The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Respondent Wayne E. Belton violated Section s. 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), by inserting an option provision into a lease agreement without the specific authorization of the tenants and subsequent to the tenants signing the original agreement. At the hearing, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-10 were offered and admitted into evidence. Leslie and Glenn Strickland, the tenants and complainants, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. Wayne Belton testified on his own behalf. Proposed Recommended Orders have been submitted by the parties. Those findings not incorporated in this Recommended Order were not considered relevant to the issues, were not supported by competent and substantial evidence or were considered immaterial to the results reached.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Wayne E. Belton is a licensed real estate broker with his principal place of business at 337 Northeast Second Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. On or about November 23, 1979, the Respondent prepared a one-year rental agreement or lease for property located at 2717 Southwest Sixth Street, Delray Beach, Florida, which was owned by Mrs. Margaret Finlay. Mr. and Mrs. Glenn Strickland executed the agreement as the tenants. The lease was prepared pursuant to an open listing by the owner for either sale or lease. When the Stricklands signed the original agreement it did not contain any provision concerning purchasing the property in the future through an option agreement. Although the Stricklands had discussed an option agreement with the Respondent, they did not specifically agree to an option agreement which required the deposit of additional monies in escrow which would not be refunded if the option were not exercised. The owner of the property, Mrs. Finlay, was primarily interested in selling the property and demanded that Respondent obtain a binding option from the Stricklands. When faced with the conflicting demands of the tenants and the owner, the Respondent inserted an option provision in the lease agreement after the Stricklands had signed the original lease which did not contain such a provision. When the Stricklands failed to deliver the $1,500 option money required by the option provision, Mrs. Finlay, through her attorney, threatened to take legal action against the Respondent. In response to the owner's demand, the Respondent through his attorney, demanded that the Stricklands pay $1,500 for the option pursuant to the lease agreement. When the Stricklands received the demand letter from Respondent's counsel, they contacted an attorney who eventually settled the matter. The Stricklands were required to expend $138.00 in attorney's fees to correct the problem caused by the Respondent. The Respondent admitted inserting the option provision into the lease agreement after the Stricklands executed it, but denied acting with any intent to alter the agreement contrary to what he believed the parties intended. Rather, the Respondent believed that he was remedying his original omission to conform to what he believed the parties had orally agreed to.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent Wayne E. Belton violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979) and imposing a reprimand and an administrative fine. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 7th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Stephen G. Melcer, Esquire Suite 500 First Bank Building 551 Southeast Eighth Street Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the decision to reject all bids for Lease No. 800:0187 is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent under the provisions of Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or violates the terms of the Request for Proposal.
Findings Of Fact Prior to May 17, 1999, the Department issued a RFP for office space seeking to lease approximately 14,420 contiguous square feet of space located in Broward County, Florida. This lease, designated 800:0187 in this record, was to run for a basic term of seven years with three two-year renewal options. The RFP specified the lessor was to provide full services and 60 parking spaces. In response to the RFP, the Petitioner, Sunrise, and Intervenor timely submitted proposals. The space proposed by Petitioner complied with the requirements of the RFP. Additionally, the Petitioner's submittal was well within the Department's acceptable rate range. On May 17, 1999, the Department issued an intended award to Sunrise for lease 800:0187. Sunrise was deemed the lowest responsive bidder. All objections to the award to Sunrise were resolved or withdrawn. For reasons not clearly documented in this record, the Department withdrew its decision to award the lease to Sunrise. The agency action, posted on June 12, 2000, some 13 months after the initial posting, stated Sunrise had not performed and recommended Lauderdale as the second-ranked entity that had responded to the RFP. Both Sunrise and the Intervenor timely filed protests to the proposed award to Lauderdale. The Petitioner filed motions with the Department to dismiss and intervene in those protests. As of the date of the final hearing in the instant case, the Department had not resolved or referred those protests to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Instead, on July 24, 2000, the Department issued a notice stating it would reject all bids for lease 800:0187 and rescind the award to Lauderdale. In reaching this