The Issue An Administrative complaint dated April 13, 1999, alleges that Respondent Mr. Stevens violated several provisions of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, when he failed to return an earnest money deposit to a buyer after being directed to do so by the seller, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The issues in this proceeding are whether Mr. Stevens committed the violation and if so what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Collie E. Stevens, has been licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate broker since 1986. Prior to that year he was licensed as a real estate salesperson in Florida. In 1996 Mr. Stevens represented the seller, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in the sale of a home in Orange County, Florida. On October 1, 1996, Doris Wright executed an Offer to Purchase and Contract of Sale for the home. When she signed the contract Ms. Wright gave the broker, Mr. Stevens, a check for $675.00 as an earnest money deposit. Mr. Stevens deposited the check into his escrow account. Later, in October or November 1996, Ms. Wright withdrew her offer to purchase the property. The VA regional office provided a notice to Mr. Stevens dated November 20, 1996, directing him to return the earnest money deposit to Ms. Wright. Mr. Stevens never returned the money to Ms. Wright although she made several requests through his secretary and made several attempts to contact him directly. Mr. Stevens alleges that he is entitled to retain at least $250.00 of the $675.00 deposit because that was the mortgage company's fee for processing Ms. Wright's mortgage application. Mr. Stevens claims that Ms. Wright authorized him to pay that fee on her behalf when she was not in town; Ms. Wright does not dispute that claim. Mr. Stevens also argues that he should be entitled to the remainder of the deposit money because Ms. Wright cancelled a listing agreement for him to sell her house. Ms. Wright disputes this claim and Mr. Stevens did not produce any contract or document evidencing such an agreement. During the pendancy of his dispute with Ms. Wright over entitlement to the deposit Mr. Stevens never notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of the dispute nor did he submit the matter to arbitration, mediation, or any court. Mr. Stevens insists that he could have worked out his differences with Ms. Wright and that he was always willing to give her $425.00, left after deducting $250.00 for the processing fee from the $675.00 deposit. In 1996, in another case, Mr. Stevens was disciplined by the Florida Real Estate Commission for culpable negligence or breach of trust, failure to give notice of his representation of a party, failure to maintain trust funds in an escrow account, and failure to preserve and make available brokerage records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order finding that Collie E. Stevens is guilty of a violation of Sections 475.25(1)(d)1. and 475.25(1)(0), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that the Florida Real Estate Commission suspend his license for two years and require him to complete a 7-hour escrow management course and a 60-hour post-licensure course, and that he pay the costs associated with this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 19th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea D. Perkins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 308N Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Collie E. Stevens Son Set Free Realty, Inc. 2294 North U.S. One Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 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 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not the Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, failed to account and deliver monies received in a trust or escrow bank account monies received as a deposit for realty in a real estate transaction in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and by reason thereof, Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, is representation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, was a licensed real estate salesperson and has been issued license number 0396817. Respondent's last issued license was as a salesperson and she worked through the entity, Welsh International Realty, Inc., 4684 NW 183 Street, Miami, Florida 33155. Respondent, in her capacity as a salesperson, on January 31, 1984, was the selling agent who executed a purchase, sales contract and receipt for deposit for purchasers Michael A. and Marjorie Bucknor for a residence situated at 240 NW 203 Terrace, Miami, Florida. The seller of that property was Equitable Relocation Management Corporation (Equitable). Equitable executed the sales contraction February 7, 1984. On January 31, 1984, Respondent Mulgrave received in trust a $1,000 earnest money deposit which was held in an escrow account by her broker, Welsh International Realty, Inc. In connection with the January 31, 1984 sales contract, the purchasers were to tender to the Respondent an additional $6,500 deposit within 5 days of acceptance by the seller or, in this case, on February 12, 1984, inasmuch as Equitable approved and executed the sales contract on February 7, 1984. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) 3/ Petitioner has alleged that the listing agency, Associates Realty Company (Associates), requested from the Respondent on March 11 and March 19, 1984, an escrow letter verifying that the additional escrow deposits had, in fact, been made. It is also alleged that the Respondent verbally assured Associates that the entire deposit of $7,500 was in escrow and that the sale would close, but Respondent did not then provide Associates the promised escrow letter. It is also alleged that Associates relied upon Respondent's statements that the deposit was in escrow and that it was not until approximately April 17, 1984 that Respondent admitted to Associates Realty that only $1,000 was in escrow. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) As stated, Respondent Oswald S. Welsh entered into a stipulated settlement and is no longer a Respondent in these proceedings. Sometime following the execution of the sales/deposit receipt contract by the Bucknors and the sellers, Equitable Relocation Management Corporation, by its agent Claire Smith, Respondent Mulgrave left the Miami area and gave the pending sales contracts to her sponsoring broker, Oswald S. Welsh. Marcia Mize was, during times material herein, the processing supervisor for the listing agency, Associates Realty. Once Ms. Mize began processing the Bucknor contract, she commenced making inquiries from Welsh International Realty, Inc. trying to get the needed verifications of income, etc. to the mortgage company such that the purchasers could be processed and a commitment letter issued. Ms. Mize made several oral requests of Welsh International Realty for verification of the escrow deposits from approximately February 7, 1984 through March 9, 1984. On March 17, 1984, Ms. Mize learned (from Respondent) that Welsh Realty only had $1,000 in escrow. Oswald S. Welsh, the broker for Welsh International Realty, Inc., by letter dated January 31, 1984, advised Associates Realty that Welsh was holding $1,000 in escrow from the Bucknors toward the purchase of the subject property. Marcia Mize was unsure if Respondent Mulgrave advised her that she had the additional $6,500 in deposits. Ms. Mize testified that she spoke