Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Douglas A. Lemley, was registered as an associated person of National Securities Corporation (NSC) with petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Division). During the period from October 14, 1986, until October 3, 1987, Lemley conducted securities business for NSC and was branch manager of its Jacksonville, Florida office. He was also registered as a principal of NSC with the National Association of Securities Dealers. Lemley is currently not registered with the Division. During the period between July 2, 1987, and September 11, 1987, Lemley admits that he sold and offered for sale to four individuals in the State of Florida at least 7,400 shares of a security known as Island Mining and Exploration, Limited (Island Mining). That security is not registered with the Division. An unregistered security cannot be sold to a Florida resident unless it is an exempt security or an exempted transaction. In this case, respondent has contended that the transactions are exempt by virtue of two statutory exemptions. The first provides that the sale of an unregistered security is exempt from Division regulation whenever the sale is unsolicited, the sale occurs on an agency basis, and the dealer (as opposed to the salesperson) has claimed an exemption. The second provides that the transaction is exempt if certain financial information concerning the security is published in a "recognized manual of securities for a period of not less than 90 days prior to the transaction." Under the first exemption, the customer must solicit the broker to make a purchase, the sale must be done by the agency itself, and the firm must evidence the fact that the transaction is exempt. This latter evidence consists of a disclosure of the nature of the transaction on the trade ticket or confirmation. To qualify for the second exemption, there must be a publication in a recognized securities manual of the security's most recent balance sheet and the two most recent profit and loss statements. For the reasons cited in the following findings, it is found that these exemptions do not apply. At hearing, Lemley contended that the sales were unsolicited and were therefore exempt. To support this contention, he produced copies of documents entitled "Unsolicited Transaction" signed by the four customers and which carried the printed notation "I acknowledge that these securities were unsolicited." He further contended that the documents were generated from information contained in a log of securities transactions kept in his office. However, the evidence showed that these documents were signed long after the transactions occurred, and at least three of them were signed at Lemley's request in early 1992 in preparation for this hearing. Moreover, the underlying log was not introduced into evidence, testimony by three of the customers at hearing established that respondent had solicited the sales by recommending the stock, and there was no notation on the trade tickets or confirmations indicating that NSC had claimed an exemption. Finally, the record shows that it was not a prevailing practice in 1987 to have a customer sign a statement, and the practice itself did not begin in Florida until 1990 in response to a rule promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Therefore, respondent's claim for transactional exemption on this ground is found to be without merit. Lemley also contended that because Island Mining was listed in the 1985 Standard and Poor's or Moody's International manuals, the securities were exempt from registration. To claim this exemption, however, Lemley would have to show that the required financial information was published in a recognized manual of securities in 1987, the year in which the transactions occurred. He failed to do this, and although he has the burden of proving entitlement to an exemption, independent research by a Division financial analyst also failed to uncover this information. Therefore, it is found that the sale of Island Mining was not exempt under this statutory provision. In mitigation, it must be noted that none of the four customers who participated in the transactions filed a complaint against respondent. Rather, this proceeding began after another NSC customer filed a complaint against an NSC broker concerning the purchase of a substantial amount of unregistered stocks. During the course of the Division's investigation of that complaint, Lemley's unregistered sales were uncovered. The evidence also shows that Lemley was an extremely knowledgeable securities dealer in mining stocks and was praised by one customer as doing "everything he could to do the right thing and make you happy". He is no longer in the business of selling securities, is now unemployed, and besides claiming innocence, has asked for leniency on the ground he is without funds to pay a monetary fine. Respondent, who is not represented by counsel, was noticed to have his deposition taken by petitioner at 10:30 a.m. on May 13, 1992, at Suite 1302, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida. It is undisputed that respondent received a copy of that notice. The parties agree that respondent appeared at the DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida, where the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) is located, just prior to the scheduled time of the deposition and was told that the deposition was to be taken at The Capitol and that he should promptly contact petitioner's counsel regarding the deposition. Respondent thereafter telephoned the office where the deposition was to be taken (Suite 1302, The Capitol) and advised a secretary that he had dropped off "the papers" desired by petitioner's counsel at the DeSoto Building but would not speak to her under any circumstances. It may be inferred that the papers filed with DOAH were exhibits to be offered by respondent at final hearing and were to be furnished to counsel at the deposition. No mention of the deposition was made by Lemley or the secretary during the conversation, and he failed to advise the secretary that he would not be attending the deposition. Because Lemley did not attend the deposition, petitioner's counsel, who is based in the agency's Tampa district office, has requested $1,424.86 in attorney's fees and costs. This amount consists of eight hours of attorney's fees at $135 per hour, or $1,080, while the remainder is made up of travel expenses and a court reporter attendance fee. Lemley did not file a response to petitioner's affidavit of fees and costs and gave no viable reason for not attending the deposition. At hearing he contended that a Tallahassee attorney could have attended the deposition in lieu of Tampa counsel and, in any event, Tampa counsel could have performed other work duties while in the Tallahassee office that day. However, the agency practice is for the lead attorney on a case to attend all scheduled depositions, and Tampa counsel did not bring any other work to Tallahassee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding respondent guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, directing respondent to cease and desist all unlawful activities, and imposing an administrative fine upon respondent in the amount of $1,000. Respondent should also reimburse petitioner $344.86 for costs incurred by its counsel in attending the deposition scheduled on May 13, 1992. