Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the law of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent Gustavo Mejido is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0059653 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued said Respondent as a broker was for the address of the offices of G.M. Realty, Inc. Respondent, G.M. 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 0208962 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 715 S.W. 73rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. Respondent Gustavo Mejido was at all times pertinent hereto the qualifying broker for Respondent G.M. Realty, Inc. On August 30, 1990, Hector Sehwerert, an investigator employed by Petitioner, conducted an office inspection and audit of the office account and of the escrow/trust account maintained by Respondents. The audit reflected that there was a shortage in the escrow/trust account in the amount of $1,006.68. Respondents' sales escrow/trust liability was $88,220.00 while the balance of the escrow/trust account was $87,213.32. Respondents were unable to immediately explain the cause of the shortage, but on the same day the shortage was detected, Respondent Mejido caused the shortage in the escrow/trust account to be corrected. He caused the sum of $1,006.68 to be transferred from Respondent G.M. Realty's operating account to its escrow/trust account. The undisputed testimony at the formal hearing was that the discrepancy was caused by a clerical mistake. Respondents failed to reconcile its escrow/trust account for the month of July 1990, and for subsequent months as required by the rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. While Respondents had utilized its own system of reconciling its books for 14 years without having any other difficulty, this system was defective because the reconciliation did not include a determination of the total amount of escrow liability. Respondents have agreed to use the reconciliation method recommended by the Petitioner in the future. The licenses of Respondents have not been previously disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondents have violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, and which issues a letter of reprimand to said Respondents for such violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Florida Department of Professional Regulation Real Estate - Legal Section Hurston Building - North Tower Suite N-308 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Armando E. Lacasa, Esquire 3191 Coral Way Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0376 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-6a. are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6b. are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the finding that the month audited was July 1990, not August 1990. The remaining proposed findings are rejected as being the recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondents are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.
The Issue The issue to be resolved herein concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this proceeding. Embodied in that general issue are questions concerning whether the Petitioners are the prevailing parties; whether they meet the definition of "small business" parties, including the net worth amounts, enumerated in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as well as whether the disciplinary proceeding against both Petitioners was "substantially justified". See Section 57.111(3)(e) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practices of real estate salesmen and brokers by the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Included within those duties is the duty to investigate conduct by realtors allegedly in violation of Chapter 475 and related rules and to prosecute administrative penal proceedings for which probable cause is found as a result of such investigations. At times pertinent hereto, both Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Cosyns, (then Pauline Sealey) were licensed realtors working as independent contractors for Mariner Properties, Inc. and V.I.P. Realty Inc. The complete file of the underlying proceeding DOAH Case No. 86-0140, was stipulated into evidence. That file included the Administrative Complaint filed against these Respondents and the Recommended and Final Order, which Final Order adopted the Recommended Order. The findings of fact in that Recommended Order are incorporated by reference and adopted herein. During the Petitioner's case, counsel for Petitioner voluntarily reduced the attorney's fees bills for both Petitioners such that Ms. Maxwell's bill is the total amount of $2,695.50 and Ms. Cosyns' bill is $17,200, rather than the original amounts submitted in the affidavit. Respondent acknowledged in its proposed Final Order that the fees and costs submitted by the Respondent were thus reasonable. The testimony the Petitioners presented through depositions, transcripts of which were admitted into evidence into this proceeding, was unrefuted. That testimony demonstrates that both Ms. Cosyns and Ms. Maxwell were prevailing parties in the administrative proceeding referenced herein brought by the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation. They were individually named as Respondents in the Administrative Complaint whereby their professional licenses were subjected to possible suspension or revocation for alleged wrong doing on their part. There is no dispute that they were exonerated in that proceeding and are thus prevailing parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners are also "small business parties". In that connection, they both were independently licensed Real Estate professionals during times pertinent to the underlying proceeding and were acting in the capacity of independent contractors for all the activities with which the administrative complaint was concerned. Each established that her net worth is below the limit provided by Section 57.111 as an element of the definition of "small business party". The reasonableness of the fees having been established in the manner found-above and the Petitioners having established that they meet the definitional requirements of prevailing small business parties, there remains to be determined the issue of whether the proceedings against the two Petitioners were "substantially justified", that is, whether the proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a State agency." See Section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The facts concerning each Petitioner's case regarding the three counts of the Administrative Complaint relating to them are as found in the Recommended Order incorporated by reference herein. Respondent Maxwell was charged in the complaint with having worked in conjunction with an office manager, Mr. Hurbanis of V.I.P. Realty, in conspiring with him to submit a fraudulent real estate sales contract to a lending institution for purposes of financing. This allegedly involved submitting a contract to the lending institution with an inflated purchase price in order to secure one hundred percent financing, the scheme being more particularly described in that portion of the findings of fact in the Recommended Order related to Jean Maxwell. In fact, Ms. Maxwell did not work in the realty office as charged in the Administrative Complaint, but rather was employed by Mariner Properties, which may have been a related company. The contract in question, although alleged to be fraudulent was, in fact, a bona fide contract which was a legitimate part of the Real Estate transaction submitted to the bank for financing purposes, about which the bank was kept fully advised. All details of the transaction were disclosed to the lender. Maxwell was specifically charged with concealing the true contract from the lender in order to enhance the percentage of the purchase price that the bank would finance, done by allegedly inflating the purchase price in a second contract submitted to the bank. It was established in the disciplinary proceeding that no such concealment ever took place. In fact, Ms. Maxwell was purchasing a lot from her own employer, Mariner Properties. Two contracts were indeed prepared for the purchase of Lot 69, a single family lot on Sanibel Island. In fact, however, the difference of $42,875 and $49,500 in the stated purchase price, as depicted on the two contracts, was the result of continuing negotiations between Ms. Maxwell and the seller, who was also her employer. The difference in the two prices depicted on the contracts was the result of, in effect, a set-off to the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, representing certain employee discounts and real estate commission due from the employer and seller to Ms. Maxwell, the purchaser. As Petitioners' composite Exhibit 5 reflects, the lender involved, North First Bank of Ft. Myers, Florida, was fully apprised of all the details concerning this transaction at the time it was entered into and the loan commitment extended and closed. Mr. Allan Barnes, the Assistant Vice President of North First Bank revealed, in the letter contained in this exhibit in evidence, that there was no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts to his institution by Ms. Maxwell. This letter is dated April 18, 1984. The other related letter in that exhibit, of May 