The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner, Florida Home Finders Realty, Inc. ("Realty, Inc."), seeks an award of costs and attorney's fees incurred in its successful defense of an administrative disciplinary proceeding. The disputed issues in this case are whether the case is moot, whether the person acting on behalf of the Petitioner is authorized to do so, and whether circumstances exist that would make an award of costs and attorney's fees unjust.
Findings Of Fact Realty, Inc., the Petitioner in this proceeding, was one of numerous Respondents in a multi-count Administrative Complaint filed by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation in September of 1995. Two of the other Respondents named in the same Administrative Complaint were Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff. Most, if not all, of the other Respondents in that multi-count Administrative Complaint resolved the charges against them without resort to proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff both disputed the charges in the Administrative Complaint and requested an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff retained the services of the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., to represent them in their defense against the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Messrs. Law and Schiff were represented by Mark Herron, Esquire, and Chris Haughee, Esquire, of the previously mentioned law firm. Simultaneous with the filing of the Administrative Complaint described above, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued an emergency suspension order. The effect of the emergency suspension order was to suspend the real estate broker licenses of Messrs. Law and Schiff and to suspend the corporate real estate broker registration of Realty, Inc. Immediately following the filing of the Administrative Complaint and the emergency suspension order, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a petition in circuit court seeking to place Realty, Inc., and a related corporation into receivership. The petition was granted, and Realty, Inc., and the related corporation were placed in receivership. Receivers were appointed to operate Realty, Inc., and the related corporation, and to take possession of the assets of Realty, Inc., and the related corporation. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, the receivership was still in effect, although the assets of Realty, Inc., and the assets of the related corporation had been sold. The receivers were able to conduct the business affairs of both Realty, Inc., and the related corporation without either corporation being registered as a real estate broker. Accordingly, it was of no importance to the receivers that Realty, Inc.'s, real estate broker registration had been suspended by emergency order or that such registration might be revoked as a result of the Administrative Complaint.4 Therefore, the receivers took no action to challenge the emergency suspension order or to defend Realty, Inc., against the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Specifically, the receivers did not file any response to the Administrative Complaint and did not request an evidentiary hearing on the charges against Realty, Inc. In June of 1996, counsel for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a motion with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking entry of a final order against Realty, Inc., on the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Grounds for the motion were that there were no disputed issues of material fact, because Realty, Inc., had failed to respond to the service of the Administrative Complaint and had failed to request a hearing on the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The receivers of Realty, Inc., did not oppose the motion, because they were not concerned about the disposition of the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The Department's motion was, however, opposed by Ian Law and Benjamin Schiff. Messrs. Law and Schiff, through their legal counsel, Mark Herron, Esquire, filed a response in which they argued that the motion should be denied on the grounds that a final order revoking the registration of Realty, Inc., would have an adverse impact on the substantial interests of Messrs. Law and Schiff. In this regard they directed attention to Section 475.31(1), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: An order revoking or suspending the license of a broker shall automatically cancel the licenses of all sales persons registered with the broker, and, if a partnership or corporation, of all members, officers, and directors thereof, while the license of the broker is inoperative or until new employment or connection is secured. Based on the above-quoted statutory provision, Messrs. Law and Schiff argued that, in order to protect their own interests, they were entitled to litigate the issue of whether Realty, Inc., was guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Messrs. Law and Schiff also argued that it would be a violation of their personal due process rights if they were deprived of an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Realty, Inc., was guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint. By order dated June 18, 1996, the Florida Real Estate Commission denied the relief requested in the Department's motion and directed that the charges against Realty, Inc., be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.5 Since the issuance of the order placing Realty, Inc., in receivership (the order was issued October 6, 1995, nunc pro tunc to September 28, 1995), Messrs. Law and Schiff have not had any authority to take any action on behalf of Realty, Inc. That authority has been, and continues to be, vested solely in the receivers appointed to manage