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. 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 26th day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ann K. Croasdell, was a registered real estate broker at all times material hereto. She has been issued License No. 0141344. In 1977 or 1978, Respondent met William Young at a neighborhood barbecue. About a year after this initial meeting, Young attended a real estate school owned and operated by Respondent. At that time a business relationship developed between them which lasted until approximately September, 1980. In 1980, Bruce Rhodes, then an investigator with the Maitland Police Department, was assigned a case wherein residences up for sale were being burglarized. There were no signs of forcible entry to these homes and each one had a multi-lock box used by realtors to show the homes. Thus, the person who was burglarizing the homes was referred to as the "multi-lock burglar". During the course of the investigation, evidence was obtained which pointed to William Young as the multi-lock burglar. The evidence consisted of statements from various witnesses. Subsequently, a search warrant was issued and served on William Young's apartment. Young was eventually arrested and pled guilty to grand theft in the second degree and other unrelated charges. He is currently serving a seven and a half year prison sentence at Lawty Correctional Institute, Lawty, Florida. 5.. During the investigation into Young's activities, Respondent was interviewed by the Maitland Police Department on several occasions. The first such interview took place on November 13, 1980, at the Maitland Police Department and was conducted by Sergeant Walter Steeb and Investigator Bruce Rhodes. The Respondent was not under arrest nor was she compelled to appear, but came voluntarily at the request of the Maitland Police Department. At the initial interview, the Respondent acknowledged accompanying Young to residences with multi-locks that were for sale, but stated she did not see Young take anything. On December 1, 1980, the Respondent again appeared at the Maitland Police Department at their request. She again appeared voluntarily and was not under subpoena, under arrest or charged as a suspect. At this December 1, 1980, interview, Respondent gave three separate statements to Investigator Bruce Rhodes of the Maitland Police Department. These statements and her subsequent statements differ substantially from the information she gave to the Maitland Police Department on November 13, 1980. Two of the three December 1, 1980, statements concern the return of property. One statement acknowledged the returning of a set of golf clubs to Officer Rhodes on Thursday, November 20, 1980. In this statement, Respondent stated that while she was with William Young, he entered the garage of a house in Sweetwater and came out with a man's set and a Woman's set of golf clubs which he placed in the trunk of her car. Respondent admitted, both at a prior deposition and at the final hearing, that she knew these golf clubs were stolen. At the deposition, she stated she intended to keep the set of woman's golf clubs, knowing they were stolen. The circumstances surrounding the taking of the golf clubs corroborates the fact that the Respondent knew these clubs were stolen. On the day in question, the Respondent and William Young were out looking at homes and pulled up in the driveway of a house that was for sale. The house had no multi-lock, but Young gained entrance through an open side door to a garage. He entered the garage and removed a man's and a woman's set of golf clubs, which he placed in Respondent's car. Respondent did not go into the garage with Young, but remained in the car. She did, however, get out of the car to open the trunk for Young to put in the two sets of golf clubs. In addition to the facts surrounding the golf clubs, Respondent has also admitted, on several occasions, to having taken two sets of yellow towels from a home in Wekiva. These admissions came in the form of the December 1, 1980, statement made to Bruce Rhodes, and subsequently, at a deposition taken on August 17, 1981, in the case of State of Florida v. William Young. At her deposition of August 17, 1981, Respondent explained how she entered the house with a multi-lock key and took the towel sets which consisted of two towels, two hand towels and two washcloths. Additionally, in response to the question as to whether she stole the two sets of towels, she answered "yes," that she did. Respondent did not alert the authorities to these burglaries, nor did she attempt to turn in the stolen golf clubs or towels. Her only excuse for her activities was a claimed fear of William Young. Although Respondent established that Young was abusive to women, there was no indication that she or a member of her family was in any real danger. Rather, she participated with Young as a willing accomplice.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent's real estate broker's license for a period of five years. 2/ DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1983, 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 21st day of March, 1983.