The Issue Whether or not Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined, because, as alleged, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises and pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction; failed to place a trust deposit with her employing broker and operated as a broker while licensed as a salesman in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), and (k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Barbara B. Wise, was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0484022. The last license issued Respondent was as a salesman, c/o Grover Goheen Realty, Inc., at 414 Twelfth Avenue, North, St. Petersburg, Florida. During October 1988, Respondent, while licensed and operating as a salesman in the employ of her broker, Goheen Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a lease listing agreement from Michael Riggins. As a result of that listing, Marsha Tenny contacted Respondent and requested assistance in obtaining a seasonal lease for the period January 1989 through April 30, 1989. Ms. Tenny made Respondent aware of her needs respecting a lease property to include wheelchair access as her husband was wheelchair bound. As a result of visiting approximately three available units, Respondent secured a seasonal lease from Michael Riggins for Marsha Tenny. The lease agreement for the Tenny's was the first rental listing that Respondent had obtained and it suffices to say that she was a novice in the area of securing lease agreements. Likewise, her employing broker did very little volume in rentals as her broker was of the opinion that the net commissions were not sufficient to defray the time and effort involved for several reasons including the limited availability of rental properties. As a result, her broker was unable to provide guidance. Pursuant to the aforementioned lease agreement, Respondent named several options by which Marsha Tenny could secure the apartment to include sending a personal check to her and after negotiating it she would in turn pay the rental fees directly to the landlord. Other options included Ms. Tenny sending separate checks to the landlord for the apartment and a check for the commission fees to her employing broker or she could deal directly with the landlord and remit a separate check to her employing broker for fees. Ms. Tenny elected to send a money order in the amount of $1,500.00 to Respondent. After she negotiated the check she received from Marsha Tenny, Respondent retained her commissions and did not pay her broker the pro-rata share that the broker was entitled to. Respondent did not inform her broker of the Riggins/Tenny lease agreement when she received the deposit from the Tennys on or about October 23, 1988. Respondent negotiated the Tenny's deposit check by depositing same into her personal account and drew a check in the amount of $1,100.00 as the rental deposit and remitted it to Mr. Riggins on October 2.1, 1988. Respondent retained the $400.00 balance as her fee. Respondent tendered her employing broker its portion of the commission fees ($174.00) on February 24, 1989. During early February 1989, the Tennys expressed dissatisfaction with the apartment and demanded a refund from Respondent. Respondent wrote the Tennys a letter of apology and submitted a money order to Marsha Tenny in the amount of $50.00 on February 3, 1989. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) As stated, Respondent was inexperienced with the rental business in Pinellas County. She was at the time undergoing other family problems, including tending to a sister in Orange County, Florida, who was very ill. At the time, Respondent commuted from Pinellas County to Orange County several times per week to visit with and assist her sister. Additionally, Respondent's office was being relocated and the staff was having to relay messages to her through her husband and other salesman employed with her broker. In addition to sending the Tennys a money order in the amount of $50.00, Respondent agreed to repay the Tennys the entire remaining balance of the finders fee that she received from the Riggins/Tenny leasing agreement as soon as she was financially able to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be issued a written reprimand and placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. During the probationary period, Respondent shall enroll in an approved post-licensure course and shall satisfactorily complete the same prior to termination of probation. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1990. Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Barbara B. Wise 1059 42nd Avenue, N.E. St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Kenneth E. Easley, Esq. Division of Real Estate Department of Prof. Reg. 400 West Robinson Street 1940 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 1900 Suite 60 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tallahassee, FL 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for nonconforming status on his property at 1607 and 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road, Gainesville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of facts filed by the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: Mr. Mayhew resides in Hawthorne, which is located in the southeastern portion of Alachua County (County). (Some papers filed in this case identify his residence as being in Cross Creek, rather than Hawthorne, but with the same street address.) Since November 1998, he has owned property at 1607 and 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road, Gainesville, Florida. More specifically, the property is in an older, single-family residential neighborhood known as Florida Park which is located several blocks west of U.S. Highway 441, which runs in a north-south direction through the City, and approximately one-quarter mile north of Northwest 8th Avenue. In broader geographical terms, the property is located around one mile north of the University of Florida campus. There are two structures (or units) on Petitioner's property. One is a three-bedroom, two-bath dwelling constructed by the original owner (Mr. Gainous) in 1949, who occupied that dwelling with his wife. That unit's address is listed on the County Property Appraiser's records as 1607 Northwest 12th Road. The second structure, a two-bedroom, one-bath dwelling (also referred to as a "cottage"), was built by Mr. Gainous in 1957, and was apparently used primarily as rental property by the owner. The address of the second unit on the Property Appraiser's records is 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road. Separate gas meters and a single water line and electric meter serve the two units. (Although the two units are given separate street addresses by the Property Appraiser, only one tax bill is issued by the County Tax Collector.) When these structures were built, the County did not issue building permits. The property was in the unincorporated area of the County until 1961, when the City annexed the property. In 1964, the City adopted its first zoning plan and placed the property in what was then known as the Single-Family Residential (R-1a) zoning district. This category was used since the property was "closely consistent" with that zoning classification. A few years later, the property was rezoned to the Residential Single-Family zoning district (RSF-1), which apparently replaced the R-1a zoning district, and it still remains in that zoning classification. Under current zoning regulations, unless a property has "legal" nonconforming status, two family dwellings are not permitted in the RSF-1 zoning district. However, if a structure and use of land was in existence before the City annexed the property and adopted its zoning code, and was not otherwise shown to have lost that status, the nonconforming use is grandfathered and allowed "to continue until [it is] removed" or otherwise conflicts with conditions pertaining to nonconforming lots, uses, or structures. See § 30-346, Code of Ordinances. (Nonconforming status allows the owner to rent each unit on the parcel to no more than three unrelated persons. Thus, six unrelated persons could legally occupy Mr. Mayhew's two units. However, Mr. Mayhew has always rented to smaller numbers of tenants, and then only to graduate students or "professionals.") One way a property can lose its status is for the owner to not use the property in a nonconforming status for nine consecutive months. In the case of a rental property, this means that the owner has not rented the property for at least nine consecutive months. If this occurs, the owner is presumed to have abandoned the nonconforming status. See § 30-346(5)(d), Code of Ordinances. The precise date on which the City began using the nine-month time period is unknown. According to Mr. Calderon, this time period has been in the Code of Ordinances for "awhile," it was in the Code of Ordinances when "Citywide zoning" was first used in 1982, and he implied that it was in the first zoning code adopted in the 1960s. The City has no formal process by which it monitors properties to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements for legal nonconforming status. Generally, the issue arises after a complaint is filed by a third party or an inspection is made by City officials, who then require that the owner confirm (or prove) that the property still qualifies for that status. In this case, in October 2006, the tenant who occupied the cottage filed a complaint with the City concerning the installation of a new gas stove and other possible code violations. Prior to that time, no other complaints had been lodged against Mr. Mayhew's property. In response to that complaint, a code enforcement officer, Michael Wohl, inspected the property. During the course of that inspection, Mr. Wohl noticed that there were two rental units on one parcel of land. As a routine part of the inspection process, Mr. Wohl made an inquiry to determine if Mr. Mayhew had a landlord permit for each unit. Under the Code of Ordinances, a landlord permit is required for each rental unit. (The specific provision in the Code of Ordinances which imposes this requirement was not given.) According to Mr. Calderon, this requirement has been in the Code of Ordinances since 1989. Mr. Wohl learned that Mr. Mayhew had purchased one landlord permit for the parcel in the year 2000 (and had renewed that permit each year) but did not have a second permit. (When he purchased the property in late 1998, Mr. Mayhew did not know that such permits were even required. He obtained one as soon as this was brought to his attention.) After Mr. Mayhew advised Mr. Wohl