Findings Of Fact Respondent was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc. as a real estate salesman, from May 29, 1975, to September 15, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex has a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salespersons had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc. was in business. A week after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property, paid International Land Brokers, Inc. a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complain be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Richard I. Kroop, Esquire 420 Lincoln Road Suite 512 Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the posthearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: Respondent, Alfred Rifflard, Jr., during times material herein, was a licensed real estate broker-salesman and is the holder of license number 0338064. Respondent, Thomas L. Narog, during times material herein, was a licensed real estate salesman and is the holder of license number 0309097. On approximately May 24, 1982, Respondent Narog represented to John F. Wodalski that Respondent Rifflard, as an investor, was interested in purchasing certain real property owned by Wodalski. Based on discussions with seller Wodalski, Wodalski and Respondent Alfred Rifflard entered into a deposit receipt and contract for sale and purchase of the Wodalski property. The purchaser is listed on the deposit receipt contract as Alfred Rifflard and/or assigns." (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The negotiations for the sale of the subject property were conducted at the bar of a country club where both Respondent Naroq and seller Wodalski were employed. Respondent Rifflard was aware that the subject property had been on the market for approximately eighteen months. Seller Wodalski expressed (to Respondent Narog) disenchantment that he was unable to move the property as he had planned to purchase other properties with the proceeds received from the sale of the subject property. Respondent Narog attempted to sell the Wodalski property to enable him (Wodalski) to purchase the other property. During the negotiations for the sale of the subject property, Respondent Wodalski tendered a copy of his business card to seller Wodalski. That business card reflected that Respondent Rifflard was a licensed real estate salesman. Following the execution of the deposit receipt contract by Respondent Rifflard, Respondent Rifflard showed the property to approximately three prospective purchasers in an effort to sell the property prior to the purported closing date. Federal Land Title Corporation of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida was commissioned to handle the closing of the property from seller Wodalski to Respondent Rifflard and/or his assigns. This is confirmed by a letter dated August 19, 1982 to seller Wodalski wherein loan processor Kathy Bradley advised the seller that she expected to expedite the closing of the Wodalski property. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Upon receiving the above-referred letter from Federal Land Title Corporation, seller Wodalski demanded a tender of the $1,000 earnest money deposit which is referred to in the deposit receipt contract executed by Respondent Rifflard. At that time, Respondent Narog was told that no monies could be disbursed to him prior to closing. Seller Wodalski called off the closing based on his claim that another broker advised him that it was illegal for an undisclosed licensed real estate salesman to purchase property in his name. Based on the testimony of Respondents Rifflard and Narog including the testimony of the Petitioner's investigator, Anthony Nicola, who investigated the subject complaint, it is specifically found herein that the Respondents disclosed the fact that Rifflard was a licensed real estate salesman at the time the deposit receipt contract was executed herein. In making this finding, consideration was given to seller Wodalski's testimony to the effect that he was busy 2/ at the time that he entered the deposit receipt contract and that it was indeed possible that Respondent Rifflard tendered a business card to him at the time he entered the subject contract. Paragraph two of the deposit receipt contract reveals that the method of payment includes a $1,000 deposit, in the form of a note, which would be returned to the buyer at closing. It is undisputed by the Respondents that no earnest money deposit note in the amount of $1,000 was given the buyer's attorney to be held in trust until the closing was completed. The Respondents acknowledged that it was an error on their part to fail to execute the earnest money deposit as Respondent Rifflard agreed in the subject deposit receipt contract. Further, Respondent Rifflard urges that his failure to execute a note was an oversight on his part.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondents, Alfred Rifflard, Jr. and Thomas L. Narog, be privately reprimanded by the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, based on their failure to place in deposit, to be held in trust, a $1,000 earnest money deposit in connection with the transaction surrounding the deposit receipt and contract for sale and purchase entered into by Alfred Rifflard, Jr., as purchaser of certain real property owned by John Wodalski. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1984, 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 31st day of January, 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Bangert was a licensed real estate salesman with State of Florida license number 0312002. On or about May 1, 1986, Cynthia Green (now Cynthia Tyson) listed her house at 408 Lakeview Drive, Altamonte Springs, Florida, under an exclusive right of sale contract with J. Scott Jones, a licensed real estate broker. Through his broker, Help U. Sell (Thomas Jafek and Thomas Jafek II), Bangert offered $64,900.00 to Ms. Tyson for the Lakeview house. The contract for sale offered a $1,000.00 deposit note, with two mortgages, including a balloon mortgage, payment of $3,000.00 fix-up costs by the seller, and cash to the seller at closing in the amount of $15,659.00 The offer was rejected by Ms. Tyson. J. Scott Jones negotiated over the telephone with Thomas Jafek II, and then with Bangert. The basic requirement of Ms. Tyson was that she wanted $50,000.00 net at closing. She also wanted a cash deposit, as she had a previous negative experience with a deposit note. J. Scott Jones does not recall that he told Bangert that a cash deposit was required, but he knows the issue came up sometime during the telephone discussion. He did not speak to both Jafek and Bangert at the same time. A second contract offer was signed by Bangert and was accepted by Ms. Tyson on August 30, 1986. The purchase price and method of payment was set out as follows: PURCHASE PRICE $ 68,500.00 PAYMENT: Deposit(s) to be held in escrow by Help-U-Sell of College Park, upon acceptance in the amount of $ 1,000.00 Subject to AND [sic] assumption of Mortgage in good standing in favor of To Be Obtained having an approximate present principal balance of $ 40,000.00 Purchase money mortgage and note bearing interest at 9 percent on terms set forth herein below, in the principal amount of 360 payments of 189.10 to Balloon at 60th mo. $ 23,500.00 Other Purchase Money Mortgage @ 10 percent in a single payment at 60th mo. $ 5,000.00 Balance to close (U.S. cash, LOCALLY DRAWN certified or cashier's check), subject to adjustments and prorations $ 68,500.