Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is a Florida licensed real estate broker and has been at all times material hereto, having been issued license number 0094373. On or about October 18, 1991, a contract to purchase real estate was entered into by Michael E. Toppin and Velma Richardson, as buyers, with Steven and Kenneth Halpern, as sellers. In accordance with the terms of the contract, an earnest money deposit of $3,000 was given to Respondent to be placed in escrow. The deposit was paid by Ms. Richardson in two checks: one for $1,000 on October 15, 1991, and one for $2,000 on October 29, 1991. The contract did not close because the buyers failed to qualify for sufficient financing, which was a contingency of the contract. Since the contract did not close, Ms. Richardson and Mr. Toppin requested Respondent to return the $3,000 earnest money deposit, but Respondent refused. Ms. Richardson and Mr. Toppin contacted Petitioner for assistance in obtaining the return of the deposit. Respondent was unsure as to who--the buyers or the sellers--should receive the earnest money deposit, so he requested, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order. In an order, dated May 20, 1992, the Commission ordered Respondent to disburse the earnest money deposit to the buyers, Mr. Toppin and Ms. Richardson. In accordance with the Commission's order, Respondent issued a $3,000 check, dated June 3, 1992, from his escrow account to the buyers. The buyers endorsed the check and deposited it into Ms. Richardson's account on or about June 8, 1992. The check was returned for non-sufficient funds in Respondent's escrow account. Ms. Richardson contacted Respondent about the returned check. Respondent immediately contacted his bank and deposited sufficient funds to cover the returned check. Respondent failed to contact Ms. Richardson to inform her that sufficient funds were now in the escrow account. Ms. Richardson wanted to be certain that the check would be processed the second time around, so she waited a few days before re-depositing it. On or about June 18, 1992, Ms. Richardson re-deposited the returned check. This time the check cleared. Respondent's escrow account statements reveal that the buyers' checks for $1,000 and $2,000 were deposited into his escrow account on October 15, 1991, and October 29, 1991, respectively--the same day he received them. 2/ However, at no time, during the month of October 1991, did Respondent's escrow account have a balance of $3,000. During October 1991, Respondent made cash withdrawals from his escrow account totalling $975.00, all for personal use. 3/ Also, he paid personal obligations from his escrow account totalling $429.30. At the end of October 1991, Respondent's escrow account had a balance of $2,174.89. Consequently, the escrow account had a shortage of $825.11, as it relates to the $3,000. In November 1991, Respondent's escrow account had activity of six transactions. There were cash withdrawals totalling $2,000, and only twice was the daily balance $3,000 or above. In December 1991, Respondent's escrow had again six transactions of activity, with only one cash withdrawal of $300. Furthermore, Respondent withdrew $1,404.30 for his personal use. The escrow account's daily balance was below $3,000 for three of the six transactions. In January 1992, there were three transactions, including a cash withdrawal of $125. No daily balance was below $3,000 for this month. In February 1992, six transactions were made. Cash withdrawals were made totalling $650. 4/ For February, no daily balance was below $3,000. In March 1992, only two transactions were made. Respondent's escrow account had a cash withdrawal of $320. March contained no daily balance below $3,000. From April 1992 through June 1992, Respondent's escrow account had a daily balance consistently below $3,000. In April 1992, Respondent's escrow account had four transactions, with a cash withdrawal of $1,100. In May 1992, there were five transactions, with cash withdrawals totalling $350. In June, the month that the Respondent wrote Ms. Richardson a $3,000 check from the escrow account, 13 transactions were made and the daily balance was above $3,000 only on three of the transactions. At the end of June 1992, Respondent's escrow account had a negative balance of $406.87. At the end of July 1992, Respondent's escrow account had a positive balance of $11.13. Only three transactions were made for the month. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the only authorized signatory for the escrow account. Respondent admitted that at no time did he prepare and sign written monthly reconciliation statements comparing his total trust liability with the reconciled bank balances even though he was aware that he was required to make the reconciliation statements. The Hearing Officer does not find persuasive Respondent's argument at hearing that he also believed that there were sufficient monies in the accounts at all times equalling escrowed amounts. The escrow bank's monthly statements clearly showed, if Respondent had reviewed them, that the escrow account was for several months below the escrowed amount of $3,000. At all times material hereto, Respondent did not have an operating account for his real estate business. He believed that he could withdraw funds from the escrow account for his personal use if the funds withdrawn were due him in accordance with real estate contracts or agreements. 