The Issue At issue is whether respondent's license as a real estate salesman should be disciplined for the alleged violations set forth in the administrative complaint. Based on the evidence, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, respondent, Kevin P. Sheehy, held real estate salesman license number 0203610 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. The license is currently in an involuntary inactive status. On October 14, 1983, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on the charges of (a) conspiracy to import marijuana and (b) importation of marijuana. For this he received a four year sentence on each count to run concurrently and a special parole term of five years. According to his counsel, he began serving his sentence on September 5, 1985 at Eglin Air Force Base. He is eligible for parole around April, 1987. Prior to his conviction, respondent was employed as a real estate salesman in a real estate firm in Tavanier, Florida. When Sheehy is released, his former broker intends to offer him a job as a salesman, assuming Sheehy holds a license, for the broker found Sheehy to be honest, trustworthy, productive, and a hard worker. This was corroborated by another person in the community. Both witnesses urged that Sheehy, who is 27 and afflicted with juvenile diabetes, be given the opportunity to pursue a livelihood when he is paroled. There is no evidence that Sheehy failed to notify the Division of Real Estate of his felony conviction within thirty days after the date of his conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts VII and VIII of the administrative complaint, and that ,, his real estate salesman license be suspended for eighteen months. The remaining charge in Count XIX should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent, or his agent or employee, possessed, or permitted someone to possess, at or in the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages not authorized by law to be sold by Respondent. Whether Respondent, or his agent or employee, allowed patrons to gamble at card games, contrary to Section 849.01, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent, his agent or employee allowed patrons to possess and consume marijuana and crack cocaine on the licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Dennis Maxwell holds DABT License number 45-00933, and owns and operates the Club 21 in Leesburg, Florida. License number 45-00933 is a series 2-COP license, authorizing the sale and consumption of beer and wine only on the premises. Mr. Maxwell has been in business as the Club 21 at 945 East Main Street in Leesburg, Florida, since approximately February 1992. Club 21 is frequented by a predominantly young (early 20's), black clientele, not unlike a number of other bars in Leesburg. Club 21, however, has been unique in the severity of problems experienced by the Leesburg Police in attempting to maintain peace and lawfulness. Upon information that the service of alcoholic beverages to minors has been occurring, agents of DABT, with assistance from local law enforcement, entered Club 21 in an undercover capacity at approximately 10:00 p.m. on Friday, January 15, 1993. They discovered open and obvious violations of both the beverage law and Florida criminal law, specifically gambling (card game for money), and unauthorized liquor being stored and consumed on the premises. On January 15, 1993, at 10:00 p.m., a high stakes card game was in progress in a somewhat separate area of the premises just to the left of the entrance. At a table with a group of men playing cards, was a pile of currency, with a large "pot" of money in the middle of the table. The pot was collected by the winner of each hand. Additionally, other persons standing around the seated players were placing separate wagers in connection with the ongoing game. The game was occurring in plain view of the patrons in the bar, and anyone entering or exiting the premises. The card game continued for approximately 20-30 minutes prior to uniformed law enforcement officers entering the premises. The Respondent was present at Club 21 during that entire night, and admitted to having permitted the card games to occur, but denied that gambling was occurring. Mr. Maxwell, likewise, admitted that he would recognize the commonly understood circumstances of a card game for money by the money set out in front of each card player, and the "pot" of money in the middle of the table. Although he observed the same game occurring as testified to by other witnesses, he does not recall seeing the money on the table. Respondent further testified that the area of the bar known as the "game room" was often used for card games, but that he had never been aware of gambling occurring in connection with such games. Respondent's testimony is not credible in light of the circumstances. The licensee did permit persons to play for money at a card game on his premises. During the course of the DABT operation on January 15, 1993, several bottles of unauthorized liquor was observed in plain view in the kitchen of Club The liquor consisted of one unsealed 1.75 liter bottle of Seagram's Dry Gin, one unsealed .750 liter bottle of Seagram's dry Gin, and one unsealed pint bottle of Canadian Mist Whiskey. Petitioner was aware that the liquor described was in fact in the kitchen. As to the larger bottle of gin, Mr. Maxwell contended that it belonged to one of his employees, Karl Welcome, who was celebrating his birthday that night, and had stopped by the premises to engage in a celebratory toast with his friends and coworkers. Mr. Welcome testified to that effect on direct examination, but admitted on cross that his birthday is actually May 18, not January 15, and that he had made up that story originally for the benefit of the officer who had found the liquor. As to the remaining bottles of liquor, Respondent claimed that he had confiscated them from patrons earlier that afternoon, and placed them in the kitchen because he was too busy to dump them out. In light of Mr. Maxwell's further testimony that there is hardly any business at Club 21 in the afternoon, and he does not have much to do until nighttime, his contention is not credible. Petitioner knew that the liquor was in the kitchen, and took no meaningful action to