2, 1984 from attorney Oertel to attorney Frederick H. Wilson of the Respondent agency, thus constitutes notice to the agency well before the complaint was filed, that no concealment or misrepresentation to the lender involved had occurred and the charges were requested to be dismissed. In spite of the fact that the agency was on notice of this turn of events well before the filing of the Administrative Complaint, it proceeded to file the complaint and to prosecute it all the way up to the date of hearing, requiring Ms. Maxwell's attorney to attend the hearing to defend her interests. At the hearing, counsel for the Department acknowledged that there was no basis for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell and voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to her. The Respondent's witness, Investigator Harris, in his deposition taken September 11, 1984, acknowledged that he did not discuss any details concerning the investigation, with attorney Frederick Wilson, who prepared the complaint, nor did he confer with him by telephone or correspondence before the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was prepared solely on the basis of the investigative report. The investigative report came into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. It reveals that Mr. A. J. Davis the president of Mariner Group and Mariner Properties, who was Jean Maxwell's employer and the owner of the lot in question, signed one contract and his Executive Vice President signed the other. In spite of this, the investigative report does not reveal that the investigator conferred with either Ms. Maxwell, or the sellers concerning this transaction. He conducted a general interview of A.J. Davis concerning the alleged "problem" in his office of "double contracting," but asked him no questions and received no comment about the Jean Maxwell transaction whatever. Nor did the investigator confer with Mr. Allen Barnes or any other representative of North First Bank. If the investigation had been more complete and thorough, he would have learned from Mr. Barnes, if from no one else, that the bank had knowledge of both contracts and all details of the transaction underlying them and there had been no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts regarding the transaction by Ms. Maxwell. This information was learned by attorney Oertel as early as April 18, 1984 by Mr. Barnes' letter, referenced above, and it was communicated to the agency by Mr. Oertel on May 2, 1984. Nevertheless, the complaint was filed and prosecuted through to hearing. Therefore, the prosecution and filing of the Administrative Complaint were clearly not substantially justified. If the Department had properly investigated the matter it would have discovered the true nature of the transaction as being a completely bona fide real estate arrangement. Former Respondent, Pauline Sealy Cosyns was charged with two counts, III and V, in the Administrative Complaint at issue. One count alleged, in essence, that Ms. Sealey had engaged in a similar fraudulent contract situation regarding the sale of her residence to a Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Floyd. The evidence in that proceedings revealed no concealment of any sales contract occurred whatever with regard to the lending institution or anyone else. The facts as revealed at hearing showed Ms. Cosyns and the Floyds, through continuing negotiations after the original sales contract was entered into, amended that contract and executed a second one, in order to allow Ms. Cosyns to take back a second mortgage from the Floyds. This was necessary because Mr. Floyd, an author, was short of the necessary down payment pursuant to the terms of the original contract, because his annual royalty payment from his publishers had not been received as the time approached for closing. The second contract was executed to allow for a second mortgage in favor of the seller, Ms. Cosyns, in order to make up the amount owed by the Floyds on the purchase price agreed upon, above the first mortgage amount. The testimony and evidence in the disciplinary proceeding revealed unequivocally that the lending institution, Amerifirst Mortgage Company, was fully apprised of the situation and of the reason for the two contractual agreements. The $24,000 second mortgage in question is even depicted on the closing statement issued by that bank. There was simply no concealment and no effort to conceal any facts concerning this transaction from the lender or from anyone else. The investigation conducted was deficient because the investigator failed to discuss this transaction with the lender or with the purchasers. He discussed the matter with Ms. Sealy-Cosyns and his own deposition testimony reveals, as does his investigative report, that he did not feel that he got a complete account of the transaction from her. She testified in her deposition, taken prior to the instant proceeding, that she indeed did not disclose all facts of the transaction to him because she was concerned that he was attempting to apprehend her in some "legal impropriety". Therefore, she was reluctant to be entirely candid. The fact remains, however, that had he conducted a complete investigation by conferring with the lender and the purchasers, he would have known immediately, long before the Administrative Complaint was filed and the matter prosecuted, that there was absolutely no basis for any probable cause finding that wrong-doing had occurred in terms of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Thus, the facts concerning the prosecution as to Count III against Pauline Sealy-Cosyns, as more particularly delineated in the findings of fact in the previous Recommended Order, reveal not only that Ms. Cosyns was totally exonerated in the referenced proceeding, but that there was no substantial basis for prosecuting her as to this count at all. Concerning Count V against Ms. Cosyns, it was established through the evidence at the hearing in the disciplinary case that she was merely the listing agent and did not have any part to play in the drafting of the contract nor the presenting of it to the lender. Because there was no evidence adduced to show that she had any complicity or direct involvement in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction involved in Count V of the Administrative Complaint at issue she was exonerated as to that count as well. It is noteworthy here that a statement was made by counsel for the agency, appearing at pages 20 and 21 of the transcript of the proceeding involving the Administrative Complaint, which indicates that the agency, based upon its review of certain documents regarding Counts III and V, before hearing, felt that indeed there might not be a disputed issue of material fact as to Mrs. Cosyns. The agency, although acknowledging that a review of the documents caused it to have reason to believe that it was unnecessary to proceed further against Ms. Cosyns nevertheless did not voluntarily dismiss those counts and proceeded through hearing. Be that as it may, the investigation revealed that Ms. Cosyns acknowledged that she knew that there were two contractual documents involved, but the investigation also revealed that Ms. Cosyns was only the listing agent. The selling agent was Mr. Parks. The investigation revealed through interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Parks and Mr. Hurbanis, the office Manager of V.I.P. Realty, that Ms. Cosyns, as listing agent, was merely present when the offer from the buyers was communicated to the office manager, Mr. Hurbanis, and ultimately to the sellers, the Cottrells. There was no reason for the investigator to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the drafting of the contracts nor with the communication of them to the lending institution involved. That was done by either Mr. Parks or Mr. Hurbanis or by the buyers. The investigation (as revealed in the investigative report) does not show who communicated the contract in question to the lender. The investigation was simply incomplete. If the investigator had conferred with the buyers, the sellers and especially the lender, he could have ascertained-whether the lender was aware of all the facts concerning this transaction and whether there was any reason to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the arrangement and the details of the transaction. It was ultimately established, by unrefuted evidence at hearing, that indeed Ms. Cosyns did not have anything to do with the transaction, nor the manner in which it was disclosed to the lender. The fact that she was aware that two contracts had been prepared did not give a reasonable basis for the investigator to conclude that she had engaged in any wrong-doing. The report of his interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Hurbanis and Mr. Parks, as well as Donna Ross, does not indicate that he had a reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Cosyns had engaged in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction, including the conveyance of a bogus contract to the lending institution involved, nor for that matter, that Mr. Hurbanis or Mr. Parks engaged in such conduct. In order to ascertain a reasonable basis for concluding whether Ms. Cosyns was involved in any wrongful conduct, he would have had to obtain more information than he did from these people or confer with the lender, the buyer or the seller, or all of these approaches, before he could have a reasonable basis to recommend to the prosecuting agency that an Administrative Complaint be filed against her concerning this transaction. In fact, he did not do so, but the Administrative Complaint was filed and prosecuted through hearing anyway, causing her to incur the above-referenced attorney's fees. It thus has not been demonstrated that there was any substantial basis for the filing and prosecution of Count V of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cosyn. Thus she is entitled to the attorneys fees referenced above with regard to the prosecution of the Administrative Complaint in question.