decision, the Department stated it "cannot determine its space needs until after the pending Department reorganization is complete." If the Department was being "reorganized" such reorganization would have been known to the Department on June 12, 2000. No legislative or administrative action was taken to require reorganization between June 12, 2000 and July 24, 2000. The Department determined that its decision of July 24, 2000, rendered the June 12 award to Lauderdale moot. The Petitioner, Sunrise, and Intervenor challenged the agency's decision to reject all bids. Section M of the RFP provides, in pertinent part: The Department reserves the right to reject any and all proposals when such rejection is in the best interest of the State of Florida. Such rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification. (Emphasis in original omitted.) Subsequent to the protests of the rejection of all proposals, Perry Anderson, a regional administrator for the Department whose region encompasses Broward County, drafted a memorandum dated September 22, 2000, to address the number of leases and unit requirements for service areas of Broward County. The proposals set forth in the memorandum have not been resolved. As of the date of the hearing, the Department did not present any definitive statement as to its leasing needs for Broward County or how and why the submittals for lease 800:0187 could not address the agency's need. The Department has not presented documentation for any agency plan or statutory mandate to reorganize or decentralize the office space encompassed by lease 800:0187. If decentralization is required, the Department has presented no studies to determine the location, service areas, or numbers of clients for such offices. Studies for demographics, travel times, accessibility to public transportation, client case loads, or how reorganization would better address such issues have not been presented. Moreover, the Department has not demonstrated how decentralization would be inconsistent with the award of lease space as designated by lease 800:0187. The only justification for the rejection of all proposals for lease 800:0187 was the alleged reorganization of the Department. The Department presented no factual information as to how the "reorganization" related to an emerging philosophy supporting decentralization or improved services to the client population.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order rescinding its decision to reject all proposals for lease 800:0187. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. Parrish 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 27th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian D. Berkowitz, Esquire Scott Wright, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas 165 East Boca Raton Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Berger, Davis & Singerman 215 South Monroe Street Suite 705 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Margaret Hesford, Esquire 5648 West Atlantic Boulevard Margate, Florida 33063 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Jack L. Goodwin, is registered as an inactive real estate broker, holding license number 0032656. In 1975 the Respondent was found guilty of the crime of possession of a stolen motor vehicle. He served six months in the Broward County jail, and was placed on probation for five years. This term of probation was terminated by the court in 1978. On December 29, 1978, the Respondent received a restoration of his civil rights by the State of Florida. The Respondent's present license was applied for in 1979. In this application, the Respondent made full disclosure of his conviction, sentence, and early termination of the probationary term. A copy of the Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights was also submitted as part of this application. A broker's license was issued to the Respondent on September 17, 1979. Previously, and for a period of approximately seven years, the Respondent held a real estate salesman's license. This license was superceded by the broker's license in 1979. Based upon the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent, the circumstances surrounding his arrest for possession of a stolen motor vehicle are as follows. The subject vehicle was purchased by the Respondent from persons whom he thought to be legitimate automobile brokers. Sometime thereafter he discovered that the vehicle had been stolen. When the Respondent attempted to sell this vehicle to another party, he was arrested. There is no evidence that the Respondent stole the vehicle initially.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Jack L. Goodwin be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 24th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack L. Goodwin 1560 S.W. 19th Street Boca Raton, Florida 33432