the affairs of Realty, Inc., and in the circuit judge who entered the receivership order. Neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever retained legal counsel to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings from which this case arises. Neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever authorized anyone else to retain legal counsel to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings from which this case arises. Specifically, neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever retained or authorized anyone else to retain the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings. Similarly, neither the circuit judge nor the receivers have authorized either the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., or Benjamin Schiff, Esquire, to file the instant proceeding on behalf of Realty, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate brokers and holds license No. 0002997. On May 7, 1979, Respondent acted in the capacity of a real estate broker in the transaction of the sale of a parcel of real property located in Polk County, Florida. The purchaser in that transaction was Margaret Rhoden, and the seller was June Davis, who was represented in the transaction by a relative, Henry Goodwin. On May 7, 1979, Margaret Rhoden entered into a Contract for Sale of Rea1 Estate for the purchase of a piece of property Frostproof, Florida, from June Davis. The full purchase price of the property was $3,500, which Ms. Rhoden paid to Respondent in cash on May 7, 1979, and obtained a receipt from Respondent for that amount. At the time the contract was entered into, Ms. Rhoden was advised that a deed should be forthcoming from the seller within two to four weeks. A date of June 20, 1979, was established to close the transaction, subject to a 120-day curative period should any cloud on the title be discovered. The contract between the parties provided that should any such cloud appear of record, the seller would have a period of 120 days after receipt of written notice prior to the date set for closing in which to attempt to cure the defect. The contract further provided that if title defects were not cleared within the l20-day period, the deposit would be returned to the buyer, or, at the buyer's option, the transaction should be closed in the same manner as if no defect had been found. A warranty deed purporting to transfer the property from the seller to the buyer was executed on June 7, 1979, and a title binder was issued on that same date. The title binder indicated an outstanding mortgage on a larger piece of property of which the parcel purchased by Ms. Rhoden was only a part. When efforts to clear this cloud on the title took longer than expected, Ms. Rhoden asked, and was granted, permission by the seller's agent to commence construction on the improvements on the property notwithstanding the fact that she knew that a cloud remained on the title to the lot, and the transaction had not been closed. Construction was not completed on the improvements because Ms. Rhoden ran out of cash during the course of construction. She moved into the dwelling while it was still in a partially completed condition and, on September 8, 1979, with the permission of the seller's agent, received a loan of $3,000 from the $3,500 deposit she had placed with Respondent, Ms. Rhoden executed a promissory note dated September 8, 1979, in which she agreed to repay the $3,000 loan when clear title to the property was issued. Ms. Rhoden used the proceeds of this loan to make additional improvements on the property. On October 26, 1979, Respondent received both the warranty deed dated June 7, 1979, and the title binder issued on that date from the attorney for the seller. When approached by Ms. Rhoden, Respondent agreed to lend her the deed and title binder to attempt to obtain additional financing to complete construction on her home. The clear inference from the record in this proceeding is that there was never any understanding between Respondent and Ms. Rhoden that this deed could be recorded at this or any other juncture in this transaction. In fact, the contract entered into between the buyer and seller clearly called for the payment of the full purchase price of the property at closing, and the note subsequently executed by Ms. Rhoden conditioned the issuance of a warranty deed to her on the payment of the $3,000 face value of the note. Ms. Rhoden was unsuccessful in obtaining additional financing to complete construction on her home, probably due to the fact that when she sought that financing the outstanding mortgage on the property had still not been satisfied. When Respondent advised the seller's attorney that he had loaned the warranty deed to Ms. Rhoden for the purposes outlined above, he was advised that there was nothing to keep Ms. Rhoden from recording the deed, at which point Respondent apparently determined that it would be prudent for him to retrieve the deed from Ms. Rhoden's possession. Ms. Rhoden had her mother return the deed to Respondent in February of 1980. According to the testimony of both Ms. Rhoden and her mother, they felt the purpose for the returning of the deed was to have it recorded. Respondent denies any such understanding. In resolving this conflict in testimony, the clear inference from the circumstances involved in this transaction, including the wording of the contract of sale and the note executed by Ms. Rhoden, supports a finding that all of the parties to this transaction either knew, or should have known, that the recording of the deed at this juncture in the transaction would have been improper. Although the outstanding mortgage had been satisfied in January of 1980, Ms. Rhoden had not Performed her obligation under the contract of sale by paying the full purchase price. When Respondent had recovered the deed from