Findings Of Fact Respondent (all references to Respondent are to Respondent Simmonds) is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida holding license numbers 0404486 and 0245930. His most current licenses are as a broker, c/o the corporate Respondent. He has been licensed about six years in Florida. The corporate Respondent (all references to the corporate Respondent are to Respondent L. G. Simmonds Realty, Inc.) is a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida holding license number 0245825. At all material times, Respondent was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer of the corporate Respondent. He is the sole shareholder of the corporate Respondent and the only broker employed by the corporate Respondent. Respondents were brokers in three sales transactions in which they received competing claims for earnest money deposits that they held in trust. The three contracts are the sale from Durant to Durant by contract dated February 13, 1987, and amended December 7, 1987; the sale from Dyer to James by contract dated August 27, 1988; and the sale from Kollar and Nilands Bar & Package, Inc. to Hamilton by contract dated October 11, 1988. Each of the three contracts is on a standard printed form. Each contract requires the corporate Respondent to hold the earnest money deposit in escrow and disburse it at closing, at which time the corporate Respondent earns its commission. Each contract provides that the corporate Respondent may interplead the funds in circuit court in the event of a dispute and further provides that the corporate Respondent shall comply with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Durant contract provides for the corporate Respondent to hold a $1000 earnest money deposit. A dispute between the parties to the Durant contract arose, and Respondent contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission for advice. By letter dated November 22, 1988, Respondent informed the Florida Real Estate Commission of a demand by the seller for the deposit because the buyer had failed to follow through on his mortgage application. The letter states that Respondent is convinced that the seller is entitled to the deposit and that Respondent intends to pursue interpleader. By Notice dated February 2, 1989, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents that it could not issue an Escrow Disbursement Order because of the unenforceability of certain contractual language. Referring to Rule 21V-10.32, the letter advised Respondents that, within 30 days of receipt of the letter, they must pursue arbitration, with the consent of all parties, or a judicial adjudication, such as through interpleader. At some point, Respondents obtained an application for arbitration and sent it to the parties. By letter dated June 12, 1989, Respondents informed the Florida Real Estate Commission that they had sent an arbitration contract on March 21, 1989, to the seller, who had not yet responded to the request to arbitrate. Subsequently, Respondents retained counsel at their expense to discuss interpleading the funds in circuit court. Counsel advised them that the relatively modest sum involved, as a practical matter, precluded the judicial remedy because the attorneys' fees would exceed the amount in dispute. Eventually, the parties to the Durant contract settled their dispute, and Respondents disbursed the funds pursuant to the parties' stipulation. There is no evidence of a complaint about Respondents' handling of the earnest money deposits, nor is there any evidence that Respondent failed to account or deliver the deposit to any person as required by law. The Dyer contract also involved an earnest money deposit of $1000, which was later increased by addendum to a total of $3000. The Dyer contract, which also failed to close, provides for the corporate Respondent to hold the earnest money deposit. By letter dated March 2, 1989, Respondents informed the Florida Real Estate Commission that, as of the same day, they had received conflicting demands for the earnest money deposit. By Notice dated August 28, 1989, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents that it could not issue an Escrow Disbursement Order because of factual disputes that the Commission is not empowered to resolve. The Notice states that Respondents must "immediately" choose one of the remaining alternatives--arbitration or interpleader in circuit court. By letter dated September 8, 1989, Respondents informed the Florida Real Estate Commission that they would seek help through the Arbitration Society of Florida, Inc. It is unclear whether Respondents sent an arbitration application to the parties in the Dyer contract, but no arbitration ensued. The parties to the Dyer contract resolved their dispute in March, 1990, and Respondents disbursed the funds pursuant to the parties' stipulation. There is no evidence of a complaint about Respondents' handling of the earnest money deposits, nor is there any evidence that Respondents failed to account or deliver the deposit to any person as required by law. The Kollar contract resulted in the receipt by the corporate Respondent of an earnest money deposit of $10,000. This contract also failed to close. By letter dated January 19, 1989, Respondents informed the Florida Real Estate Commission of conflicting demands received the same day. The Commission issued an Escrow Disbursement Order on August 16, 1989, with which Respondents promptly complied. There is no evidence of a complaint about Respondents' handling of the earnest money deposit, nor is there any evidence that Respondents failed to account or deliver the deposit to any person as required by law. On January 30, 1990, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondents' office pursuant to a complaint that never provided any basis for disciplinary action. Respondent said that he was ill and asked her to reschedule the visit. They agreed to reset it for February 6, 1990. On February 6, 1990, Petitioner's investigator met Respondent at his office and asked for copies of all pending contracts, bank statements, deposit slips, cancelled checks, and similar materials so that she could reconcile the trust account. Respondent supplied her with all of these materials except for the cancelled checks, which he said were at the accountant's office. Respondent gave the investigator access to his office copier so that she could copy whatever she needed. She apparently copied various documents, but failed to copy the pending contracts. From February, 1988, through February, 1990, Respondents held 6-10 earnest money deposits. On February 6, Respondents had only three pending contracts for which they held deposits. These were the Dyer contract and two unidentified contracts with $3500 and $500 earnest money deposits. Respondents did not handle other trust funds, such as property management funds. Petitioner's investigator determined that the trust account was short $2897.73. She found pending contracts indicating that Respondents should be holding a total of $7000 in earnest money deposits, but she found a bank balance of only $4102.27, which included a deposit of $1392.26 made on February 5. Respondents' trust account has been short previously. For example, in August, 1989, the Dyer, Durant, and Kollar contracts, which were still outstanding, generated a trust account liability of $14,000, but the account balance was as low as $700. Respondent admits that he improperly removed funds from the trust account, without the parties' knowledge, to apply toward personal medical expenses that he had incurred. In the fall of 1989, he deposited into the trust account proceeds from a loan he had recently received. However, he removed additional trust funds when he later incurred more medical expenses. By February 6, Respondent knew that the trust account was short, but evidently did not know precisely by how much. His repeated vagueness concerning the specifics of trust account withdrawals and deposits from August, 1989, through February, 1990, discredits his testimony that he never withdrew more than the amounts of pending commissions, which were unearned in any event when withdrawn by Respondent. On February 7, Respondent deposited $2897.73 into the trust account to eliminate the deficiency found by Petitioner's investigator. During the following week, the investigator returned to Respondents' office. She requested Respondent to produce the same documents that she had examined previously, but Respondent refused on the grounds that he had already produced all the documents once and he was seeking legal counsel. The investigator contacted Respondent a couple more times concerning