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent's yacht and ship salesman's license should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the notice of intent to revoke license dated June 14, 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate persons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. On April 30, 1993, the Department received an application for a yacht and ship broker or salesman license (the application) submitted by Respondent, Thomas I. Davis, Jr. The application provided, in pertinent part: LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES: Have you now or have you ever been licensed or certified in any other profession such as real estate, insurance, or securities in Florida or any other state? Yes No If you answered yes, please describe: Profession License # First Obtained Status of License (a)Has any license, certification, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession or occupation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, or is any proceeding now pending? Yes No (b) Have you ever resigned or withdrawn from, or surrendered any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation which such charges were pending? Yes No If your answer to questions (a) or (b) is Yes, attach a complete, signed statement giving the name and address of the officer, board, commission, court or governmental agency or department before whom the matter was, or is now, pending and give the nature of the charges and relate the facts. In response to the application questions identified above, Respondent entered the following answers: "No" as to questions 11, 12(a), and 12(b). As a result of the foregoing, Respondent was issued a yacht and ship salesman's license on May 10, 1993. Thereafter, the Department learned that Respondent had been censured by the NASD. In a decision entered by that body accepting Respondent's offer of settlement, Respondent was given a censure, a fine of $20,000.00, and a suspension in all capacities from association with any member for a period of two (2) years with the requirement that at the conclusion of such suspension that he requalify by examination for any and all licenses with the Association. The censure also provided a specific payment plan for the $20,000 fine which was assessed. To date, Respondent has not complied with that provision of the settlement. From 1973 through 1991, Respondent was registered with several different firms pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Respondent has been licensed to sell securities in the following states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and New York. Respondent has also been licensed in Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. Respondent has been a licensed stock broker with the Securities and Exchange Commission since 1971. Respondent answered questions 11 and 12 (a) and (b) falsely. Respondent knew he was licensed to sell securities and knew of the sanction from the NASD at all times material to the entry of the answers. Pursuant to Rule 61B-60.003, when the Department receives an application for licensure which is in the acceptable form, it is required to issue a temporary license. Had the Respondent correctly answered questions 11 and 12 on the application, the Department would not have issued Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order dismissing Respondent's challenge to the notice of intent and revoking his license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4258 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 9, 11, 13, and 15 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as repetitive. Except as to findings reached above, paragraphs 12 and 14 are rejected as irrelevant. It is found that Respondent falsely answered question 11. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Respondent's proposed findings of fact are rejected as they do not comply with Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code. However, to the extent findings do not conflict with the findings of fact above, they have been accepted. Such proposed findings of fact are paragraphs: 1, 7 and 8. The remaining paragraphs are rejected as they are not supported by the record cited (none), irrelevant, argument, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David M. Goldstein LAW OFFICE OF DAVID M. GOLDSTEIN 100 S.E. 2nd Street Suite 2750 International Place Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate salesmen and brokers. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Peebles was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license number 0396895. The last license issued was placed at 2690 52nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The home address listed with the Florida Real Estate Commission was Post Office Box 40063, St. Petersburg, Florida. On April 7, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the crime of credit card fraud in the United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Case No. 86-215 Cr- Orl-19. The crime was a felony in that the alleged acts involved the unauthorized use of access devices (credit cards) to obtain items of value aggregating $1,000 or more in a one-year period. The case was in federal court because the offense affected interstate and foreign commerce. The crime did not involve any business dealings in which the Respondent was acting as a real estate salesman or broker. However, the crime did involve fraudulent or dishonest dealings. Upon acceptance of the Respondent's plea, the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment at Maxwell Air Force Base in a minimum security federal prison. In addition, the Respondent was ordered to make restitution of $60,590.00, and pay court costs. The sentencing occurred on April 7, 1987. A timely appeal from the judgment and sentence was not taken by the Respondent. The Respondent did not notify the Department of his guilty plea and subsequent conviction within the thirty-day period required by Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes. A Motion for New Trial based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, was filed by the Respondent in the criminal case on March 1, 1990. The United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, has not ruled on the motion. Mitigation The Respondent does not currently have the financial ability to pay any fines if that penalty were to be imposed upon him in this case. The Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of his conviction because he was under extreme stress when the conviction occurred and he was incarcerated.