Ms. Rhoden, he was advised by the attorney for the seller not to record the deed until he had received payment from Ms. Rhoden in accordance with the contract and the promissory note. As indicated above, the outstanding mortgage on the property was satisfied in January of 1980. On February 6, 1980, Respondent Prepared a closing statement reflecting the purchase price of the property as $3,500. From this amount he deducted a total of $478 for state documentary stamps, title insurance, Preparing the deed, and amount of real estate commission leaving a the apparently forwarded the note from Ms. Rhoden for $3,000, together with the $22.00 cash balance remaining from her initial $3,500 deposit to the seller along with the deed which the seller had earlier executed. Ms. Rhoden apparently never made or tendered payment of the $3,000 note, the transaction never closed, and at the time of final hearing in this cause an eviction action was apparently pending between the seller and Ms. Rhoden. Paragraph seven of the contract of sale executed between the seller and Ms. Rhoden Provides as follows: If Buyer fails to perform this contract, the deposit this day paid by Buyer as aforesaid shall be retained by or for the account of Seller as consideration for the execution of this agreement and in full settlement of any claims for damages.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate school instructor and real estate broker in Florida having been issued license numbers ZH35593 and 0520063 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented of any prior disciplinary action against Respondent's licenses. The last licenses issued to Respondent were as a school instructor at 23424F SW 53rd Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida 33433, and as a broker c/o The Place for Real Estate, Inc., 2 E. Camino Real, Boca Raton, Florida 33432. From November 1992 through August 1993, Respondent was employed as a real estate instructor by the Gold Coast School of Real Estate II, Inc. ("Gold Coast"), a real estate school. During this time period, Gold Coast had five locations in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Respondent taught at all five locations. Sometime in August of 1993, Gold Coast terminated Respondent's employment as a real estate instructor. Respondent was given little or no advance notice of the termination. Respondent was extremely upset and distraught over the abrupt termination of his employment. Respondent's employment with Gold Coast was the primary source of income for his family. His contract with Gold Coast did not provide for any severance pay or benefits. After Respondent was terminated, he sent letters dated August 11, 1993 and August 20, 1993 to John Greer, vice president of Gold Coast. In those letters, Respondent threatened to report certain alleged improprieties in Gold Coast's operations to the Department of Professional Regulation (the "Department") unless Gold Coast provided Respondent with "an amicable severance package." Greer ignored the first letter he received from Respondent. After he received the second letter, Greer consulted with an attorney and conducted an investigation into the matters enumerated by the Respondent. Greer also reported the situation to the Department. Greer's investigation failed to corroborate any of the alleged improprieties that Respondent had threatened to report. The Department also conducted an investigation which did not result in any action against Gold Coast. In a letter to Respondent dated August 24, 1993, Greer responded to Respondent's August 11 and August 20, 1993 letters and stated, "[U]pon advice of counsel, I am informing you that the making of threats in pursuit of monetary gain is extortion." After receiving Greer's August 24 letter, Respondent discontinued his efforts to obtain a severance package from Gold Coast. Respondent sent a letter to Greer dated September 9, 1993, which stated "I certainly do no want my conduct to be construed as an extortion attempt . . . so, forget the severance check." Respondent never filed a lawsuit against Gold Coast nor has he made any other efforts to collect severance benefits. As of the date of the hearing, Gold Coast had not paid any kind of severance pay or severance benefits to Respondent. During the hearing in this case, Respondent expressed a great deal of remorse over his actions. He admitted that the two letters in August were ". . . rather stupid on my part . . ." and " . . . totally unprofessional . . ."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violation, Respondent should be reprimanded, an administrative fine of $250 should be imposed, and Respondent's licenses should be placed on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4 except the evidence established that the Respondent began working for Gold Coast in November of 1992. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5 and 12. Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 5 and 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest 2nd Ave., Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Charles Seymour Smith 18768 Caspian Circle Boca Raton, Florida 33469 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Buisness and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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)(f), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's real estate broker license be suspended for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1982, 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 12th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact In December, 1976, Respondent Murray was registered with Petitioner as a real estate broker and Respondent Doyle was registered as a real estate salesman associated with Murray. Negotiations conducted between Murray, Doyle and representatives of Cameron-Brown led