with several secretaries employed by Welsh International Realty but she was unable to verify that she determined that it was Respondent Mulgrave who advised that the additional $6,500 deposit was in escrow with Welsh International Realty, Inc. Respondent Mulgrave later determined that the Bucknors were having marital and financial problems and, as a result, were unable to close on the transaction as agreed in the purchase/sales contract. Respondent Mulgrave denies that she, at any time, advised Marcia Mize of Associates Realty that she had the $6,500 which represented the balance of the remainder of the downpayment by the Bucknors in the purchase of the residence from Equitable. Respondent Mulgrave turned this transaction over to her sponsoring broker, Oswald S. Welsh when she had to leave the Miami area to attend to some pending family business. The Bucknors did not give Welsh International Realty, Inc. the remaining $6,500 escrow deposit which represented the remainder of their downpayment toward the purchase of the subject residence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the administrative complaint filed herein against Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1985.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent violated the real estate licensing law, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to account and deliver a deposit; failing to maintain a deposit in a real estate brokerage escrow account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; and/or being guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and/or breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0360741. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Consolidated American Realty Services, Inc., in Tampa, Florida. From June 6, 1983, through June 25, 1984, Respondent was licensed and operating as a real estate broker under the trade name, "Benjamin Realty," in Tampa, Florida. For sometime prior to June 2, 1984, Eileen Cumbie attempted to sell a lot owned by her located at 1102 26th Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On June 2, 1984, the Respondent contacted Ms. Cumbie and informed her that he had a client interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie informed the Respondent that as long as she netted a certain amount, she would be willing to sell the property. Ms. Cumbie allowed the Respondent to put together a contract for the sale of the lot. In connection therewith, the Respondent prepared a sales contract with Danilo Castellanos, as purchaser, and Eileen W. Cumbie, as seller, for the purchase and sale of the property. Pursuant to the purchase and sales agreement, the Respondent received in trust from Mr. Castellanos a $500 earnest money deposit via check dated June 2, 1984. On June 5, 1984, the Respondent deposited the check into his real estate brokerage account maintained at the Central Bank of Tampa, 2307 W. Rennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Castellanos entered into the contract for the benefit of his son and daughter-in-law who resided in New Jersey but were planning to relocate to the Tampa area. Mr. Castellanos' daughter-in-law went to look at the lot on June 10, 1984 and decided that she did not like the area in which it was located. The closing of the transaction was set for June 15, 1984. On approximately June 13, 1984, Mr. Castellanos' daughter- in-law informed the Respondent that they were no longer interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie was out of town during the time of the scheduled closing, but had prepared and signed all of the paperwork in advance. When she returned after June 15, 1984, she called Respondent to find out how the closing went. The Respondent informed her that the buyers failed to go through with the transaction. The contract provided in part as follows: ". . . If the buyer fails to perform this contract within the time specified herein, time being of the essence of this agreement, the deposit made by the buyer shall be disposed of in the following manner: To the Broker an amount equal to his earned commission, but not to exceed 1/2 of the deposit which shall discharge the sellers obligation to him for that service; remainder to the seller to be credited to him against his damages accrued by reason of the breach of contract. " After the transaction failed to close, Ms. Cumbie requested that Respondent give a portion of the deposit to her. The Respondent told Ms. Cumbie that he would give her the entire deposit because she had paid for the survey and a few other items to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Over the next several months, the Respondent, on several occasions, promised to deliver a check to Ms. Cumbie. However, the Respondent never delivered any such check to Ms. Cumbie. Because the Respondent failed to provide Ms. Cumbie with a share of the earnest money deposit, she initiated a civil action in the County Court of Hillsborough County. On October 15, 1985, Ms. Cumbie was awarded a final judgment in the amount of $250 against Respondent for her share of the forfeited earnest money deposit. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent had not satisfied the judgment and Ms. Cumbie had not received any proceeds from the forfeited earnest money deposit. Shortly after the transaction failed to close, the purchasers requested that the Respondent return the earnest money deposit to them. However, the Respondent informed them that they were not entitled to the return of the earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit was never returned to the purchasers. On July 31, 1984, the balance in Respondent's escrow account was $568.83. However, on September 1, 1984, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account fell to S18.83. From October 31, 1984 to January 1, 1986, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account remained $3.83.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the registration of Fortunato Benjamin- Pabon as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fortunato Benjamin-Pabon 2729 N. Ridgewood Avenue, #1 Tampa, Florida 33602 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, James P. Hudson, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: At all pertinent times, Respondent, James P. Hudson, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0148841 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been operating as a broker from an office at 413 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435. Respondent maintains an escrow account No. 018200602689 at Sun Bank in Boynton Beach, Florida into which he deposits trusts funds received in his capacity as a real estate broker. Sometime in the early part of September 1989, Petitioner initiated a random audit of Respondent's business. Prior to the audit, Petitioner's investigator advised the Respondent that he would need to produce all the records related to his escrow account. An investigator for Petitioner visited Respondent's office on or about September 18, 1989 to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow accounts. Based upon the investigator's review of the records, five different transactions were identified as allegedly involving delays or mishandling of escrow funds by Respondent. Those transactions are the basis for several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Each transaction is addressed separately below. The first transaction involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Fitz