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit #4) The Contract also provided for the $50,000.00 net at closing to the seller. Bangert gave Thomas Jafek a deposit note in the amount of $1,000.00. Jafek did not know how to put a note in a trust or escrow account, so he held it in his files at Help U. Sell. Jafek had dealt with Bangert before in real estate transactions and had acted before as the escrow agent. In those dealings Bangert only put down notes, never cash. Jafek understood that Bangert's role was as a principal buyer and that Bangert intended to assign the contract for sale. The transaction was initially scheduled to close on September 26, 1987. On September 30, 1986, the parties agreed to extend the closing until October 10, 1986. When J. Scott Jones met with Bangert to get the extension signed, he learned that a note, rather than cash deposit had been made. The transaction never closed. For reasons that are not material to this proceeding, Bangert did not appear at the closing. Cynthia Tyson retained an attorney, Garrick N. Fox, who sent letters to Jafek and to Bangert on October 17, 1986. The letter to Jafek provides, in pertinent part: As per the contract for sale and purchase, your company holds one thousand dollars in escrow and we may [sic) hereby make demand that you remit to this law office the one thousand dollars held in escrow as partial damages for the default of the contract. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) The letter to Bangert does not mention the deposit, but states that the contract is in default. The final paragraph states: It is my sincere desire that we can settle this matter amicably without the necessity of litigation. If you can close on this contract forthwith, all of these problems can be settled. If not I would appreciate it if you would have your attorney contact [sic] so that we can immediately take the proper steps to minimize Miss Green's damages. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7) The attorney never made an oral demand on Bangert for the $1000.00. Jafek did not consider his letter to be a present demand, but rather a statement of intent to make a demand in the future. Jafek did not tender the note and the $1000.00 was not paid. Bangert had no intent to make a cash deposit. He claims that he told "Tom Jr." " (Thomas Jafek II) to type "a deposit note" on the second contract offer, but that even without that language, a note, rather than cash, was not precluded by the contract terms. Bangert intended that the transaction take place and did not have an intent or motive to defraud the seller. If the transaction had closed, he claims he would have honored the note. As far as he knows, Jafek still has the note. Bangert claims also that it was an oversight that he did not reveal his real estate license status on the contract. The Jafeks knew he was a real estate salesman. Further, he and Scott Jones were teaching at the same real estate school and he felt that Jones should have known his status. He did not intend to hide the fact of his license from anyone. His business in the last three years has been actively serving as a principal buyer and seller for other parties. Bangert's liability on his note is not at issue. In the absence of clear evidence of his knowledge of the seller's conditions, I cannot find that he is guilty of fraud in putting a note cash on deposit. Nor did he deliberately misrepresent a material fact to the seller by failing to disclose that he was a licensed real estate salesman. Ms. Tyson never met Bangert. Both parties were dealing at arms length through their own brokers. Conclusions of Law The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. and Section 455.225(4) F.S. Section 475.25(1) F.S. provides that the Florida Real Estate Commission may impose discipline if it finds that a licensee, (b) Has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction... DPR has the burden of proving the allegations of this complaint through evidence that is clear and convincing. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2nd 292 (Fla. 1987). It is apparent now that Ms. Tyson wanted a cash deposit as one condition of accepting an offer to buy her property. It is not clear that the condition was communicated to Bangert by either his broker, Thomas Jafek, II, or by Ms. Tyson's broker, J. Scott Jones. Without this material evidence it cannot be established that Bangert deliberately engaged in a subterfuge. Without evidence of dishonest or illicit intent, there is no guilt under Section 475.25(1)(b), F.S. Morris v. Department of Professional Regulation 474 So.2nd 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). No rule nor provision of law has been cited to require a real estate licensee to reveal his status as such when engaging in the purchase and sale of property in his personal capacity. Nor was evidence produced that would establish and justify such a policy by the Board. In Santaniello v. Department of Professional Regulation 432 So.2nd 84 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983), the court upheld the Board's right to determine that a broker violated Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. when he failed to reveal that a purchaser was his mother-in- law. In that case, the court observed that the broker owed his allegiance to the sellers and was obligated to inform them of anything which might influence their decision to sell. Because of that, the existence of the mother-in-law relationship was deemed a material fact. No such foundation for a duty to inform was established here, therefore there was no violation of section 475.25(1)(b) F.S.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against Larry G. Bangert be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Office 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 17th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3044 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner. Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraph #2. Adopted in substance in paragraphs #3 and #4. Adopted in substance in paragraph #4. Evidence did not establish that Bangert was aware of the cash deposit condition by Ms. Tyson. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The face of the contract does not require cash. Adopted in paragraph #7. Adopted in paragraph #8. Adopted in paragraph #6. Adopted in substance in paragraph #7. Adopted in paragraph #11. Adopted in paragraph #7. Adopted in part in paragraph #10. Bangert contended that the contract did not specify cash. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph #9. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Copies furnished: DOAH Case No. 87-3044 James R. Mitchell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Larry G. Bangert 103 Cashew Court Longwood, Florida 32750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered real estate salesman having been issued license number 0027286 by the State of Florida, which license was registered with Gibraltar Realty and Management, Inc., 407 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida. On August 2, 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Rodriguez responded to an advertisement that Respondent had placed in the Miami Herald offering to lease a certain apartment owned by Respondent and known as Unit 5-A, 710 Northeast 29th Street, Miami, Florida. Respondent had been advertising that apartment either for lease or for sale for a period of time. At the time, the apartment was unoccupied. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez met with the Respondent at the apartment. Respondent informed them that he was willing to lease the property to them for a period of 18 months at a rental of $2,000 per month with a $5,000 security deposit. No lease was ever prepared or entered into by the parties, although Respondent knew that a written lease was required to rent the unit under the terms discussed. Respondent requested Rodriguez to give Respondent a $2500 deposit check, and Rodriguez complied with that request. Respondent deposited the check into his personal checking account. Respondent never told Rodriguez that the deposit was not refundable. Respondent and Rodriguez began discussing a possible purchase of Respondent's apartment rather than a rental. As a result of the continuing discussions, Respondent prepared a Deposit Receipt and Sale-Purchase Contract dated August 7, 1980, and mailed it to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez. At the same time, he sent a copy of that proposed contract to Rodriguez' attorney, who was out of the office that week. After various conversations between the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez and the Respondent, and after the Rodriguez' attorney had met with Respondent and viewed the apartment, Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez declined to execute the Deposit Receipt and further determined that they would not purchase or lease Respondent's property. Approximately a week later, Rodriguez made demand on Respondent for return of his $2500. Rodriguez' attorney subsequently made demand on Respondent for the return to Rodriguez of that deposit. Respondent has failed and refused to return to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez the $2500 deposit. The subject apartment was never removed from the market and was continuously advertised by Respondent for sale or lease during the course of the negotiations with Rodriguez.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint and suspending Respondent's real estate salesman license number 0027286 for 18 months. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 16th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Colodny, Esquire 626 NE 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32082 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire 39 East Sixth Street Hialeah, Florida 33010 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wilbur Lewis Hallock, at all times relevant thereto, was a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0035549 by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, in 1971. He also has the designation of a Graduate of the Realtors Institute (GRI), having successfully completed its requirements. At the time the events herein occurred, Hallock was a salesman for Don Asher and Associates in Orlando, Florida. On or about August 8, 1980, Respondent, through reading the Orlando Sentinel Star, became aware of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan Association 1/ pending against James A. and Jeanie Lockwood, husband and wife, who owned a home located at 4813 and 4815 Basswood Lane, Orlando, Florida. 2/ Hallock had been told to vacate his apartment, and was in the process of finding a new home. He was "looking for a bargain" and believed he found one when he read of the Lockwoods' plight. The Lockwoods were separated at that time and only James Lockwood lived in the house on Basswood Lane. Hallock telephoned James Lockwood on Friday evening, August 8, 1980, and told him he was aware of the foreclosure proceeding and wished to meet with him to discuss a possible sale or way to avoid foreclosure proceedings. Lockwood, who was in the process of moving to Winter Haven and wished to immediately sell the property, was receptive and invited Respondent to meet with him that evening. Respondent and a lady friend (Mrs. Florence Harrison) then visited James that night. Hallock introduced himself, and showed two cards to prove his identity. Hallock made clear he did not represent his employer, Don Asher and Associates, but was simply representing himself. Although conflicting stories as to what happened during and after this first meeting were given by the various witnesses, the undersigned finds the following to be the more credible version of the sequence of events. Upon meeting Lockwood, Hallock proceeded to discuss the various alternatives available to Lockwood. These included selling the home to Hallock's brother, who lived in Miami, allowing Hallock himself to purchase the house, or simply letting the lending institution foreclose. Because the mortgage payments were in arrears and a foreclosure proceeding in progress, Lockwood offered to give the house to Hallock if he would bring the payments current. Hallock, who knew consideration for a real estate transaction was required, declined the offer and instead offered James "a minimum of $50 equity." No total purchase price was discussed since the balances on the first mortgage, and a second mortgage held by Freedom Federal Savings and Loan of Tampa, were unknown. Neither was the agreement reduced to writing. James also wished to avoid paying a commission on the sale of the house that might be due since another realtor, Area One West, Inc., held a listing. However, Hallock advised James that because Jeanie Lockwood had not signed the agreement, the listing realtor would have "no claim whatsoever." Hallock also told James that his wife needed to concur in their agreement. That same evening, Hallock telephoned Jeanie Lockwood, who resided in an apartment in Orlando. He told her he had just talked with her husband concerning a possible sale of their house, and wished to discuss the matter with her that evening. She agreed, and subsequently met Hallock and Mrs. Harrison later that evening. Also present was Jeanie's neighbor, Carol Gordon, who had been asked by Jeanie to sit in on the discussions. Hallock identified himself to the ladies, told them that he had become aware of the foreclosure proceeding by reading a newspaper, and had discussed a possible sale with the husband. He briefly described the same alternatives available to her as he had with James. When asked by Hallock whether she wished to keep the house or move into it, Jeanie stated she did not. No purchase price or equity payment was discussed that evening. However, Hallock requested Jeanie to call the two lending institutions on the following Monday morning to authorize him to ascertain the balances owed on the mortgages. He also advised her that the listing then held on the property by the other realtor was not valid because Jeanie had failed to sign the listing agreement. Hallock called James early the next morning (Saturday) and asked to meet with him. James was moving his possessions out of the home that day and told Hallock to come over right away. Upon arriving at the home, Hallock told James he had a deed prepared that conveyed the property to him and wished to have