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, SA Lee was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate salesperson, having been issued license number SL-0640485 on July 15, 1996. Further, Respondent SA Lee was a real estate salesperson in association with Respondent Realty, a real estate broker corporation. At all times material hereto, Respondent SE Lee was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number BK-0594787. Further, Respondent SE Lee was the qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Realty. At all times material hereto, Respondent Realty was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker corporation, having been issued license number CQ-0272573. In 1996, Brian Mulally (buyer) wanted to buy certain residential property located at 4397 Vicliff Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Maryann Duchesne and Margaret Reppucci were the sellers of the property. Medallion Realty was the listing broker for the property. Paula Castro was the real estate salesperson representing Medallion Realty. The sellers authorized Medallion Realty and Ms. Castro to represent them, to be their agents in the sale of their property. Respondent SA Lee, as sales agent for Respondent Realty, notified the buyer that she was not representing him. The buyer knew at all times that Respondent SA Lee was not his representative in the purchase of the property. In a "Disclosure" document dated September 4, 1996, the buyer acknowledged that Respondent SA Lee was not representing him and that the sellers were compensating Respondent SA Lee.1 The sellers did not authorize Respondent SA Lee to represent them in the sale of their property and were not aware of the Disclosure document. Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were not representing the sellers or the buyer. However, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were working together with Medallion Realty in the sale of the property and that Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were sub-agents of Medallion Realty.2 The buyer and sellers executed a Contract for Sale and Purchase (Contract) of the property, with the buyer executing the Contract on September 30, 1996, and the sellers on October 1, 1996. The effective date of the Contract was October 1, 1996. The Contract provided, among other things, that Respondent Realty would hold deposits in escrow; that the buyer's first deposit would be $100; that the buyer's second deposit of $1,900 would be made within five days of October 1, 1996; that, within five days of October 1, 1996, the buyer would make application for a mortgage loan; that, within 15 days of October 1, 1996, the buyer would obtain a written commitment for a mortgage loan; that the closing date was October 31, 1996; and that Medallion Realty and Respondent Realty were the listing broker and cooperating broker, respectively. The buyer was to obtain the money for the second deposit from a family member. He had planned a trip around the time of the execution of the Contract, during which he would obtain the money for the second deposit. When the buyer returned from his trip, he did not have the money for the second deposit. The buyer informed Respondent SA Lee of his failure to return with the money for the second deposit. Shortly thereafter, Respondent SA Lee and Ms. Castro had a telephone conversation regarding the property. During their conversation, Respondent SA Lee informed Ms. Castro that the buyer had not made the second deposit but that he was still going to obtain the money for the second deposit. The disclosure to the sellers' agent, Ms. Castro, of the buyer's failure to remit the second deposit was before the due date for the deposit, which was on or before October 6, 1996. Ms. Castro continued to make inquiries to Respondent SA Lee as to the payment of the second deposit by the buyer. Respondent SA Lee informed Ms. Castro that she was trying to get the deposit from the buyer who was advising her (Respondent SA Lee) that he was getting the money for the deposit. Ms. Castro was continuously aware that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit to Respondent SA Lee. Respondent SA Lee and Ms. Castro wanted the real estate transaction to proceed. Respondent SA Lee's communication with the sellers was through Ms. Castro. Respondent SA Lee did not have access to a telephone number for the sellers. The sellers obtained the services of a closing agent, who was also their attorney. On or about October 11, 1996, approximately five days after the due date for the second deposit, the sellers' attorney, acting as closing agent, contacted Ms. Castro regarding the second deposit. Ms. Castro informed the sellers' attorney that she would contact Respondent SA Lee and get back with her (the sellers' attorney). On or about October 15, 1996, approximately nine days after the due date for the second deposit, the sellers' attorney, in her role as the closing agent, contacted Respondent SA Lee and requested an escrow letter regarding the second deposit. Obtaining the escrow letter would allow the beginning of the preparation of the closing documents. Respondent SA Lee informed the sellers' attorney that she would contact Ms. Castro and that Ms. Castro would in turn contact the sellers' attorney. Respondent SA Lee contacted Ms. Castro. No escrow letter was forwarded to the sellers' closing agent because no second deposit had been made by the buyer. Even without the escrow letter, the closing agent began the preparation of the closing documents. Thereafter, the sellers' attorney, acting as closing agent, contacted Respondent SA Lee several times regarding the remittance of the second deposit, but Respondent SA Lee never gave the sellers' closing agent a forthright response; Respondent SA Lee never informed the sellers' closing agent that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit.3 Respondent continued to communicate with Ms. Castro regarding the second deposit. The sellers' closing agent was not informed until around October 28 or 29, 1996, that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit. Other problems, regarding the real estate transaction, in addition to the remittance of the second deposit, erupted between the buyer and the sellers. At that time Ms. Castro allowed the sellers' attorney to step-in and handle all matters regarding the transaction. The evidence indicates that this change occurred sometime between October 15 and October 30, 1996. When the sellers' attorney began to handle all matters regarding the real estate transaction, Respondent SA Lee should have, but did not, inform the sellers' attorney that the buyer had not remitted the money for the second deposit. The second deposit was eventually remitted by the buyer on or about October 30, 1996. The buyer forwarded the money directly to the sellers' attorney per Respondent SA Lee's instructions. For several reasons, including the buyer's failure to timely remit the second deposit, the closing did not occur on October 31, 1996, as provided in the Contract. The closing on the property occurred on November 27, 1996. Sometime after the closing of the real estate transaction, Respondent SE Lee ceased to be the qualifying broker for Respondent Realty. Sharon E. Lee became the qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Realty. No evidence was presented by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) as to Respondent SE Lee's failure to properly supervise the activities of Respondent SA Lee or Respondent Realty. No evidence was presented as to whether Respondent SA Lee or Respondent Realty had a history of disciplinary action taken against them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order and therein: Dismiss Count III against Stephen E. Lee. Find Sherry Ann Lee guilty of Counts I and II. Find C. Mist Realty, Inc. guilty of Count IV. Impose upon Sherry Ann Lee an administrative fine of $1,000, payable under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate, and the completion of a 45-hour post-licensure course. Reprimand C. Mist Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 16th day of June, 2000.