as buyer and Kerstin as seller (the "Fitz Contract"). Included in Respondent's files on this transaction was a copy of a contract for sale and purchase that was dated and signed by the buyer on September 6, 1989 and dated and signed by the seller on September 9, 1989. The buyer in the Fitz Contract gave Respondent a check for $1000 as a deposit to be held in escrow in connection with the transaction. The Respondent's written receipt for that check is dated September 7, 1989. The evidence established that this initial deposit check was delivered to Respondent on Thursday evening, September 7, 1989. Respondent was out of town on Friday, September 8 and returned on Monday evening, September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as a deposit on September 13. The sellers (the Kerstins) signed the contract on September 9, 1989. However, in executing the contract, they crossed out the $900,000 sales price submitted by the buyer and increased the price to $1,400,000. In other words, the sellers made a counteroffer with respect to this contract. The initial deposit was timely returned to the sellers when the counteroffer was rejected. Petitioner's investigator erroneously assumed that Respondent did not timely collect the additional deposit required under this contract. While Petitioner's investigator considered this signed contract in Respondent's files to be a binding agreement on the parties, it is clear that the change in sales price was only initialed by the sellers and, therefore, there was no enforceable agreement. The parties to the Fitz Contract subsequently executed another written contract. This second agreement provided for a sales price of $1,100,000. That contract was executed by the buyer on September 20, 1989 and by the sellers on September 24, 1989. This second contract called for a $49,000.00 deposit upon acceptance. The buyers gave Respondent a check dated September 25, 1989 in the amount of $49,000.00. That check was deposited by Respondent in his escrow account on the afternoon of September 26, 1989. The $49,000 deposit is reflected in the bank records as being deposited on September 27, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay by Respondent in collecting or depositing the funds into escrow. The second transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Campanis as buyer and Hoffman as seller. The buyer in this transaction gave Respondent a check dated September 6, 1990 to be held as a deposit for this contract. A photocopy of the check presented to Petitioner's investigator included a handwritten note that states "hold until Friday 9/8/89." The evidence did not establish who wrote this note. The evidence established that the check was received by one of Respondent's sales associates on September 7 and left on the Respondent's desk on September 8. Respondent is the only company employee authorized to deposit checks or otherwise handle transactions involving the escrow account. As indicated above, Respondent was out of town from September 8 through the evening of September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as being credited to the escrow account on September 13. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was not delinquent in depositing these funds. The third transaction involved a contract for the purchase and sale of real property between White as buyer and Adkins as seller (the "White Contract.") The White Contract was executed by the buyer on July 26, 1989 and by one of the sellers on July 27 and by the other seller on Friday, July 28. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500.00 with an additional deposit of $1,700 upon acceptance. The initial deposit check was dated July 26, 1989. That deposit check was attached to the contract executed by the purchaser and presented to a cooperating real estate agent who was to present the proposed contract to the seller. The executed contract was not returned to Respondent until sometime during the weekend of July 29 and 30. The initial deposit check along with the additional deposit were then deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, July 31, 1989. Under the circumstances, the evidence established that there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The next transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for sale and purchase of real property between Milera as buyer and Twillie as seller (the "Milera Contract.") The Milera Contract provided for an additional deposit due upon acceptance. The contract was accepted by Twillie on August 23, 1989. The parties to the contract agreed that the time for making the additional deposit would be extended for two days. The check for the additional deposit was dated and received by Respondent on Friday, August 25, 1989. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Tuesday, August 29, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The final transaction involved a contract with the sale and purchase of real property between Gerrety as buyer and the estate of John Walsh as seller (the "Gerrety Contract.") The Gerrety Contract was executed by the purchaser on August 10, 1989. The deposit check was given to one of the Respondent's associates on that Thursday evening. The deposit check was not delivered to Respondent until after business hours on Friday, August 11. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, August 14. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money on this transaction. During the audit, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent was holding deposits on two separate rental properties in his escrow account. At the time of the audit, Petitioner's investigator was not provided with any leases or other documentation regarding these transactions even though Respondent was supposed to produce records for all sums in the escrow account. Respondent contends that he did not realize he was supposed to produce his rental files, was never specifically asked to produce these files and did not know that Petitioner was questioning these transactions until he received the Administrative Complaint in this action. While there was apparently some miscommunication at the time of the audit, adequate documentation for these rental deposits was produced at the hearing. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not maintain adequate documentation regarding these deposits is without merit. Petitioner has also charged that Respondent did not produce all of the deposit slips in connection with the escrow account and did not produce any evidence of reconciliation of the escrow account. The evidence at the hearing established that all deposit slips are available even though they were not all kept with the bank statements. Moreover, the evidence failed to substantiate the allegation that Respondent did not reconcile his escrow account. Thus, these charges were not substantiated. At the time of the audit, Respondent advised Petitioner's investigator that the escrow account included some commission money that had not yet been removed. In the past, Respondent would sometimes collect his commissions at the close of a transaction from the funds held in escrow. (Respondent no longer collects commissions in this manner.) In auditing Respondent's escrow account, Petitioner's investigator determined that there was an overage of approximately $8,178.17 in the account. Within thirty days of the completion of the audit, Respondent removed $7,500 of the overage which