that he was unaware that a permit was needed for each unit on his property, Mr. Wohl spoke with Mr. Calderon, who instructed Mr. Wohl to verify if the property was a legal nonconforming use (and therefore could qualify for two landlord permits) since it was located in a single-family zoning classification. Shortly thereafter, a citation was issued to Petitioner. The specific nature of the citation was not disclosed. In any event, by letter dated September 25, 2006, Mr. Calderon requested that Mr. Mayhew provide documentation to support the nonconforming use of the cottage at 1607 1/2 NW 12th Road as an accessory dwelling unit. In response to Mr. Calderon's request, on October 2, 2006, Mr. Mayhew submitted a lengthy letter with supporting documentation, including photographs of the units; copies of rental agreements of tenants who had rented the cottage since he had purchased the property in November 1998; information regarding the date of construction of the two units; and Property Appraiser records showing two units on the parcel. On December 7, 2006, the Department advised Mr. Mayhew by letter that "[b]ased on the physical evidence, property appraiser records and documents provided by you, the property is therefore classified as an existing non-conforming two-family development and is subject to regulations governing non-conforming uses." However, because the City apparently has a policy of notifying residents who live within 300 feet of the subject property of this type of decision, the City also issued on the same date a Notice of Decision to Issue Non-Conforming Status to Petitioner's Property (Notice)." (The record is unclear whether this notice was given pursuant to a policy or a specific Code provision. Other provisions within the Code of Ordinances provide for such notice when the Board conducts hearings on variances, appeals alleging error by an administrative official, and requests for special zoning exceptions. See § 30-354(h)(6)(i)-(k), Code of Ordinances.) In response to the Notice, affidavits were filed by a number of residents who lived adjacent to, or near, the subject property. After reviewing those affidavits, on December 20, 2006, the Department advised Petitioner by letter that based on "new information . . . submitted by affected persons within 300 feet of your property . . . [the] staff [is going to] reconsider the nonconforming status of your property." On January 25, 2007, Mr. Calderon issued a letter denying Mr. Mayhew's request for the following reasons: I have reviewed the information you submitted and those submitted by surrounding property owners. Based on the information and affidavits, there appears to be no consensus or conclusive data establishing emphatically that the subject property has been used consistently as a two-family development since annexation into the city. Evidence from the property owner would suggest that since 1998, the subject property has been used as a two- family dwelling and that no nine-month period has elapsed where the property was not used as a two-family dwelling. However, due to uncertainty for the period around and prior to 1998, staff cannot make a determination about the status of the development around and prior to 1998. Staff cannot determine whether the subject property was illegal, legal non-conforming or lost its non-conforming status at the time of ownership change in 1998. Since the current zoning of the subject property is RSF-1 (Single-family residential, 3.5 dwelling units per acre), the current use as a two-family dwelling is not permitted. Staff is therefore denying the request on the basis that available information cannot demonstrate continued use of the property as a two-family development, since annexation into the [C]ity of Gainesville. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Mayhew filed his appeal of that decision. Because Mr. Mayhew alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact, the appeal was forwarded to DOAH, rather than the Board. In his appeal, Mr. Mayhew alleged that the City had improperly relied on affidavits from neighbors to reconsider its decision, that there was no new evidence submitted to support a change in the City's initial decision, and that he could not get a fair hearing from the Board because several members of the Board live in the affected neighborhood or are members of a neighborhood association that includes the Florida Park area. Section 30-346(5)(d), Code of Ordinances, as amended in November 2006, provides the following restrictions on nonconforming uses: Whenever a nonconforming use of land or a building or other structure or any portion thereof is abandoned or the use is discontinued for a continuous period of nine months or more, such abandonment or discontinuance shall be presumed to constitute an intention to abandon or discontinue such use, and such use shall no longer be permitted. Any subsequent use of such building or structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Although this section was amended in November 2006, the amendment did not affect (or otherwise change) the nine- month time period for losing a nonconforming use. Prior to the amendment, the section provided that if a nonconforming use was lost due to abandonment or discontinuation, the reestablishment of the use could be authorized by the Board, after hearing, if the