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated June 22, 1989, alleges that Respondents violated Sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(o), 475.42(1)(a) and 475.42(1)(e), F.S., by failing to pay an administrative fine and by operating as a broker without a valid current license. The issue in this proceeding is whether those violations occurred, and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jeffrey Robert Horne, is currently licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0433763 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. Respondent, the People's Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0253302 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. Jeffrey Robert Horne is licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for The People's Realty, Inc., at 1125 U.S. Highway One, Sebastian, Florida 32958. On December 6, 1988, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued its Final Order in Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. Jeffrey Robert Horne, Case #0156666, DOAH #88-2547, finding Respondent Horne guilty of violations of Section 475.25(1)(a), (b) and (k), F.S., reprimanding him, and assessing a fine of $500.00 for each of the three violations, for a total of $1,500.00. The order was filed, and was sent to counsel for Respondent, on December 13, 1988. The order does not, on its face, designate a deadline for payment of the fine. Jeffrey Horne sent a check dated 1/26/88 to the Department of Professional Regulation, (DPR) in the amount of $500.00, for one-third of his fine. The check was dishonored for insufficient funds and was returned to DPR. A form letter was sent to Jeffrey Horne notifying him of the nonpayment and assessing a $25.00 service charge. On or about April 7, 1989, Jeffrey Horne submitted a cashier's check to DPR in the amount of $525.00. Jeffrey Horne's April 7, 1989, submittal immediately followed his receipt of this form letter: (Note: some portions of letter are handwritten) Records Section 4-5-89 Jeffrey R. Horne 414 Quarry Lane Sebastian FL 32958 Dear I refer you to D. KELLER'S letter dated 2-24-89 , a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience, regarding your check(s) in the amount(s) of $500_ being dishonored by your bank, said check(s) being applicable to your request(s) for fine by Real Estate Commission. Since you have not complied with the above, this is to advise that I have cancelled your ( )salesman, (X)broker, (X)corporate license(s) No.(s) 0433763 & 0253302 effective 1-26-89 , and request the immediate return of said license(s) to this office. Accordingly, if you are operating as a ( )salesman, (X)broker, and/or (X)corporation, you are doing so without being the holder of valid license(s) and in violation of Chapter 475, of the Florida Statutes. For your information, the above license(s) cannot be reacti- vated unless the required amounts of $500 and $25 service charge are submitted by certified check or money order and license applied for on proper form to the undersigned. If within 10 days from the date of this letter, you still have not complied, this matter will be turned over to our Investigation Section. Sincerely, P.S. Both licenses also expired 3-31-89. No renewal shows as processed DJP: Enclosure D. Janet Puckey, Records Administrative Assistant II cc: DPR-Tallahassee - Finance & Accounting People's Realty Inc., 9516 Fellsmere Hwy, Sebastian 329 (Petitioner's exhibit #10) Nothing in the record of this proceeding explains how an effective date of 1/26/89 was established, or by what authority an Administrative Assistant II could cancel a license. In anticipation of license expiration, Jeffrey Horne had sent two renewal fee checks, dated March 27, 1989 and March 28, 1989, in the amount of $57.00 each, to DPR. These checks were dishonored for insufficient funds. Form letters dated April 26, 1989, were sent to Jeffrey Horne and to People's Realty, Inc., informing them that the checks were dishonored and requesting payment of the full amount, plus $10.00 service charge for each check. The letters also included this warning: * * * If you do not comply with the above, your license will be cancelled fifteen days from the receipt of this notice and immediate return of your license will be requested. Accordingly, any real estate business conducted subsequent to the expiration of your old license will be in violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statute. Your license cannot be reactivated unless the dishonored check is paid in full and a $10.00 service charge is paid. * * * (Petitioner's Exhibit #5) Jeffrey Horne received the notices approximately April 28, 1989, and on May 22, 1989, he sent a money order to DPR for $132.00, intending to cover the two $57.00 renewals and $10.00 service charges. He was later informed that he was $2.00 short, and he eventually sent that amount. Larry Whitten was an Investigative Specialist II, assigned to the Division of Real Estate Palm Beach office, between January 1988 and September 1989. In response to a memo from Attorney Steven Johnson, Investigator Whitten contacted Jeffrey Horne to determine whether he was currently operating. Investigator Whitten cannot recall the exact dates of his one office and two telephone contacts, but they were sometime between May 24, 1989 (the date of the memo), and June 16, 1989. The telephone was answered, "People's Realty", and the office was open and staffed by Jeffrey Horne and another person. On June 12, 1990, Darlene F. Keller, Director of the DPR Division of Real Estate, executed a "Certification of Absence of Public Record", stating: I HEREBY CERTIFY that a search of the records of the Florida Real Estate Commission has revealed that as of June 19, 1989, $1,000.00 of the fine owed by Jeffrey Robert Horne had not been received, nor had the renewal fee of $67.00 been paid. The licenses of both Respondents were invalid from April 1, 1989 to June 14, 1989. WITNESS my hand and seal this 12th day of June, 1990. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) Paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding states: "On or before June 14, 1989, Respondent made good the renewal fee checks previously returned NSF." This statement is consistent with Respondents' exhibit #1, which includes the DPR letters acknowledging payments. However, this conflicts with the statement in paragraph 10, above, that as of June 19, 1989, the renewal fee of $67.00 had not been paid. The same claim is also repeated in paragraph 11 of the Administrative Complaint. The complaint alleges that both Respondents are licensed, and that from January 13, 1989 to March 31, 1989, Respondent Horne was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for the People's Realty, Inc., but that from April 1, 1989 to June 14, 1989, they were operating without valid and current licenses. (Paragraphs #1-4, Administrative Complaint dated June 22, 1989.) It is apparent from the above that it is Petitioner's position that Respondents' licenses expired on March 31, 1989, for nonpayment of a renewal fee, and were reinstated on June 14, 1989, when (according to one version of DPR's account) the renewal fees were properly paid. The retroactive "cancellation" of Jeffrey Horne's license by D. Janet Puckey is either given no effect, or his license was retroactively reinstated when he sent the $525.00. Jeffrey Horne has been licensed as a real estate broker since 1987. Prior to that he was licensed in Florida as a real estate salesman. The incident which led to his discipline in 1988 occurred when he was a salesman and is his only infraction of record. At the time that his checks were dishonored in 1989, he was in financial straits, having incurred legal expenses due to the disciplinary proceedings, and having recently started over with his own business. He does not consider his financial situation a threat to his clients as he refuses to accept or hold funds in escrow. Rather, he has an arrangement with a title company to maintain the escrow account. When the DPR checks were written, he thought that they would be covered by commission checks he had deposited. When he was notified that the checks were bad, he provided restitution as soon as he could. The payment of $132.00 rather than $134.00, to cover the two $57.00 renewal fees and $20.00 in service charges was a mathematical error. Jeffrey Horne concedes that he continued to operate as a broker and to operate the People's Realty, without pause, during the relevant period. He denies that he was given a deadline for payment of his fine, and he was attempting to pay it in installments. Until he was contacted by the investigator, he did not believe that his license had been revoked and would have stopped operating if he had been clearly instructed. He also attempted to pay his renewal fees and, until he was informed otherwise by DPR, he believed the fees were paid. The notice, described in paragraph 7, above, is ambiguous, but appears to provide a 15-day grace period when a check has been dishonored. Horne received the notices on April 28, 1989, but did not send the money order until May 22, 1989. He is guilty, at most, of knowingly practicing with an expired license for nine days (May 13th until May 22nd). At the time of hearing, the entire $1,500.00 administrative fine had been paid, as had the renewal fees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondents violated Section 475.42(1)(a), F.S., reprimanding them, and assessing a fine of $100.00, to be paid in full 30 days from the date of the Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 18th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR-Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Gregory J. Gore, P.A. P.O. Box 780384 Sebastian, FL 32978-0384 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director DPR-Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
Findings Of Fact At times pertinent hereto, Respondents were the holders of Florida real estate licenses. During all times material hereto, Respondent, Robert F. Nagel was licensed and operating as a real estate broker. Additionally, Respondent Nagel was the qualifying broker for Bluff's Realty, Inc. During times material, Respondents had an open listing agreement with Angelo Traina to sell his property at 401 Ocean Bluffs Boulevard, 305, in Jupiter, Florida. On or about December 7, 1986, Respondents prepared a purchase-sales contract signed by Carl and Lila Holback, as purchasers and Angelo Traina, as seller, for the purchase of the above referred property for the price of $98,450.00. The sales contract called for a $1,000.00 deposit to be held in escrow by Respondents. An additional $8,000.00 was to be deposited in escrow with the Respondents upon acceptance by the Seller. The contract signed by the Holbacks and Traina's contained a failure of performance provision. The failure of performance provision was contained in paragraph S of the contract and provided essentially that if the buyer failed to perform as required per the terms of the contract, the deposit could be retained by the seller as liquidated damages, or seller, at seller's option, could proceed at law or in equity to enforce the seller's legal rights under the contract. On the following day, December 8, 1986, the Holbacks informed the Respondents that they were no longer desirous of purchasing the Traina property. The Holbacks requested that the $1,000.00 deposit instead be transferred from the Traina/Holback transaction to a new contract to purchase a different condominium unit. This was done on December 8, 1986, as directed by the Holbacks without the knowledge and consent of Angelo Traina. The Holbacks considered that they had been pressured by Mr. Traina into executing the purchase agreement and that after reflection on the "duress" exerted by Mr. Traina, the Holbacks considered that they had a 72 hour period in which they could withdraw from the transaction. They therefore advised Respondents that they were no longer desirous of purchasing the Traina property. The Holbacks closed on a different property on January 12, 1987. Subsequent to December 8, 1986, but prior to January 13, 1987, Respondents offered to pay Mr. Traina $500.00 in return for a release from any potential liability under the contract. This offer was rejected by Mr. Traina. Thereafter, on or about January 13, 1987, Mr. Traina retained counsel who demanded a payment of $10,000.00 from Respondents for alleged damages for breach of a fiduciary duty. The Respondents refused to pay $10,000.00 to or on behalf of Angelo Traina based on