James sign it that day before he moved to Winter Haven. However, he indicated he would not record it or pay any consideration until the mortgage balances were ascertained, the chain of title checked, and final confirmation received from the Lockwoods. James agreed to meet Hallock at 10:00 a.m. that morning to sign the deed. Hallock then telephoned Jeanie and asked to meet her that morning. When they met, Hallock explained he wished her to sign the deed that day so he would not have to interrupt her work schedule during the following week. Hallock told her to meet James and himself at Wescott Realty at 10:00 a.m. to sign the papers. He also told her that "the least you will get is $100 for the house." At approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning, the Lockwoods and Hallock met at Wescott Realty in Orlando. There they executed a warranty deed conveying the property in question from the Lockwoods to Hallock (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). It was notarized by Barbara Boehmer, an employee of Wescott. Also present was Mary Black, another employee of Wescott. Prior to their signing the document, the Lockwoods were asked by Hallock if they were of legal age, were husband and wife, were under duress or threat to sign, or were subject to the influence of drugs or alcohol. Although the signing was done in a rather hasty fashion, there was no effort by Respondent to cover or conceal any portion of the document. The word "deed" was not mentioned at any time during the transaction, nor were the Lockwoods verbally advised at that time as to the nature of the document being signed. Neither was any money or other consideration exchanged. On Monday, August 11, 1980, Jeanie Lockwood called Margaret M. Norman at Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan to request the balance on the mortgage held by that institution. Mrs. Norman advised Jeanie to make the request in writing; Jeanie then prepared a letter requesting that the institution give Hallock "any information he requires regarding the foreclosure on our house at 4815 Basswood Lane." (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Hallock telephoned Jeanie on Monday evening and told her he would give her $65 equity instead of $50.00. She concurred with this amount. He also told her he was in the process of having the title checked and would not record the deed unless the title was clear. On Tuesday morning, Hallock telephoned Mrs. Norman to ascertain the balance on the mortgage held by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan. Upon receiving preliminary information concerning the mortgage, Hallock called James in Winter Haven and advised him the wife had accepted the $65 equity offer on Monday night. The husband complained he wanted an amount closer to $100; Respondent said he would "split the difference" and upped the equity payoff to $75. The husband then gave his concurrence. At 11:43 a.m. on August 12, 1980, Hallock recorded the warranty deed signed by the Lockwoods in the Orange County Courthouse and paid $232 for documentary stamps affixed to the deed (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). He later requested and obtained from the Department of Revenue a partial refund of the stamp tax after he determined the stamp tax paid exceeded the amount actually required. After recording the deed he obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $75 and mailed it to James in Winter Haven. However, James never cashed the check and returned it to Hallock. On that same Tuesday, Jeanie called Area One West, Inc., the listing realtor, to let them know she had received foreclosure papers on the second mortgage. A salesperson told Jeanie that she had a prospective buyer for the house, and suggested they view the property that afternoon. Thereafter, two representatives of Area One West, the prospective buyer and Jeanie all met at 4815 Basswood Lane. Upon reaching the premises, they found the realtor's sign and multilock in the carport, the front door unlocked, and Hallock's car in the driveway. Inside was Hallock showing the house to a prospective buyer. Jeanie told Hallock she now had a buyer and would not sell the house for $65. Hallock told her he had bought the home, already recorded the deed she had previously signed on Saturday, and had mailed James a check for $75. Jeanie then accused Hallock of being "in cahoots" with James. On August 14, 1980, Respondent telephoned James Lockwood in Winter Haven to inquire about a lawnmower, edger and books that James had left in his house. James told Hallock to keep his books but stated he wished to keep the lawnmower and edger. During the next day or two, James came and took the lawnmower, drapes and oven racks from the house. Thereafter, Hallock called James and asked if he would swap the edger for the missing oven racks; James agreed. Hallock ultimately changed the locks on the house on Saturday, August 16, 1980. James Lockwood is a 29-year-old stockholder employed by Merrill Lynch in Winter Haven, Florida. Prior to his present employment, he worked for an Orlando automobile dealership. His wife is a secretary with the State of Florida. Although their formal education was not disclosed, James did attend college for an undisclosed period of time. Jeanie described her husband as being as honest and truthful "as the next person" but acknowledged he sometimes lied. The listing agreement with Area One West, Inc., was signed by James Lockwood and Carol Lockwood on July 3, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). 3/ Carol is his second wife. Jeanie did not sign the agreement. The house was originally listed for $56,900 on the agreement but that figure was marked through and replaced with a figure of $49,900. Hallock purchased the house for approximately $39,600.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint against Respondent Wilbur Lewis Hallock be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George Sherbon, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued broker's license number 0348688 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a salesman for V. P. Stone, Inc., a real estate firm located at 5905 Gulf Boulevard, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida. On April 1, 1987, Paul D. and Anna Martin entered into a listing agreement with Century 21 Spinning Wheel Ent., Inc. (Century 21) to sell their home at 2543 58th Terrace South, St. Petersburg, Florida. The listing agent was Cheryl Coudry, now known as Cheryl Hutton, a licensed salesperson with Century 21. On September 11, 1987 respondent solicited and obtained a contract for sale on the Martin property executed by Frank Dicenzo, a resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who had a daughter living in the St. Petersburg area. Dicenzo had responded to an advertisement run by Sherbon in a Pittsburgh newspaper. After a week or so of negotiations, the parties eventually agreed to a sales price of $92,500, and the final contract was executed on September 20, 1987. The contract called for Dicenzo to make an initial $100 deposit when the contract was executed and an additional deposit of $19,900 by September 25, 1987, or a total deposit of $20,000. Dicenzo gave respondent the initial $100 which was deposited into the escrow account of V. P. Stone, Inc. The contract provided further that