Board found the design, construction, and character of the building not suitable for the uses in the district in which the nonconforming use is situated. Under the new amendment, that option no longer exists. The history note to this provision indicates that the original ordinance (No. 3777) was adopted on June 10, 1992, and was later amended on July 25, 1994.1 (However, Mr. Calderon indicated that the nine-month period dates back many years before the adoption of this particular Ordinance. See Finding of Fact 5, supra.) When an owner is required to demonstrate that his rental property has continuously retained its nonconforming status, he must show that the property has been continuously rented (with no nine-month breaks) not only for the period of time that he has owned the property, but also for the entire time the property has enjoyed nonconforming status, or in this case since the property was annexed by the City. Thus, Mr. Mayhew was obligated to show that the original owners (Mr. and Mrs. Gainous) rented the property continuously from the time the property was annexed in 1961 until it was sold to Mr. Mayhew in late 1998. The City's practice is to determine nonconforming status on a case by case basis but the burden is on the owner to prove that status through records such as building permits, landlord permits, zoning compliance permits, and occupational licenses, and "records from reputable sources." The parties agree that both units were continuously rented by Mr. Mayhew since the time he purchased the property in November 1998. The dispute here is whether the nonconforming use was abandoned for any nine-month period prior to Mr. Mayhew's purchase of the property. The City contends that Mr. Mayhew has presented no evidence to show that the cottage was rented by the prior owner from 1996 until the property was sold in late 1998. Although Mr. Mayhew clearly established (and the City agrees) that the property has been continuously rented since he purchased the parcel in late 1998, he conceded that the cottage was vacant when he purchased the property, that he had made no inquiry to the seller as to how long the cottage had been vacant, and that he had no personal knowledge regarding the rental history of the property during the three years preceding the purchase. He contended, however, that there are always periods of time when a unit remains vacant while the owner is actively seeking a new tenant or when necessary renovations must be made. While this is true, there is no evidence that this occurred during the years 1996, 1997, or 1998. (It is unknown where Mrs. Gainous presently resides, or even if she is still alive. When the property was sold in late 1998, Mrs. Gainous was described as being elderly and in poor health.) Significantly, City records show that Mrs. Gainous had secured landlord permits to rent the cottage from 1989 (when permits were first required) through 1995, but she had failed to obtain any permits for the years 1996, 1997, or 1998, at which time she sold the property to Mr. Mayhew. This raises a logical inference, not overcome by Mr. Mayhew, that she did not rent the cottage during those years. In addition, Dr. Kosch, who has lived across the street from the subject property for the last twenty years, testified that he personally observed several periods of time before the property was sold to Mr. Mayhew when there were no tenants in the cottage. Although Dr. Kosch could not specifically identify the exact time periods when this occurred (due to the passage of time), his testimony adds further support to a finding that there is insufficient evidence that the cottage was rented continuously (without any nine-month breaks) during the years 1996-1998. Mr. Mayhew purchased the property with the understanding that he could legally rent both units. While it may seem unfair for him to now have to prove that the property has been continuously rented (with no breaks exceeding nine consecutive months) since the 1960s, this interpretation of the Code of Ordinances has always been followed by the City without exception. According to Mr. Wohl, this situation has occurred at least 8 or 9 times in the last few years alone, and in each case, the property owner was required to prove a continued nonconforming use since the property was annexed by the City or placed in a more restrictive zoning classification.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether state use tax is due and payable on transactions wherein the taxpayer rented mobile homes to persons for use as private residences (which the lessees were required to maintain, repair, and insure), pursuant to leases under which the lessee would acquire title to his home upon payment in full of the total rent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order withdrawing the tax assessment against Park Place. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 25th day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondent has implemented an agency statement that meets the definition of a rule, but which has not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) is charged with the management of state lands, including sovereign submerged lands. § 253.03(1), Fla. Stat. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is charged with the duty to “perform all staff duties and functions related to the acquisition, administration, and disposition of state lands, title to which is or will be vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.” § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The City of Titusville operates a municipal marina, which includes a 205-slip docking facility for mooring of commercial and recreational vessels (Marina), on sovereignty submerged lands leased from the Board. Petitioner owns a Florida-registered vessel which he keeps at the Marina pursuant to an annual mooring/dockage agreement. On June 9, 2009, the City of Titusville and the Board entered into a “fee waived” lease renewal and modification for a parcel of sovereignty submerged land in the Indian River (Lease). The Lease allows the Marina to operate “with liveaboards as defined in paragraph 26, as shown and conditioned in Attachment A, and the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 05-287409-001, dated December 31, 2008, incorporated herein and made a part of this lease by reference.” Paragraph 26 of the Lease provides that: 26. LIVEABOARDS: The term “liveaboard” is defined as a vessel docked at the facility and inhabited by a person or persons for any five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days within a thirty (30) day period. If liveaboards are authorized by paragraph one (1) of this lease, in no event shall such “liveaboard” status exceed six (6) months within any twelve (12) month period, nor shall any such vessel constitute a legal or primary residence. On or about July 31, 2015, Petitioner and the City of Titusville entered into the annual contractual mooring/dockage agreement, paragraph 4 of which provides that: 4. LIVEABOARDS: For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “liveaboard” is defined herein as a vessel docked at the facility and inhabited by a person or persons for any five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days within a thirty (30) day period. Pursuant to requirements of the City’s Submerged Land Lease with the State of Florida, no vessel shall occupy the Marina in this “1iveaboard” status for more than six (6) months within any twelve (l2) month period, nor shall the Marina Facility constitute a legal or primary residence of the OWNER. Petitioner asserts that the alleged agency statement regarding “liveaboard” vessels “unreasonably and arbitrarily denies me the unrestricted right to stay on my vessel by limiting the number of consecutive days during which I may occupy the vessel,” and that “[t]he Board’s non-rule policy denies me the unrestricted freedom to enjoy my vessel as a second home.”
Findings Of Fact On or about July 7, 1967, Raymond M. Tonks leased certain property located in Dade County, Florida, from E. L. Phillips, Jr. and Ruth P. Phillips. A copy of the lease executed by the Phillipses as Lessors, and Tonks as Lessee, was received in evidence at the hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The property is described in the lease. The term of the lease was a period of five years, commencing from the date, of execution. The Lease Agreement contained an option to purchase which could be exercised by the Lessee at any time during the term of the lease. On or about July 25, 1972, the Phillipses and Tonks entered into a Lease Extension Agreement, which extended the terms of the previous lease agreement through July 9, 1975. A copy of this agreement was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The Lease Extension Agreement explicitly included the option to purchase. On or about May 6, 1975, Tonks and the Petitioner entered into an agreement which they styled "Assignment of Lease". A copy of this agreement was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Through the Assignment of Lease, Tonks assigned all of his interest in the earlier lease and Lease Extension Agreements to the Petitioner. Tonks explicitly warranted in the agreement that the option to purchase could be exercised by the Petitioner. The term of the lease in the Lease Extension had approximately two months to run at the time that Tonks and Petitioner entered into the agreement. Petitioner paid $275,000 for the interests that it received from Tonks. See: Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Tonks took a promissory note for a substantial portion of the purchase price. See: Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Petitioner placed no documentary stamp tax or documentary surtax stamps on the Assignment of Lease. Petitioner executed the option to purchase shortly after it received the Assignment of Lease from Tonks. The sale transaction between the Petitioner and the Philipses was closed on August 8, 1975. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6 and 7. The Respondent took the position that the documentary stamp tax and surtax stamps should have been placed on the "Assignment of Lease" so, as to reflect a $275,000 consideration. Accordingly the Respondent issued a Proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax and Penalty to the Petitioner on October 23, 1975. The proposed assessment included a penalty in the amount of the total taxes which Respondent contended were due. By letter dated December 11, 1975 from a representative of the Respondent to counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent stated that the assessment was made against the assignment of lease and not against the option to purchase contained within the lease. Petitioner filed this action in order to contest the validity of the assessment. Petitioner contends that the consideration paid to Tonks was for the option to purchase, rather than for the assignment of lease. Respondent contends that the largest possible consideration that could be attributed to the assignment of lease is the amount of rent that would have been due under the lease for the unexpired term of the lease.