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the mitigation presented by the Respondent, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of the allegations in Counts I through IV, which were proved at hearing. That the Respondent's real estate broker's license be revoked for seven years. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0224 The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3, #4 and #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert J. Peeples Post Office Box 40063 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, Kathi L. Kitts, should be revoked or otherwise penalized based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: Brickell Grove Realty Corporation ("Brickell Grove") is a licensed real estate brokerage corporation in Florida having been issued license number 0245921. From at least May 1988 through September 1, 1988, the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove was Frederick Morrison, Jr. (Morrison). At some point in mid to late 1988, (the exact date was not established by competent substantial evidence) Morrison was hospitalized with a terminal illness and his subsequent involvement in the real estate brokerage business was limited. Morrison died on September 1, 1988. Respondent, Kathi L. Kitts (formerly known as Kathi L. Abassi), was licensed by Petitioner as a salesman with Brickell Grove beginning on or about August 13, 1986. Respondent completed the required course for a real estate broker's license in April of 1988. On September 19, 1988, she passed the state exam required to obtain a broker's license. The evidence did not establish when Respondent first filed an application for a broker's license. After passing the exam in September of 1988, Respondent submitted an application which she thought would enable her to become the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove. The evidence did not establish the date that application was submitted. That application was not signed by the qualifying broker of Brickell Grove and/or the owner so it could not serve to qualify Respondent as the sole qualifying broker for Brickell Grove. On October 1, 1988, Petitioner issued Respondent a broker/salesman license as an employee of Brickell Grove. That broker/salesman license was revoked in November of 1988 when it was discovered that the corporate registration of Brickell Grove was cancelled effective September 30, 1988 as a result of the death of Morrison and the non-renewal of the corporate license. The exact date of the revocation was not established by competent substantial evidence but it was apparently on or after November 1, 1988. Prior to receiving the revocation notice, Respondent was advised by an investigator employed by Petitioner that her application to become the qualifying broker was deficient because it was not signed by the owner or broker. On October 20, 1988, Respondent filed another application to become licensed as the qualifying broker for Brickell Grove and to change the name on her license from Kathi Abassi to Kathi Kitts. This second application contained the signature of the owner of Brickell Grove. On November 4, 1988, Respondent sent a letter to the Division of Real Estate indicating that Mr. Morrison was seriously ill and that it was urgent that her application to be the active broker for Brickell Grove be approved as quickly as possible. Respondent did not, however, discover that Mr. Morrison had died on September 1, 1988, until sometime in the middle of November when she was advised by Petitioner's investigator. Petitioner approved Respondent's second application to become the qualifying broker for Brickell Grove on November 22, 1988. The approved broker's license was backdated to establish an effective date of October 20, 1988. Effective October 20, 1988, the corporate registration of Brickell Grove Realty Corporation was reinstated upon the Respondent becoming its sole qualifying broker. Respondent admitted that at least during the time period from September 1, 1988 through October 20, 1988, she operated as a salesman in the office of Brickell Grove Realty without any supervision from another broker in the office. However, no competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the nature or extent of business conducted by that office or by Respondent during this time period. Respondent did not open bank accounts or advertise as a broker until after October 20, 1988. While Respondent contends that she thought Mr. Morrison was continuing to carry on as the active broker for Brickell Grove during the time period he was hospitalized and continuing through November (after his death), she admitted that she only saw him on occasion and could not recall when he was last in the office. The limited contact between Respondent and the licensed broker for Brickell Grove is reflected by her lack of knowledge of his death until almost two months after it occurred. While there is hearsay testimony that Mr. Morrison was in the hospital for several months prior to his death and that his involvement with Brickell Grove Realty during the several months preceding his death was limited, or nonexistent, no competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the nature or extent of the business conducted by Respondent without the benefit of