the requested documents, but Respondent continued to refuse to cooperate. Petitioner next tried to compel the production of the requested documents by service of an administrative subpoena. By subpoena duces tecum issued February 19, 1990, and served February 21, 1990, Petitioner demanded that Respondents produce, on February 26, 1990: All current pending sales contracts, on L. G. Simmonds Realty Escrow Account #144100004792 all bank deposit slips from 2/1/88-2/1/90, the check book for account #14410004792. Upon receipt of the subpoena, Respondent contacted his attorney, who prepared a petition to invalidate subpoena, which was served by mail on February 25, 1990, and received by Petitioner on February 28, 1990. The basic objections are that the subpoena is "unreasonably broad in scope and/or requires the production of irrelevant material" and that Respondents are entitled to know what complaint is being investigated prior to producing the information. Petitioner issued another administrative subpoena on March 12, 1990, which was served upon Respondents on March 26, 1990, and requested, by March 30, 1990: On L. G. Simmonds Realty Escrow Account #14410004792: All sales contracts for which L. G. Simmonds Realty, Inc. is holding escrow deposits, the 1/90 and 2/90 bank statements, cancelled checks, number 177 through 270. On March 29, 1990, Respondents' attorney served the same objections to the petition, and Petitioner received the objections on April 4, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondents; imposing on each Respondent an administrative fine of $3000 (for a total from the two Respondents of $6000); requiring Respondent to complete an approved 60-hour course; suspending the licenses of both Respondents for a period of six months, commencing retroactive to when their licenses were revoked pursuant to the emergency order; placing both licenses on probation for a period of three years commencing the conclusion of the suspension; and requiring, during the period of suspension, that Respondents provide the Florida Real Estate Commission, or its signated representative, with escrow account status reports at such intervals as the Commission shall require. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4438 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-7: adopted. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9-10 (first sentence): adopted. 10 (second and third sentences): rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. In fact, Respondent supplied the investigator with copies of the contracts on February 6, but refused subsequent requests to produce them. He indicated that he wanted to obtain advice of counsel. 11: rejected as subordinate. In addition, the implication that files of the Division of Real Estate were the sole source of information regarding the contracts is rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. The investigator found in the EDO files of the Division of Real Estate a copy of the Dyer contract, which, as noted in the recommended order, was one of the three contracts generating the escrow account liability that the investigator calculated on February 6. Although she saw the other two contracts (in order to generate the liability), she never received copies of them, even through the final hearing. 12-19: adopted or adopted in substance. 20-21 (with respect to each paragraph, first sentence and first clause of second sentence): adopted. 20-21 (with respect to each paragraph, remainder): rejected as irrelevant. 22: adopted. 23: rejected as irrelevant. 24-27 and 30-33: adopted. 28 and 34: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and unnecessary. 29: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondents 1-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13: rejected as subordinate. 14-15: adopted. 16 and 19: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 17: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 18: adopted. 20: rejected as irrelevant. 21: rejected as subordinate. 22: adopted. 23-24 and 26-27: rejected as recitation of testimony. 25: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 28-33 (first clause of second sentence): adopted. 33 (second clause of second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 33 (remainder): adopted. 34-35: except as to the fact of the issuance of the subpoena and petition to invalidate, rejected as unnecessary. 36: rejected as unclear. Respondent gave the investigator a chance to see the three pending contracts generating the February 6 trust account liability, but never gave her copies of any of them when she later discovered that she had failed to copy them. She found a copy of the Dyer contract in the EDO file, but she never received copies of the other two contracts, even at the final hearing. The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The determination in the recommended order on this point was not dependent upon Respondents' handling of the subpoenas, but on their handling of repeated and reasonable requests for relevant information. 37: rejected as irrelevant. 38: adopted. 39: rejected as unnecessary. 40-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted. 45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-49: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Thomas V. Infantino Infantino and Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Attorney James H. Gillis Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 *Previously assigned DOAH Case No. 90-4319 closed as a duplicate.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents committed fraud, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; failed to prepare monthly trust account reconciliations, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code; failed to account for or deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; and failed to preserve books and accounts, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent Maria L. Nuevo (Respondent) was a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 3006548. Respondent was first licensed, as a real estate salesperson, in Florida in 1984 and became a broker in 1986. Respondent is president of, and qualifying broker for, Respondent Realco Realty, Inc. (Realco Realty), which is a corporation registered as a real estate broker, holding license number 1011738. In late August or early September 2000, Respondent prepared a Residential Sales and Purchase Contract (Contract) on behalf of Omar Canizares, as buyer, to purchase a residence at 10620 Southwest 139th Street in Miami (Property). The Contract provided for a purchase price of $260,000 and a deposit of $1000 to be held by Realco Realty. Respondent presented the Contract to Zoila de Castro, a real estate broker who was representing Antonio and Lorraine Lambo, and Mrs. Lambo. The record is poorly developed on these points, but it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Lambo jointly owned the Property and that both of them never signed the Contract. Respondent left the Contract with Mrs. Lambo because Mr. Lambo was out of town. A few days later, Ms. de Castro returned the Contract to Respondent, intending to convey a counteroffer that raised the purchase price to $265,000 and the deposit to $5000--to be paid within three days after the inspection. However, the Contract delivered by Ms. de Castro to Respondent is notable for two omissions--a signature of one of the Lambos and a deadline for Canizares' acceptance of the counteroffer. Ms. de Castro's testimony that she delivered to Respondent the only original contract with signatures of both Lambos is discredited for two reasons. First, Respondent would likely use the better version of the Contract--i.e., the one with both sellers' signatures--when providing a copy to the appraiser. Second, Ms. de Castro appears to have maintained, at best, an imperfect grasp of all that was transpiring in this attempted transaction and may be claiming to have delivered a fully signed contract--though still without a deadline for Mr. Canizares' acceptance--in order to place herself in a better light. At this point in the transaction, the lack of an enforceable agreement between Mr. Canizares and the Lambos should have been obvious to the Lambos' real estate broker, but it was not. The testimony depicts a series of unanswered letters and unsatisfied demands, as the Lambos initially tried to get the deal to close and eventually tried only to get the deposits, which they believed now totalled $5000. In fact, neither Respondent held any deposit. Although relieved from the obligation to collect another $4000 in deposit, due to the failure of the parties to come to an agreement, Respondents had misrepresented to the Lambos and Ms. de Castro that they held the initial $1000 deposit. Although Petitioner has failed to prove other fraudulent acts by either Respondent toward the Lambos or Ms. de Castro, Petitioner has proved another fraudulent act by Respondents in connection with this transaction. Exploiting Ms. de Castro's lack of diligence, Respondents appear to have shopped the Contract. On September 22, 2000, Respondent ordered an appraisal on a form showing the purchase price as $325,880. At the request of the appraiser, Respondent sent to the appraisal a copy of an altered Contract, which provided for a purchase price of $310,100 and reflected total deposits of $5000. The Lambos-Canizares sale never closed, and the Lambos never received any money representing the deposit that they claimed to be owed. Respondents opened an escrow account in September 2000, but had never performed written monthly escrow reconciliation for their trust account through the date of the audit in February 2001. Additionally, at the time of the audit, Respondents were unable to produce any documentation pertaining to their real estate practice. However, Respondents later produced banking records and reconciliations for January and February 2001, which were undoubtedly prepared after the February 2001 audit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking the real estate broker licenses of Maria L. Nuevo and Realco Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 29th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Christopher J. DeCosta Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-809 Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael H. Wolf Michael H. Wolf & Associates, LLC. 3832 North University Drive Sunrise, Florida 33322