to the execution of an Exclusive Right of Sales Agreement, dated December 1, 1976 (Exhibit 1). This agreement was negotiated between the parties with the final draft prepared by Cameron-Brown legal staff and approved by R.E. Murray and Associated (REMA) by Murray and Cameron-Brown Company by a vice-president. The contract covered condominiums that had been foreclosed on by Cameron-Brown and which they were anxious to sell. In addition to providing commissions to be paid on sales, how down payments were to be handled, how the agreement could be terminated, reports to be submitted, defining responsibility for employees, and establishing the closing agent for Seller, the agreement, and Addendum A, provided that Doyle was to have sole control of managing and marketing the project. This latter provision was interpreted by the principal drafters of the agreement to indicate that Cameron-Brown was interested in having Doyle as sales manager of the project but in all respects working under Murray as broker. Little discretion was left to the agent in executing contracts which were provided by the Seller, handling of the escrow deposits or in preparing closing statements, as the manner of carrying out these duties was established by the agreement which also provided that all deposits were to be placed in escrow with the title company designated as closing agent for the Seller. During the period the condominium units were being sold this was the major, if not sole, real estate function performed by REMA. The agreement was carried out to the satisfaction of Cameron-Brown with all units sold quicker than had been expected. From the summer of 1976 through the selling of the condominiums, Respondent Murray, who is also a licensed broker in Minnesota, was engaged in a real estate development project in Minnesota and spent the major part of his time in Minnesota. Murray was in communication with his Clearwater office by telephone and discussed all aspects of the agreement with Doyle doing the negotiations. After the agreement was executed by Murray, he was also available by telephone and was contacted by Doyle and others in the office when they deemed it necessary. Murray signed all listing agreements and approved all salesmen employed. One sales person, Mrs. McGhan, was interviewed by a REMA salesperson and Doyle and her employment was approved by Murray. Because her registration was close to expiration when she was hired, Murray authorized Doyle to sign his, Murray's name to her application to be forwarded to FREC. No effort to emulate Murray's signature was made by Doyle in signing Murray's name on the McGhan application. During the period involving the sales of these condominiums Murray received weekly reports on the progress of the sales and was in frequent contact with the office. Procedures to be followed in the REMA office had been established by Murray orally and in written memoranda and were, after the charges herein involved were brought, published in a Procedures Manual, a copy of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 7. Respondent Doyle at all times here involved was employed by REMA as a salesman. Doyle holds an inactive real estate broker's license in California and has been a licensed Florida real estate salesman since March 1976. He passed the C.P.A. exam in California in 1970 and also holds a Florida Mortgage Broker's license. He has a Master's degree from UCLA in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, and is a certified teacher at St. Petersburg Junior College, teaching Real Estate Finance since 1977. During the negotiations leading up to the Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement with Cameron-Brown, Doyle did most of the negotiations for REMA and John Sullivan, an employee of Cameron-Brown, did the negotiations for Cameron- Brown. In conducting these negotiations, Doyle was in frequent communication with Murray and Murray was the final approving authority for REMA. Doyle was authorized to sign checks drawn on the REMA escrow account, but no evidence was presented that he ever signed checks on this escrow account or that it would have been wrong had he done so. During the period Murray was spending most of his time in Minnesota, the principal efforts of REMA were involved in the condominium project and none of the earnest money deposits there received were placed in REMA escrow account.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of mishandling an escrow deposit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Vu is and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license number 0394778. He is and was at all material times the qualifying broker for Respondent American Homes and Investment Realty, Inc., which holds Florida license number 0250718. Respondent Vu owns Respondent American Homes. In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Serge Delisfort contacted Respondents about purchasing a residence. The Delisforts eventually signed a contract to purchase a home and paid the $500 earnest money deposit to Respondents. Later learning that they would be liable to pay an annual homeowners' fee of $72, the Delisforts told Respondent Vu that they did not want to complete the purchase. The listing broker, which was not either Respondent, omitted mention of the homeowners' fee from the listing information supplied Respondents and the Delisforts. The sellers refused to release the deposit. Confronted with the dispute, Respondent Vu promptly requested an escrow disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 29, 1991. Due to the presence of a factual or legal dispute, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents, in a 47-word letter dated October 16, 1991, that it could not issue an escrow disbursement order. The October 16 letter warns Respondents to "immediately choose one of the other two alternatives available to you under ss. 