represented his commission on two previously closed transactions. While Respondent believed that the remaining amount of the overage was also his commission money, he refrained from removing any more money until completion of a year-end audit by his accountant. Respondent's records reflected a slight difference in the amount of the overage than the amount calculated by Petitioner during the audit. Respondent wanted to be absolutely certain that only the proper amount was removed from the escrow account. At the conclusion of the audit on September 18, 1989, Respondent signed an office inspection report form prepared by Petitioner which contained the following pre-printed statement: ...I certify that to the best of my knowledge all records pertaining to my sales escrow/trust account(s) and my rental property management account(s) have been provided to the investigator. The above violations are brought to my attention this date and thoroughly explained. I will take corrective action within thirty days and furnish photo/sketches of corrections and documents on the same... There is some confusion as to what additional documentation Respondent was expected to provide following the completion of the September, 1989 audit. Respondent did not believe he was required to provide any additional evidence to Petitioner or its investigator and no further documentation was provided by Respondent until Petitioner's investigator returned to his office in January of 1990. Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's office on January 17, 1990. At that time, $7500.00 of the overage had been removed from the escrow account. The remaining amount of the overage was removed later in January. It does not appear that Respondent provided Petitioner's investigator with copies of the rental agreements or the second contract in the Kerstin transaction during the January visit by Petitioner's investigator. Respondent contends that this information was never specifically requested. It is clear that communication between Respondent and Petitioner's investigator had deteriorated from bad to worse by the time of this January visit. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted new record keeping requirements regarding escrow accounts in July of 1989. The new rules require a written monthly reconciliation of a broker's escrow account. At the time of the audit, Respondent was not keeping the minimum written statement comparing broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance of all trust accounts as required by the new rules. Even after the audit in September, Respondent did not keep the written reconciliations in the format required by the new rules. Respondent was reconciling the account on his computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts III and IV and reprimanding him for minor and techinical violations of those counts and imposing a fine of $100.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3589 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in pertinenet part in Findings of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 15. Subordinate 23. to Findings of Fact 8, 9 and Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. This subject is also addressed in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Rejected as not established by competent susbstantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findigns of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed to some degree in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not numbered. The numbers below refer to the numerical sections contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6-9. The second two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in some degree in Findings of Fact 21. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentencess are subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The next two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentence are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The second sentence is rejected as vague. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 and 25. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18, 19 and 22. The fourth sentence is rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. This subject matter is addressed in part in Findings of Fact 19. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James P. Hudson 413 South Federal Highway Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent, Antonio Prado, has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license no. 0138312. Respondent, Antonio Prado, is the President and qualifying broker for a real estate company called Bayside International Realty, Inc. Respondent, Bayside International Realty, Inc., has been issued real estate license no. 1001760. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. On January 13, 1995, an investigator employed by the Department conducted an office inspection and audit of the Respondents' place of business. During the course of the audit, the investigator discovered that the escrow account for the business contained $1,000.00. None of the $1,000.00 was, in fact, "trust funds" owed or belonging to a third party as Respondents have not held "trust funds" since August, 1990. The investigator advised Respondent that he was not allowed to hold personal funds in excess of $200.00 in the company escrow account. Based upon that information, Respondent immediately, on January 13, 1995, removed $800.00 from the escrow account leaving a balance of $200.00. The purpose of holding $1,000.00 in the account related to a Barnett Bank policy which required the minimum balance of $1,000.00 to avoid service charges on the account. Respondent, Antonio Prado, has not been active in the real estate practice for several years and was unaware of changes to the escrow policy dating back to December, 1991, which prohibit more than $200.00 of personal funds in an escrow account. Respondent, Antonio Prado, has been licensed for 19 years and has never been disciplined for any violations of the real estate law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order determining the Respondent, Antonio Prado, committed only a minor technical violation of Section 425.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and, in recognition of Respondent's exemplary record as a broker, which, along with his willing, immediate action to correct the error, demonstrates sound judgment, issue a letter of reprimand and guidance regarding escrow account rules and regulations. All other allegations against these Respondents should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0038 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are rejected as statements of fact as they are restatement of argument or comment made at the hearing. Paragraphs 3 through 6 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Theodore R. Gay Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Rhode Building Phase II 401 Northwest Second Avenue N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Antonio Prado, pro se and as President of Bayside International Realty, Inc. 1390 Brickell Avenue, Suite 230 Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Prehearing Stipulation, the following facts are established: This case is based on allegations by John Carosso that James J. Baruch, a licensed real estate broker, wrongfully allowed the dispersal of a deposit Mr. Carosso had made to Centennial Development Corporation on a villa to be constructed. James