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent's licenses as a real estate broker should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations of misconduct in the Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency charged with the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of the real estate profession in this state. The Respondent, Richard L. Bohner, was licensed as a real estate broker in Florida operating, with his wife, Kirsten, Bohner Real Estate, located at 205 E. Osceola Street in Stuart, Florida. On October 1, 1989, Mr. Bohner as owner/lessor, entered into separate rental agreements with Trudy Dohm and Thelma Reynolds, with Bohner Real Estate identified as agent, for the lease for 12 months each of apartments number 105 and 204, respectively, at 1674 S.E. St. Lucie Blvd. in Stuart, Florida, for a monthly rental of $350.00 each. Each lease provided for the placement of a security deposit and last month's rental in advance; those sums, according to the terms of the lease, to be held by the agent, Bohner Real Estate, in a non- interest bearing escrow account at the Florida National Bank in Stuart. In actuality, the sums above-mentioned were, in each case, deposited into an account at the First National Bank and Trust Company in Stuart. This account, number 8000030400, was held in the name of Richard L. Bohner or Kirsten L. Bohner, Trust account. This account was an interest bearing account and, over the time in question, also received several large deposits of funds by or on behalf of the Respondent, Richard L. Bohner which were his personal funds and not funds received as a part of or in conjunction with his activities as a real estate broker or those of Bohner Real Estate. For the most part, the funds placed in that account were Bohner's personal funds and security deposits and last month's rent on apartments in the building owned as a personal investment by Mr. and Mrs. Bohner. On February 20, 1990, Sharon Thayer, an investigator for the Department, in the normal course of business, went to the Respondent's real estate office, unannounced as was her prerogative, and asked to speak with Mr. Bohner. He was not present at the time and she asked Mrs. Bohner, who was present, to produce the Respondent's books for the brokerage's escrow account, which she did. In the course of their conversation, Mrs. Bohner identified herself as being in partnership with the Respondent and admitted to assisting him in the maintenance of the escrow account. When Ms. Thayer asked for the backup documents for the escrow account, these were produced. Ms. Bohner also provided Ms. Thayer with copies of the bank account she maintained. On inquiry, Mrs. Bohner said the deposits thereon were, in the main, representative of rental and security deposits from tenants on leases which Bohner Real Estate managed. Ms. Thayer asked about the large deposits made on May 3, June 7, and July 7, 1989. These were for $104,542.50, $50,000.00, and $4.600.00 respectively. In response, Mrs. Bohner indicated these were personal monies which came from personal sources and funds which had been put in that account because that's where they would get the most interest. They were not escrow funds related to the real estate brokerage. Ms. Thayer made an appointment to return to the brokerage office on February 23, 1990 to speak with Respondent. When she did so, Mr. Bohner accounted for the trust liability of $6,885.00 which existed on that date. This sum was verified with the bank by phone. The trust account had an overage of somewhat more than $881.00 which Respondent explained as accrued interest not removed from the account. Mr. Bohner admitted at hearing that he earned interest on the security and rental deposits he held in that account and used that earned interest to offset the low rentals he charged his tenants. He asserted, and there was no evidence to rebut this assertion, that the only security and rental deposits placed in that account were from tenants in the apartment building he and his wife owned personally. Neither he nor Bohner Real Estate managed or served as rental agent for any rental properties owned by others. It is so found. Ms. Thayer pointed out, and it is accepted as fact, that a broker is required to reconcile his trust account on a monthly basis and file a monthly reconciliation form which accounts for overages and shortages. Respondent admits he had not completed or filed these reconciliations because neither he nor Bohner Real Estate has a trust or escrow account into which client funds are deposited. He manages no property from which rents would be collected other than his own, and when he takes a deposit on a sale or transfer, a separate trust account is opened for that particular transaction with any interest earned going to the buyer. Petitioner showed, through the testimony of Ms. Casale, the bank records custodian, that the largest deposit in issue, that one in excess of $100,000.00, was the result of the maturity of a certificate of deposit that was transferred to the account in question. Respondent did not endorse the check for deposit or sign any deposit document. He submitted a letter from the bank chairman to support his thesis that he was not a party to the transfer, but the letter, admitted over objection by counsel for Petitioner, indicates the deposit was made by the bank's investment counselor who handled the transaction consistent with telephone instructions given her by the Respondent. This is a collateral matter, however. When Ms. Thayer completed her audit, she prepared and filed a report on which she indicated, inter alia, that the office met inspection standards and that the property management escrow/trust account was satisfactory. She noted an overage of $889.31 in the account and that it was an interest bearing account although the leases state it would be non-interest bearing. No deadline was given for the correction of this item. Mrs. Bohner admits that when she gave the apartment security escrow account to Ms. Thayer at her request and described it as a trust account, she was not thinking. In fact, and it is so found, neither Respondent nor Bohner Real Estate have a trust account for the business and have not had one for several years. She reiterates Mr. Bohner's assertion that the only money usually kept in the account referenced by Ms. Casale and referred to by Ms. Thayer, is money received as security deposits and last month's rental from tenants in their own building. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing all allegations of misconduct by Respondents as outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 1st day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 1st day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein,. Balance is not Finding of Fact but lore legal conclusion. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 401 NW Second Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard L. Bohner Bohner Teal Estate 205 East Osceola Street Stuart, Florida 34994 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 - 1900