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, to settle this dispute, i.e., arbitration or a civil court." Instead, Respondents did nothing. The Delisforts periodically contacted Respondent Vu and asked if he could release their deposit. The sellers sold their house to another party and moved to Puerto Rico. The Delisforts contacted another broker and purchased a different house through the new broker. Eventually, the Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission and asked its help in obtaining the deposit. An investigator for the Division of Real Estate interviewed Respondent Vu on March 1, 1994. Explaining the reason for the delay, Respondent Vu, possibly confused, stated that the buyers had left Orlando for awhile. In fact, the buyers had remained in Orlando. At the suggestion of the investigator, Respondent Vu contacted both parties, and they agreed to split the deposit equally. Respondent Vu prepared the paperwork, which the parties signed on March 11, 1994. At that time, Respondents paid each party $250. The Delisforts have since listed their home for sale by Respondents. While improperly holding the $500 deposit, Respondent Vu was preoccupied by the illnesses and deaths of his parents, who remained in Vietnam. Despite the possibility of trouble upon his return to Vietnam, Respondent Vu traveled to Vietnam at least once during this time to care for one or both of his parents. Respondents failed to implement timely the remedies established by law and identified by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its letter of October 26, 1991. Respondent Vu acted two and one-half years later, only after one of Petitioner's investigators contacted him. It is no excuse that the costs of arbitration or court would have consumed a large part of the amount in dispute. Confronted with that prospect, the sellers or the Delisforts would probably have settled the matter. If not, that would have been their problem, not Respondents'. The fact is that Respondents failed to discharge their obligations by presenting the dispute for resolution in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, the amount involved is modest. Neither party had a clear claim to the funds, nor was either party exceptionally troubled by Respondents' casual handling of the matter. The Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission, but did not realize that they were in effect filing a complaint against Respondents, in whom they entrusted the sale of their current home. A final order issued July 18, 1988, involves Respondents' mishandling of a salesperson's commission. The husband of the salesperson owed Respondent Vu some money, and both men agreed that the debtor's wife would work off the debt by selling real estate at Respondent American Homes. However, the debtor's wife was of a different mind. After earning her first commission, she refused to allow Respondents to credit it against her husband's debt. When Respondent Vu ignored her demand for payment, she filed a complaint, which resulted in the final order and Respondents' proper payment of the commission.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding both Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25((1)(d)1, reprimanding both Respondents, and requiring Respondent Vu to take a thirty-hour broker management course. ENTERED on February 22, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on February 22, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section--Suite N-308 Hurston Bldg., North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802-1772 Dau Viet Vu 1048 Pine Hills Rd. Orlando, FL 32808
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent John Politis has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0069773. The last license issued to him was as a broker for Florida Mortgage & Realty Co., 1001 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At the time of the events which are the subject of this dispute, Respondent Center Associates, Inc., was a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0259310. The last license issued was at the same street address and suite number as Florida Mortgage & Realty Co. At all times, Respondent Politis has been licensed and operating as the qualifying broker, the sole officer, the sole director, and the 100 percent stockholder of Respondent Center Associates. In approximately March of 1989, Catherine P. Young, a real estate salesperson licensed in the State of Florida, was employed by the Respondents to solicit and negotiate agreements for leases of commercial shopping center space through the Respondents. For the first three or four months of that employment, Respondents paid Young an agreed salary. Thereafter, that salary agreement was cancelled, and a second agreement was entered into among Young and the Respondents. Under that new agreement any commissions resulting from Young's efforts were to be split so that Young received 80 percent of the commission and the Respondents received 20 percent of that commission. It was further agreed that Young would pay for her own travel expenses and her long distance calls, while Respondents would bear the expense of providing the office and paying for the local telephone service. During the term of that second agreement, Young negotiated several commercial lease agreements to their conclusions and received the commissions to which she was entitled. In the leasing industry, one-half of the commission is paid when the lease is signed and one-half is paid when the tenant moves into the leased premises. However, the commission is owed as of the time that the lease is executed. On or about March 2, 1990, Young terminated her employment relationship with the Respondents. On the day she left the employ of Respondents, she met with Respondent Politis and