J. Baruch was associated with Wyn Pope Associates, Inc., as a realtor and salesman over a period of several years and on several projects which Mr. Pope developed. On the Gasa Tiempo project, the developer was Centennial Development Corporation and sales were handled by Wyn Pope Associates, Inc. This corporate realtor was formed using James J. Baruch's realtor's license. During their association, Wyn Pope and James Baruch had always agreed that no deposits would be accepted which could not be used for construction after the mortgage commitment. In the past Mr. Baruch had rejected contracts which did not allow such use of the deposit. The Casa Tiempo contracts all contained such a provision and deposit monies were invariably used for construction with the knowledge of the purchasers. Only the contract with John Carosso was changed to provide for an escrow and to prohibit use of the deposit for construction. Mr. Baruch did not prepare or negotiate this contract and his only connection with the Carosso sale was to witness Mr. Carosso's signature. The contract was negotiated and altered by Wyn Pope without Mr. Baruch's knowledge or consent. Neither Mr. Baruch nor Wyn Pope Associates was a party to the contract and the contract said that the deposit would be held in escrow, but did not specify an escrow agent. As a party to the contract, Centennial acknowledged receipt of the deposit and thereby agreed to hold it in escrow. Since Mr. Baruch was not an officer or in any way a part of Centennial Development Corporation, he had no authority to approve or modify the contracts and no reason to believe that he needed to review each contract himself. Mr. Baruch was therefore not authorized to control the deposit which according to the terms of the contract was made to Centennial Development Corporation. Although the contract was signed July 6, 1979, no deposit was received until July 17, 1979. The changes regarding escrow, although typed in, were each initialed, indicating that the contract was changed after execution and witnessing. Given the ten-day delay and initialing, it is likely that the changes regarding the deposit were made in the contract after Mr. Baruch had witnessed Mr. Carosso's signature and as a condition of the deposit being actually paid. In that case, Mr. Baruch would have no way of knowing that the standard contract had been modified unless he checked each contract submitted by other salesmen. Contrary to paragraph 9 of Petitioner's Complaint, Mr. Baruch never had actual knowledge of the terms of the Carosso contract until the project was taken over by Casa Tiempo Builders, Inc., in May, 1980. Mr. Baruch received no commission on the Carosso sale and never received any part of the deposit. Mr. Baruch completely severed his connection with Wyn Pope Associates, Inc., and Casa Tiempo in March, 1980, and did not profit in any way from the additional deposits demanded and received by Joseph Falso in May, 1980. On or about August 7, 1980, John Carosso entered into an agreement for the completion of his villa in which he released Centennial Development from all claims connected with his deposit. John Carosso was injured by the use of his deposit only in that he lost the option of withdrawing his deposit and rescinding the contract. He could not have finished his home at the original contract price even if the deposit remained in escrow. All the homes in the project had appreciated greatly in value between the contract of July 6, 1979 and the May, 1980 meeting, thus it was to each owner's advantage to pay the 7,500 and complete construction. Because of this appreciation, Mr. Carosso could have paid the $7,500 and immediately sold the house in May, 1980 for enough to return his entire initial deposit plus a profit. One Mr. Hmeilewski, a contract vendee, did so with the help of the new management of Centennial. Selling his contract would thus have enabled Mr. Carosso to be in a better position than rescission and return of the deposit. He preferred to have the house at the increased price. Respondent's position is that he was not responsible for the deposit and should not be sanctioned for the events stipulated to, especially since no actual damage was incurred by Mr. Carosso and all claims against the Developer and escrow holder Centennial Development Corporation were released by Mr. Carosso.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against James J. Baruch be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation State Office Building 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nicholas Rockwell, Esquire McCUNE HIAASEN CRUM FERRIS & GARDNER, P.A. 25 South Andrews Avenue Post Office Box 14636 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Bldg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints are correct and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Inge E. Hood ("Hood"), was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license #0318539. The most recent license issued to Hood was as a broker c/o William Glass Realty, Inc., 2835 Bridge Street, Post Office Box 755, LaBelle, Florida 33935-9755. From approximately April 12, 1984 through January 10, 1991, Hood was a manager and qualifying broker for Florida Home Finders, Inc. ("FHF"), and acted as general manager for the FHF Port LaBelle office. FHF was a subsidiary of General Development Corporation ("GDC"), a developer of residential subdivisions. At the time Hood was the general manager of FHF's Port LaBelle office, FHF managed the rental program available to investment purchasers of GDC homes. The rental program provided such services as leasing, prospective tenant screening, rent collection, and maintenance of investor-owned housing. Such services were funded from escrow accounts to which the home owner would initially deposit funds and which would be supplemented by rental income. Prior to April 12, 1990, James R. Wells, was president of FHF and was the person to whom Hood reported. At some time in 1988, Juan and Beryl Soto purchased a GDC home at 4007 Sena Lane, LaBelle. The home was financed through a GDC program, GDC Financing Corporation1 . The Sotos did not occupy the home, and, pursuant to a property management agreement, it was placed in the FHF rental program, administered by Hood. The monthly rental income from the home was approximately half of the monthly mortgage payment amount. In late 1988, Hood was notified that the Soto home would likely revert to GDC through a foreclosure action, and that the Sotos were entitled to rental income prior to the foreclosure, after which rental income would accrue to GDC, to which the Soto property would revert. In 1989, the property reverted back to GDC ownership through foreclosure. FHF and Hood continued to manage the rental house for GDC. Approximately $5,394.19 in rental funds were due the Sotos for rental income on the home. A check for the amount was sent to the Sotos, but was returned to GDC.2 Upon return of the funds, the monies were deposited into the FHF property management escrow account. At some time in 1989, GDC sales went into decline. GDC's fiscal turmoil eventually culminated in the company filing for bankruptcy protection. Hood's compensation, which was based on a salary plus commission "override" agreement, likewise declined during this period. During late 1989 and early 1990, Hood desired to purchase a house at 4008 South Edgewater Circle, LaBelle, from owner Elizabeth Smith, who resided in Rosedale, New York. Prior to closing on the purchase, Hood rented the Smith house. While living in the Smith house which Hood was purchasing, Hood purchased replacement carpet, vinyl flooring, and blinds for the house at 4008 South Edgewater from Blocker's Furniture and Appliance Center in LaBelle. According to receipts, the expenditures at Blocker's totaled $3,683.01, including $2725.77 for carpet on 11/6/89, $799.99 for vertical blinds on 11/7/89, and $157.25 for vinyl flooring on 11/28/89. By checks numbered 017253 and 017254, both dated 3/19/90, payable to Blocker's Furniture and drawn on the "Florida Home Finders, Inc., Rental Receipts Escrow Account", Hood paid Blocker's $3,683.01 from the FHF rental escrow account. 