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined for fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in any business transaction, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes(1983).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent Thomas F. Steffan Jr. was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0402257. Respondent has since been issued a license as a real estate broker, same license number. Mr. and Mrs. Walther Ellis were the owners of certain property located on Windsor Road, Bonita Springs, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Ellis listed their property for sale with Wesley Brodersen of Gulder Real Estate, Inc. in Bonita Springs, Florida. The Respondent was employed at Gulder Real Estate, Inc. during the time that the Ellises listed said property with Gulder Real Estate, Inc. On or about May 23, 1984, the Respondent solicited and obtained a Catherine A. Griffin as a prospective purchaser of the Ellis' property. Mrs. Griffin submitted a contract for sale and purchase, witnessed by Respondent, which contract for sale and purchase the Respondent in turn submitted to the Ellises. Pursuant to the terms of the May 23, 1984 contract for sale and purchase, Mrs. Griffin had placed down a total deposit of $5,000.00. The Ellises rejected the terms of sale (offer) as expressed in the May 23, 1984 contract for sale and purchase. Thereafter, Mrs. Griffin, as buyer, along with her husband, Donald Griffin, who is not a buyer in the transaction but was intimately involved in the negotiations, continued to express an interest in the property and the Ellises continued to express an interest to sell the property. In July, 1984, contract negotiations were once again begun and Mr. Griffin informed the Respondent what terms would be acceptable to his wife, Catherine A. Griffin. Mr. Griffin further requested that the signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Ellis be obtained first on a new contract for sale and purchase setting out the terms he had dictated to Respondent. Somewhere during this time period, Mr. Griffin directed Respondent to have completed a survey of the property at the Griffins'expense. Respondent next communicated with Mr. Ellis and a new contract for sale and purchase was prepared by the Respondent and signed by Mr. Ellis personally and signed by Mr. Ellis for Mrs. Ellis with Mrs. Ellis' express consent and permission. Subsequent thereto, the Respondent brought the new contract for sale and purchase to the Griffins. In the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Griffin the Respondent presented the offer. Mr. Griffin immediately signed the new contract for sale and purchase in the presence of both Respondent and Mrs. Griffin on the line indicating he was signing as a witness to the buyer's signature/execution. However, as this contract (offer) was physically handed by Mr. Griffin to his wife for formal execution, it was further reviewed by Mr. Griffin, who became aware that the terms of purchase contained in the new contract for sale and purchase were not as he had dictated them to the Respondent. Mr. Griffin advised his wife not to accept the offer, instructed her not to sign, and, in fact, the new contract for sale and purchase was not signed or accepted by Mrs. Griffin. Respondent requested that the Griffins think about the offer for a while longer and they agreed to do so over an extended vacation. While the Griffins were on vacation, the Respondent, apparently believing the offer contained in the second contract for sale and purchase would eventually be accepted, notified Mr. Ellis that the offer had already been accepted. Believing that the offer had been accepted by a bona fide purchaser, Mr. Ellis requested a copy of the signed contract. Due to the fact that the Respondent did not have a contract signed by a bona fide buyer (Catherine A. Griffin) but believing that one would be obtained in the very near future because Donald Griffin had signed the second contract and because Donald Griffin had indicated that he could finance the entire operation by himself, the Respondent caused a photo copy of the signature of Catherine A. Griffin to be placed onto the second contract without the permission , consent, or knowledge of either Donald Griffin or Catherine Griffin. The altered copy of the second contract is apparently no longer in existence and did not come into evidence. The only real point of contention in the parties' respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is concerning what representation was made by Respondent to Mr. Walther Ellis concerning who had accepted the second contract. Respondent admits he represented to Mr. Ellis that Mr. Griffin, controlling the transaction for buyers, had accepted the second contract. Mr. Ellis maintained that Respondent represented to him that the second contract had been accepted on his terms but he is not clear·whether Respondent told him Mrs. Griffin accepted it or who accepted it. (Walther Ellis Deposition Page 22). Mrs. Ellis's testimony presents no independent confirmation of any of this as her information in all respects is second-hand. Mr. Brodersen's testimony is that the Respondent's representation to him was that "the Griffins" had accepted the second contract for purchase and sale and that Respondent told Mr. Ellis the same thing in Brodersen's presence and also told Brodersen that the last copy of the signed contract had been mailed to Mr. Ellis by Respondent the day previous to this three-way conversation. Mr. Brodersen thought Mr. Ellis never got the fraudulent contract but testified further that Respondent later admitted to Brodersen that he had altered this copy of the second contract so as to fraudulently reflect Mrs. Griffin's signature and further admitted to Brodersen that he, Respondent, had mailed that fraudulent copy to Mr. Ellis. Mr. Brodersen never saw the fraudulent contract. Mr. Ellis testified to receiving in the mail a copy of the second contract with a suspicious-looking set of signatures which he turned over to his attorney. The parties stipulated the attorney does not now have the contract copy. By itself, the testimony of Investigator Jacobs that Respondent by telephone admitted falsifying Mrs. Griffin's signature onto a copy of the second contract for purchase and sale and further admitted destroying one copy of the fraudulent contract would fail as not having the proper predicate for voice identification. However, in light of Mr. Ellis's and Mr. Brodersen's testimony, Mr. Jacobs' testimony on Respondent's creation of the fraudulent document is accepted as corroborative pursuant to Section 120.58 Florida Statutes. The remainder of his testimony is rejected. At no time did Catherine A. Griffin and/or Donald Griffin as her agent or on his own behalf accept the Ellis' offer contained in the second contract for sale and purchase nor did Catherine A. Griffin nor Donald Griffin ever execute the second contract as a buyer. The transaction was never closed and Mrs. Griffin was returned her deposit money when she requested it in September 1984. Mr. Ellis admits having told Respondent he was not anxious for the deal to close and did not care if the deal failed to go through. Mr. Griffin spoke at length and with considerable feeling at the hearing of his desire that Respondent not receive a permanent record as a result of a single mistake committed while under stress from Respondent's father's medical condition. That Respondent was under such stress when all this occurred was confirmed by Mr. Brodersen.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered whereby Respondent Thomas F. Steffan Jr.'s licenses as a real estate salesman and broker be suspended for a period of one year and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 8th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Mitchell, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation-Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas F. Steffan Jr., Pro Se 18645 Sandpiper Road Ft. Myers, Florida Harold R. Huff, Director Department of Professional Regulation-Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined on the ground that Respondents allegedly violated a rule and various provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondents, Edward D. Armbruster and Colleen Michele Armbruster, were licensed real estate brokers having been issued license numbers 0002159 and 0362890, respectively, by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondents served as qualifying brokers and officers of Respondent, Armbruster Realty, Inc., a corporation registered as a real estate broker and located at 1031 West Nelson Avenue, DeFuniak Springs, Florida. The corporation holds license number 0211855, also issued by the Division. On July 10, 1996, Gerald and Joyce Singleton, who had just relocated to California, entered into a contract with James B. and Joyce Patten to sell their single-family residence located on Madison Street in the City of Freeport, Florida, for a price of $78,000.00. The contract called for the Pattens to pay $1,000.00 as an earnest money deposit, to be held in escrow by Respondents. The contract further provided that "[c]losing shall be within 30 days (more or less) after acceptance of this contract," and that "[i]n the event that buyer defaults and deposit is forfeited, it is agreed said deposit shall be divided equally between seller and broker." The transaction was handled by Geraldine Dillon (Dillon), a salesperson in Respondents' office, who is now retired. Because the Pattens had recently moved to Walton County from Washington State, and they were temporarily living with a relative in a mobile home, the time for closing was of the essence. Accordingly, the Pattens inserted into the contract a provision requiring that a closing be held within "30 days (more or less)." This meant that a closing should be held on or about August 10, 1996, give or take a few days. The parties acknowledge that property boundary problems were somewhat common in certain areas of Freeport, including the area where the subject property was located. To satisfy the bank and title company, a surveyor was engaged to prepare a survey of the property. However, the parties agree that the surveyor noted problems with the boundaries of the lot. When a second surveyor would not undertake the survey because of similar boundary problems, Joyce Patten, who was the principal negotiator for the couple, notified Dillon that they did not wish to close because of potential title problems and wanted a refund of their deposit. Notwithstanding this concern, Dillon advised Joyce Patten that a third