testimony that Mr. Smith's and Mr. River's phone conversation occurred on December 21, 1994, before the agreed closing date all other documentary evidence and credible testimony points to the conversation occurring in mid-January 1995. The parties stipulated that on 12/21/94, Alachua County Abstract Company sent the closing package by UPS overnight delivery to Mr. and Mrs. Smith. This package was received by Mr. and Mrs. Smith on 12/22/94. The significance thereof is that Mrs. Smith testified that the telephone call made by her husband in her presence from their home to Mr. Rivers cancelling the contract and demanding the return of their deposit occurred the night before the day they received the closing package, or December 21, 1996. However, the Smiths' long distance telephone records from 12/7/94 to 1/31/95 reveal that no long distance call was made from the Smith home to Mr. Rivers on 12/21/94 or any date other than 12/7/94, the day Mr. Smith initially signed and faxed the contract to Mr. Rivers. It is noted that at one point Mr. Smith wobbled and testified that Mr. Rivers telephoned him for the final phone conversation at some time prior to Christmas 1994. This is contrary to Mrs. Smith's testimony and Respondents' telephone records do not show that Mr. Rivers telephoned the Smith home on December 21, 1994, either. Between 12/30/94 and 01/17/95, Respondents' long distance telephone bills show charges for 15 calls to Mr. Smith's several work phone numbers and the home phone number. In Mr. Rivers' words, "I chased him like a hound," to find out what was going on, including when the deal could close. This demonstrates Mr. Rivers' continued belief after December 21, 1994 that the contract was still going to close and contradicts Mrs. Smith's testimony that Mr. Smith had orally cancelled the contract and demanded the return of his deposit on December 21, 1994. It further contradicts Mr. Smith's testimony this conversation occurred sometime before Christmas, 1994. The agency stipulated that Seller Dix and Norman Rivers, Jr. entered into an agreement whereby any binder forfeiture resulting from the Smiths' failure to close on December 23, 1994 would be used by Norman Rivers, Jr. and Norman Rivers, Jr. Realty, Inc. to cover their expenses incurred in marketing Mr. Dix's property. Respondents established that prior to the contract signing on December 7, 1994, they had expended at least $3,339.00 in advertising in order to market and sell Mr. Dix's property. There is no evidence Mr. Smith ever objected to paying the advertising costs incurred by Respondents or even inquired what Mr. Rivers' expenses were. Mr. Rivers did not remove any amount related to Mr. and Mrs. Smith from his escrow account before January 16, 1995. Then he did so by three checks made out to Norman Rivers Jr. Realty, Inc. Mr. Smith and Mr. Rivers concur that Mr. Smith made no specific demand for an audit of Respondents' expenses. Real Estate Commission Investigator Russell Lambert audited Respondents' accounts. He testified he "found no violations."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint herein. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of December, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 James F. Gray, Esquire Post Office Box 7100 Gainesville, Florida 32605 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact During December of 1979, Fred H. Greene and his wife Marie L. Greene, decided to sell their residence located in St. Augustine, Florida. They listed the property with Respondent for a selling price of $55,000. Ms. Farrell holds a real estate salesman's license issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. At all times pertinent to this case she has been so licensed. In January 1980, Ms. Farrell presented an offer to purchase the Greene's home for $50,000. They agreed to the offer and entered into a Contract for Purchase and Sale on January 15, 1980. In the course of discussing how to structure the financing of the sale, Ms. Farrell suggested that the Greenes take back a $6,000 second mortgage from the purchasers, Harry and Margaret Carlyle. Mr. Greene wanted to know from Ms. Farrell how much in proceeds he would receive when the parties closed the sale. She made the following calculations: $50,000.00 Purchase Price -$31,000.00 Greene's First Mortgage held by McCaughn $19,000.00 $19,000.00 -$ 3,562.00 ----------- $15,438.00 Commission and Closing Costs tary Stamps, Abstract Cost) (Documen- $15,438.00 +$ 8,490.00 (Six Thousand Dollars Second Mortgage ----------- and Interest thereon at 10 percent) $23,928.00 These computations are incorrect. At closing the $6,000 second mortgage was not to be part of the cash distribution to the Greenes, but, was a debit against the cash proceeds. The above incorrect calculation is the only error made by Respondent in discussing the sales transaction with the Greenes. At all times relevant the Greenes were properly apprised of all the other details concerning the sale of their house. The miscalculation was an honest mistake on the part of Ms. Farrell. There is no evidence that it was made with the intent of misrepresenting anything to the Greenes. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the miscalculation was made negligently. Neither Ms. Farrell nor the Greenes knew she had made a mistake until the closing which was held on March 24, 1980. During the closing Ms. Judy White who was the closing agent for St. Johns Title and Abstract Company began to explain to the Greenes their closing statement. Mr. Greene pushed the statement away and said, "That's not what I expected to get." The statement showed that his cash proceeds were $9,144.46. The statement properly reflected the $6,000 second mortgage as a sellers' debit. Ms. White explained the statement to Mr. Greene several times, but he still did not understand why the cash proceeds did not equal the amount computed for him by Ms. Farrell during their early discussion. Mr. Greene was visibly upset and directed several angry questions towards Ms. Farrell concerning the discrepancy. Because she felt a need to control the closing proceedings, Ms. White vigorously intervened and attempted to answer Mr. Greene's questions. Both of the buyers who were also present at the closing urged the Greenes not to sign the closing documents if they had any questions or doubts about the sale. During the closing Ms. Farrell was not aware of her original mistake in miscalculating the closing proceeds. Neither the Carlyles, Ms. Farrell or Ms. White did anything to influence Mr. Greene to execute the closing documents. During his heated discussion of the figures with Ms. White, Mr. Greene's wife repeatedly urged him to be quiet and execute the documents. At one point she said, "Oh sign it, you son-of-a-bitch." Finally Mr. Greene relented and executed all of the closing documents which were then recorded. The proceeds of the sale were then disbursed. Prior to executing the closing documents the Greenes were fully apprised of all significant financial facts concerning the sale of their home to Harry and Margaret Carlyle. During the foregoing transaction Ms. Farrell represented the Greenes as their real estate salesperson. She did not become aware of the mistake in her calculation of the closing proceeds, until she discussed the matter with her real estate sales manager after the closing. Ms. Farrell has an excellent reputation for competency in the real estate profession, both in St. Johns County where the above transaction took place and in Broward County where she is now employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Mary P. Farrell be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October,1982
The Issue Whether Charles La Guardia violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Charles La Guardia is a registered real estate salesman. La Guardia was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. in late 1974 and drew commissions from the company only in that year. La Guardia ceased to work with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. in December, 1974, when he moved to California. La Guardia's duties at International Land Services, Inc. were to contact people by phone and to attempt to sell them the services of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. La Guardia represented that Florida land was appreciating in value, that foreign investors were buying Florida land, and that upon payment of a fee, International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would list an individual's land in a brochure which would be sent to brokers in the United States and in foreign countries. The depositions presented in behalf of the Florida Real Estate Commission indicate that someone calling themself La Guardia contacted the deponents. The person represented that Florida land was appreciating in value, that foreign investors were buying Florida land, that their land could be sold at a profit, and that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would list their property in a brochure and send it to brokers in the United States and overseas. The deponents, the Karavangelos and Theo Miles, sent money to International Land Services Chartered, Inc. where their property was listed in a brochure prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and sent to at least one broker in Georgia, because Miles received a copy of his listing from a Georgia realtor. See Miles deposition, Page 11. The Karavangelos also received a copy of one of their listings with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Theo Miles stated specifically that he set the price for this parcel of land. See Miles deposition, Page 6. The Karavangelos also stated that they had set the price for their land based upon suggestions of the value of land generally expressed to them by the person who called them. Mr. Karavangelos stated that the person identifying himself as La Guardia gave him "a high sales talk like which all real estate brokers do." Evidence was received from various witnesses at the hearing that brochures were prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and were mailed by the company to real estate brokers in the United States and in foreign countries.