correct that situation. During the course of their stay in an undercover capacity inside Club 21, two witnesses observed what they believed was marijuana being openly smoked by patrons in the area of the bar itself on the premises. One witness described two patrons openly sharing what appeared to be a marijuana joint while actually seated at the bar. The "joint" was passed back and forth openly and in plain view of two bartenders who were standing directly in front of these patrons, and who actually brought beer to, and took money from, these patrons while they were openly smoking a joint. Two witnesses smelled an odor which is commonly associated with the smell of marijuana burning in the area of the bar during the entire time they were there. From the smell, they testified that in their opinion it was obvious that other patrons besides those seated directly at the bar were smoking as well. Officers of the Leesburg Police Department arrested a patron of Club 21 on the premises for possession of cocaine on the evening of January 15, 1993. Officer Mullin field tested the substance and testified that both his field test and the laboratory analysis conducted on it confirmed that it was cocaine. The possession charges are the subject of an ongoing criminal case. Respondent had been visited by a DABT Special Agent during the fall of 1992 on a routine call. At that time, unauthorized liquor was found of the same variety as was found in January 1993. A record of the discovery was made but a notice of violation was not issued. Rather, the seriousness of unauthorized liquor on the premises was discussed and Mr. Maxwell had been warned not only about that particular violation, but about the dangers of drug use on the premises, and related problems. Mr. Maxwell recalled the visit and the warning, and testified that Agent Hurlburt had been honest and forthright with him, and had emphasized the risk of an enforcement action against a licensee for allowing violations of law to occur on a licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license number 45-0093 be suspended for a period of twenty (20) days, and that Respondent pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 22nd day of July, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(in part), 13, 14 Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant or subsumed or argument: paragraphs 4, 5, 10(in part), 12(in part) Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 12(in part) COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Dennis L. Maxwell Post Office Box 53 Eustis, Florida 32727 John Harris Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Center 1940 No. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Charles L. White, is registered with the Real Estate Commission as a Real Estate Salesman. Copies of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Commission against the Respondent were forwarded to the Respondent at the address he most recently provided the Commission. Copies of the Complaint were returned to the Commission, and copies of the Notice of Hearing forwarded to the Respondent have likewise been returned. Efforts to locate the Respondent have been unsuccessful. A forty-count indictment was issued by the Grand Jury of the United States District Court in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, against the Respondent, Charles L. White, and five other persons. On February 5, 1977, a jury found the Respondent guilty of all counts of the indictment in which he was charged. On June 3, 1977, he was adjudicated guilty, and sentenced to serve eighteen months in the Federal Penitentiary, execution of the sentence being suspended, and the Respondent being placed on probation for a period of two years. The crimes of which the Respondent was convicted involve dishonest dealing in connection with real estate transactions, and include fraud, fraudulent use of the mail, and conspiracy to commit violations of Federal law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and suspending the Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman for a period of two years. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of June 1978. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Charles L. White D-30 Sierra Apartments Stuart, Florida 33494 Mr. Charles L. White c/o County Realty & Investments Stuart, Florida 33494
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate broker, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's responsibilities include the prosecution of administrative complaints. Prior to February 1993, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. In February 1993, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for licensure as a real estate broker. The application provided the applicant with two boxes, one marked "yes" and the other marked "no" to the following question, instructions, and caveat: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "YES," attach the details and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could result in denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney of the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered Question 9 in the negative. Respondent thereafter signed the application, including the following affidavit: The above named and undersigned applicant for licensure as a real estate broker under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn deposes and says that s(he) is the person so applying, that s(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information, an records permit, without any evasion or mental reservations whatsoever; that s(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and s(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications, whether and additional oath thereto shall be administered or not. On the evening of September 28, 1986, Respondent and her husband became involved in a loud argument at their home after having consumed too much alcohol. As a result, someone called the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with disorderly intoxication. On November 20, 1986, Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of disorderly intoxication in Broward County, Florida. Respondent was fined, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Katherine [sic] Lawand, which