surveyor would be hired, at the seller's expense, and he could "certify" the property. Although Joyce Patten expressed concern that the bank might not accept a third survey after two earlier ones had failed, and she did not want to pay for another survey, she did not instruct Dillon to stop the process. Accordingly, Dillon engaged the services of Tommy Jenkins, a local surveyor, to perform another survey. After a certified survey was obtained by Jenkins on August 12, 1996, which Respondents represent without contradiction satisfied the lender and title company, a closing was scheduled within the next few days. This closing date generally conformed to the requirement that a closing be held by August 10, 1996, "more or less." The seller, who by now had relocated to California, flew to Florida for the closing, and the title company prepared a closing statement and package. Just before the closing, however, Respondents learned through a representative of the title company that the Pattens were "cancelling the closing," apparently in violation of the contract. Shortly after the aborted closing, Joyce Patten requested that Dillon return their deposit. By this time, the Pattens had already entered into a second contract to buy another home in the same area and closed on that property before the end of August. Respondents were never informed of this fact by the Pattens. On August 21, 1996, Colleen Armbruster prepared a rather lengthy letter to the Pattens (with a copy to the sellers) in which she acknowledged that they had orally requested from Dillon that their escrow deposit be returned. The letter has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Armbruster stated that she was "perplexed" that they were demanding a refund of their earnest money deposit, given the fact that the seller had "met the terms and conditions of the sale." Armbruster outlined the three reasons in the contract which would allow the Pattens to withdraw without forfeiting their deposit, but noted that none were applicable here. Accordingly, she advised them that the seller would be consulted as to his wishes regarding the deposit, and that the Pattens should contact her if they had any questions. Through oversight, however, she did not include a notice to the Pattens that they must respond to her letter within a stated period of time reaffirming their demand for the trust funds, or the deposit thereafter would be disbursed pursuant to the contract. By failing to include this specific language, and sending the letter by regular rather than certified mail, return receipt requested, Respondents committed a technical, albeit minor, violation of an agency rule. Even so, the Pattens acknowledged receiving the letter, and there is no reason to believe that they did not understand its import, especially the requirement that they contact the broker if they disagreed with the proposed disbursement of the money. It can be reasonably inferred that the Pattens did not respond because they "figured [they weren't] going to be able to get [their] money back" due to their failure to perform. On September 13, 1996, the seller's attorney advised the Pattens by letter that the seller considered the deposit forfeited pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the contract, which pertains to the "Default" provisions. The Pattens never responded to either letter, and they also failed to respond to telephone calls made by Respondents or their agents regarding this matter. In view of the Pattens' lack of response or reaffirmance of their demand, and the fact that they had already closed on another property, Respondents logically and fairly assumed that the Pattens were in agreement with the disbursement procedures outlined in Coleen Armbruster's letter of August 21. Accordingly, on September 17, 1996, Edward Armbruster, who had not been involved in this transaction to date, in good faith signed two disbursement checks giving $697.50 to the seller and retaining the balance for his firm. This division was consistent with the terms of the contract. In making this disbursement, there was no intent on the part of Respondents to trick, deceive, breach their trust, or in any way unlawfully deprive the Pattens of their deposit. Respondents did not notify the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) that they had received conflicting demands for a deposit, nor institute any other procedures regarding the deposit, since they no longer had any good faith doubt as to whom was entitled to their trust funds. This was because the Pattens had failed to respond to letters and telephone calls regarding the sellers' claim to the deposit. There is no evidence that Respondents have ever been the subject of prior disciplinary action during their lengthy tenure as licensees. At the same time, it is noted that Respondents acted in good faith throughout the process and genuinely believed that there was no dispute. It should also be recognized that, for at least part of the time, the Pattens were working two contracts simultaneously without advising the realtors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of a technical violation of Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that they be given a reprimand. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Edward D. Armbruster Colleen M. Armbruster Post Office Box 635 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent Santaniello holds real estate broker license number 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Santaniello is the active broker for Respondent, Sunair Realty Corporation, which holds license number 0213030. Mr. Don M. and Mrs. Agnes C. Long own two lots in Port Charlotte which they purchased as investments. By letter dated June 8, 1981, Respondents forwarded a "Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase" on each of these lots to the Longs. The documents established that Anni Czapliski was the buyer at a purchase price of $1200 per lot. Respondent Sunair Realty Corporation was to receive the greater of $120 or ten percent of the felling price for "professional services." The letter and documents were signed by Respondent Santaniello. Anni Czapliski was Bernard Santaniello's mother-in-law at the time of the proposed sale. This relationship was not disclosed by Respondents and was not known to the Longs at the time they were invited to contract with Respondents for sale of the lots. The Longs rejected the proposed arrangement for reasons not-relevant here.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining each $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert J. Norton, Esquire Suite 408 First National Bank Building Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Mr. C.B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 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 16th day of April.
The Issue The issue is whether 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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was first licensed as a real estate salesperson in Florida in 1997. She has been licensed continuously since that time, although she did not reside or work in Florida for one year in 1998 and 1999. Her license has never been disciplined. Having entered into a contract to purchase, as her personal residence, a townhouse in Palm Beach Gardens for $85,000, Respondent contacted a licensed mortgage broker, Gary Carlson. Respondent and Mr. Carlson had previously worked together, in their respective professions, while employed by a large residential real estate business. Respondent asked Mr. Carlson to find her a mortgage lender, and Mr. Carlson agreed to do so. Mr. Carlson obtained a mortgage loan application from Respondent and submitted it to an institutional mortgage lender that Mr. Carlson represented. At all times in this transaction, Mr. Carlson served as the agent of the mortgage lender, not Respondent. After examining the application and related information on the proposed mortgage loan, the lender directed Mr. Carlson to obtain additional information, including an affidavit to the effect that Respondent had never been known as Lea Taylor Nola and that she had never been married. Respondent disclosed to Mr. Carlson that she had been known as Lea Taylor Nola and she had been married, although she was now divorced. Mr. Carlson assured her that the requirements were unimportant and advised her to sign statements that she did not know Lea Taylor Nola and that she had never been married. Respondent did so. Upon examination of the closing documents, including the unattested statements described in this paragraph, the lender funded the mortgage loan, and Respondent purchased the townhouse. The mortgage loan remains in good standing two years later.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 30th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jauna Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 James P. Harwood Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Richard L. Robbins Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP 999 Peachtree Street, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3996