5/ Respondent did not believe that he had to or was required to transfer those monies due him to a separate account and write checks from that separate account. Respondent has been licensed for approximately 20 years and has had no disciplinary action taken against his license. Respondent presented mitigating circumstances in his behalf. He explained the period of time material hereto as very stressful and as a time in which real estate was not a primary concern for him. Around May 1991, his sister had a reoccurrence of cancer. His sister and his mother who had Alzheimers disease lived together in southeast Miami, Florida, and his sister took care of their mother. As his sister's condition worsened, Respondent spent more and more time with his sister and mother, and less time on his real estate business. His sister died on October 13, 1992. Another mitigating factor presented was that Respondent has had no disciplinary action taken against his license in his approximately 20 years of licensure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order: Determining Henry M. Weiss guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1, and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty comprised of an administrative fine in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000), a 90-day suspension, and one year probation, commencing after the suspension, under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Real Estate Commission. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of April 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 8th day of April 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Lee H. Davis, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued against him on August 16, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, regulating the practice of persons holding real estate brokers' and real estate salespersons' licenses in Florida. Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Lee H. Davis, is and was at all times relevant to this matter licensed as a real estate broker in Florida, issued License Number 0186063. The last license issued was as an involuntary inactive broker, c/o 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204, Naples, Florida 34104. On or about August 24, 1995, Respondent executed a form 400.5 and submitted it to the Division to register as a salesperson with Sentry Realty and Property Management, Inc. ("Sentry"). At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was registered with the Division as employed by Sentry. On or about September 7, 1995, Respondent facilitated a contract for sale and purchase (the "contract") between Robert Trindle as buyer and John Petracelli as seller/builder for property described as Hallandale Park, Plat Book 12, Page 37, Block 37, Lots 6,7,8, a/k/a approximately 2801 North East 214 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. Mr. Trindle testified that he intended to purchase a townhouse to be built by Mr. Petracelli as part of a project to include 40 to 50 townhouses. The contract provided that a $3,900 deposit was to be held by "Lee H. Davis Escrow Agent." Mr. Trindle gave Respondent two checks totaling $3,900, as the earnest money deposit on the purchase price of $130,000. The first check, dated October 9, 1995, was for $1,000. The second check, dated November 3, 1995, was for $2,900. The checks were made out to "Lee H. Davis-- Escrow." Also noted on the checks was "Davena Group Inc.," which Mr. Trindle understood to be Respondent's real estate company. Each check was negotiated by Respondent within a week of its receipt. At the time of this transaction, Respondent's registered broker was John Brouillette of Sentry. Respondent did not place the escrow deposit with Mr. Brouillette, who testified that he knew nothing of the transaction at the time it occurred and never saw the contract. Respondent represented to Mr. Trindle that he would maintain the escrow deposit as broker during this transaction. Mr. Trindle did not give Respondent permission to transfer the escrow deposit to the builder/seller, Mr. Petracelli. Correspondence from Respondent indicated that he did turn the escrow deposit over to Mr. Petracelli, without informing Mr. Trindle. Mr. Petracelli never built the promised townhouses. Rather, he left the country, absconding with Mr. Trindle's escrow deposit along with monies provided by other purchasers and/or investors in the project. Mr. Trindle attempted to contact Respondent regarding the status of his escrow deposit, but was unable to reach him prior to the filing of his complaint with the Division. As of the date of the hearing, the earnest money deposit had not been returned to Mr. Trindle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner finding that Respondent has violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent, and that Respondent's real estate license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 13th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Lee H. Davis 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204 Naples, Florida 34104 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent's Florida Real Estate Broker's License should be the subject of sanctions, based upon the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint, wherein it is contended that the Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Rules 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and derivatively, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1998 and 1999).