supervision by a licensed broker during the time period prior to September 1, 1988. Petitioner had previously initiated an investigation into unlicensed practice by one of the owners of Brickell Grove, Mahmoud Abassi (Respondent's former husband) in July of 1986. That investigation resulted in an August 29, 1986 affidavit executed by Mahmoud Abassi to cease and desist unlicensed real estate brokerage activity. However, no competent substantial evidence was offered to prove any involvement by Respondent in the activities which led to the execution of that affidavit nor was any evidence offered to show that Mahmoud Abassi was actually running Brickell Grove at any point subsequent to the execution of the affidavit. Moreover, no competent substantial evidence was offered as to Respondent's activities and/or supervision during the period from the execution of the affidavit until September 1, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Kathi Kitts, guilty of operating as a broker without a license during the period from September 14, 1988, to October 1, 1988, reprimanding her and placing her on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of December 1989. 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 15th day of December, 1989.
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 Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Pasquale A. Verona (Verona), is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0389728 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). He is the qualifying broker and an officer of respondent, P. A. Verona and Associates, Inc., which holds broker's license number 0251674. The real estate firm is located at 3828 Seago Lane, Fort Myers, Florida. In May 1988 Donna Jean and Barry C. Minnich were shopping for a residential lot in Carillon Woods, a subdivision in Fort Myers, Florida. After seeing a lot advertised by Verona s firm, Donna Jean telephoned Verona's office and made an appointment to inspect the lot on May 13, 1988. After inspecting the lot, Donna Jean decided to purchase the same and, on the same date, she and Verona orally agreed upon a purchase price of $49,000 with a closing date of May 25, 1988. Verona desired to close on that date since he had a previously planned trip to California with his family beginning on May 26, 1988. The oral agreement was reduced to a written contract and executed by the parties on May 13, 1988. At Verona's request, and at the same time the contract was executed, an addendum was prepared by the Minnichs' attorney which provided, in part, that a $54,000 sales price would be used but that at closing Verona would refund $5,000 to the Minnichs. This refund was to be taken out of Verona's real estate commission and rebated to the buyers. Thus, the net sales price was still $49,000 as originally agreed to by the parties. As earnest money, the Minnichs gave Verona $5,000 which was deposited into Verona' s trust account. The Minnichs immediately made application for a loan with John E. Smith, a vice-president of a local C & S bank. On May 18, 1988 they placed an order for a title commitment with Southwest Title, Inc., a Fort Myers title company designated by the parties to prepare the title insurance and handle the closing. The title company was placed on notice that the contract called for a May 25 closing date. According to Mary Jane Kalpin, a Southwest Title, Inc. employee who worked on this transaction, there were unsatisfied water and sewer assessments on the lot owed by Verona to the City of Fort Myers. However, she said this was not unusual and happened quite frequently in subdivisions such as Carillon Woods. As it turned out, however, the city employee who oversaw these assessments was on vacation the week prior to the May 25 closing date, and Kalpin could not obtain payoff figures from any other city employee. In addition, Kalpin needed Verona to furnish her with a certificate of good standing on the property. 1/ He did not do so by May 25. Therefore, she was unable to prepare a closing package by the contract closing date. On May 23, 1988, C & S issued a loan commitment to the Minnichs. In the meantime, Kalpin had completed her title search and on May 23 she spoke with Verona who advised her the deal must close by May 25. When she responded she could not get payoff figures from the City by that date, Verona told her it was a "dead deal". On or about May 24, Donna Jean spoke with Verona and, after being told of the problems encountered by the title company, reiterated her desire to buy the lot. She requested that Verona extend the time for closing so that the missing items could be obtained. Although Verona denies that he gave such an extension, and nothing was reduced to writing, it is found that Verona orally agreed to an extension of time prior to leaving for California. This is supported by the fact that, after returning from California, Verona's wife delivered a certificate of good standing to the title company on June 9, and the title company representative was under the impression a closing would be held at 1:00 p.m. the same date. However, at Verona's insistence, the closing did not take place. On June 15, Verona sent the Minnichs a letter with a check in the amount of $5,000 which represented the deposit on the property. In his letter, Verona stated that he "realize(d) that the delay in the closing on Lot #6, Carillon Woods is not being caused by anything you have done" and that those things occurred whenever "we place a transaction in the hands of another". He added that he had received another offer in the amount