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Charles La Guardia as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Oliver, Esquire Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Charles La Guardia 936 Bambi Drive Destin, Florida 32541 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-205 PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2956 CHARLES LAGUARDIA, DADE COUNTY Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent provided the Florida Real Estate Commission with false information in his application to take the broker's examination, in violation of Sections 475.25(1)(b)and (l), Florida Statutes, or whether he is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, or dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device in any business transaction, in violation of Section 457.25(1)(b), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent became a licensed real estate salesperson on September 27, 1993. On this date, he placed his license with Brokers Realty of Naples, Inc. Respondent has not pursued the real estate profession as his primary business. He has not bought or sold any real estate under his license and has not put any time into it. Respondent's profession is the ministry. He as been a minister for 20 years and has been the senior pastor of Gulf Shore Community Church for five years. Respondent is a member of the Christian Missionary Alliance. In June 1993, Respondent was assigned the responsibility of forming a church in Naples. Respondent's wife was more interested than Respondent in pursuing a real estate career, and Respondent took the course with her more for moral support. While in class, they met a broker with whom they agreed they would place their salesperson's licenses. After receiving their salesperson's licenses, Respondent and his wife placed their licenses under the broker, as they had agreed. However, the broker closed her office after a couple of months. In the meantime, Respondent's wife had met David Bayer of Century 21 Old Naples Realty, Inc. (Century 21). In November 1993, she decided to place her license with Century Respondent agreed that he would do the same. Busy with starting a church, Respondent did not attend to the details of transferring his license. He believed that someone else was doing this for him, but no one did. Respondent's inattention allowed his licensing status to lapse. Unknown to Respondent at the time, his salesperson's license became invalid on November 16, 1993, for lack of an employing broker, according to Petitioner's records. Respondent's license remained invalid until March 31, 1995, when it became inactive, according to Petitioner's records. Respondent's wife later decided to pursue her broker's license. Again for moral support and to help her with preparing for the examination, Respondent agreed that he would also apply for his broker's license. In attempting to obtain the necessary paperwork to take the broker's examination, Respondent discovered in late August 1995 that Petitioner's records had not been updated to reflect the transfer of his license to Century 21. It appears that Respondent was not yet aware of the other above-described impediments to licensure. Trying to update Petitioner's records, Respondent submitted the two forms that are the subject of the present disciplinary proceeding. The first form was a Request for License or Change of Status, which Respondent faxed to Petitioner. Respondent completed the top section of this form, which is to be completed by the licensee. He signed it beside a typed-in date of December 30, 1993, which was the effective date of the transfer of his license to Century 21. Petitioner has not objected to anything in this section. The next section is to be completed by the broker/employer or nonlicensed owner/employer. At the bottom of this section are the words, "Broker or Non-Licensed Owner Sign Here:". Respondent hand-wrote Mr. Bayer's name in what he described as printing, but, on a blurry fax, could be mistaken for a signature for someone unfamiliar with Mr. Bayer's signature. Beside Mr. Bayer's name "December 30, 1993" was typed in. Petitioner has objected to Respondent's undisclosed signing of Mr. Bayer's name on this form. On September 11, 1995, Petitioner received another Request for License or Change of Status form. The bottom section of this form was signed by Mr. Bayer at the bottom in script considerably different from that of the earlier form. The top section of this form is filled out exactly as the earlier form, with Respondent's signature beside the typed-in date of "December 30, 1993." Petitioner objected to the typed-in date because it was nearly two years prior to the date that the form was filed. As to the second objection, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent was trying to file paperwork with Petitioner in 1995 that was misdated so as to suggest that it was filed two years earlier. The 1993 date was the effective date of the license transfer. The form does not state "Date Signed"--only "Date." There is no place on the form to show an earlier effective