the listing agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondents for Two Thousand Dollars (2,000.00) payable within thirty (30) days of entry of Petitioner's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Bryan, Jr., Esquire Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan & Hyland, P.A. 450 Royal Palm Way Post Office Box 2664 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation- Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Laurence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Should Respondent's license as a real estate broker be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, issued license number 0152815 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Robert L. Purlee and Doris A. Purlee (Purlees) conveyed certain real property located at Unit 1303-A, Jamestown Condominiums, within Pinellas County, Florida, to Ralph F. Marotte and Eve K. Marotte (Marottes), on June 18, 1993, for an agreed upon sum of $15,000, with installments due over a period of 120 months, at the rate of $181,99 per month, beginning July 15, 1993. Since there was no express language in the deed to express a contrary intent, the conveyance to the Marottes created an estate by the entirety which was not available to answer for the individual debts of either of the tenants. The Marottes executed a mortgage and ad promissory note creating a lien against the property in favor of the Purlees, to secure the timely payment of the sum owed by the Marottes. At the time the Marottes purchased the property in question from the Purlees, there were no other liens or encumbrances against the property. At the time the deed was recorded, there was two personal judgments filed of record against Ralph F. Marotte, individually, but no personal judgments filed of record against Ralph F. Marotte and Eve K. Marotte, jointly or as husband and wife, or Eve K. Marotte, individually. Since no copies of these judgments, certified or otherwise, were introduced as evidence, and David Eaton appeared to be confused about these judgments, this finding is based on the testimony of Eve K. Marotte which I find credible. On November 10, 1993, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: We are unable to financially own this unit, therefore, we wish to deed it back to you and your wife, and record it in the courthouse. Rather than go thru foreclosure proceedings and lawyer’s fees etc., thought the simplest best way for both of us is to just return the property back to you both, and have the tenant send her rent payment directly to you. We have prepared the deed - and after it is recorded - have the courthouse send it to you directly. (Emphasis Supplied) * * * On December 8, 1993, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: Attached is a copy of the Quit Claim Deed - which is being recorded and will be mailed to you directly. (Emphasis Supplied) * * * On January 6, 1994, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: We went to the courthouse to record the deed, and realized that we did not take the mortgage off, so we are enclosing a satisfaction of mortgage, so that we can turn the property back to you- and you will then own it free and clear as you did before. As soon as we received this paper from you, will turn over everything, to you, that is, keys, etc. (Inventory remains the same). (Emphasis Supplied) * * * From the notation on the quit claim deed it appears that the Marottes attempted to record the deed at the courthouse but changed their mind as indicated in the letter. The Purlees executed the satisfaction of mortgage and posted it with the United States Postal Service for delivery to the Marottes. Subsequently, the Purlees discussed the matter with their attorney, David A. Eaton, who advised the Purlees to have the satisfaction of mortgage retrieved from the postal service. This was accomplished, and the Marottes did not receive the satisfaction of mortgage. Therefore, the Marottes did not record the quit claim deed transferring title back to the Purlees. Based on the testimony of Eve K. Marotte which I find credible, Eve K. Marotte continued in her effort to deed the property back to the Purlees, and even discussed the possibility of satisfying the personal judgments against Ralph F. Marotte in the process. In fact, Respondent even arranged for the sale of the property but that did not prove fruitful either. At the time the Marottes attempted to deed the property back to the Purlees, the Marottes did not advise the Purlees of the personal judgments against Ralph F. Marotte, individually. Since the conveyance of the property to the Marottes created an estate by the entirety, the property would not have been subject to any judgments against Ralph F. Marotte, individually upon the Marottes deeding the property back to the Purlees. There was no intent on the part of the Respondent to “saddle” the Purlees with Ralph F. Marotte’s personal judgments. Likewise, there was no intent on the part of Respondent to mislead or misrepresent the circumstances surrounding the attempt to “deed back” the property or to induce the Purlees to execute a satisfaction of mortgage so that the Marottes could record such satisfaction or mortgage without recording the quit claim deed and thereby have the property free and clear of the mortgage. Although the Marottes did make some of the mortgage payments, they did not make all of the payments as contemplated by the mortgage and promissory note. Their failure to make mortgage payments was due to their financial condition and not that the Marottes were intentionally attempting to deprive the Purlees of the property without paying for the property. The Marottes collected some rent from the property but apparently did not apply this money toward the mortgage payment. However, there was no evidence, other than the requirement of making the mortgage payments, that the Marottes were required to pay the rent over to the Purlees. On or about November 6. 