discussed with him her claim for commissions on leases already fully executed through her efforts, but which commissions had not yet been paid to Respondents. Respondent Politis agreed that she was entitled to 80 percent of the commissions which Respondents had not yet received but which had resulted from Young's efforts. Young asked Respondent Politis to put that agreement in written form, and he agreed to do so. When Young returned the following week to sign the agreement, Respondent Politis informed her that he had changed his mind and had decided that he would not pay her any more commissions since she was no longer employed by the Respondents. Young advised Respondent Politis that she was still entitled to commissions earned by her during her employment as a result of her efforts even though the commissions were not paid to Respondents until after she left their employment. In response to Young's anger that Respondents would refuse to pay her commissions which she had already earned, Respondent Politis told Young that she could sue him. Thereafter, Respondents received real estate commissions on four or five transactions where commercial leases were entered into as a result of Young's efforts. Despite Respondents being aware that Young had made a claim for her share of those commissions, Respondents failed to pay Young any portion of those commissions and failed to place the disputed commissions in escrow until their dispute was resolved. Rather, when Respondents received those commissions, Respondent Politis deposited them into the operating account of Center Associates, Inc., and used those monies to re-pay himself for loans he had made to that corporation. By letter dated February 4, 1992, Respondent Politis wrote to Petitioner advising that Respondent Center Associates was no longer in existence and would not be filing for renewal of its broker's license. Thereafter, Petitioner's records were notated to reflect that Respondent Center Associates' licensure as a real estate broker was cancelled effective March 31, 1992. Young filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent Center Associates in the Circuit Court in Broward County. Young's complaint for damages alleged that Respondent Center Associates had failed to pay her the commission to which she was entitled on one specific transaction and also alleged that Respondent Center Associates would be receiving other commissions "over the next several months" to which Young was entitled. That complaint also alleged that Respondent Center Associates had breached its contract with Young by failing to pay Young monies due to her. The non-jury trial on Young's complaint was conducted on February 24, 1993. The Final Judgment for Plaintiff entered by the Court on March 1, 1993, ordered Respondent Center Associates to pay Young the sum of $51,505.04. That Final Judgment also provided for interest on the amount of judgment at the rate of 12 percent per year. By the time the Final Judgment was entered, Respondent Politis had "dissolved" the corporation and had "cancelled" the real estate broker license of Respondent Center Associates, Inc. Neither Respondent Politis nor Respondent Center Associates has paid any monies to Young in accordance with that Final Judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Center Associates, Inc.; Finding Respondent John Politis guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint; and Suspending Respondent John Politis' license as a real estate broker in the State of Florida for a period of ten years, said suspension to be terminated and his license to be reinstated earlier upon proof that he has made restitution to Catherine P. Young. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Administrat
Findings Of Fact Respondent, JAMES M. THOMAS, was at all times material to this proceeding a real estate broker licensed with the Florida Board of Real Estate and had been issued license number 0088265. Respondent, JAMES THOMAS REALTY, INC., was at all times material to this proceeding a Florida corporation licensed as a real estate broker and was issued license number 0180981. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, JAMES M. THOMAS, was the qualifying officer of the Respondent, JAMES THOMAS REALTY, INC. On May 7, 1980, Respondents, by and through their attorney, filed a civil lawsuit against Monroe Gray and Shirley Gray in which the Respondents sought the payment of a real estate brokerage commission in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. On May 7, 1980, the Respondents, by and through their attorney, filed a Notice of Lis Pendens in connection with the above referenced lawsuit. The sole purpose in the filing of the above referenced Complaint and Notice of Lis Pendens was to protect and collect a real estate brokerage commission which the Respondents believed was owed to them by the owners of the property. To the knowledge of Respondents, the Grays had no other assets located in Florida. On June 3, 1981, the Respondents, by and through their attorney, filed a Release of Lis Pendens on this property.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining Respondents $250.00 each. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent obtained his registration as a real estate salesman by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment. On October 14, 1976, Petitioner's Administrative Complaint was sent by registered mail to the Respondent at his designated address: Post Office Box 805, U.S. Highway 52 West, Dade City, Florida 33525. A return receipt signed by the Respondent showed date of delivery as October 26, 1976. (Exhibit 1) However, Respondent did not execute and return an enclosed Election of Rights form that accompanied the Administrative Complaint wherein he could have indicated his desires as to an administrative hearing. Nevertheless, Petitioner requested that a Hearing Officer be appointed in the matter and issued a Notice of Hearing to Respondent at the same address by certified mail on January 19, 1977. This correspondence was returned by postal authorities as "Unclaimed" (Exhibit 2). An Order of the Hearing Officer changing the hour set for the hearing from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on February 15, 1977 was mailed to the Respondent on February 7, 1977. However, neither Mr. Bryant nor any representative in his behalf appeared at the hearing on February 15, 1977. It being determined that proper notice had been provided to the Respondent in accordance with Section 475.40 and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Petitioner presented its evidence in uncontested proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Respondent filed his application for registration as a real estate salesman with Petitioner on October 10, 1972. He completed Question 9 therein in the following manner: "9. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, without regard to whether sentence has been passed or served, or whether the verdict or judgment has been reversed or set aside or not, or pardon or parole granted? Yes If yes, state details in full. Yes - See back of sheet" On the back of the application page, Respondent listed the following: "Have 2 traffic tickets, Pasco County, Dade City, Fla. - County Court Improper Passing Out of Date inspection sticker" Respondent was issued his registration as a salesman by Petitioner, effective January 29, 1973, Certificate Number 20527. The certificate was renumbered 0010908 when reissued in 1974 and 1975. It was issued again as "Non Active Salesman" on April 19, 1976 with expiration date March 31, 1978. (Composite Exhibit 3) Records of the Sheriff, Pasco County, show that the Respondent was arrested on six different occasions during the years 1961 to 1970. Five of these arrests were based on worthless check charges and one arrest was for failure to appear, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint of Petitioner. (Exhibit 4, Administrative Complaint) Respondent was charged on October 23, 1970 on an information of the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Pasco County, Case Number 2010, for "Obtaining property in return for worthless check" in violation of Chapter 832, Florida Statutes. He was also charged on October 23, 1970 in the same Judicial Circuit, Case Number 2011, for "Obtaining property in return for worthless check" in violation of Chapter 832, Florida Statutes. (Exhibit 5)
Recommendation That the registration of Respondent Joseph M. Bryant as a non-active real estate salesman be revoked, pursuant to subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32389 Mr. Joseph M. Bryant Post Office Box 805 U.S. Highway 52 West Dade City, Florida 33525
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction for which his real estate license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints filed pursuant to, inter alia, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, John Wilson Claffey, is now and was at times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in Florida, having been issued licensed number 0419730. The last license issued was as a salesperson, c/o Venice Properties and Investments, Inc., 628 Cypress Avenue, Venice, Florida. During 1985, Respondent and Mary Lou Retty (Retty), while Respondent was acting as the licensed general contractor in the employ of Venice Construction Management, Inc., entered into a verbal agreement to build five commercial structures (for Retty) in Venice, Florida. The agreement provided that Respondent would charge Retty actual costs plus a supervisory fee for each building. Respondent built the first two buildings as agreed in keeping with the projections he provided Retty. However, a dispute later arose between Respondent and Retty during construction of the third building about some of the billings and other accounting practices with the end result that Retty suspected that Respondent was overcharging by falsifying invoices and purchasing materials which were used for other projects, but were charged to the building he was erecting for Retty. During 1986, Retty filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for Sarasota County, Florida. Retty's object was to recover monies that she suspected Respondent had misappropriated and wrongfully charged to her project. On April 25, 1990 and June 28, 1990, Retty obtained two final judgments. The first judgment ordered Respondent to pay Retty $40,263.47 and the second final judgment ordered him to pay her the sum of $10,263.47 for civil theft, attorney fees and court costs. The interest rate for both judgments was 12% per annum. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4.) During counsel's preparation and discovery for trial, it became evident that Respondent altered several billing invoices which he sought to collect from Retty. Respondent submitted falsified invoices and charged Retty for materials that he used on other projects. Respondent unsuccessfully appealed the final judgments. To date, Respondent has not paid any of the monies he was ordered to pay in the final judgments referenced herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Respondent engaged in proscribed conduct as alleged and that his real estate license be suspended for seven (7) years. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Claffey pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR- Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Wilson Claffey 312 Venice Avenue East #126 Venice, Florida 34292 Darlene F. Keller/Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Hurston Building-North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 1772 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