of $58,000 from another party and if the Minnichs were willing to pay a "net figure of $56,000", he would give them the opportunity to purchase the lot. The Minnichs chose not to cash the check but instead advised Verona they intended to seek legal advice on their rights under the original contract. Donna Jean deposited the check around June 22 but learned the next day that Verona had stopped payment on the check. On June 24, 1988 Verona again wrote the Minnichs and advised them to reconsider their threat to take legal action since he had "never lost a real estate dispute". He also advised them that, pursuant to the contract, he was claiming the $5,000 as liquidated damages due to their failure to close by May Finally, he pointed out that the original contract "was terminated on June 15 by letter". On an undisclosed date, but prior to September 1988, Donna Jean spoke with Verona by telephone and requested a refund of her deposit. Her request was denied. The Minnichs then filed a complaint with the Division. On September 2, 1988 Verona advised the Division there was a dispute concerning the deposit and requested the issuance of a disbursement order. On January 11, 1989, the Division, through its counsel, wrote Verona and advised him that, because of disputed facts a disbursement order could not be issued, and he must immediately seek arbitration or file an interpleader action in circuit court. Choosing to utilize arbitration, Verona contacted the Miami office of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on February 15, 1989 and requested a "package" from which an agreement to arbitrate could be prepared. After receiving a package of documents, Verona sent an agreement with a letter to the Minnichs on February 24, 1989. They did not respond to his offer to arbitrate. On March 6 he sent a follow-up letter again requesting the Minnichs to arbitrate. On March 9 Verona learned that AAA would not arbitrate the dispute. As of that date, Verona was aware of the fact that his only remaining alternative was to file an interpleader action in circuit court. On March 23, 1989 the Division, through its counsel, sent a second letter to Verona advising him that he had apparently ignored the earlier letter and that he must immediately take action to resolve the dispute. On May 5, 1989 Verona sent his attorney, George Knott, a check in the amount of $5,000 with a request that Knott "handle the interplea (sic) action as to the disposition of $5,000 previously held in my real estate firm's escrow account". The suit was eventually filed by Knott in circuit court on September 8, 1989. The suit requested that Verona be awarded the $5,000 deposit plus "damages" and attorney's fees. When asked at hearing why the suit had not been filed earlier, Verona responded that, once the matter was turned over to his attorney, he had no control over the actions of his attorney. He also acknowledged that he has never instructed his attorney to attempt to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. As of the date of hearing (June 20, 1990), the matter was still pending in circuit court. There is no evidence that Verona did not maintain the $5,000 deposit in his firm's escrow account until the money was turned over to his attorney on May 5, 1990. There is also no evidence that respondents have ever been disciplined by the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (1987) and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code (1987), and that their brokers' licenses be suspended for six months and thereafter be placed on one year's probation. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation as a real estate salesman having been issued license number 0142776, effective August 27, 1984. Linda J. Nuccitelli is his registered employer. John Nuccitelli was respondent's former registered employer. In February, 1983, a final order was entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission which revoked the broker's license of John L. Nuccitelli. The final order was appealed, and the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, stayed the order of Real Estate Commission pending disposition of the appeal. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the order of the Real Estate Commission, and the court's mandate was issued on March 16, 1984. On April 1, 1984, respondent's license was renewed by the Department of Professional Regulation even though John Nuccitelli was named as his employer. The respondent was notified of the revocation of John Nuccitelli's license and automatic cancellation of respondent's license as a salesman, by letter from the Florida Real Estate Commission dated June 21, 1984. Prior to receipt of that letter neither the respondent nor John L. Nuccitelli were aware that the appeal process has been completed and the final order revoking Mr. Nuccitelli's broker's license had become effective. On April 16, 1984, the respondent submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), on behalf of Israel Branton, an offer to purchase certain property located at 4746 Miramar Road. The offer was set forth on a standard form entitled "Offer to Purchase and Broker's Tender." The form has a space for the signature of the broker and also has a space for the name and address of the broker. The offer to purchase designated "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as broker. Respondent signed his name in the space designated "Signature of Broker". The offer was accepted, and a HUD Standard Retail Sales Contract was executed. At the bottom of the contract is a certification to be signed by the broker. Typed in above the line stating "Name of Broker and Phone No" is "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli 305-422-0747." The line below states "By", and is signed "Louis Boatman, Jr. associate." On the Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit form, also submitted to HUD in connection with the transaction, respondent's signature is located on the line provided for the signature of the selling broker. A sales/broker's commission of $1,623.00 was paid to Anchor Realty as a result of this sale. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) On April 27, 1984, respondent submitted to HUD on behalf of Israel Branton an offer to purchase property located at 5019 Columbia Street, Orlando. As in the transaction above, "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" is named as the broker and respondent signed his name in the space provided for the signature of the broker. The certificate at the bottom of the Standard Retail Sales Contract was executed in the same manner it was on the contract for the property on Miramar, indicating "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as broker and signed by "Louis Boatman, Jr. Associate." On the Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit form submitted to HUD in connection with the transaction, respondent's signature was located on the line provided for the signature of the selling broker. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4). Israel Branton had known the respondent several years and was aware that respondent was a salesman and not a broker. Judy Sellers of Lawyers' Title Insurance Corporation, who handled the closing on the Miramar property, was aware that respondent was a salesman and John Nuccitelli was the broker for Anchor Realty. John Nuccitelli had given respondent authorization, as his agent, to sign all documents submitted to HUD on his behalf. Mr. Nuccitelli was aware that respondent was a very competent salesman with a thorough understanding of HUD paperwork and procedures. Due to the time restraints involved with HUD sales, respondent sometimes worked until midnight preparing the paperwork that had to be delivered to Tampa the next morning. To avoid having to get up before 5 a.m. to sign the documents himself, Mr. Nuccitelli told the respondent to sign: the documents for him. However, Mr. Nuccitelli was always fully informed about the transactions The Department of Housing and Urban Development has no objection to a salesman signing on behalf of a broker as long as the broker has authorized the salesman to do so. On August 2, 1984, respondent submitted to HUD, on his own behalf, an offer to purchase property located at 4777 Pleasant Valley, Orlando. Mr. Schroeder, Chief of the Loan Management and Property Disposition Branch of HUD, Tampa Office, rejected the offer noting on the document that the "OFFER MUST BE SUBMITTED BY A LISCENSED (sic) Broker." Mr. Schroeder had been informed shortly before August 2, 1984, that Mr. Nuccitelli's broker's license had been revoked and that the people who worked for him at Anchor Realty were not legally licensed. The Offer to Purchase had been signed by respondent as applicant and as broker, and it named "Anchor Realty REALTOR" as broker. Respondent indicated Anchor Realty as broker because respondent was still with Anchor Realty, and he filled out the form as he always had. However, he had not been authorized by Linda Nuccitelli to sign as the broker. Linda Nuccitelli became the licensed broker of Anchor Realty in August of 1984. Respondent did not represent to anyone that he was a broker. He never concealed the fact that he was a real estate salesman. He signed the HUD forms in the places for the broker's signature because John Nuccitelli told him that he could do so. At the same time, respondent clearly named "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as the broker. Mr. Schroeder, the HUD official who signed the contracts, was aware that John Nuccitelli was the broker. Mr. Schroeder indicated that HUD officials don't look at the signature on a form too closely but rely instead on the name that is typed in the appropriate space to determine the broker. The evidence presented established that respondent did not intend to deceive or mislead anyone and that in fact, no one was deceived or misled. Respondent has held a real estate license for about 15 or 16 years and has never had a disciplinary action filed against him until the instant complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed, that respondent be found to have violated section 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that respondent be fined $500 pursuant to section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 5th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard J; R. Parkinson, Esquire 602 East Central Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2, except last half of last sentence which is a legal conclusion. Accepted as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted as modified in Finding of Fact 5. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant and not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Respondent signed on behalf of the broker, and clearly signed by respondent as "associate." Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted By Respondent 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1, 2 and 3. 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 7. 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5 and 7. 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2.