1995, the Purlees filed a complaint with the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, against the Marottes alleging, inter alia, that Respondent committed fraud and dishonest dealing in a real estate transaction. On a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Purlees, the court entered a Final Judgment Against Licensed Real Estate Broker, Eve K. Marotte, for Monetary Damages Arising Out of Fraudulent Conduct in a Real Estate Brokerage Transaction on March 1, 1996. Additionally, the court entered a Final Judgment Against Eve K. Marotte and Ralph F. Marotte for the total sum of $95, 454.95 which included $22, 284.54 in actual damages, $66,853.62 in trouble damages pursuant to Section 772.11, Florida Statutes, $5,250.00 in attorney’s fees, and $1,066.79 in taxable costs. Because of this judgment and other financial and personal circumstances surrounding the Respondent’s life at that time, the Respondent filed for bankruptcy which eventually “wiped out” this judgment. Subsequently, the Purlees filed a separate proceeding for foreclosure of the mortgage, and obtained title to the property by foreclosure sale on or about August 1997. Between the time of the initiation of the foreclosure proceeding and gaining title to the property, the Purlees had a receiver appointed to receive the rent on the property. Although David Eaton testified that the Marottes failed to turn over rents during this period, there is insufficient evidence to show that the Marottes received any rent during this period or that the property was rented at all times during this period. Clearly, after engaging an attorney and obtaining the large judgment, the Purlees were not interested in taking the property back without the judgment being satisfied. Likewise, it is equally clear that Respondent was not financially able to pay the judgment. Respondent did not intentionally or otherwise misrepresent the facts in order to induce the Purlees to accept the deed back and release her from her obligation, or act in a fraudulent manner in order to convince the Purlees to release Respondent from her obligation, or act dishonestly in her dealings with the Purlees.
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 dismissing both Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Geofrrey T. Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Eve K. Marotte, pro se 2616 46th Terrace North St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent's Florida real estate license should be disciplined upon charges that: (1) Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; and (2) Respondent is guilty of having had a registration suspended, revoked, or otherwise acted against in any jurisdiction in violation of Section 475.225(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Washington Moises Quinones, is and was at all times material to the Administrative Complaint a licensed Florida real estate salesperson, issued license number 0650737 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Washington Moises Quinones, was also a member of the Florida Bar. On or about August 29, 1997, the Florida Bar petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for an emergency suspension of Respondent's bar license. The petition filed with the Florida Supreme Court reflects that Respondent's "trust records reveal losses which approximate $350,000.00." On or about September 11, 1997, the Florida Supreme Court granted the petition for emergency suspension of Respondent's bar license, and suspended Respondent from the practice of law for the reasons set forth in the Petition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violation Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and 475.25(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that Respondent's real estate license be revoked in accordance with Section 475.25(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD A. HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Washington Moises Quinones 5119 Agora Street Sebring, Florida 33872 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for registration as an associated person.
Findings Of Fact On December 6, 1990, Cliff J. Guerrieri submitted a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration (Form U4) to the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) for registration as a securities dealer in Florida. A copy of this form was forwarded to the Department of Banking and Finance by NASD. On this Form U4, Petitioner answered "No" to Question 22A relating to having been convicted of or plead guilty of nolo contendere to: a felony or misdemeanor involving: fraud, false statements, or omissions, wrongful taking of property, or bribery, forgery, counterfeiting or extortion? gambling? any other felony? A check by NASD revealed that Petitioner had pleaded nolo contendere to two charges of petit theft in the County Court, Pinellas County, Criminal Division, on March 10, 1986 (Exhibits 3 and 4); pleaded nolo contendere to exposure of sexual organs in the County Court, Hillsborough County, Criminal Division, on September 7, 1989 (Exhibits 5 and 6). Petitioner's employer was notified of these omissions, and on March 7, 1991, Petitioner submitted an Amended Form U4 on which he again checked "No" to Item 22A, but checked "Yes" to Item 22B, which asks if he had ever been charged with any felony or misdemeanor specified in Questions A(1) or (2). Additionally, Petitioner submitted court records admitted here as Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6. Although Petitioner testified that he sent Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6 with his amended U4, Respondent acknowledged receipt of Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6, but denied receiving a copy of the amended U4 dated March 7, 1991. Petitioner testified that the petit theft charges involved license plates in or on his brother's car, which Petitioner was driving when he was stopped and charged with these violations. No further explanation was provided from which the degree of Petitioner's culpability could be ascertained. With respect to the exposure charge, Petitioner stated that he was changing clothes in an open convertible when he was apprehended. Again, no further explanation was provided from which Petitioner's culpability could be ascertained. With respect to the failure to note his criminal conviction on his initial application, Petitioner testified that his initial reading of Item 22 on the U4 led him to conclude erroneously that all of Items 22A through N involved securities violations and since he had never committed such a violation, his sworn answers to Item 22 was correct. Respondent's sole witness testified that Petitioner's application would have been denied even if he had initially submitted a correct application based solely on his convictions. The convictions plus the failure to disclose constituted the given reason for denial of Petitioner's application.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended that the application of Cliff J. Guerrieri for registration as an associated person be denied. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of November, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Cliff J. Guerrieri 4201 North "A" Street Apartment 14 Tampa, FL 33609 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Ashley Peacock, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On May 10, 1973, petitioner, a Tennessee business trust, loaned Hunt- Florida Enterprises, Inc. the principal sum of $1,300,000.00, receiving in return a mortgage deed and mortgage note on property owned by Hunt-Florida located in Broward County. (Exhibits 1 and 2) On September 30, 1975, petitioner loaned Hunt-Florida an additional sum of $125,000.00, receiving in return a "promissory note and mortgage modification agreement." This agreement reflected Hunt-Florida's entire indebtedness to petitioner for $1,425,000.00 and encumbered the mortgaged property for the full amount. This agreement ratified and confirmed the personal and individual guarantee of Richard E. Hunt and his wife, Joyce B. Hunt, of the mortgage note dated May 10, 1973. (Exhibit 3) No payments were made by Hunt-Florida to petitioner to reduce its indebtedness. On February 13, 1976, Hunt-Florida executed to petitioner a quitclaim deed to the subject property. (Exhibit 4). This quitclaim deed had three covenants. It was agreed that by acceptance of the deed, petitioner would not institute suit for the amount owed it by Hunt-Florida in the amount of $1,300,000.00, plus interest, nor would petitioner sue the individual grantors. It was further agreed that the quitclaim deed was subject to the aforementioned mortgage and promissory note and mortgage modification agreement and it was provided that the same shall not merge so that the right to foreclose was not extinguished by the quitclaim deed. Finally, the quitclaim deed provided that it was subject to a purchase contract executed between Hunt-Florida and SLC Oil and Gas Corporation. Hunt-Florida assigned to petitioner all its rights, title and interest in said purchase contract and the proceeds of the same. This quitclaim deed bore only minimal documentary stamps. The respondent Department of Revenue made a total assessment against petitioner in the amount of $16,086.80. This sum includes taxes and surtaxes on the February 13, 1976, quitclaim deed, taxes on the promissory note and mortgage modification agreement and penalties and interest. (Exhibit 5). Petitioner does not contest the mathematical computation or its liability for the assessment on the modification agreement. It does contest the taxes, surtaxes, penalties and interest as assessed upon the quitclaim deed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the assessment as set forth in the revised notice of proposed assessment of tax and penalty dated December 8, 1976, be upheld. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 David L. Kline, Esquire Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick and Schneider, P.A. Post Office Box 650 Hollywood, Florida 33020 David K. Miller Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents K. D. Trinh Investments, Inc., Strong Financial Services, Inc., and Loren Reynolds sold unregistered securities in Florida, in violation of Sections 517.07 and 517.12, Florida Statutes, and engaged in fraudulent transactions with concealment and falsification of facts, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent K. D. Trinh Investments, Inc. (Trinh) has never been registered with the Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Division) as a dealer or investment advisor and its securities have never been registered with the Division pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Neither Respondent Strong Financial Services, Inc. (Strong) nor Respondent Loren Reynolds (Reynolds) has ever been registered with the Division as a dealer or investment advisor. Respondent Alexander Legault (Legault) was the president and general manager of Trinh at all material times. On March 14, 1986, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana, United States District Court, returned an indictment against Legault for wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. The indictment alleges that Legault attempted to defraud several institutions in connection with a food brokerage scheme. The investments in the present case also involve food brokerage operations, according to the information supplied potential investors. In March 1994, Charles Mortimer of Lake Mary, Florida, attended a seminar in Leesburg, Florida, devoted to three investment opportunities. Mr. Mortimer learned of the seminar through mail flyers or newspaper announcements. Mr. Mortimer expressed interest at the seminar in a cremation society and the Trinh notes. Reynolds appeared at the seminar and presented these investment opportunities. The next month, Mr. Mortimer met Reynolds in Lady Lake, Florida, and Reynolds sold Mr. Mortimer one of the Trinh notes. Mr. Mortimer thereafter purchased through Reynolds several more notes for a total investment of $55,000. At no time prior to making these investments did Reynolds disclose to Mr. Mortimer that Legault was under indictment in New Orleans for criminal fraud and was avoiding prosecution in Canada. Mr. Mortimer would not have invested in the Trinh notes had he known this material fact. However, the record does not indicate whether Reynolds knew that Legault was under indictment or had escaped to Canada. Nor does the record reveal sufficient background information to support the finding that Reynolds reasonably should have known this fact. Mr. Mortimer received a total of $600 on this investment. He has lost the remaining $54,400. Earl Wilson learned of Trinh through Reynolds, who was Mr. Wilson’s tax advisor in 1994 and had been since 1986. Reynolds recommended that Mr. Wilson and his wife should invest a recent inheritance in Trinh notes. Between his initial investment in 1994 and his final investment on April 25, 1995, Mr. Wilson and his wife invested a little over $200,000 in Trinh notes. They lost the entire investment. William Dinges first learned of Trinh at a seminar that he attended in 1993. He purchased a $140,000 note in 1995. He lost his entire investment.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order ordering Respondents K. D. Trinh Investments, Inc. and Loren Reynolds to cease and desist from any further violations of Chapter 517 and dismissing the amended administrative complaint against Respondent Strong Financial Services, Inc. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Steinberg Sandler Assistant General Counsel Office of Comptroller West Central Florida Regional Office 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 K. D. Trinh Investments, Inc. 1194 Hanna Street East Windsor, Ontario Canada N8X2P4 Loren Reynolds Strong Financial Services, Inc. 241 B Ridgewood Avenue Holly Hill, Florida 32117 Harry Hooper General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