14. By checks numbered 017261 (dated 3/26/90), 017609 (dated 5/5/90) and 017916 (dated 7/4/90), payable to Elizabeth Smith and drawn on the "Florida Home Finders, Inc., Rental Receipts Escrow Account", Hood paid $1,480 to Smith as rent for the house at 4008 South Edgewater. At the hearing, Hood testified that she was owed compensation from FHF which, due to GDC's financial problems, had not been forthcoming. Hood further testified that she was authorized by James Wells to withdraw funds from the FHF escrow account to cover her shortages. Hood suggested that the funds withdrawn from escrow were not actually escrowed funds, but were the funds supposedly rejected by, and therefore not owed to, the Sotos. The Petitioner's investigator interviewed Wells who admitted that he had expressed to Hood his concern over her financial condition, and that they had discussed her need for funds, but was unable to recall whether he had authorized Hood to remove funds from the escrow account without reference to his files, which he did not have at the time of the interview. The investigator did not further pursue the matter. Wells did not testify at the hearing. The evidence fails to support Hood's hearsay testimony regarding Wells' supposed authorization to remove funds from the rental escrow account. There is no evidence as to the amount of unpaid compensation to which Hood was allegedly entitled. There is no credible evidence that the Sotos had refused said funds or that the funds were no longer due to them. In March of 1990, Hood owned a house at 4083 South Edgewater Circle, LaBelle, which she desired to sell to Carolyn J. and Robert M. Ford. Hood arranged to rent the house to the Fords pending completion of the sale. By a rental agreement dated March 17, 1990, the Fords rented the Hood house located at 4083 South Edgewater Circle beginning on said date, with rental payments to begin on April 1, 1990. The rental agreement provided for a monthly payment of $475, of which $115 was to be credited towards the down payment until the sales transaction closed. By contract for sale and purchase dated March 17, 1990, the Fords agreed to purchase the 4083 South Edgewater Circle house. The Fords gave Hood a $500 earnest money deposit check, made payable to "Florida Home Finders" which was deposited into the FHF escrow account. The contract for sale provides that "[i]f Buyer fails to obtain the loan commitment and promptly notifies Seller in writing, or after diligent effort fails to meet the terms and conditions of the commitment or to waive Buyer's rights under this subparagraph within the time stated for obtaining the commitment, then either party may cancel the Contract and Buyer shall be refunded the deposit(s)." The Fords were unable to obtain financing for the home purchase by the date set for closing in the contract. However, the Fords continued to reside in Hood's property, and, based on the continuing lease agreement which provided for a portion of the rental payment to go towards the purchase of the house, apparently intended to obtain financing and close on the transaction. On April 12, 1990, James R. Wells was terminated as president of FHF. Wells was succeeded by Harold W. Fenno. By check #000337 dated October 8, 1990, drawn on the "Florida Home Finders Sales Escrow Account" and made payable to Hood, she withdrew $1,305.00 from the account. The funds include the $500 initial deposit and seven deposits of $115 as provided in the rental agreement. A notation on the check indicated that the funds were a "binder deposit due to Seller/Contract Null and Void" and that said monies are "to be applied if & when the contract does become active again" for the Fords purchase of the house at 4083 South Edgewater Circle. The evidence fails to establish that Hood was entitled to retain the Fords deposit funds. Mr. Fenno subsequently became aware of escrow account discrepancies related to Hood's withdrawals. On January 10, 1991, Hood's employment with FHF was terminated. There is no evidence that FHF has requested the Respondent to return or account for the escrow funds she withdrew. On February 8, 1991, the Fords, by cashier's check made payable personally to Hood, gave Hood $2,800. The monies were supposedly an additional deposit on the Hood home in which the Fords have lived since March, 1990. The Fords did not testify at the hearing. The sales transaction has never closed. In March or April of 1991, Hood became aware of the Petitioner's investigation into her withdrawal and retention of the Ford escrow deposit funds. By letter dated April 26, 1991, Hood notified the Fords to vacate the house at 4083 South Edgewater Circle by May 31, 1991. Hood's letter provided that the May rent was due to be paid not later than May 5, 1991. As of the date of the hearing (April 16, 1992) the Fords continue to live in the Hood house. There is no evidence that the Fords have requested refund or an accounting of any monies provided to Hood. The Fords have paid no rent since April, 1991. Hood is pursuing the eviction of the Ford's from the house. There is no credible evidence as to whether the Fords intend to close on the purchase of the property, to continue residing therein (with or without rental payment) or to vacate the house. The Respondent asserts that the Ford funds have been applied towards the unpaid rent. There has been no judgement rendered as to Hood's supposed entitlement to retain said funds. The evidence fails to establish that Hood is currently entitled to retain the Ford deposit funds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order determining Inge E. Hood guilty of the violations set forth herein and revoking her license as a real estate broker. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of July, 1992. The transcript erroneously identifies the company as "GDV Financing Corporation". The Respondent asserted that the Sotos did not feel entitled to the funds so they returned them. Testimony as to the reason the check was returned by the Sotos is merely speculative, and is insufficient to support a finding of fact. APPENDIX CASES NO. 91-3146 and 91-6272 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected, contrary to greater weight of the evidence. The testimony of the president of FHF establishes that the Respondent was terminated by the company on January 10, 1991. 11. Second sentence is rejected, immaterial. Mr. Fenno was not president of FHF at the time the Respondent withdrew funds from the FHF escrow account. There has been no request to Respondent by FHF for return of or an accounting of said funds. Mr. Fenno testified that there was no written authorization for Respondent to remove the funds from the escrow account, but admitted he had not examined the files to see if such documentation exists. 