is her married name, and Kay Starr, which is the name Respondent uses for business purposes. On the evening of April 25, 1992, a virtual repeat of the incident of September 28, 1986, occurred. Again, as the result of a loud, drunken argument between Respondent and her husband, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was called. As a result of her behavior, Respondent was arrested on the charge of disorderly conduct. On May 21, 1992, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of disorderly conduct in Broward County, Florida. The court records reflect Respondent's name entered on this plea as Kathline [sic] Starr. Respondent testified that she thought Question 9 on the application for a broker's license only pertained to felony crimes. Respondent testified that she does not consider herself to be a criminal and that she did not intend to mislead or deceive the licensing agency. On May 3, 1993, Respondent passed the broker licensure examination. On May 23, 1993, Respondent was issued her initial license as an inactive broker. The license number was BK0459569. Since September 24, 1993, Respondent has been actively licensed as either a broker or a broker/salesperson. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was licensed as an individual broker with an office at 120 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Following an automobile accident in Broward County, Florida, on December 12, 1994, Respondent was charged with "DUI/ Blood Alch Above 0.20" (Count I); "Driving Under the Influence" (Count II); and "Disobey Stop/Yield Sign" (Count III). On October 3, 1995, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (Count II). Count I was nolle prossed and Count III was dismissed. As a result of the plea entered on October 3, 1995, Respondent was adjudged guilty of D.U.I. She was fined, placed on probation for six months, and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. Her driver's license was suspended for six months. As a condition of her probation, she attended a Court Alcohol Substance Abuse Program D.U.I. School. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Kay Starr Lawand. There was only minor property damage as a result of the accident involving Respondent on December 12, 1994. No person was injured.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be adopted that finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and orders that all licenses issued to her by Petitioner be revoked without prejudice to her right to reapply for licensure. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count II of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 30th day of March, 1998
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Frank LaRocca, Respondent, was the holder of Real Estate Broker License Nos. 0050488, 0236407 and 0170796 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On or about July 12, 1989, the Respondent, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, upon a verdict of guilty rendered by a jury, was found guilty of five counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, a felony. On or about July 12, 1989, Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for four years. On or about August 1, 1989, the United States District Court Judge ordered a stay of the judgment against Respondent pending completion of Respondent's appeal. Frank LaRocca was a vice-president of the Central Bank in Tampa, Florida, when he retired in May 1984 after working at this bank for 31 years. During this period, he enjoyed a good reputation in the community. Upon his retirement from the bank, he became an active real estate broker principally investing in real estate. The transactions which formed the bases for his conviction in federal court involved bank loans on condominiums he and three other partners purchased. These bank loans had all been repaid at the time of Respondent's trial but one, which had been refinanced by the bank.
Recommendation Taking all these factors into consideration, it is recommended that the licenses of Frank LaRocca as a real estate broker be revoked, but the revocation be stayed pending completion of his appeal to the court of appeals or two years whichever first occurs. At that time, depending upon the action of the court of appeals, his license be revoked or these proceedings dismissed. ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1990, 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 7th day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley Division of Real Estate General Counsel 400 W. Robinson Street Department of Professional Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Frank LaRocca Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 4814 River Boulevard Tampa, FL 33603 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
The Issue The issue to be resolved herein concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this proceeding. Embodied in that general issue are questions concerning whether the Petitioners are the prevailing parties; whether they meet the definition of "small business" parties, including the net worth amounts, enumerated in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as well as whether the disciplinary proceeding against both Petitioners was "substantially justified". See Section 57.111(3)(e) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practices of real estate salesmen and brokers by the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Included within those duties is the duty to investigate conduct by realtors allegedly in violation of Chapter 475 and related rules and to prosecute administrative penal proceedings for which probable cause is found as a result of such investigations. At times pertinent hereto, both Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Cosyns, (then Pauline Sealey) were licensed realtors working as independent contractors for Mariner Properties, Inc. and V.I.P. Realty Inc. The complete file of the underlying proceeding DOAH Case No. 86-0140, was stipulated into evidence. That file included the Administrative Complaint filed against these Respondents and the Recommended and Final Order, which Final Order adopted the Recommended Order. The findings of fact in that Recommended Order are incorporated by reference