The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.426(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(a), (b), and (e), Florida Statutes, 1/ by: acting as a broker; failing to deposit money in escrow; committing fraud, deceit, or dishonesty; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate sales person under license number 0585127. In September, 1992, Respondent's real estate license had lapsed. It was renewed on October 22, 1992. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a sales person at 457 Loma Bonita Drive, Davenport, Florida. Respondent is a British citizen doing business in Florida. Respondent owns 50 percent of the outstanding stock of Newbay Florida Associates ("Newbay") and Newbay Properties of Central Florida, Inc ("Newbay Properties"). Mr. Paul Chandler is a British citizen confined to a wheelchair by osteogenesis imperfecta, a bone disease. Mr. Chandler was injured in an automobile accident by a drunken driver in 1989. As a result, Mr. Chandler was awarded a jury verdict of $600,000. From the net proceeds of the jury verdict, Mr. Chandler purchased four houses in Florida from Respondent. The houses were for Mr. Chandler and members of his family who have disabilities similar to Mr. Chandler's. 2/ Mr. Chandler paid the remainder of his jury award, approximately $225,000, to Respondent to purchase a furniture franchise. The franchise was to be operated as Flamingo Interiors, Inc. ("Flamingo"), in Kissimmee, Florida. In September, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Chandler negotiated and executed a Franchise Rights Agreement (the "agreement"). The agreement identifies Mr. Chandler as the "franchisee" but otherwise conceals material facts and contains misrepresentations, false promises, false pretenses, and amounts to dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device. The agreement illustrates Respondent's fraud and breach of trust in a business transaction. The agreement contains the name "NEWBAY FLORIDA ASSOCIATES" across the top of the front page of the document. However, the agreement identifies the "franchisor" as Flamingo Interiors of Wells, Somerset, England. The agreement requires Flamingo Interiors to perform numerous obligations. The obligations include: setting up a retail store; providing all necessary training, licensing, qualifications, visas, and inventory; conveying an exclusive area of operation within an "eight (8) miles radius from the Newbay office;" and establishing the location and size of the retail store at the discretion of Newbay. The agreement represents that Newbay owns 25 percent of the outstanding stock in Flamingo Interiors. However, the agreement conceals Flamingo Interiors' place of formation, organization, and current status, and conceals Newbay's authority, or lack of authority, to bind Flamingo Interiors to the obligations of the franchisor in the agreement. Respondent is the only signatory to the agreement other than Mr. Chandler. Respondent signed the agreement on behalf of Newbay. No one from Flamingo Interiors is a signatory to the agreement. The purchase price under the agreement requires Mr. Chandler to deposit $45,000 upon execution of the agreement. The balance of $180,000 is to be paid by December 31, 1992. Mr. Chandler paid the $225,000 required under the agreement in three checks made payable to "Newbay Clients Account." Respondent represented that the amounts paid by Mr. Chandler would be held in the escrow account of Newbay Properties until the obligations of the franchisor were completed in accordance with the terms of the agreement. All negotiations were conducted in the offices of Newbay Properties. Newbay Properties had no escrow account. Respondent failed to place the $225,000 paid to him by Mr. Chandler into any escrow account. The obligations of the franchisor were never satisfied, in whole or in part. Neither Respondent, Newbay, nor Flamingo Interiors made any attempt to obtain performance of the obligations of the franchisor. After repeated efforts and requests by Mr. Chandler, Respondent failed to account for or return Mr. Chandler's money. Respondent never explained his failure to return the money deposited with Respondent by Mr. Chandler.
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 Sections 475.25(1)(k), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.42(1)(a); guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b); and revoking Respondent's real estate sales license. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. 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 8th day of February 1995.