date. Not only was Respondent not trying to mislead Petitioner with the date on the form, but it is almost impossible to find that the date was misleading. There is no way to conceal that the forms were filed in September 1995, not December 1993. Respondent even sent the second form certified, return receipt requested, so as to document further that the form was sent in 1995. In the absence of another place on the form to show the effective date of the transfer, Respondent's use of the date line to show the effective date was reasonable and not misleading. Thus, Respondent did not intend to mislead with this date entry, and no one could reasonably have claimed to have been misled by this date entry. Interestingly, Petitioner did not claim that Respondent's first form, which had a similar date entry, was misleading as to the date. As to the first form, Petitioner's objection is more substantial: Respondent signed Mr. Bayer's name without disclosing that he was doing so. Mr. Bayer testified that he would have signed the form in December 1993 or September 1995 because Respondent in fact had transferred his license to Century 21 in December 1993. The record does not establish that Mr. Bayer authorized Respondent to sign the form before he did so, but the record clearly established that he ratified the signature. A few days after the first form was faxed, Mr. Bayer signed a form and sent it to Petitioner. Clearly, Respondent's handling of the signature of Mr. Bayer does not rise to misrepresentation, false promises, or dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device. There was not fraudulent intent. The question is closer as to whether Respondent's handling of the signature rises to the level of making or filing a false report or record which the licensee knows to be false. Given the standard of evidence imposed upon Petitioner, there is considerable doubt whether the factual basis supporting a finding that Respondent signed as the agent of Mr. Bayer, who immediately ratified the act to eliminate any doubt as to its authorization, is sufficient to find that Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent knowingly made or filed a false report or record. However, the parties stipulated to a violation of at least one count, and the administrative law judge accepted the stipulation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order either dismissing the Administrative Complaint or finding Respondent guilty of knowingly making or filing a false record or report and issuing a notice of noncompliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 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 27th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven D. Fieldman, Chief Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jeanette Martinez Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur 4501 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 400 Naples, Florida 34103 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Office of the 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 Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In May 1988, he was working as a broker-salesman with G.V. Stewart, Inc., a corporate real estate broker whose active broker is G.V. Stewart. On April 20, 1989, Respondent submitted a Contract for Sale and Purchase to the University of South Florida Credit Union who was attempting to sell a house at 2412 Elm Street in Tampa, Florida, which the seller had acquired in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. This offer reflected a purchase price of $25,000 with a deposit of $100 (Exhibit 2). The president of the seller rejected the offer by striking out the $25,000 and $100 figures and made a counter offer to sell the property for $29,000 with a $2000 deposit (Exhibit 2). On May 9, 1989, Respondent submitted a new contract for sale and purchase for this same property which offer reflected an offering price of $27,000 with a deposit of $2000 held in escrow by G.V. Stewart (Exhibit 3). This offer, as did Exhibit 2, bore what purported to be the signature of William P. Murphy as buyer and G. Stewart as escrow agent. In fact, neither Murphy nor Stewart signed either Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3, and neither was aware the offers had been made at the time they were submitted to the seller. This offer was accepted by the seller. This property was an open listing with no brokerage firm having an exclusive agreement with the owner to sell the property. Stewart's firm had been notified by the seller that the property was for sale. Respondent had worked with Stewart for upwards of ten years and had frequently signed Stewart's name on contracts, which practice was condoned by Stewart. Respondent had sold several parcels of property to Murphy, an attorney in Tampa, on contracts signed by him in the name of Murphy, which signatures were subsequently ratified by Murphy. Respondent considers Murphy to be a Class A customer for whom he obtained a deposit only after the offer was accepted by the seller and Murphy confirmed a desire to purchase. Respondent has followed this procedure in selling property to Murphy for a considerable period of time and saw nothing wrong with this practice. At present, Respondent is the active broker at his own real estate firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that William H. McCoy's license as a real estate broker be suspended for one year. However, if before the expiration of the year's suspension Respondent can prove, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Commission, that he fully understands the duty owed by a broker to the seller and the elements of a valid contract, the remaining portion of the suspension be set aside. ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Alexander, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley 400 West Robinson Street General Counsel Orlando, Florida 32802 Department of Professional Regulation William H. McCoy 1940 North Monroe Street 4002 South Pocahontas Avenue Suite 60 Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tampa Florida 33610 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether a broker and active firm member for a corporate real estate broker can be held accountable for the wrongful handling of escrow funds by non-registered persons after the broker has resigned his employment and notified the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) of his resignation when another active firm member is not qualified by the corporation prior to the effective date of the broker's resignation.
Findings Of Fact Telfair is a registered real estate broker holding registration 0087817 issued by the FREC. Telfair was employed by LTP as the firm's sole broker and active firm member. LTP was a registered corporate broker. Telfair was not a corporate officer of LTP. The monies at issue in this case were deposited to the escrow account of LTP, pursuant to pending real estate contracts. These monies were maintained properly in the escrow account at all times during the period that Telfair was an active firm member. On February 14, 1975, Telfair gave notice to Frank Carcaise, President of LTP, that he was going to resign effective March 1, 1975. A copy of Telfair's letter of resignation to Carcaise as an active firm member and broker for LTP was forwarded to the FREC. On March 1, 1975, Telfair did resign, severed his relationship with LTP, removed himself from the business premises, together with his property. Prior to that date, he had advised Carcaise of the necessity to obtain a broker to serve as an active firm member for LTP, but Telfair was never replaced by Carcaise. As of the date of Telfair's resignation, there were sufficient funds on deposit in the LTP escrow account to meet all obligations against the account. On June 4, 1975, Carcaise directed the corporate bookkeeper, in writing, to issue a check transferring the escrow funds to Gateway Consultants. The bookkeeper, who had refused to issue any checks without written direction, called Telfair and asked him what she should do. Telfair suggested that she report this matter to the FREC, and Telfair volunteered to accompany her to Orlando to the FREC offices. On June 5, 1975, the bookkeeper, and Telfair met with Mr. Jones of the FREC legal staff and advised him of the removal of the escrow funds and showed him the corporate books which the bookkeeper had brought with her. Jones advised them that there was nothing which could be done because no demand had been made for the funds, and there had been no failure to deliver the funds by LTP. The funds were transferred, demand was subsequently made for the escrow funds by LTP's client, and they were not paid. Subsequently, the FREC brought the instant complaint against Telfair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against Robert M. Telfair by the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Joseph A. Scarlett, Esq. 210 East New York Avenue DeLand, FL 32720
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate brokers and holds license No. 0002997. On May 7, 1979, Respondent acted in the capacity of a real estate broker in the transaction of the sale of a parcel of real property located in Polk County, Florida. The purchaser in that transaction was Margaret Rhoden, and the seller was June Davis, who was represented in the transaction by a relative, Henry Goodwin. On May 7, 1979, Margaret Rhoden entered into a Contract for Sale of Rea1 Estate for the purchase of a piece of property Frostproof, Florida, from June Davis. The full purchase price of the property was $3,500, which Ms. Rhoden paid to Respondent in cash on May 7, 1979, and obtained a receipt from Respondent for that amount. At the time the contract was entered into, Ms. Rhoden was advised that a deed should be forthcoming from the seller within two to four weeks. A date of June 20, 1979, was established to close the transaction, subject to a 120-day curative period should any cloud on the title be discovered. The contract between the parties provided that should any such cloud appear of record, the seller would have a period of 120 days after receipt of written notice prior to the date set for closing in which