and adopted herein. During the Petitioner's case, counsel for Petitioner voluntarily reduced the attorney's fees bills for both Petitioners such that Ms. Maxwell's bill is the total amount of $2,695.50 and Ms. Cosyns' bill is $17,200, rather than the original amounts submitted in the affidavit. Respondent acknowledged in its proposed Final Order that the fees and costs submitted by the Respondent were thus reasonable. The testimony the Petitioners presented through depositions, transcripts of which were admitted into evidence into this proceeding, was unrefuted. That testimony demonstrates that both Ms. Cosyns and Ms. Maxwell were prevailing parties in the administrative proceeding referenced herein brought by the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation. They were individually named as Respondents in the Administrative Complaint whereby their professional licenses were subjected to possible suspension or revocation for alleged wrong doing on their part. There is no dispute that they were exonerated in that proceeding and are thus prevailing parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners are also "small business parties". In that connection, they both were independently licensed Real Estate professionals during times pertinent to the underlying proceeding and were acting in the capacity of independent contractors for all the activities with which the administrative complaint was concerned. Each established that her net worth is below the limit provided by Section 57.111 as an element of the definition of "small business party". The reasonableness of the fees having been established in the manner found-above and the Petitioners having established that they meet the definitional requirements of prevailing small business parties, there remains to be determined the issue of whether the proceedings against the two Petitioners were "substantially justified", that is, whether the proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a State agency." See Section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The facts concerning each Petitioner's case regarding the three counts of the Administrative Complaint relating to them are as found in the Recommended Order incorporated by reference herein. Respondent Maxwell was charged in the complaint with having worked in conjunction with an office manager, Mr. Hurbanis of V.I.P. Realty, in conspiring with him to submit a fraudulent real estate sales contract to a lending institution for purposes of financing. This allegedly involved submitting a contract to the lending institution with an inflated purchase price in order to secure one hundred percent financing, the scheme being more particularly described in that portion of the findings of fact in the Recommended Order related to Jean Maxwell. In fact, Ms. Maxwell did not work in the realty office as charged in the Administrative Complaint, but rather was employed by Mariner Properties, which may have been a related company. The contract in question, although alleged to be fraudulent was, in fact, a bona fide contract which was a legitimate part of the Real Estate transaction submitted to the bank for financing purposes, about which the bank was kept fully advised. All details of the transaction were disclosed to the lender. Maxwell was specifically charged with concealing the true contract from the lender in order to enhance the percentage of the purchase price that the bank would finance, done by allegedly inflating the purchase price in a second contract submitted to the bank. It was established in the disciplinary proceeding that no such concealment ever took place. In fact, Ms. Maxwell was purchasing a lot from her own employer, Mariner Properties. Two contracts were indeed prepared for the purchase of Lot 69, a single family lot on Sanibel Island. In fact, however, the difference of $42,875 and $49,500 in the stated purchase price, as depicted on the two contracts, was the result of continuing negotiations between Ms. Maxwell and the seller, who was also her employer. The difference in the two prices depicted on the contracts was the result of, in effect, a set-off to the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, representing certain employee discounts and real estate commission due from the employer and seller to Ms. Maxwell, the purchaser. As Petitioners' composite Exhibit 5 reflects, the lender involved, North First Bank of Ft. Myers, Florida, was fully apprised of all the details concerning this transaction at the time it was entered into and the loan commitment extended and closed. Mr. Allan Barnes, the Assistant Vice President of North First Bank revealed, in the letter contained in this exhibit in evidence, that there was no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts to his institution by Ms. Maxwell. This letter is dated April 18, 1984. The other related letter in that exhibit, of May 2, 1984 from attorney Oertel to attorney Frederick H. Wilson of the Respondent agency, thus constitutes notice to the agency well before the complaint was filed, that no concealment or misrepresentation to the lender involved had occurred and the charges were requested to be dismissed. In spite of the fact that the agency was on notice of this turn of events well before the filing of the Administrative Complaint, it proceeded to file the complaint and to prosecute it all the way up to the date of hearing, requiring Ms. Maxwell's attorney to attend the hearing to defend her interests. At the hearing, counsel for the Department acknowledged that there was no basis for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell and voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to her. The Respondent's witness, Investigator Harris, in his deposition taken September 11, 1984, acknowledged that he did not discuss any details concerning the investigation, with attorney Frederick Wilson, who prepared the complaint, nor did he confer with him by telephone or correspondence before the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was prepared solely on the basis of the investigative report. The investigative report came into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. It reveals that Mr. A. J. Davis the president of Mariner Group and Mariner Properties, who was Jean