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to real estate licensure and practice in the State of Florida. It is charged with the duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints against perceived violations and violators of the Florida Real Estate Practice Act, Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, as well as in the manner envisioned in Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, at all times pertinent hereto, has been a licensed Florida real estate broker, holding License 0596898. The Respondent was last licensed as an inactive broker due to non-renewal. He has not been charged or found guilty of any violations of the statutes and rules pertaining to real estate licensure and practice in the past. His last known address is 212-B Sudduth Place, Parker, Florida 32404. The Petitioner's investigator John Hentz conducted an office inspection and an audit of the Respondent's escrow accounts and broker's trust accounts on April 2, 1999. The audit was conducted at the office of the Respondent, trading as George H. Smith Real Estate. The Respondent maintained an account with Bay Bank of Panama City entitled "Rental escrow account." This was actually the "owners' distribution escrow account." The account number is 2603100501. An audit of that escrow account revealed a total trust account liability of $16,861.51, meaning the total amounts of escrows the Respondent and his firm were liable to pay out if the account was entirely paid-out to those for whom it was held in trust. The reconciled bank balance, however, was for $4,001.82. This resulted in an apparent shortage of $12,858.69. The Respondent and his company also maintained an account entitled "escrow rental deposit account." This account was maintained at Regions Bank of Panama City. The account will be described as the "security deposit escrow account." The security deposit escrow account bears account number 55-022- 9270. An audit of that account revealed that the total trust liability for that account was $22,525.00. The reconciled bank balance for that account was $21,277.50. This resulted in an apparent shortage in the amount of $1,247.50. Mr. Hentz established that the audit disclosed that the Respondent failed to prepare written monthly reconciliation statements for both of the accounts from at least May of 1998 forward. The Respondent, however, asserted that he had prepared a written reconciliation for the February 1999 time period, but admitted that he had not provided the required explanation on the reconciliation form. The evidence also shows that the Respondent began operating as the managing or operating broker of George H. Smith Real Estate sometime in the period March through May of 1999. The records maintained by the Petitioner show that the qualifying broker was George H. Smith, the Respondent's father. George H. Smith and the Respondent provided the Petitioner with the corrective documentation registering the Respondent as the operating broker, however. Mr. Hentz obtained the broker's records from the Respondent during the course of his audit, including, but not limited to, bank statements, lists of balances for the owners' accounts, and the security deposit accounts, as well as a list of clients and a record of outstanding checks. Mr. Hentz reviewed the Respondent's "owner balance" list and the "checks pending" list for the owner's distribution account for the period up to February 28, 1999. Through this procedure he was able to determine the broker's trust liability for the account. Mr. Hentz calculated the broker's trust liability of $16,861.51, by adding the positive balance as identified on the Respondent's owner balance sheet as the amount of money that should be held on behalf of the property owners for the properties the Respondent managed. He then added the list of any outstanding checks or deposits. Mr. Hentz then compared the broker trust liability to the actual bank balance of $4,001.82 for the owners distribution account in order to determine whether the account was in balance and concluded that it was not. The difference between the broker liability and the bank balance reflected a shortage of at least $12,858.69. this indicated the amount of funds the Respondent did not properly maintain in the owners' distribution escrow account. Mr. Hentz also admitted that he should not have subtracted one particular negative balance and that the shortage should have actually been $532.00 greater than what was stated on the audit form. Mr. Hentz stated that the properties listed on the owners' sheet for John Green and Avalon Real Estate should only have been added in the calculations as a positive balance, and not any negative balance, since the same client owned the properties for both accounts with George H. Smith Real Estate. Mr. Hentz was not of the opinion, and found no evidence, that the Respondent had taken and used any of the funds for his personal use. Rather, the shortage reflected, in essence, a situation where the brokerage had used certain owners' funds to cover other owners' expenses, when the owners with the expenses had accounts which did not contain sufficient funds to cover their own rental property management expenses. Typically these situations occurred where the owners who had expenses, such as repair work for their properties, were slow in issuing checks to the Respondent's brokerage to cover such repairs or other expenses or, in infrequent instances, where the checks issued by the owners to the Respondent's brokerage did not clear because of insufficient funds. This situation occasioned more delay in rectifying shortages caused in the brokerage-maintained account because of the necessity of obtaining reimbursement from the owners issuing insufficient checks for their expense assessments. There was no intentional conversion of funds in the owners' distribution escrow account or in the security deposit escrow account for the Respondent's own use or for any improper use or use detrimental to any client's interest. Mr. Hentz followed the same steps in auditing the security deposit escrow account. The