the sale would be contingent on Dicenzo obtaining a $72,500 first mortgage. Finally, in accordance with Dicenzo's request, the contract provided that Dicenzo could take occupancy of the premises four weeks after the loan was approved. It is noted that Dicenzo initially asked for occupancy by October 16, 1987. On September 18, Sherbon introduced Dicenzo to Tony Black, a loan officer at Savings of America, a local lending institution, for the purpose of Dicenzo making a loan application. On September 24, or the day before the additional deposit was due, Dicenzo became ill with what he described as a bleeding ulcer and decided to return to Pittsburgh and stay at his mother's home. Before he left, Dicenzo did not make the additional deposit as required by the contract. According to Dicenzo, he placed no great significance on the September 25 due date and felt that if the deposit was made "within a reasonable time," it would be okay. Respondent was aware of the September 25 deadline and attempted to get a check for the $19,900 deposit from Dicenzo's daughter but was unsuccessful. Respondent contends he kept trying to contact Dicenzo in Pittsburgh during the next five week period but was unable to reach him. Dicenzo acknowledged he knew that Sherbon was trying to contact him but still made no effort to talk to Sherbon. Instead, he simply told his daughter he would take care of the matter when he returned to Florida in late October. Whether this message was conveyed to Sherbon is not of record. Sherbon prepared contemporaneous notes concerning the transaction and used these to refresh his recollection at hearing. He pointed out that such notes were kept on all real estate transactions. According to his notes, he telephoned Coudry and Black on September 24 concerning Dicenzo's illness and the fact that he was having difficulty obtaining the additional deposit from Dicenzo. Although Black recalled talking with Sherbon, he denied that Sherbon told him that there was no deposit and said such information was a material item that would have prompted him to stop processing the application until the deposit could be verified. Likewise, Coudry, who could not recall many aspects of the transaction, did recall speaking with Sherbon but remembered Sherbon simply telling her that he was in the process of showing Dicenzo various commercial properties and would be obtaining the deposit at that time. Their testimony is deemed to be more credible and persuasive and is hereby accepted. Coudry assumed that Sherbon had received the additional deposit since she was never specifically told otherwise by Sherbon. Accordingly, she did not contact the Martins until several weeks after the September 25 due date. Coudry did not learn that no deposit had been collected until mid-January 1988 when Anna Martin disclosed to her this fact. In the meantime, although the Martins knew the contract was contingent on Dicenzo obtaining a loan, they nonetheless assumed that Dicenzo would have no problem securing a loan and that such a loan would be approved in a week or so. Also, they knew the contract called for possession of the property by Dicenzo four weeks after the loan was approved. Because of these assumptions, and having received no advice from Coudry that the full deposit had not been made on September 25 as required by the contract, the Martins made application around September 28 to buy another home in a nearby modular home park and asked that the application be expedited. Unfortunately for the Martins, they were far more successful than Dicenzo in securing prompt approval of their loan application. Once approved, and after a closing was held, the Martins had the utilities hooked up, erected a storage shed, and incurred other expenses. Also, they began making mortgage payments on the second house. On October 24, 1987 the Martins telephoned Sherbon and told him their listing with Century 21 had expired. During the conversation, Sherbon did not mention that Dicenzo had failed to make the $19,900 deposit. Dicenzo's application with Savings of America was denied on October 30, 1987 because of Dicenzo's "ratio of ... expenses to ... total income." By this time, Dicenzo had returned to Florida and had spoken with Sherbon. At respondent's urging, Dicenzo reapplied to the same institution and was turned down a second time on November 12, 1987. In addition, at Coudry's suggestion, Dicenzo had already visited another lender in October but refused to pay a $250 application fee and consequently did not file an application. Also, through Sherbon, Dicenzo was given the name of a mortgage lender suggested by the Martins but, after three visits, decided not file an application. Information regarding the second Savings of America denial was conveyed to Coudry around mid-November but, for whatever reason, she did not contact Sherbon regarding the status of the contract. It is noteworthy that at that time Sherbon did not tell Coudry that Dicenzo had still failed to make an additional deposit as required by the contract. Despite the loan application denials, Sherbon encouraged Dicenzo to keep trying to arrange financing so that the deal could go through. Dicenzo agreed to do so but, as noted in the following finding of fact, at that point Dicenzo considered the contract to be "null and void." Sherbon's efforts to find financing continued until mid-January 1988. When the loan application was denied on November 12, Dicenzo construed the contract to be void since the financing contingency was not met. According to Dicenzo, he did not believe the property was tied up while his contract was pending, felt no obligation to make the $19,900 deposit because it meant he would have to transfer funds from a money market account he purportedly maintained in Pittsburgh, and felt no moral obligation to the Martins even though by then they had committed themselves to a second home. The Martins were advised by telephone on the evening of November 12 of the second turn down of Dicenzo's loan application. By then, however, they were already committed to the second purchase. They claimed they did not learn of Dicenzo's failure to make the $19,900 deposit until mid-January 1988 when Sherbon visited their home and disclosed this fact. This is also borne out by a letter from the Martins' attorney to Dicenzo on December 1, 1987 advising Dicenzo that the contract was void and a claim might be made on his deposit for damages. When the Martins learned that only $100 had been deposited, they filed a complaint with the Division. That prompted this proceeding. Because of the failed contract, the Martins were unable to maintain two mortgage payments and were ultimately forced to give up the second home at a substantial monetary loss. They have since returned to their first home. The evidence shows that in the real estate trade, it is not customary or proper for the buyer's realtor to personally contact the seller. Rather, the practice and custom is for the buyer's agent to advise the listing broker of all pertinent developments and the listing broker then relays any necessary information to the seller. Thus, Sherbon had no responsibility to personally advise the Martins of any information pertaining to the contract. Rather, this responsibility rested with Coudry. Respondent contended he kept Coudry abreast of all developments concerning Dicenzo and that he assumed Coudry would advise the Martins that no deposit had yet been collected. To the extent this version of events conflicts with previous findings, it is not accepted. Sherbon expressed sympathy for the Martins' plight but maintained he was not at fault. There is no evidence that Sherbon has been subjected to prior disciplinary action by the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) to the extent noted in the conclusions of law and that his broker's license be suspended for three months. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 26th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4688 Petitioner: 1-2. Covered in finding of fact l. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 2. 5-7. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected since respondent owed a duty to Coudry, and not the Martins, to keep her abreast of all pertinent matters. Covered in findings of fact 7 and 12. Covered in findings of fact 7 and 8. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in findings of fact 6 and 10. Rejected as being subordinate to other findings. Covered in finding of fact 11. 18-19. Covered in finding of fact 6. Respondent: Respondent's proposed order contains sections entitled "admitted facts", "unrebutted facts" and "uncontested facts". They are ruled upon in that order. Admitted facts: Covered in finding of fact l. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in background. Unrebutted facts: Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 15. Covered in finding of fact 10. 4-6. Covered in finding of fact 6. 7-8. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Rejected since Sherbon learned of the loan denial even though he did not receive a written copy of the turn-down letter. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in finding of fact 8. Rejected since the testimony of Anna Martin is accepted as being more credible on this factual issue. Uncontested facts: Rejected as being cumulative. Partially covered in findings of fact 6, 7 and 16. The remainder is rejected as being cumulative, argument of counsel or not supported by the more credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel B. Schuh, Esquire 248 Mirror Drive St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Darlene Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Lawrence R. Dennis is now and was at all times pertinent hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0148366 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was a broker, c/o Dennis & Associates, Inc., 4141 North Miami Avenue, #300, Miami, Florida 33127-2847. Respondent, Dennis & Associates, Inc., is now and was at all times pertinent hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0236428 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 4141 North Miami Avenue, #300, Miami, Florida 33127-2847. Sometime in September or October 1990 Janet Carter saw an advertisement in the Miami Times newspaper for a home for sale by Dennis and Associates, Inc. Mrs. Carter called the telephone number listed in the ad and talked with Mr. Dennis. After speaking with Mr. Dennis about the advertised property Mrs. Carter and her husband viewed the property and ultimately executed a contract to purchase the property which was owned by Dennis and Associates, Inc. Mrs. Carter knew that Mr. Dennis was a licensed real estate broker and felt that she was dealing with him in his capacity as a broker. Mrs. Carter understood that Mr. Dennis's corporation (Dennis & Associates, Inc.) was the owner and seller of the property. Mr. Dennis did not live in the home that the Carters were interested in buying and at all times the Carters were under the assumption that they were negotiating the purchase of a home through a licensed broker. There was, however, insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Dennis misled the Carters into believing that he was acting in any capacity other than as the president of the corporation that owned the subject property. On or about October 22, 1990, Ms. Carter and her husband, Ruben, executed a Purchase and Sale Contract and Receipt for Deposit for property located at 2001 Northwest 53rd Street, Miami, Florida (Carter contract). The seller of the property was Dennis and Associates, Inc. In the first paragraph of the Carter contract, the receipt of the sum of $500.00 from the buyers as a deposit on account of the purchase price is acknowledged by the seller. The form language in that paragraph referring to the deposit being held in escrow is crossed out. The crossed out language is not signed or initialed by any of the parties to the transaction. 2/ On the second page of the Carter contract, the following provision was not altered by the parties: "Deposit check will be deposited, and the funds held in an escrow account until the sale has been closed." The $500.00 deposit was not paid by the Carters until November 19, 1990. Mrs. Carter believed the earnest money deposit was to be held in an escrow account. After signing the Purchase and Sale Contract and Receipt for Deposit the Carters took the contract to attorney Keith Levarity who prepared a two page Modification of Contract and attached it to the original contract. The Modification of Contract allowed the Carters, at their expense, to obtain a roof and termite inspection. The parties to the transaction agreed to that modification of the contract. Another provision in the Modification of Contract agreement provided that the earnest money deposit in the amount of $500.00 would be held in Mr. Levarity's trust account. Respondents did not agree to that modification and that provision was deleted from the Modification of Contract agreement. The Carters agreed to allow Mr. Dennis to hold the earnest money deposit in his escrow account and that portion of the Modification of Contract that referred to Mr. Levarity holding the earnest money deposit was crossed out, initialed by the Carters and by Mr. Dennis, and dated November 19, 1990. The Modification of Contract also provided that if defects were noted by the inspections, repairs to the house would be made by the sellers prior to the closing of the transaction. On November 19, 1990, Janet Carter gave Respondent Lawrence Dennis check number 541 in the amount of $500.00 as an earnest money deposit for the purchase of the property located at 2001 Northwest 53rd Street, Miami, Florida. The transaction never closed because certain repairs to the property were never made by the Respondents as agreed. On January 14, 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Carter advised Mr. Dennis by letter that they wished to cancel their contract and wanted a full refund of the $500.00 deposit. In addition to the letter of January 14, 1991, Mrs. Carter verbally told Mr. Dennis that the contract was cancelled and that she wanted her $500.00 earnest money deposit refunded. In December 1990, Respondents ordered a roof inspection to determine the extent of the repairs that would be needed. This inspection cost Respondents the sum of $50.00. Under the terms of the Carter contract as modified, the Respondents were to bear the cost of paying for that roof inspection. The Carters never ordered a roof inspection and were not, under the terms of their written contract, obligated to pay for the roof inspection ordered by Mr. Dennis. On or about February 25, 