to attempt to cure the defect. The contract further provided that if title defects were not cleared within the l20-day period, the deposit would be returned to the buyer, or, at the buyer's option, the transaction should be closed in the same manner as if no defect had been found. A warranty deed purporting to transfer the property from the seller to the buyer was executed on June 7, 1979, and a title binder was issued on that same date. The title binder indicated an outstanding mortgage on a larger piece of property of which the parcel purchased by Ms. Rhoden was only a part. When efforts to clear this cloud on the title took longer than expected, Ms. Rhoden asked, and was granted, permission by the seller's agent to commence construction on the improvements on the property notwithstanding the fact that she knew that a cloud remained on the title to the lot, and the transaction had not been closed. Construction was not completed on the improvements because Ms. Rhoden ran out of cash during the course of construction. She moved into the dwelling while it was still in a partially completed condition and, on September 8, 1979, with the permission of the seller's agent, received a loan of $3,000 from the $3,500 deposit she had placed with Respondent, Ms. Rhoden executed a promissory note dated September 8, 1979, in which she agreed to repay the $3,000 loan when clear title to the property was issued. Ms. Rhoden used the proceeds of this loan to make additional improvements on the property. On October 26, 1979, Respondent received both the warranty deed dated June 7, 1979, and the title binder issued on that date from the attorney for the seller. When approached by Ms. Rhoden, Respondent agreed to lend her the deed and title binder to attempt to obtain additional financing to complete construction on her home. The clear inference from the record in this proceeding is that there was never any understanding between Respondent and Ms. Rhoden that this deed could be recorded at this or any other juncture in this transaction. In fact, the contract entered into between the buyer and seller clearly called for the payment of the full purchase price of the property at closing, and the note subsequently executed by Ms. Rhoden conditioned the issuance of a warranty deed to her on the payment of the $3,000 face value of the note. Ms. Rhoden was unsuccessful in obtaining additional financing to complete construction on her home, probably due to the fact that when she sought that financing the outstanding mortgage on the property had still not been satisfied. When Respondent advised the seller's attorney that he had loaned the warranty deed to Ms. Rhoden for the purposes outlined above, he was advised that there was nothing to keep Ms. Rhoden from recording the deed, at which point Respondent apparently determined that it would be prudent for him to retrieve the deed from Ms. Rhoden's possession. Ms. Rhoden had her mother return the deed to Respondent in February of 1980. According to the testimony of both Ms. Rhoden and her mother, they felt the purpose for the returning of the deed was to have it recorded. Respondent denies any such understanding. In resolving this conflict in testimony, the clear inference from the circumstances involved in this transaction, including the wording of the contract of sale and the note executed by Ms. Rhoden, supports a finding that all of the parties to this transaction either knew, or should have known, that the recording of the deed at this juncture in the transaction would have been improper. Although the outstanding mortgage had been satisfied in January of 1980, Ms. Rhoden had not Performed her obligation under the contract of sale by paying the full purchase price. When Respondent had recovered the deed from Ms. Rhoden, he was advised by the attorney for the seller not to record the deed until he had received payment from Ms. Rhoden in accordance with the contract and the promissory note. As indicated above, the outstanding mortgage on the property was satisfied in January of 1980. On February 6, 1980, Respondent Prepared a closing statement reflecting the purchase price of the property as $3,500. From this amount he deducted a total of $478 for state documentary stamps, title insurance, Preparing the deed, and amount of real estate commission leaving a the apparently forwarded the note from Ms. Rhoden for $3,000, together with the $22.00 cash balance remaining from her initial $3,500 deposit to the seller along with the deed which the seller had earlier executed. Ms. Rhoden apparently never made or tendered payment of the $3,000 note, the transaction never closed, and at the time of final hearing in this cause an eviction action was apparently pending between the seller and Ms. Rhoden. Paragraph seven of the contract of sale executed between the seller and Ms. Rhoden Provides as follows: If Buyer fails to perform this contract, the deposit this day paid by Buyer as aforesaid shall be retained by or for the account of Seller as consideration for the execution of this agreement and in full settlement of any claims for damages.