13. Accepted as to the fact the Respondent has not refunded escrow funds to FHF. Rejected as to implication that there has been any written request from FHF for return of or an accounting of said funds, (Mr. Fenno admitted that there has been no request) or that Respondent has refused such request. 17. Statement that $1,305 withdrawal on October 10, 1990 from escrow account related to Ford purchase was "all without the prior knowledge and consent of the Fords or the Florida Home Finders, Inc." is rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, which fails to establish whether or not the withdrawal was approved by the Fords. 19. Rejected. The evidence fails to establish that the additional deposit funds were solicited by the Respondent. 21. Accepted as to the fact the Respondent has not refunded escrow funds to the Fords. Rejected as to implication that there has been any request from them for return of or an accounting of such funds, not supported by the evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected, contrary to greater weight of the evidence. The records indicate that the Respondent's application for license as broker for Florida Home Finders, Inc. was filed on April 12, 1984. 6. Last sentence, rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that GDC or FHF authorized Respondent to remove funds from escrow and convert said funds to personal use. 9-10. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 11. Rejected as to statement that Wells authorized Respondent to remove funds from escrow and convert said funds to personal use, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as to statement, "This was done with the full consent of the Fords as rent." The Fords did not testify. If the statement refers to the lease agreement, the agreement is in evidence. If the reference is to the Respondent's removal of said funds from escrow, there is no credible evidence supporting the assertion. Rejected. The evidence fails to establish that the additional deposit funds were solicited by the Respondent 18. Last sentence rejected. There is no evidence that Hood is currently entitled to retain Ford deposit funds as setoff against unpaid rent. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James H. Gillis, Esq. Division of Legal Services Legal Section, Suite N-308 Hurston Building North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Kinley I. Engvalson, Esq. DUNCAN & ENGVALSON, P.A. Post Office Drawer 249 Fort Myers, FL 33902
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed yacht and ship broker salesman. He has been licensed since 1990. In December 1990, Respondent was issued license number 1322, as a yacht and ship broker salesman for Seafarer Brokerage, Inc. (Seafarer). In October 1998, he renewed his license, which had an expiration date of October 28, 2000. On July 31, 1997, Lorraine Woods, the President of Seafarer, wrote to Peter Butler, section head of the yacht and ship section of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, notifying him that Respondent was the broker of record for Seafarer. Ms. Woods' license had been suspended, and Respondent knew that her license had been suspended prior to his becoming broker of record for Seafarer. As the broker of record, Respondent knew that he was solely responsible for safeguarding the money of all clients in the brokerage's escrow account. Respondent did not know the details involving the suspension of Ms. Woods' license. He was not aware that Ms. Woods had abused the control of Seafarer's escrow account for her own benefit by taking client funds from the escrow account to pay for Seafarer's operating expenses. Mr. Butler was very concerned with the abuse of Seafarer's escrow account committed by Ms. Woods. He demanded assurance from Respondent that Ms. Woods would not have access to the escrow account, and Respondent provided that assurance. On August 4, 1997, Respondent wrote to Mr. Butler confirming that he (Respondent) was the broker of record for Seafarer. In his written communication, Respondent confirmed certain details of the escrow account of Seafarer, including that he was broker of record and that the account was located at First Union National Bank of Florida, with the address and account number listed. Moreover, Respondent indicated that, as of July 30, 1997, he became the sole signatory on the account. Respondent personally provided the signatory card, showing that he was the sole signatory on the account, to the bank. Even though the bank did not have a record of such a signatory card, the undersigned is persuaded that Respondent's testimony is credible and that he provided the signatory card to the bank. Even though Respondent was the broker of record for Seafarer, Respondent looked upon Ms. Woods as the employer and himself as the employee, resulting in an employer-employee relationship. Seafarer consisted of two persons, Respondent and Ms. Woods. If Respondent was unavailable for a situation in which a check had to be written and executed, he would prepare a blank check with his signature on it and give it to Ms. Woods. She continued to maintain the business records. Ms. Woods maintained all the operating and escrow records, checks, and bank statements in a locked drawer for which she had the only key; Respondent did not have free and unobstructed access to these documents even though he was Seafarer's broker of record. Respondent and Ms. Woods continued this procedure for over a year without incident. On April 2, 1999, Warren Scott made an offer on a 1974 CAL2-46, a 46-foot yacht, with Seafarer. He placed a $6,000.00 deposit on the yacht. Mr. Scott's dealings, regarding the yacht, were with Ms. Woods. He had dealt with Seafarer and Ms. Woods on a prior occasion, had made a deposit, and had his deposit refunded. As a result, Mr. Scott felt comfortable dealing with Seafarer and Ms. Woods even though he had not purchased a yacht from Seafarer. On April 5, 1999, Mr. Scott's check was deposited in Seafarer's escrow account. On April 5, 1999, check numbered 1144, made payable to cash for $4,305.00, bearing Respondent's signature was written. The check bore the notation at the bottom left corner at the "FOR" space: "CAL2-46 (illegible) Enterprises." This check cleared Seafarer's escrow account on April 7, 1999, leaving a balance of $2,512.34. Respondent had signed the check and left it for Ms. Woods to fill-in the details. The check was signed by Respondent in March 1999 for a closing that was taking place at the end of March, but the check was not used at the closing in March. Ms. Woods had written the check to pay the rent for Seafarer. Even though Respondent had signed the check, the undersigned is persuaded that he did not know that Ms. Woods was going to use the check for a purpose other than for what it was written. On April 27, 1999, Respondent signed a check for $100.00, payable to Complete Yacht Service for engine repair to the CAL2-46. This check cleared Seafarer's escrow account on April 30, 1999, leaving a balance of $5,796.36. After a sea trial and survey, Mr. Scott wrote to Ms. Woods on April 30, 1999, indicating that he had decided not to purchase the 1974 CAL2-46 pursuant to their arrangement of April 2, 1999. On May 3, 1999, Mr. Scott again wrote to Ms. Woods that his offer to purchase the 1974 CAL2-46 for $55,000.00 in the conditional acceptance of vessel agreement, dated April 29, 1999, was expiring on May 3, 1999, at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Scott went to Seafarer on May 4, 1999, to obtain