1991, Janet and Ruben Carter signed a release on deposit receipt provided by Mr. Dennis. The release on deposit provided that Mr. Dennis would return $450.00 of the $500.00 earnest money deposit made by the Carters. Mr. Dennis insisted on retaining the sum of $50.00 to pay for the roof inspection that he had ordered. Although the Carters believed they were entitled to the return of all of their earnest money deposit, they agreed to accept the sum of $450.00 on the advice of their attorney. On or about March 8, 1991, Janet Carter filed a complaint against Respondents with the Department of Professional Regulation. As of the time of the formal hearing, the Respondents had not repaid the Carters any portion of the $500.00 earnest money deposit they had made. Kenneth George Rehm is an experienced real estate investigator who had been employed by the Department of Professional Regulation for the ten years preceding the formal hearing. In March or April of 1991 Mr. Rehm went to the registered location of the office of Respondents to talk with Mr. Dennis about the complaint filed with the Department of Professional Regulation by Mrs. Carter. There was no sign indicating that the premises was a real estate office or that Lawrence Dennis was the broker of a real estate office either on the primary entry to the office or on the lobby directory. When Mr. Rehm brought the lack of a proper sign to Mr. Dennis's attention he put up a piece of paper with his name and the name of the company. Respondents established that at one time they had signs on the outside of Mr. Dennis's office suite and on the lobby directory, but that both signs had been stolen. It was not established when the thefts occurred or whether these thefts were the reason there were no signs in March or April 1991. Respondents had replaced their signs by the time of the formal hearing. Mr. Rehm interviewed Mr. Dennis about the Carter transaction on April 8, 1991. When Mr. Rehm asked to review the escrow account, Mr. Dennis told him that the Respondents did not have an escrow account and that, consequently, the Carter deposit was not being held in escrow. When informed by Respondent that there was no escrow account Mr. Rehm asked to review the operating account. Mr. Dennis refused to permit Mr. Rehm review of the operating account. Mr. Dennis telephoned Frederick H. Wilsen, Petitioner's Chief Staff Attorney, and inquired as to whether he had to give the operating account records to Mr. Rehm. After talking with Mr. Wilsen, Mr. Dennis agreed to allow Mr. Rehm review of the records for the operating account. On April 9, 1991, Mr. Rehm prepared a subpoena duces tecum directing Mr. Dennis as broker for Dennis and Associates, Inc., to produce at Petitioner's offices in Miami on April 15, 1991, all monthly bank statements, bank deposit slips, and cancelled checks for operating accounts and/or escrow accounts for the period of April 1, 1990, to the time of service of the subpoena on April 9, 1991. During Mr. Rehm's initial interview of Mr. Dennis he was told by Mr. Dennis that he could bring the subpoena to Respondents's office the following day at approximately 10:00. Mr. Rehm attempted to serve the subpoena at that time but Mr. Dennis was not at the office. Mr. Rehm contacted Mr. Dennis who indicated he would be at his office at approximately noon. Mr. Rehm was at Respondents's office at noon and Mr. Dennis was not there. Mr. Rehm returned to Respondents's office a third time in the afternoon and successfully served the subpoena duces tecum on Mr. Dennis. Mr. Dennis came to Mr. Rehm's office on April 15, 1991, but did not produce all the documents outlined in the subpoena duces tecum. On April 15, 1991, Mr. Rehm asked Mr. Dennis to produce cancelled checks and a bank statement for March of 1991. Mr. Dennis never complied with that request. The request for these records was within the scope of the subpoena. In response to the subpoena, Mr. Dennis gave Mr. Rehm a copy of two of the monthly bank statements for an escrow account (account number 20300562106) in the name of Dennis and Associates, Inc., at Eagle National Bank. The monthly statement for the period ending November 30, 1989, reflected that an overdraft in the amount of $8.91 existed in the account resulting from a bank service charge. The monthly statement for the period ending January 10, 1990, reflected a zero balance. There was no evidence of any activity in the escrow account subsequent to January 10, 1990. Mr. Dennis asserted the position that he did not have to provide records for an escrow account because Respondents did not have an active escrow account. That position is rejected. The evidence establishes that Respondents had, as of January 10, 1990, an escrow account at Eagle National Bank, and there was no persuasive evidence that this account had ever been closed. The documentary evidence introduced in this proceeding establishes that, as of January 10, 1990, the escrow account had a zero balance, but it does not establish that the account was closed. Mr. Dennis's testimony that he had asked that the account be closed is insufficient to establish that the account was closed, nor did it establish that Respondents were relieved of their duty to provide documentation in response to the subpoena that would enable Mr. Rehm to either audit the escrow account or verify that the account had been closed. When Mr. Rehm discussed the Carter contract with Mr. Dennis in late March 1991, Mr. Dennis stated he would return $450.00 of the $500.00 earnest money deposit to the Carters in the first week of April 1991. As of the date of the formal hearing Respondents had not refunded any of the earnest money deposit to the Carters. On or about November 30, 1990, a Final Judgment in case #90-2559-SP020 in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, was entered against Respondent Lawrence R. Dennis d/b/a Dennis & Associates, Inc., in favor of Nathaniel A. Greenidge and Joycelyn B. Greenidge. The award of the Final Judgment was for the principal sum of $3,200.00, prejudgment interest of $44.80, costs of $70.50 and attorneys' fees of $200.00 for a total of $3,515.30. The Final Judgment obtained by the Greenidges was a result of Respondents's refusal to refund an earnest money deposit taken by Respondents in conjunction with a real estate transaction involving Respondents as the seller of the property. Respondents refused to honor said Final Judgment, so the Greenidges had to levy on the subject real property and set it for Sheriff's sale on April 3, 1991. In an effort to obtain the debt owed by Respondents, the Greenidges entered into an agreement to cancel the Sheriff's sale in exchange for receipt of $3,500.00 from a third party purchasing the property. The agreement set a closing on or before 30 days from the date of the agreement. Respondents did not timely pay the Greenidges. On or about March 27, 1992, Respondents paid the Greenidges approximately $3,000.00, which they accepted in satisfaction of the final judgment. On or about October 16, 1990, the Respondents were issued a letter of guidance from the Florida Real Estate Commission for a violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code. On or about February 19, 1991, a Final Order was issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission in DOAH Case No. 90-5124 (DPR Case Nos. 0148366 and 0236428) incorporating a stipulation disciplining Respondent for breach of trust in a business transaction, failure to account and deliver a deposit and failure to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of a deposit dispute. That proceeding pertained to dealings between Respondents and Gwendolyn King and Roxie Ann King. On or about August 26, 1991, Mr. Wilsen, sent a letter to Respondents in reply to a letter sent to Mr. Wilsen by Respondents on or about July 31, 1991. Mr. Wilsen's letter stated, in pertinent part: It is a matter of private agreement as to who will hold the deposit and where the account will be maintained. As the property owner, you may hold the funds so long as you have the mutual prior knowledge and consent of the parties you are dealing with in the transaction." The King, Greenidge, and Carter transactions all occurred prior to Respondents's July 31, 1991, letter to Mr. Wilsen. Mr. Dennis did not rely on Mr. Wilsen's reply in his dealings with the Kings, the Carters, or the Greenidges.