Maxwell's employer and the owner of the lot in question, signed one contract and his Executive Vice President signed the other. In spite of this, the investigative report does not reveal that the investigator conferred with either Ms. Maxwell, or the sellers concerning this transaction. He conducted a general interview of A.J. Davis concerning the alleged "problem" in his office of "double contracting," but asked him no questions and received no comment about the Jean Maxwell transaction whatever. Nor did the investigator confer with Mr. Allen Barnes or any other representative of North First Bank. If the investigation had been more complete and thorough, he would have learned from Mr. Barnes, if from no one else, that the bank had knowledge of both contracts and all details of the transaction underlying them and there had been no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts regarding the transaction by Ms. Maxwell. This information was learned by attorney Oertel as early as April 18, 1984 by Mr. Barnes' letter, referenced above, and it was communicated to the agency by Mr. Oertel on May 2, 1984. Nevertheless, the complaint was filed and prosecuted through to hearing. Therefore, the prosecution and filing of the Administrative Complaint were clearly not substantially justified. If the Department had properly investigated the matter it would have discovered the true nature of the transaction as being a completely bona fide real estate arrangement. Former Respondent, Pauline Sealy Cosyns was charged with two counts, III and V, in the Administrative Complaint at issue. One count alleged, in essence, that Ms. Sealey had engaged in a similar fraudulent contract situation regarding the sale of her residence to a Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Floyd. The evidence in that proceedings revealed no concealment of any sales contract occurred whatever with regard to the lending institution or anyone else. The facts as revealed at hearing showed Ms. Cosyns and the Floyds, through continuing negotiations after the original sales contract was entered into, amended that contract and executed a second one, in order to allow Ms. Cosyns to take back a second mortgage from the Floyds. This was necessary because Mr. Floyd, an author, was short of the necessary down payment pursuant to the terms of the original contract, because his annual royalty payment from his publishers had not been received as the time approached for closing. The second contract was executed to allow for a second mortgage in favor of the seller, Ms. Cosyns, in order to make up the amount owed by the Floyds on the purchase price agreed upon, above the first mortgage amount. The testimony and evidence in the disciplinary proceeding revealed unequivocally that the lending institution, Amerifirst Mortgage Company, was fully apprised of the situation and of the reason for the two contractual agreements. The $24,000 second mortgage in question is even depicted on the closing statement issued by that bank. There was simply no concealment and no effort to conceal any facts concerning this transaction from the lender or from anyone else. The investigation conducted was deficient because the investigator failed to discuss this transaction with the lender or with the purchasers. He discussed the matter with Ms. Sealy-Cosyns and his own deposition testimony reveals, as does his investigative report, that he did not feel that he got a complete account of the transaction from her. She testified in her deposition, taken prior to the instant proceeding, that she indeed did not disclose all facts of the transaction to him because she was concerned that he was attempting to apprehend her in some "legal impropriety". Therefore, she was reluctant to be entirely candid. The fact remains, however, that had he conducted a complete investigation by conferring with the lender and the purchasers, he would have known immediately, long before the Administrative Complaint was filed and the matter prosecuted, that there was absolutely no basis for any probable cause finding that wrong-doing had occurred in terms of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Thus, the facts concerning the prosecution as to Count III against Pauline Sealy-Cosyns, as more particularly delineated in the findings of fact in the previous Recommended Order, reveal not only that Ms. Cosyns was totally exonerated in the referenced proceeding, but that there was no substantial basis for prosecuting her as to this count at all. Concerning Count V against Ms. Cosyns, it was established through the evidence at the hearing in the disciplinary case that she was merely the listing agent and did not have any part to play in the drafting of the contract nor the presenting of it to the lender. Because there was no evidence adduced to show that she had any complicity or direct involvement in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction involved in Count V of the Administrative Complaint at issue she was exonerated as to that count as well. It is noteworthy here that a statement was made by counsel for the agency, appearing at pages 20 and 21 of the transcript of the proceeding involving the Administrative Complaint, which indicates that the agency, based upon its review of certain documents regarding Counts III and V, before hearing, felt that indeed there might not be a disputed issue of material fact as to Mrs. Cosyns. The agency, although acknowledging that a review of the documents caused it to have reason to believe that it was unnecessary to proceed further against Ms. Cosyns nevertheless did not voluntarily dismiss those counts and proceeded through hearing. Be that as it may, the investigation revealed that Ms. Cosyns acknowledged that she knew that there were two contractual documents involved, but the investigation also revealed that Ms. Cosyns was only the listing agent. The selling agent was Mr. Parks. The investigation revealed through interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Parks and Mr. Hurbanis, the office Manager of V.I.P. Realty, that Ms. Cosyns, as listing agent, was merely present when the offer from the buyers was communicated to the office manager, Mr. Hurbanis, and ultimately to the sellers, the Cottrells. There was no reason for the investigator