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Powell should be disciplined for irregularities in the handling of an escrow deposit by a real estate firm for which he was the qualifying broker.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie Powell, was at all relevant times a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0070494. Mr. Powell was the sole qualifying broker of Future Investments & Development II Co., Inc., trading as ERA Thompkins and Saunders Realty Company (hereafter, T & S), 2734 N.W. 183rd Street, Suite 206, Miami, Florida 33056. On or about November 12, 1990, Guillermo Castillo, a licensed real estate broker for Emerald Enterprises, Inc., received a listing agreement from Horace B. Miller to sell residential property (a duplex) owned by Miller located at 2331 N.W. 103rd Street, Miami, Florida. The property was listed with the Multiple Listing Service. On or about February 27 or 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received a telephone call from Willie J. Thompkins of T & S saying he wanted to show the Miller property to a prospective buyer. On or about February 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received through the mail slot at his office a written offer from George R. Howell of Dorchester, Massachusetts, to buy the Miller property, with a business card of Jerry Saunders of T & S. On or about March 6, 1991, Guillermo Castillo met with Horace Miller to review the Howell offer. At Miller's request, Castillo made some changes to the contract to reflect that Miller was selling the duplex in "as is" condition. Miller signed the contract and initialed the changes, and Mr. Castillo signed the contract on behalf of Emerald Enterprises, and called Willie J. Thompkins to tell him the contract had been signed. The next day, Mr. Castillo went to the office of T & S and dropped off the contract for the buyer to consider the seller's changes. A day or two later, a representative of T & S telephoned Guillermo Castillo and told Mr. Castillo that the buyer had accepted the seller's changes to the contract; Mr. Castillo then notified Miller. Mr. Castillo later received from T & S the signed contract with Mr. Miller's changes initialed by Mr. Howell. The contract was also signed by Mr. Thompkins of T & S. The contract called for a $1,000 deposit to be held in escrow by T & S (Exhibit 5, Paragraph IIa). Guillermo Castillo contacted T & S to check on the progress of the sale. He learned that J.P. Mortgage was handling the buyer's mortgage loan application. Castillo contacted J.P. Mortgage and was told that the loan was proceeding normally. After the contractual closing date of April 29, 1991, had passed without the closing taking place, Castillo contracted J.P. Mortgage again, but was told that they were no longer processing the loan. Castillo requested that J.P. Mortgage send him a letter to that effect, and he received a letter dated May 2, 1991, stating that J.P. Mortgage was withdrawing as the lender because the buyer failed to return the mortgage loan application. Castillo informed Horace Miller of the situation and Miller instructed Castillo to write to T & S making a claim to the buyer's deposit under the contract of sale. On May 4, 1991, Castillo sent a letter to T & S claiming the deposit for the seller. Paragraph Q of the contract provided for the seller to retain the buyer's deposit as liquidated damages if the buyer failed to perform the contract. On or about May 9, 1991, Guillermo Castillo received from Mr. Thompkins, the manger of T & S, a letter dated May 1, 1991, but postmarked May 6, 1991, ". . . requesting that the . . . file be cancelled" due to ". . . communication problems with . . . Mr. Howell," and citing unsuccessful attempts to contact Howell by telephone and by mail. When Castillo received that letter he contacted T & S to point out the seriousness of the matter and to press for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit. On May 9, 1991, Castillo received a telefax from Mr. Thompkins of T & S stating that the Howell deposit check had been returned for insufficient funds and attaching a copy of the returned check. Prior to his receipt of this telefax, Castillo had not taken any independent steps to verify whether T & S had actually received the Howell deposit. He had relied on the contract, which had been executed by a licensed salesman and believed he did not require further verification that the escrow deposit had been made. Neither Mr. Castillo nor Mr. Miller dealt with the Respondent, Mr. Powell, at any time concerning the sale of the Miller property. T & S received George Howell's $1,000 deposit in the form of a check on March 4, 1991, drawn on a Massachusetts bank and deposited it in its account with First Union National Bank which was used as the escrow account, account number 15462242336, on March 5, 1991. The check was charged back to the account twice, on March 11, 1991, and on March 26, 1991. Mr. Powell was a signatory on that escrow account. After Guillermo Castillo received the May 9, 1991, telefax, he notified Horace Miller. Mr. Miller had not taken any steps on his own to verify whether T & S had received the deposit because he had confidence in his broker to let him know right away if there were any problems with the sale. By May 9, 1991, Horace Miller had already incurred expenses preparing the property for closing, and had lost rent by terminating a tenancy in the property. Because the transaction never closed, Mr. Miller sustained financial damage, some of which he might have avoided if he had been notified earlier of the buyer's dishonored escrow deposit check. On or about May 28, 1991, Miller filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, which Sidney Miller investigated. He found that the person introduced to him during his investigation at T & S as Willie Powell was not actually the Respondent. In March 1991, Mr. Powell had not seen the bank statements for the T & S escrow account for several months, and had not signed the written monthly escrow account reconciliation statement for the month of October 1990 or for any subsequent month. Mr. Powell was serving as the qualifying broker of T & S for a salary of $75 per month and no commissions. He was not active in the management of the firm. He would come to the office of T & S approximately three days per week to check files and sign listing agreements, and he would call in to see if there were any problems, messages or documents to sign. He essentially loaned his brokers' license to those who operated T & S as an accommodation because he had known the Thompkins family for 25 years. Mr. Powell argues in his proposed order that "the adequacy of [Mr. Powell's] monthly reconciliations were impeded by frauds perpetrated upon him by persons at [T & S]" (PRO at page 9, paragraph 5). It is obvious that there were problems at T & S, since a person there misrepresented himself to the Department's investigator as Mr. Powell. The full extent of the misconduct there is unclear. There is no proof in this record that salespersons at T & S had fabricated escrow account statements for Mr. Powell. Had Mr. Powell proven that he performed monthly reconciliations with what turned out to be falsified records of T & S, his argument might be well taken. The record, unfortunately, shows that no reconciliations were done. Had Mr. Powell done them, the problem here should have been uncovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Willie Powell guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, finding him not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and taking the following disciplinary action against him: Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 to be paid within 30 days of the date of the final order adopting the recommended order. Placement of the license of Mr. Powell on probation for a period of one year beginning on the date of the final order and providing that during that period he shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Legal Section, Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N-308, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801-1772, of having completion a 30-hour postlicensure education course in real estate brokerage management, in addition to any other education required of him to remain current and active as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, and that he be required to submit to the Commission during that year his monthly trust account reconciliations. Cf. Rule 21V-24.002(3)(i), Florida Administrative Code, on penalties for violation of Rule 21V-14.012(2), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of July 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 day of July 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-0192 Rulings on Findings proposed by the Commission: Adopted in Findings 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 15. Rulings on Findings proposed by Mr. Powell: Adopted in Finding 1 with the exception of the license number. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Generally adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as subordinate to Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary, the reconciliation was not one done shortly following the month of March reconciling the account for March 1991. It was done during the investigation conducted by Mr. Miller and took place between approximately June 20 and July 10, 1991. Adopted in Finding 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as unnecessary, or subordinate to Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite N-607 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