a refund of his deposit from Ms. Woods. Respondent informed him that Ms. Woods was out and that they would have to wait for her return, which was going to be in about an hour. Mr. Scott was unable to wait. He left Fort Lauderdale, returning to Nevada, with the understanding that his deposit, less $100.00 for the engine survey, would be returned to him. Mr. Scott expected the monies within a week to ten days. On May 5, 1999, a deposit of $4,700.00 was made to Seafarer's escrow account, leaving a balance of $9,136.36. On May 5, 1999, Seafarer's escrow account contained sufficient monies to give Mr. Scott a full refund of his deposit, less the $100.00. Respondent left for a vacation to the United Kingdom on May 17, 1999, with his return on June 15, 1999. Prior to his leaving, Respondent signed two blank checks, numbered 1153 and 1154, from Seafarer's escrow account. The checks were written for an upcoming business transaction during his absence, regarding a closing and Respondent's commission on the closing. On May 18, 1999, Seafarer's escrow account balance fell to $5,192.21, after three checks cleared the account. Two of the three checks, signed by Respondent, were payable to Seafarer in the amount of $1,360.00 for "comm.-37'Irwin." During May 1999, checks totaling $6,900.00, which were signed by Respondent, cleared Seafarer's escrow account. Mr. Scott made several telephone calls to Seafarer regarding the return of his deposit. Each time Mr. Scott spoke with Ms. Woods and he was not provided with a satisfactory response from her. On June 16, 1999, Mr. Scott received a check, check numbered 1153, for $5,900.00 from Seafarer. He also received a telephone call that same day from Ms. Woods requesting him not to deposit the check until the end of the month; Mr. Scott agreed. Respondent was not aware that check numbered 1153 was going to be used to refund Mr. Scott's deposit. Respondent was unaware that the check was used for a purpose other than for what it was intended. On June 17, 1999, check numbered 1154, made payable to Seafarer for $1,000.00 for "petty cash" cleared Seafarer's escrow account. The check was used by Ms. Woods to pay Seafarer's telephone and utility bills. Respondent was unaware that check numbered 1154 was going to be used for a purpose other than for what it was written. When Respondent returned from his vacation, he was contacted by Mr. Scott who advised Respondent of the problem with the return of his refund. Respondent checked the bank statements for Seafarer's escrow account and discovered that Ms. Woods had not used the checks for their intended purpose and that she had used funds from the escrow account for improper purposes. On June 25, 1999, Mr. Scott deposited the check that he received from Seafarer. The check, payable to Mr. Scott, was posted to Seafarer's escrow account on June 29, 1999, leaving a negative balance of $2,667.22. For 67 days, between April 5, 1999, when Mr. Scott's deposit of $6,000.00 was deposited in Seafarer's escrow account, and June 29, 1999, the date Mr. Scott's refund of $5,900.00 cleared, Seafarer's escrow account did not have sufficient funds to pay the refund. The period between May 5, 1999, and May 17, 1999, was the only time period, during the 67-day period, that Seafarer's escrow account had sufficient funds to pay the refund. Mr. Scott indicates that his refund was received in his account in July 1999. Respondent remained with Seafarer long enough to ensure that Mr. Scott received his refund. On July 8, 1999, Respondent notified Mr. Butler that he was no longer the broker for Seafarer. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Sustaining the Notice to Show Cause and finding that John Scales violated Subsections 326.002(1) and 326.005(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Suspending Respondent's license for three years. Imposing a civil penalty of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Janis Sue Richardson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tracy J. Sumner, Esquire 1307 Leewood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Ross Fleetwood, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether the Respondent's license as a real estate broker should be disciplined because he violated a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission and because he failed to timely account for and deliver an escrowed real estate deposit.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant to those statutes. Respondent Richard F. Gallo was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0029993 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued the Respondent, as of November 7, 1990, was as a broker-salesman % Bucek & Bucek, Inc., in Port St. Lucie, Florida, with a home address of 2664 West End Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406. That is the same address Respondent placed on the request for hearing he filed in this case. On or about March 20, 1989, an Escrow Disbursement Order was issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission and received by the Respondent whereby the Respondent, as a broker, was ordered to disburse a $300 earnest money deposit to the buyers, Eugene and Dorothy McCrory, as a refund in accordance with the terms of a sales contract. The escrow funds were to be disbursed to the buyers in accord with the terms of their offer. As of March 22, 1990, the Respondent and not disbursed the $300 earnest money deposit to the buyer, Eugene McCrory. On April 11, 1990, almost one year after the filing of the Administrative Complaint, a stale-dated check for $300 was delivered to Eugene McCrory. From January 3, 1990 through January 22, 1990, Petitioner's Investigator Terry Giles made a diligent effort to locate the Respondent at his business address and listed home address, but could not contact him at either place. Investigator Giles has been unable to locate and interview the R Respondent and no response from the Respondent was made to Investigator Giles. The only statement received from Mr. Gallo was the letter addressed to counsel for the Commission in this case on July 9, 1990. (Exhibit 2) No proof of the contentions made in that letter was offered at the final hearing. The contentions are rejected as unsupported. The Respondent was aware that a Division of Administrative Hearing's case number had been assigned and therefore that the proceeding were forthcoming. (See, Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent: guilty of failing to account for or deliver money which has come into his hands and which is not his property or which he is not in law or equity entitled to retain under the circumstances, as prohibited by Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; and guilty of having violated the provisions of a lawful escrow disbursement order as prohibited by Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order suspend all real estate certifications, licenses, permits and registrations of the Respondent as to Counts II of the Administrative Complaint, for a period of 2 years and that he be fined $1,000 and that such real estate certifications, licenses, permits and registrations of the Respondent also be suspended concurrently for a period of one (1) year as to Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and that he be fined an additional $1,000 for a total fine of $2,000. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Richard F. Gallo 2664 West End Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