to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the drafting of the contracts nor with the communication of them to the lending institution involved. That was done by either Mr. Parks or Mr. Hurbanis or by the buyers. The investigation (as revealed in the investigative report) does not show who communicated the contract in question to the lender. The investigation was simply incomplete. If the investigator had conferred with the buyers, the sellers and especially the lender, he could have ascertained-whether the lender was aware of all the facts concerning this transaction and whether there was any reason to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the arrangement and the details of the transaction. It was ultimately established, by unrefuted evidence at hearing, that indeed Ms. Cosyns did not have anything to do with the transaction, nor the manner in which it was disclosed to the lender. The fact that she was aware that two contracts had been prepared did not give a reasonable basis for the investigator to conclude that she had engaged in any wrong-doing. The report of his interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Hurbanis and Mr. Parks, as well as Donna Ross, does not indicate that he had a reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Cosyns had engaged in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction, including the conveyance of a bogus contract to the lending institution involved, nor for that matter, that Mr. Hurbanis or Mr. Parks engaged in such conduct. In order to ascertain a reasonable basis for concluding whether Ms. Cosyns was involved in any wrongful conduct, he would have had to obtain more information than he did from these people or confer with the lender, the buyer or the seller, or all of these approaches, before he could have a reasonable basis to recommend to the prosecuting agency that an Administrative Complaint be filed against her concerning this transaction. In fact, he did not do so, but the Administrative Complaint was filed and prosecuted through hearing anyway, causing her to incur the above-referenced attorney's fees. It thus has not been demonstrated that there was any substantial basis for the filing and prosecution of Count V of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cosyn. Thus she is entitled to the attorneys fees referenced above with regard to the prosecution of the Administrative Complaint in question.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, John L. Nuccitelli, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued License Number 0064764, and he was so licensed at all times material to the issue in this proceeding. On August 20, 1979, an arrest warrant was issued in Lancaster County, South Carolina, directing that the Respondent be arrested on the charge of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in that he flew into the Lancaster County Airport in a Douglas DC4 four engine aircraft with approximately 131 bales of marijuana. The Respondent was subsequently indicted for this offense, and on December 4, 1979, he was found guilty in the Court of General Sessions in and for Lancaster County, South Carolina, of the crime as charged. Thereafter, the Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years, and a fine of $5,000, with the provision that the prison term would be reduced to probation for five years upon payment of the $5,000 fine. On July 29, 1982, the Respondent having paid the fine imposed and having fulfilled the conditions of his probation, the Court entered its Order relieving the Respondent from the sentence previously imposed, and discharging him from further probation. The Respondent had not been involved with the law prior to the incident in question, and has not been so involved since this incident. He realizes that he made a serious mistake, one which has adversely affected both himself and his family. He is the sole support of his wife and five children, and he has only done work in the real estate field since leaving the Air Force. The Respondent and his wife have been married eight years. They have two children of their own, and three children by a prior marriage. The Respondent is a caring husband and father. He is trusted by those persons in the community who know him.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that License No. 0064764 held by the Respondent, John L. Nuccitelli, be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 1st day of November, 1982. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire 603 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carlos B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be licensed as a real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact In June 1997, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for a real estate salesperson license. The Petitioner disclosed on his license that he previously held a real estate broker's license which was revoked approximately ten years prior to his current application. The Petitioner also disclosed his criminal history on the application including a conviction in April 1988 for grand theft. The Respondent issued its Order, which took effect on October 7, 1997, denying the Petitioner's application for licensure. The reason given by the Respondent for the denial was: Your answer to Questions 9 and 13 of the licensing application and on your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency, . . . [.] The Petitioner asked the Respondent to reconsider its Order and the Respondent subsequently issued an Order, effective September 8, 1998, again denying Petitioner's application. The reasons given in the September 8, 1998, Order were identical to those stated in its prior order. At the hearing held in this cause the Petitioner introduced his Composite Exhibit No. 1 which comprised five letters of support from persons who know and have entered into business dealings with the Petitioner. The Petitioner also introduced an Amended Information from Duval County Case No. 87- 3000CF, CR-A, which was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 and Respondent's Exhibit No. 7(i). Petitioner's present employer, Kevin Vera, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Vera, a retired dentist, has owned and operated a business known as River City