audit revealed that the Respondent's tenant list balanced and therefore, the broker trust liability for the account as of February 28, 1999, to be $22,525.00. There were no outstanding checks or deposits. The bank statement indicated that the security deposit escrow account balance as of that date was actually $21,277.50, resulting in a shortage of $1,247.50. Mr. Hentz was unable to recall if the Respondent provided an explanation for that shortage in the security deposit account, however, he testified that the former broker and owner, George H. Smith, immediately took corrective action the same day by depositing funds in the escrow account to cover the shortage. Mr. Hentz also established that during the audit the Respondent told him that the shortage in the owners distribution account resulted from owners' failure to reimburse George H. Smith Real Estate for expense payments made on behalf of the properties owned by those property owners, or for payments an owner or tenant may have made to George H. Smith Real Estate that were returned for insufficient funds. George H. Smith admitted in his testimony that a broker should not use funds from an escrow account to "loan money" to another owner but rather should use the a brokerage's own funds and that a monthly reconciliation statement review should identify any shortages for correction. The Respondent admitted in his testimony that the audit revealed that the escrow accounts were not in accordance with properly maintaining trust and liability. The Respondent also asserted that the information provided to Mr. Hentz at the time of the audit may not have accurately provided the status of each account, as to the owner balance sheet, but he did not provide any documentation to dispute the allegations. The Respondent admitted that he was unable to provide an explanation on the reconciliation statements when the trust liability did not actually match the balance on the bank statement.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes; Rules 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code; and, derivatively, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In light of the facts found and conclusions reached hereinabove concerning the Respondent's candor in admitting responsibility for the shortages, that the brokerage took immediate corrective action, that no client was harmed and that the Respondent did not use any funds involved in the shortages for personal use or fraudulent purposes, it is recommended that a one-year suspension, with a co-extensive year of probation, be imposed, together with a $1,000.00 fine. It is further recommended that the suspension be abated and, if during the one-year of probation the Respondent successfully completes a 30-hour broker management course, that the suspension be cancelled. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Andre Carlos Smith 212-B Sudduth Place Parker, Florida 32404 Buddy Johnson, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent, John P. Wickersham ("Wickersham"), is licensed as a real estate broker under license number 0095775. Respondent, Aladdin Real Estate of Rockledge ("Aladdin"), is a Florida corporation registered as a real estate broker under license number 0213244. Wickersham is the qualifying broker and corporate officer for Aladdin. Respondents maintain their escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Cocoa. On April 28, 1994, Ms. Marie Ventura, Petitioner's investigator, audited Respondents' escrow account. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $46,287.30 and a reconciled balance of $43,557.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a shortage of $2,730.04. Respondents provided Ms. Ventura with additional information. On May 16, 1994, Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $43,546.21 and a reconciled balance of $42,787.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had an excess of $11.05. Respondents never had a shortage in their escrow account. Respondents maintained an excess of $11.05 in their escrow account since September, 1993. In September, 1993, Respondents converted their method of bookkeeping to a computer system. The computer system failed to disclose an excess of $11.05 due to Respondents' misunderstanding of the appropriate method of labeling inputs to the software system. Respondents discovered and corrected the error prior to the formal hearing. Respondents properly made and signed written monthly reconciliation statements comparing their total escrow liability with the reconciled bank balances of their escrow account. Although Respondents did not use the form suggested in Rule 61J2- 14.012(2), Respondents satisfied the substance of the requirements for record keeping and reporting. Respondents maintained the information required in Rule 61J2-14.012(2) in bank statements, ledger cards, and checkbooks. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondents presented the information in a form that complied with the requirements of Rule 61J2-14.012(2). The shortage determined by Petitioner on April 28, 1994, was caused, in part, by errors made by Petitioner's investigator. It was the investigator's first audit, and the information provided by Respondents was not in an easily discernible form. However, Respondents never withheld any information, and Respondents maintained and provided all information required by applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and Rule 61J2-14.012(2). RECOMMENDED this 18th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent McVety was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license numbers 0461636 and 0258678. On January 1, 1989, the Respondent purchased the company Realty Services of Southwest Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation. One of the services provided by the corporation was property management. Rents and security deposits were collected from tenants of residential leases on behalf of property owners. In some cases, Respondent McVety was acting as an agent on behalf of property owners through the corporation. In other cases, Respondent McVety or the corporation was the actual property owner. When Respondent McVety took over the management of the corporation after his stock purchase, he noticed that the escrow account into which security deposits were placed, was a non-interest bearing account. On January 23, 1989, the escrow account was changed by the Respondent from an non-interest bearing escrow account to an interest bearing account. The tenants were not notified that their security deposits were now bearing interest. On March 17, 1989, a routine audit was conducted of the Respondent's escrow accounts. During the audit, it was discovered that one hundred and seventeen of the one hundred and thirty leases stated that the security deposits were being held in an non-interest bearing account. The leases which stated that the deposits were in an interest bearing account were signed after the Respondent purchased the corporation. The one hundred and seventeen leases with a non-interest bearing escrow were signed by the tenants prior to the stock transfer. There were no allegations that interest had actually been paid by the bank on the escrow account or that there had been any failure by the Respondent to account for the interest to the tenants, the actual owners of the funds. In mitigation, the Respondent stated that once he was made aware of the problems and truly understood the Department's concerns, a letter was sent to each tenant explaining the placement of the security deposits into an interest bearing escrow account on January 23, 1989. These letters were sent on April 3, 1989. In addition, a new real estate lease was prepared on behalf of the corporation by an attorney. The purpose of the new lease was to explicitly state the rights and responsibilities of the parties regarding the interest on these accounts. In this case, no one was cheated, no secret commissions were earned, and the sums in question were trifling.
Recommendation Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent McVety be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.014, Florida Administrative Code, and is therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. This violation was originally Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Counts I and II, having been withdrawn, are dismissed. That the Respondent McVety be issued a written reprimand as the penalty for the one violation. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Copies furnished: John R. Alexander, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John A. McVety 3120 Grand Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1990. Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondents violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b),(e), and (q), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21V-10.033, 21V-14.012(2) and (3) and 21V-14.014, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rhoda Kurzman (Kurzman), is currently and was at all times relevant to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker in this state. Respondent, Security Realty Investments, Inc. (Security), is currently and was at all times relevant to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker corporation in this state. Security is a small company which deals primarily with the property management of its own properties. Ms. Kurzman is the president of and broker for Security. In April, 1992, Respondents came up for a routine audit. Joseph L. Wilson, then an investigative auditor for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), conducted an office inspection and escrow/trust account audit on April 14, 1992. The inspection and the audit were in four areas: 1) office 2) required office sign 3) agency disclosure and 4) broker's records, including reconciliation statements and escrow/trust accounts. Respondents maintained a trust account in an interest bearing savings account with County National Bank of South Florida. Respondents received quarterly statements from the bank. As part of the audit, Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Kurzman to produce the reconciliation statements for Security's escrow/trust account. She gave him a running journal (Pet. Exhibit 2) which she had prepared in her own handwriting. The journal was entitled " Escrow Account # 0120056458-20, County Bank, Miami, Florida 33164." There were entries beginning June 29, 1988 through December 31, 1991. The dates listed on the left side of the journal represented the dates for either deposits or withdrawals. The last deposit in the account other than interest was on March 20, 1991. There were double check marks on the right side which represented the amounts reconciled with the bank statements. The entire document contained five double check marks. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 does not reflect the dates the reconciliations took place. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 was not signed and dated by Ms. Kurzman each time the account was reconciled. Petitioner did not reconcile the account on a monthly basis. The bank statement for the period ending December 31, 1991 showed a balance of $375.54, as did the balance in the December 31, 1991 entry of the journal. The bank statement for the period ending March 31, 1992 showed a balance of $379.83. Respondents did not have any escrow security liability on these dates; thus these balances represented overages in the escrow account. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 did not contain a description or explanation for the overages. Mr. Wilson discussed the overages with Ms. Kurzman, and she indicated that the balance in the bank account resulted from accumulated interest from 1988. Mr. Wilson advised her that prior to March, 1992, an escrow account could carry an overage of only $100, but that after March 1992, overages of up to $200 could be carried in escrow accounts. Ms. Kurzman agreed to withdraw sufficient funds from the account to bring it in compliance with the allowed overage. By letter dated April 14, 1992, Ms. Kurzman advised Mr. Wilson that she had withdrawn $300 from the escrow account, bringing the balance to $79.83, and included a copy of the withdrawal slip with the letter. All the sales made by the Respondents are listed in the journal maintained by the Respondents. There have been eight sales since 1988. Some of the transactions did not result in a contract. From September 1, 1991 through October 1, 1992, Mr. Wilson conducted approximately 300 audits, 40 of which were done during the month of April, 1992. The audit of Respondents was approximately two to four hours long. Ms. Kurzman produced one sales contract during the audit, the other contracts were stored in a different location. During the audit, Mr. Wilson prepared an Office Inspection and Escrow/Trust Account Audit Form, which he and Ms. Kurzman signed. After the audit he prepared an investigative report. No specific transactions were mentioned in either document. Mr. Wilson destroyed the specific notes or tic sheets that he made during the audit. At hearing he admitted that if someone showed him one of the contracts for the transactions appearing in the journal, he would not be able to recall if he had looked at the contract during the audit. Ms. Kurzman specifically recalls the audit and her recollection of the audit is much clearer than Mr. Wilson's. At hearing Mr. Wilson was unable to recall specific transactions dealing with the alleged failure to disclose that escrow funds were being placed in an interest bearing account. He believes that they discussed names of contracts or types of situations, but can't recall because of the length of time that had passed since he performed the audit. Ms. Kurzman specifically recalls that other than the transaction in which she was the seller they only discussed one sales contract. He believes that Ms. Kurzman said that she had made oral disclosure in some but not all transactions in which there were principals other than the broker, and that there were no written disclosures. In one of the sales listed in the escrow account journal, Ms. Kurzman was the seller and had divested herself as broker during that transaction. In the Baldoria transaction, the contract required that Ms. Baldoria receive interest and the interest was paid to her. Obviously there was disclosure to Ms. Baldoria, and it appears that the disclosure was in writing. Ms. Kurzman and Mr. Wilson discussed the issue of the disclosure of interest bearing accounts during the audit. There was a disagreement between them as to when such disclosure had to be made. Having judged the credibility of the witnesses and in particular having considered Mr. Wilson's difficulty in recalling specifics of the audit, I find that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that the Respondents failed to disclose that escrow/trust funds were being placed in an interest-bearing account. Mr. Wilson was unable to recall any contracts in which Respondents were alleged to have failed to make agency disclosure. There have been no prior audits of Respondents. No prior disciplinary actions have been taken by Petitioner against Respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondents guilty of violating Rule 21V-14.012, Florida Administrative Code and Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, reprimanding each Respondent, imposing against Rhoda Kurzman an administrative fine of $100, and requiring Rhoda Kurzman to provide within six months after the date of the Final Order satisfactory evidence to the Florida Department of Business and 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 completed a 30-hour postlicensure broker management course. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 20th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5542 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-3: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 6-7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11-13: Accepted. Paragraphs 14-19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 20-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 30: Accepted. Paragraph 31: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 32: Accepted. Paragraphs 33-34: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 35-37: Accepted in substance. 20 Paragraphs 38-40: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Kurzman, Esquire Grand Bay Plaza, Suite 702 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Theodore Gay, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Darlene F. Keller Divison Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joan Jones Webb is a registered real estate broker, Certificate No. 0093903, and is the active broker for Coronet Realty Corporation, 1300 N.W. 167th Street, Miami, Florida. Coronet Realty Corporation holds Certificate No. 0017412 as a broker corporation. Both licenses were in effect at the time of the alleged violations herein. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1,2). Respondents maintain a savings account, Number 3-15690, in the name of "Coronet Realty Corporation (Escrow)" with Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Florida (hereinafter Washington Federal). This interest-bearing account has been used by Respondents on relatively rare occasions as a depository for escrow deposits in real estate transactions involving personal friends of Respondent Webb or in those which required an undue length of time to close. In fact, from the time the account was opened in 1970 until the last of the transactions involved here which concluded in 1976, the account reflects only seven escrow deposits and withdrawals. At the time she opened the account, Respondent Webb was under the impression that there was no prohibition against placing real estate deposits in this type of an account and did so for the purpose of earning money for the corporation in the form of interest during the periods prior to closing a particular real estate sale. Respondents maintained another escrow account for their business in the Central Bank of North Dade, Miami, Florida, where they also had a regular business account for the firm. Most escrow deposits were placed in the escrow account of this bank. Over the years, the various deposits in the Washington Federal account earned interest amounting to $2,450.55. (Testimony of Szpak, Webb, Petitioner's Exhibit 9; Respondent's Exhibit 5). The pertinent facts involved in the transactions which are the subject of the alleged violations are as follows: Respondent Webb negotiated a Contract of Sale and Purchase, dated March 11, 1975, between Maurice A. Ferre as purchaser, and Marie Gabel as seller, of real property located in Dade County, Florida for a purchase price of $125,000.00. Although Webb acknowledged receipt of $12,500.00 as a deposit toward the purchase price of the property from the purchaser on that date, the purchaser's check in that amount made payable to "Coronet Realty Corp. Escrow Account" was dated February 14, 1975. This amount was deposited in the Washington Federal account by a deposit slip, dated March 28, 1975, and the account passbook reflects receipt of that amount on march 31, 1975. At the time the deposit was made, Webb inquired of the attorney for the seller if it was "all right" to place the deposit in a savings account. The attorney took the matter up with the seller and she expressed no objection to this procedure nor was she interested in being paid the interest earned while the sum was in the account because Webb was a friend of hers and she had explicit faith in her integrity. The representative of the buyer, who was the same person also representing the interests of the ultimate purchaser to whom the contract was assigned, was informed by Webb after the fact that the security deposit had been placed in the Washington Federal escrow savings account. The purchasers interposed no objection to this method of handling the money. The closing of the transaction did not take place until September 24, 1975. On September 18, 1975, Webb withdrew the $12,500.00 from the Washington Federal account and issued a check in that amount to the attorneys for the purchaser. That firm, in turn, issued a check in the same amount, dated October 7, 1975, to Coronet Realty Corporation, has broker's commission in the transaction. (Testimony of Hektner, Marlin, Webb, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 4,9; Respondent's Composite Exhibits 2,5). Respondent Webb negotiated and secured a Contract of Sale and Purchase, dated March 17, 1975, between Agri-Life Farms, Inc., as Purchaser, and M.S. Marlin and Ronald O. Mackendree, Administrators C.T.A. of the estate of G.W. Gabel, a/k/a George W. Gabel as seller, of approximately 10 acres of real property located in Dade County, Florida, at a purchase price of $4,840.00 per acre. The contract reflects that Webb, for Coronet Realty Corporation, acknowledged receipt of the sum of $4,840 as an earnest money deposit toward the purchase price of the property. A cashier's check in that amount, dated March 28, 1975, payable to James A. Horland was endorsed to "Coronet Realty Corporation Escrow Account" on an undisclosed date and deposited by Respondents in the Washington Federal escrow account on April 22, 1975. As in the Ferre transaction, Webb obtained the consent of the same seller to place the deposit in the Washington Federal account. The purchaser also had acquiesced to the placement of the deposit in an escrow savings account. The transaction did not close because of title problems and therefore Respondents withdrew the said amount from the Washington Federal account on October 15, 1976 and transmitted it by check of the same date to Horland, the attorney representing Agri-Life Farms, Inc. Both parties to the transaction had been aware that the money was in an interest-bearing account and neither of them desired the accrued interest. (Testimony of Marlin, Webb; Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 5,9; Respondent's Composite Exhibits 4,5,8). Respondent Webb negotiated and secured a contract of sale and purchase dated June 15, 1975, between Hugh H. Jones, Jr. as Purchaser, and Marie Gabel, as Seller, of real property located in Dade County, Florida for the price of $85,000.00. The contract reflects that the purchaser deposited the sum of $5,000.00 with Respondents as an earnest money deposit toward the purchase price of the property on the contract date. In fact, the purchaser had given Webb a blank check made payable to "Coronet Realty-Escrow" to be filled-in by Webb at an appropriate time. The check was not so completed until November 7, 1975 