The Issue Whether the violations alleged in the Administrative Action, as amended, were committed? If so, should Respondent be held responsible for these violations? If so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 60-00602, Series 4-COP issued by the Department. The licensed premises is Club Diamonds (Club), an adult entertainment establishment located in West Palm Beach (at 1000 North Congress Avenue) that features scantily clad female dancers.1 Patrons of the Club are served in two main areas: at the bar and at tables that are located between the bar and the stage area where the dancers perform to recorded music played by a DJ stationed in an elevated booth. On the north and west ends of the Club are partitioned areas with couches (Partitioned Areas). After receiving an anonymous complaint concerning the Club, the Department began an undercover operation at the establishment in which Special Agent John Murray and others participated. In his undercover capacity, Special Agent Murray visited the Club on three occasions during its normal business hours when there were other patrons, as well as Club employees (including dancers, at least one bartender/barmaid, a waitress, and a DJ) present. These visits were made on May 27, 1998, June 2, 1998, and June 6, 1998. On each visit, Special Agent Murray was approached by a dancer at the Club ("Faith" on May 27, "Riley" on June 2, and "Memphis" on June 6), who, after ascertaining that he was interested in a "private dance" for $20.00, escorted him to a couch in one of the Partitioned Areas on the north and west ends of the Club, sat him down on the couch, and spread his legs apart. The dancer then positioned herself between Special Agent Murray's legs and took off her top. Wearing only a thong-style bikini (G-string) bottom (which left her buttocks exposed), the dancer proceeded to perform for a fully clothed Special Agent Murray what is commonly referred to as a "lap dance." During the course of the "dance," the dancer, to the rhythm of the music, provocatively rubbed her bare breasts against Special Agent Murray's face and (while on his lap) rhythmically grinded her (covered) crotch area against his in a manner designed to simulate sexual intercourse and to sexually arouse Special Agent Murray. The "lap dance" lasted approximately the length of a song being played by the DJ over the Club's sound system. Following the conclusion of the "lap dance," Special Agent Murray paid the dancer $20.00. While at the Club, Special Agent Murray witnessed other patrons receive "lap dances" from the Club's dancers. Although the "lap dances" that Special Agent Murray and other patrons of the Club received were given in an area of the Club with "subdued" lighting (in contrast to the stage area, which was brightly lit), there was sufficient lighting for others in the Club at the time, including other employees, to observe these "lap dances," which were performed in an open and notorious manner in plain view. At no time did any employee of the Club make an effort to stop these "lap dances." Indeed, the DJ made comments to the patrons over the sound system encouraging them to purchase "private dances" from the Club's dancers. Although Respondent's officers and shareholders may not have been present on the premises during the May 27, 1998, June 2, 1998, and June 6, 1998, undercover operations, given the persistent and repeated instances of "lap dancing" engaged in by the dancers working at the Club, the inference is made that Respondent either fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked these flagrant acts of indecency, which were patently offensive, lacked any serious artistic value and that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interests. On June 9, 1998, Special Agent Murray returned to the Club. On this occasion, however, he identified himself as a Special Agent for the Division. After doing so, he provided the Club's management with a written notice of the Department's intention to file administrative charges against Respondent based upon the conduct he had observed during his previous three visits to the Club. At no time prior to this June 9, 1998, visit had Special Agent Murray informed the Club's management that the Department had any concerns regarding activities taking place at the Club. Administrative charges were filed against Respondent on June 16, 1998. In September of 1998, Respondent hired a new general manager, Jorge Courts, to run the Club. Mr. Courts has taken measures reasonably calculated to prevent the reoccurrence of the inappropriate conduct that Special Agent Murray observed on his May 27, 1998, June 2, 1998, and June 6, 1998, visits to the Club.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent liable for the violations alleged in the Administrative Action, as amended, and penalizing Respondent therefor by imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1999.
The Issue Are the four notices of violation against Respondents valid, and if valid, may the Department of Transportation require that the allegedly offending signs be removed?
Findings Of Fact On or about September 21, 2000, DOT became aware that two trucks bearing written material were parked adjacent to DOT's right-of-way on the west side of Interstate 95 (I-95) in St. Johns County in such a manner that the written material was visible from the main-traveled way of I-95. DOT issued four Notices of Violation against the two trucks. Notice of Violation number 10B TS 2000 539 was issued to Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica on September 21, 2000, against a truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.015 miles north of SR 207, at milepost 15.823. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4188T. Notice of Violation number 10B TS 2000 540 was issued to Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica on September 21, 2000, against a truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.041 miles north of SR 207, at milepost 15.849. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4189T. Notice of Violation number 10B BB 2000 539 was issued to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., c/o Gary Edinger, the registered agent for the corporation, on October 10, 2000, against the truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.015 miles north of SR 207. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4423T. Notice of Violation number 10B BB 2000 540 was issued to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., c/o Gary Edinger, the registered agent for the corporation, on October 10, 2000, against the truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.041 miles north of SR 207. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4424T. All of the foregoing notices alleged that the trucks are in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, in that they are unpermitted signs. On October 24, 2000, DOT issued a letter to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., advising it that the trucks which were issued the above- referenced notices of violation had been moved temporarily out of view and then returned to visibility at each other's previous milepost location. The letter advised that notwithstanding the movement of the trucks within their general location, the trucks remained illegal signs pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. I-95 is part of the Interstate Highway System. The two trucks are located at times within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of I-95. The trucks can be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity traveling on I-95. Admitted Fact Four of the parties' prehearing stipulation was that at the time the notices of violation were issued, the trucks displayed the words "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc." However, their Admitted Fact Five, incorporating photographs, and other photographs in evidence reveal that one truck had the foregoing display without the slashes and one truck juxtaposed the phrases "Great Food" and "Adult Toys," also without the slashes. The trucks were located within 15 feet of the right-of-way fence and were parked on raised mounds of dirt, elevating them above the surrounding terrain. Immediately adjacent to the trucks were light fixtures with halogen lights aimed at the sides of the trucks. If electricity had been available, the lights could have illuminated the vehicles. The trucks were intentionally placed at their locations. As of January 5, 2001, additional verbiage was added to the trucks which states, "Hunt & Fish Camp." As of the March 7, 2001, date of hearing, the trucks still contained this additional verbiage. On both trucks, the letters are all capitalized; the size of the letters and the paint colors used call the viewer's attention to the phrases, "CAFE? EROTICA," "WE DARE TO BARE," "ADULT TOYS," "GREAT FOOD," and "EXIT 94." The abbreviation "INC.," is the phrase smallest in size, located at the very bottom right, relatively inconspicuous, and the words, "hunt & fish camp," follow, vertical to the rest of the verbiage. There are no addresses, telephone numbers, arrows, or other identifying information. Respondent Cafe Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., is a Florida corporation. At all times material, Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., has been a corporation in good standing with the Florida Department of State, which has registered and approved its corporate name pursuant to Section 607.0401, Florida Statutes. Asher G. Sullivan, Jr., a/k/a Jerry Sullivan, is incorporator, President, shareholder, and Director of the corporation, which will hereafter be referred to as "Exit 94, Inc." Exit 94, Inc., owns, insures, and maintains the two trucks which are the subject of this proceeding. Exit 94, Inc., likewise owns the real property on which the trucks are located, which parcel consists of approximately 11 acres situated between I-95 exits 94 and 95. Exit 94, Inc., does not sell food or adult toys. It does not offer dancers for public viewing. The business of Exit 94, Inc., is developing a hunting and fishing camp at the property it owns, the property where its trucks were cited by DOT, between I-95 exits 94 and 95. Respondent Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica, is a Florida corporation which holds the license and owns the assets of the Café Erotica restaurant. Jerry Sullivan also is president, shareholder, and owner of Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., which will hereafter be referred-to as "Café Erotica." The St. Johns Management Company manages the Café Erotica restaurant. Jerry Sullivan also is the President and shareholder of the St. Johns Management Company. The Café Erotica restaurant is a 24-hour per day, full-service restaurant which features dancers clad in bathing suits and which sells adult toys. The Café Erotica restaurant is located at 2620 State Road 207 (SR-207), at the intersection of SR 207 and the exit 94 off-ramps from I-95. The real property owned by Café Erotica is not contiguous to the subject real property owned by Exit 94, Inc. The real property owned by Exit 94, Inc., which is the subject of DOT's notices of violation is approximately seven miles from the Café Erotica restaurant. The Café Erotica restaurant currently advertises on its premises and on a billboard at exit 94 of I-95. In the past, Café Erotica has advertised "we dare to bare," "adult toys," and "exit 94" on other billboards located adjacent to I- 95 in St. Johns County. Café Erotica no longer rents billboards in these locations. The advertisements of Café Erotica currently at exit 94 of I-95 include the words, "private dances," and "great food/adult toys." The advertising is specifically directed at motorists, including truck drivers, on I-95. In addition to the real property where its trucks were cited by DOT, which real property Exit 94, Inc., holds by warranty deed, Exit 94, Inc., leases property at the southeast corner of I-95's exit 93, where SR-206 intersects with I-95. At that location, Exit 94, Inc., displays a 14-foot by 25-foot permanent billboard sign reading "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Great