Mortgage Services since January 1996. Mr. Vera is a lender correspondent. Mr. Vera testified that Robert Hunter has worked for him as a loan officer since January 1998. Mr. Hunter assists persons in obtaining loans by reviewing loan applications, analyzing credit reports, verifying that applicants have funds to close and verifying that applicants have income which will support the requested loan. Mr. Vera has not received any complaints from customers or lenders regarding Mr. Hunter. Mr. Vera was aware Robert Hunter had his real estate license suspended in 1987. He was also aware that Mr. Hunter had been convicted of grand theft in relation to a past real estate transaction. Mr. Vera considers Mr. Hunter to be honest and trustworthy. Gregory V. Blaylock also testified on behalf of Mr. Hunter. He met Mr. Hunter in 1993. At that time, he and Mr. Hunter were both salesman Colorado Choice Meat Company. Mr. Blaylock and Mr. Hunter sold frozen meat and seafood door-to- door. In 1987, Mr. Blaylock requested Mr. Hunter to work for him in his company, Coastal Meat and Seafood. The door-to-door meat sales industry lends itself to theft by salesmen, and he always found Mr. Hunter to be honest in his dealings. Mr. Blaylock was generally familiar with Mr. Hunter's past criminal history. He also was aware that Mr. Hunter's real estate license had been revoked. Mr. Blaylock followed Mr. Hunter as a loan officer at Kevin Vera's office. Mr. Blaylock found Mr. Hunter to be trustworthy and honest in all of their business endeavors. Mr. Evan Regas also testified in behalf of Mr. Hunter. He has been in the real estate business for 46 years. He has known Mr. Hunter for approximately 23 years. Mr. Hunter worked for Mr. Regas when the Petitioner first obtained his license. Mr. Regas is familiar with the facts of Mr. Hunter's past revocation and his criminal history. Mr. Regas testified that he considers Mr. Hunter to be trustworthy and honest. Mr. Hunter has recently participated in real estate transactions with Mr. Regas' clients in Hunter's capacity as a loan officer. Ms. Cynthia Smith also testified on behalf of the Petitioner. She formerly worked as closing officer for a real estate title company. She presently works as a loan officer for Mr. Vera's firm. She is familiar with Robert Hunter's background. She considers Mr. Hunter to be honest and trustworthy. All of Petitioner's witnesses testified that they stood by their letters of recommendation contained in Petitioner Exhibit No. 1. Robert Hunter testified. He has been married for 29 years. He has resided in his present residence for three and one-half years and has never missed a payment. He has good credit. After his real estate license was revoked, Mr. Hunter worked as a door-to-door meat and seafood salesman from 1987 until he commenced working as a loan officer for River City Mortgage. Mr. Hunter was never disciplined by the Commission for any matter connected with his activities as a real estate salesperson or broker. The activities for which his license was revoked were largely caused by a down turn in the real estate market and increased interest rates. Mr. Hunter stated that he learned from the past and that he would not enter again into highly leveraged transactions. He has learned that he needs to consider the effect his actions have on others. Mr. Hunter testified regarding the incident which lead to his entering a plea of nolo contendere in Duval County Case No. 87-3000CF, CR-A. This incident stemmed from investors calling in obligations which he could not pay due to the stagnant real estate market and then high interest rates. This incident regarded a complex multiple real estate transaction involving Mr. Hunter's residence. The purchaser of Mr. Hunter's residence, who was one of the individuals pressing charges, reneged on paying for the house belonging to Petitioner, in which the purchaser was residing, because of fears that Petitioner could not deliver good title. The rest of the multiple transaction failed when the purchaser of his home reneged. The Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges arising out of this scenario as a plea of convenience. Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 7(i), shows that the events at issue in that case preceded the Board's revocation of his license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Commission license the Petitioner as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael R. Yokan, Esquire 204 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Andrea D. Perkins, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite S-107 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent obtained his real estate license by means of misrepresentation or concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
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, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Title 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is and, at all times material hereto, was a duly licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material herein actively engaged in major real estate developments and has also operated on behalf of family owned corporations. During the relevant time period, Respondent has not engaged in the general real estate brokerage business. On August 16, 1984, Respondent was found guilty in federal court of one count of knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully participating in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894. Respondent was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $2,000. The incident which gave rise to the conviction occurred in and while the Respondent was a resident of Illinois, and prior to the Respondent's being issued his Florida real estate license. Respondent testified that in 1983 he owned a Chicago nightclub. According to Respondent, during that time period someone owed Respondent a gambling debt in the amount of $36,000. The person who owed the money to Respondent said he would pay the debt. Because the Respondent was leaving town, he asked his wife's uncle to pick up the money. The Respondent indicated, that unknown to him, the uncle used unlawful means in an attempt to collect the funds. It was this collection effort which eventually lead to the Respondent's arrest, not guilty