on which date a deposit slip was prepared in that amount. The funds were received by Washington Federal on November 10, 1975. The seller had expressly assented to the deposit of the funds in an escrow savings account and the purchaser, from prior association with Webb, was aware that she used the said account for escrow funds and had no objection to this procedure. The transaction was not closed until April 5, 1976. On April 22, 1976, Respondent issued a check to the seller's attorney in the amount of $750.00 which reflected the difference between the amount of the deposit and the amount of her commission on the sale. Neither of the parties to the transaction desired payment of any interest earned while the funds were on deposit in Washington Federal. (Testimony of Jones, Webb, Marlin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 6,9; Respondent's Composite Exhibits 1,3,5). On February 24, 1976, Respondents placed an advertisement in the Miami News, Miami, Florida, concerning the availability of warehouse factory space at the Sunshine State Industrial Park, Miami, Florida. The advertisement reflected the words "Coronet Realty Corporation, Miss Jones 261-6501" but the term "broker" or "realtor" did not appear in said advertisement. Webb had instructed her secretary to place the ad and had provided her a brochure on the property for use in this connection which reflected the term "realtor" and the symbol of the National Association of Real Estate Boards. The secretary failed to include this pertinent information when placing the advertisement. When such omission was brought to Webb's attention by Petitioner's investigator in March, 1976, she took immediate steps to ensure that future ads contained the term "realtor" (Testimony of Szpak, Webb, Petitioner's Exhibit 3; Respondent's Exhibits 6,7).
Recommendation That Respondents Joan Jones Webb and Coronet Realty Corporation be administered a written reprimand for violations of Section 475.25(1)(d) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-10.10, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida H. Robert Koltnow, Esquire 3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 306 Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Harold E. Hicks, was licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0136248. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Hicks was the qualifying broker for the Respondent corporation, Service First Realty, Inc. (the corporation), whose address is 9715 N. W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33147. The Respondent corporation holds license number 0223295. Mr. Hicks was responsible for the day-to-day business operations of the corporation. Mr. Hicks was responsible for the financial records kept and maintained by the corporation. All financial records at issue in this proceedings were in the name of the corporation. In 1996, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, Kenneth G. Rehm, attempted to conduct an audit of the Respondents' financial records. This audit was in response to a complaint not at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Rehm went to the Respondents' place of business and asked for the financial records for all real estate accounts. Mr. Hicks provided the investigator with records which established a negative escrow bank balance of $761.00. Moreover, there was no monthly reconciliation for the escrow account. Based upon the bookkeeping method used, the Respondents' records did not show how much money was being held in trust for individual clients. Respondents pooled money for different rental properties into one escrow account without establishing that they maintained accurate ledger balances per client. When Mr. Rehm was unable to reconcile the accounts, he elected to offer Respondents additional time to gather the records and to prepare for a complete audit. Such audit was assigned to Petitioner's investigator, Roberto Castro. Mr. Castro attempted to complete the follow-up audit of Respondents' financial records on February 13, 1996. Once again, the audit was hampered due to the lack of escrow account records. Based upon the records that were provided by Respondents, Mr. Castro computed that Respondents had $3,922.45 in outstanding checks from the rental distribution trust account but only $2,241.58 in the account. This calculation resulted in a shortage of $1,680.87. Mr. Castro also determined that Respondents were not completing monthly escrow account reconciliations in accordance with the rule promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On May 3, 1996, Respondents were served with a subpoena to provide Mr. Castro with all escrow records from February 1995 to February 1996. Respondents did not respond to the subpoena. As of the date of hearing, Respondents have not shown monthly escrow account reconciliations in accordance with the rule promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
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 Respondents guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondents' licenses until the Respondent Hicks has completed a seven-hour course in real estate escrow management and that such suspension be followed by a probationary period with monitoring of the Respondents' financial records to assure compliance with all Commission rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Harold E. Hicks, pro se Service First Realty, Inc. 9715 Northwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147
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 revoking the license of Respondent, Annette J. Ruffin, to be a real estate broker. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1987.