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Real Estate Commission should discipline the Respondent, Mounir Albert El Beyrouty, on charges that he failed to deliver rental proceeds, was dishonest in his dealings regarding the rental property, failed to escrow rental deposits and proceeds, and failed to properly reconcile his escrow account.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mounir Albert El Beyrouty, is licensed as a real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license no. BK 596936. He is the qualifying broker for Intermab, Inc., d/b/a Byblos Beach Realty. Acting through the real estate brokerage he qualified, Intermab, Inc., the Respondent orally agreed with Virginia Covington to manage apartment Unit 1-E, Redington Tower 3, located at 17940 Gulf Boulevard in Redington Shores, Florida. Initially, Covington, who is a federal district judge, was the personal representative and sole beneficiary of her mother's estate, which owned the unit; after probate, Judge Covington became the owner of the unit. The Respondent and Judge Covington agreed orally that the Respondent would try to lease the apartment on an annual basis at a lease rate of $850 per month, less a 15 percent commission to the Respondent. Although the Respondent was unable to secure such a lease, he intentionally misled Judge Covington to think there was such a lease and, in January 2008, began paying her $722.50 per month by check drawn on his brokerage operating account. He did this because he wanted her to think highly of his abilities as a real estate broker in the hopes that she would retain him to list the property when she decided to sell. Not long after he began sending monthly checks, the Respondent told Judge Covington that a leak in the kitchen sink should be repaired and a stained mattress should be replaced. He got her permission, took care of both items, and was reimbursed. However, he perceived that Judge Covington did not want to put additional money into the apartment unnecessarily and decided to avoid these kinds of conversations and dealings with her. Instead, he began to expend his own funds to maintain and upgrade the property as he saw fit without telling her. The Respondent secured a paying tenant for the apartment for six weeks during February and March 2008. He collected a $500 security deposit and $5,250 in rent, all of which he deposited in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $722.50 per month and continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month. When the seasonal renter left, the Respondent continued to pay Judge Covington $722.50 per month. In April 2008, the Respondent allowed friends to stay in Judge Covington's apartment free of charge and without paying a security deposit. He did not tell Judge Covington, rationalizing that he was paying her the $722.50 per month she thought was her share of the annual lease payments. The Respondent secured a paying tenant for the apartment for January, February, and March 2009. He collected a $500 security deposit and $9,000 in rent, all of which he deposited in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $722.50 per month and continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month. When the seasonal renter left, the Respondent continued to pay Judge Covington $722.50 per month. The Respondent secured a paying tenant for the apartment for January, February and March 2010. He collected a $500 security deposit and $9,000 in rent, all of which he deposited in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $722.50 per month and continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month. When the seasonal renter left, the Respondent continued to pay Judge Covington $722.50 per month. In July 2010, the Respondent was able to lease the apartment for a year at a monthly rent of $1,300. He also collected a $1,000 security deposit. He deposited this money in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $722.50 per month and continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month. In November 2010, Judge Covington told the Respondent to tell the tenant she wanted to increase the annual lease rate to $935 a month. The Respondent continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month and told her that he would advise the supposed tenant of the rent increase. Instead, he kept collecting $1,300 a month from the tenant and began paying Judge Covington $794.75 a month (the $935, less a 15 percent commission). He did not tell her there actually was an annual lease for $1,300 a month. The $1,300 annual lease was not renewed in July 2011. The Respondent continued to pay Judge Covington $794.75 a month and to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $935 a month. In about June 2011, Judge Covington decided to sell her apartment. As the Respondent