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which suspends the licensure of both Respondents for a period of one year and which assesses an administrative fine in the total amount of $500.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Rodney G. Green, held real estate broker license number 0113068 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent, Charter Realty, Inc. (Charter), is a corporation licensed as a broker and is the holder of license number 0224926 also issued by Petitioner. When the events herein occurred, Green was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Charter Realty, Inc. The offices of Charter are located at 800 Westwood Square, Suite C, Oviedo, Florida. Respondent Green is also the owner of Rodney G. Green, Inc., a building and development company. Its office is located in the same building as Charter, where they share a common reception area. Each entity has a separate telephone number. Around June, 1984, Rodney Green was attempting to sell seven commercial lots known as Green's Commercial Addition to Oviedo located in Oviedo, Florida. Green was the owner of the seven lots. He had a large For Sale sign on the property which carried the name and telephone number of both Charter and Rodney G. Green, Inc. Green had an understanding with associates in his real estate office that if a prospective buyer called on the Charter telephone line concerning the lots, he would give a sales commission to the associate who answered the call if a sale materialized. Otherwise, he intended to sell the lots through his development company and not through the real estate firm. Hassan Soltani, an electrical engineer, wished to buy a commercially zoned lot in Oviedo on which to construct a building for his newly formed corporation, Bio-Med Engineering, Inc. After seeing Green's property, he telephoned the offices of Charter Realty, Inc. Green's wife answered the call, advised him that Green personally owned the property, that Charter was not involved in the transaction, and that it would be sold by Rodney G. Green, Inc. rather than Charter. She referred him to Green who reiterated this same advice to Soltani. On or about June 21, 1985, Soltani executed a contract to purchase Lot 7 of Green's Commercial Addition. The contract provided for a $35,000 sales price, a $1,750 deposit, and a closing date of July 27, 1984. When he executed the contract, Soltani advised Green that the lot would be purchased by a partnership made up of Soltani, Claire M. Marachel and John T. Tobin, Jr., the latter two employees at Soltani's firm. Soltani also told Green that the partnership had $20,000 cash counting the $1,750 deposit, and would obtain the remaining $15,000 prior to closing by selling a $20,000 stock certificate held by Marachel. Based on this representation, Green did not provide any contingency clauses in the contract for borrower financing. The only contingency clause was one requiring Green to "fill Northeast corner of lot to within one foot of existing grade." It is noted that Green accepted the Soltani offer over that of another buyer because no financing would be required on the Soltani contract. About a week before closing, Soltani telephoned Green to inquire when the lot would be filled. Green thereafter had the lot filled in accordance with the contract. On July 27, the date of closing, Soltani advised Green that Marachel had had difficulty in getting the stock certificate transferred to her from the stock broker, and they needed an extension of time to close on the contract. Green did not wish to extend the closing date because he had a closing on other property across the street and needed cash immediately. Soltani offered to increase the cash deposit to $20,000 which could be used by Green to close on the other property in return for an extension of the closing date to August 15, 1984. Soltani also agreed to seek bank financing from a local bank recommended by Green. Green accepted these terms and all parties executed an amendment to the contract extending the closing date to August 15, 1984. Soltani also gave Green an additional $18,250 as deposit on the land. The deposit was placed in the bank account of Rodney G. Green, Inc. and was temporarily used by Green to close on the other property. There was still no contingency clause in the contract for buyers' financing. In early August, Green made Soltani and his partners an appointment with a loan officer at a local bank. The loan officer agreed to loan Soltani $15,000 conditioned upon all three partners filing financial statements and a partnership agreement, and Marachel liquidating her stock and purchasing a $20,000 certificate of deposit at Barnett. When the August 15 deadline was not met, Green orally agreed to another extension of time on the closing date since Soltani continued to express an interest in purchasing the property. Around the first September, Soltani told Green he was not going to furnish the bank with the requested documents and asked if Green would provide owner financing on the $15,000 balance. Green responded he could not. At a later date, Soltani called Green's office twice requesting to talk to Green and to obtain a refund of his deposit. Green's wife answered both times and told Soltani he would have to speak to Green. Green attempted to return the calls but was unsuccessful in reaching Soltani. Soltani then sent Green a letter on October 4, 1984 demanding a return of his deposit no later than October 11, 1984. He also filed a complaint with Petitioner on or about October 18, 1984. Before Green could respond to the letter, an investigator from Petitioner's office visited Green for the purpose of auditing his escrow account. The investigator found that the $20,000 deposit was not in Charter's escrow account and advised Green to place it in the account at once. Green did so on October 23, 1984, and two days later refunded the entire deposit to Soltani, Marachel and Tobin. He did so to avoid "problems" with Petitioner, but considered Soltani to have breached the contract by failing to close on the specified closing date. The instant disciplinary action was instituted a few months later.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint herein be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Margaret A. Wharton, Esq. P. O. Box 1172 Oviedo, FL 32765