plea, and guilty verdict in 1984. The Respondent moved to Florida and, subsequently, on or about January 19, 1994, he applied to become licensed as a Florida real estate salesperson. The application contained an affidavit which provided in part that "such responses are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever." Petitioner's application form contained Question 9 which requested information concerning an applicant's criminal history. In pertinent part the question is as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled or pardoned. * * * Your answer to this will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. In response to this question, Respondent answered in the negative by marking the "no" box. On April 18, 1994, the State of Florida issued Respondent license #0611142 as a real estate salesperson. On January 10, 1994, Respondent signed the application. By his duly notarized signature, the Respondent swore that all answers and information provided on his application were true, correct, and complete. On or about January 16, 1995, Respondent applied to become licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Respondent, again, checked "no" to Question 9 on his broker's application as to whether or not he had ever been convicted or found guilty of any crime. Also, Respondent again swore that all answers and information contained in his application to become a real estate broker in the State of Florida were true, correct, and complete. Again, the Respondent's signature was duly notarized. The broker's application was approved for the Petitioner. However, a broker's license was not issued because Respondent failed to pass the state examination required to be licensed as a broker. Respondent testified at the formal hearing that the reason he did not disclose his prior conviction on his real estate applications was that he had spoken to his brother who advised him that matters over 10 years old did not have to be disclosed. Respondent did not consult with an attorney, the Division of Real Estate or anyone else other than his brother about how to answer Question 9 on his real estate application. Respondent's stated justification for checking "no" on his license applications lacked credibility given the clear wording of Question 9 on the application form. The Respondent has had no other incidents of criminal problems. Similarly, there have been no civil judgments involving the Respondent and dishonest dealing. Finally, there have been no prior disciplinary matters against the Respondent. The Respondent has served in the military and was honorably discharged and earned a two-year degree in electronics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes; revoking his real estate license; and imposing a fine of $1000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 * day of February, 1998. *Filed with the Clerk undated. -ac COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 July 21, 1999 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Re: Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate vs. Frank Efstathios Touloumis DOAH Case No. 97-3722 Dear Mr. Solares: Enclosed is the Amended Recommended Order issued in the referenced case. It was issued in order to correct a scrivenners error in page 8 of the original order. Please replace page 1 and page 8 enclosing for pages 1 and 8 oriignally sent to you. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this might have caused. Sincerely, CSH/scl Enclosures cc: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Professional Regulation. As such, Petitioner acts as the licensing and regulatory agency for real estate salesperson licensees. The Respondent is Jack Wilson Johnson, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of license number 0636049 issued by Petitioner. His license is currently inactive. His address is c/o Jack Lu, Inc., 8445 Pensacola Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32534. On or about February 26, 1996, Respondent submitted an application to Petitioner for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Question number 9 on the application read as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer “NO” because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of any other state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering “NO.” If you answered “Yes,” attach details including dates and outcome, including sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not understand the question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent marked the “NO” box beside this question. Respondent then signed the “Affidavit of Applicant.” Above his signature was printed the following language. The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate sales person under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and recollection permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. On or about July 6, 1989, Respondent pled nolo contendere to reckless driving in Santa Rosa County, Florida, and was adjudicated guilty with a sentence of 6 months probation. Later, Respondent pled nolo contendere to a second charge of reckless driving on or about February 21, 1991. On or about January 19, 1994, Respondent pled guilty to violation of his probation on this charge. On or about March 8, 1993, Respondent pled nolo contendere to Battery in Escambia County, Florida. Adjudication was withheld. On or about May 1, 1974, Respondent pled nolo contendere to three counts of failure to register as a dealer or salesman, a felony, in Escambia County, Florida. Respondent admitted at the final hearing that he was guilty of answering “NO” to question number 9 on the application that he made to Petitioner in this case, but that this action was merely a result of “poor judgment.” Respondent offered mitigating testimony by two witnesses, establishing that he had handled real estate transactions for them to their satisfaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses charged in the administrative complaint and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 14th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack Wilson Johnson c/o Jack Lu, Inc. 8445 Pensacola Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32534 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