hoped and planned, she listed it with his brokerage. Judge Covington asked the Respondent to notify the supposed annual tenant, who she believed had been living in the apartment since December 2007, to make sure the tenant would be agreeable to a month-to-month lease during their efforts to sell. The Respondent continued to lead Judge Covington to believe there was such an annual tenant and assured her that he would be able to convince the tenant to cooperate with her plan to sell. From August 29 through October 5, 2011, the Respondent allowed friends to stay in Judge Covington's apartment free of charge and without paying a security deposit. He did not tell Judge Covington, rationalizing that he was paying her the $794.75 per month she thought was her share of the annual lease payments. In November and December 2011, the Respondent rented Judge Covington's apartment to the sister of the court clerk for $850 a month without requiring a security deposit. He did not tell Judge Covington about this rental. The Respondent secured paying tenants for the apartment for February, March and April 2012. He collected a $500 security deposit and $9,000 in rent, all of which he deposited in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $794.75 a month and led her to believe there was an annual lease for $935 a month. Despite several price reductions, the Respondent was unable to sell the apartment, and Judge Covington decided to switch selling brokers. In February 2012, she signed a listing agreement with another real estate broker. Later in February 2012, a real estate salesperson showed Judge Covington's apartment to a prospective purchaser. Upon questioning, an older woman told the salesperson that they were paying $3,000 a month in rent. The Respondent told the salesperson to disregard the information because the woman was not thinking straight, or words to that effect, because her husband had been ill. He also told her that the woman's son was actually paying the rent. The salesperson related this information to Judge Covington and also told her that she noticed that the residents were not the same people she happened to see in the apartment on one occasion in February 2012. Upon receiving this information, Judge Covington became suspicious that the Respondent had been dishonest and misleading her. She contacted the State Attorney's Office and the Division regarding the process for filing a complaint against the Respondent. She also arranged for a meeting with the Respondent. When she met with the Respondent, she brought a forensic accountant to review the Respondent's records. The Respondent told them he was sorry that Judge Covington was upset with him, but that he did not owe her any money--to the contrary, that she owed him money. However, he told them he was being audited by the Division and was unable to provide supporting documentation. At the final hearing, the Respondent provided a ledger to support his position that all the rent he collected belonged to him alone because Judge Covington owed him money throughout his dealings with her due to his payments to her, regardless whether her apartment was rented, and the money he spent to maintain and improve the apartment. (This was an after-the-fact justification for his failure to deposit any security deposits or rental payments into his escrow account when, in fact, he did not do so because he did not know it was required.) There is reason to believe that the ledger is not entirely accurate. For example, the Respondent omitted rent collected from at least one occupant of the apartment. It also does not account for the times the Respondent allowed friends and relatives to stay there free of charge, essentially acting as if he owned the apartment. Although the Respondent's testimony regarding the money he paid to maintain and improve the apartment is accepted, his failure to timely apprise Judge Covington regarding those expenditures makes it difficult to be certain about it. Finally, even accepting the ledger at face value, it shows that there were times when the Respondent owed Judge Covington, and not vice-versa. The Division attempted to make a case that the Respondent intended to and attempted to steal rental proceeds. It is unlikely that the Respondent actually targeted a federal judge to victimize in that way. It is more likely that the Respondent was attempting to impress Judge Covington with his skill and expertise as a real estate broker and, ultimately, to be rewarded with the listing on the property when it was sold. In so doing, the Respondent flagrantly violated several laws and rules regarding his professional responsibilities as a licensed Florida real estate broker. Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker for many years and depends on his license to make a living to support himself and his family. He has no prior disciplinary record. However, it has become known in this case that, over the years, he consistently has failed to use his escrow account for rental deposits and proceeds because he did not know it was required.
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 the Respondent guilty as charged; fining him $2,000; suspending his license for one year; and placing him on probation for a suitable period of time and upon suitable conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 2013.