Food/Adult Toys/Exit 94, Inc." (Note juxtaposition of part of the corporate name). Below this billboard, on the same leased property, is a smaller sign stating "Fish Camp" with a telephone number (P-11; TR 66-64, 73- 74, 183-184). Exit 94, Inc., claims to maintain an office and a telephone on this leased property. Mr. Sullivan's primary business is that of renting billboards for advertising purposes, which he owns. He has advertised on leased signs and has knowledge of DOT's sign permit requirements. At one time, Mr. Sullivan intended to place a billboard on the property owned by Exit 94, Inc. He has not done so. Neither Café Erotica nor Exit 94, Inc., has applied to DOT for sign permits for the subject trucks, nor paid any sign permit fees for them. No sign permits have been issued to any entity for the subject trucks. When the Notices of Violation were issued, DOT inspectors did not enter on the real property owned by Exit 94, Inc., or pull any business licenses for the property. They viewed the trucks from I-95. No improvements were visible from I-95. DOT did not undertake any investigation to determine the owner(s) of the subject trucks or subject real property. Café Erotica does not own any interest in the subject trucks or real property, and no citizen testified that the trucks had caused him/her to patronize the Café Erotica. DOT witnesses acknowledged that the Notices of Violation issued to Café Erotica were essentially issued in error because DOT did not know the identity of the owner of the subject trucks and real property. Upon discovering that Café Erotica did not own any interest in the subject trucks or real property, DOT made no effort to dismiss the violations against Café Erotica. Jerry Sullivan has decision-making authority for both Respondents as a corporate officer of both corporations. Jerry Sullivan makes management decisions concerning Café Erotica, including whether, and how, to advertise. Jerry Sullivan has directed all activity on the Exit 94, Inc., property. He anticipates creating, maintaining, and charging people for the privilege of using the subject property as a fishing and hunting camp. He also intends to reward employees and clients of his various enterprises with free privileges at the camp. Ninety percent of the time, the subject trucks are parked on the subject property. However, from time to time, the trucks, one of which was burned out and one of which has a "for sale" sign painted on its windshield, are driven off the Exit 94, Inc., property to haul equipment and corn to the subject property, for "truck maintenance," and for incidental uses in connection with Exit 94, Inc., and Mr. Sullivan's other business entities, including Café Erotica. On some of these occasions, the trucks are parked in the parking lot of the Café Erotica restaurant. The trucks are used off the Exit 94, Inc., property only two or three times per month. Except when under repair, they can be driven on the roads and highways. Exit 94, Inc., paid approximately $35,000 for the subject property on or about April 9, 1999, well before the notices of violation. Eight months prior to hearing (approximately three months before the notices of violation), Exit 94, Inc. dug a pond in a naturally low spot and/or a natural basin where Mr. Sullivan believed a pond originally had been on the subject property. A solar panel pump was installed to put water into the excavation because getting electricity run to the property was prohibitively expensive. Inspection of the subject property by DOT personnel only occurred about two-and-one-half weeks before the disputed- fact hearing. At that time, the solar pump used to fill the pond with water was not working well, so that the possibility of fish living in the rather shallow pond was highly unlikely. The pond was not stocked with fish. The property was not stocked with game animals. There was also one very ramshackle deer blind on the property and a permanent metal, utility pole had been erected to support another deer blind. There were no utilities, restrooms, offices, or facilities to clean game on the premises. No fishing equipment was available for purchase. This situation was memorialized by photographs in evidence. The Exit 94, Inc., property has only one entrance which is not directly accessible from a public roadway. To reach Exit 94, Inc.'s, only entrance, a car gets off I-95 at exit 94, where Café Erotica is located, and proceeds to a private dirt road created and owned by Georgia-Pacific timber company, and then drives approximately one mile along that dirt road over the timber company's land. Thousands of acres of scrub pine belonging to the timber company surround Exit 94, Inc.'s property. Entrance to the timber company land is through a fence/gate. The timber company gate is "posted," warning that hunting is not permitted on its land and that violators will be prosecuted. The Exit 94, Inc., property is also "posted," and therefore not open to the general public. There is a "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., Hunt & Fish Camp" sign at its entrance. It cannot be inferred, as urged by DOT, that if a real property owner "posts" its property so the owner may subsequently prosecute trespassers and poachers, the owner also cannot charge a fee to customers, invited guests, or business invitees who hunt or fish on its property with its permission. Travelling as described above, there are approximately nine and one-half miles between exit 94 of I-95 and the Exit 94, Inc., property. There are no signs advertising a "hunt and fish camp" on this stretch of land, but Exit 94, Inc., has its billboard and other sign at Exit 93. (See Finding of Fact 22.) Exit 94, Inc., presented accounts showing it spent over $7,003 maintaining its signs since 1999 and over $12,000 on the subject trucks. Exit 94, Inc., lists addresses and locations other than the subject property as its business address(es) for various purposes. It maintains no office or telephone on the subject property. The only building on the subject property is a very small storage shack, placed there by Exit 94, Inc. The shack is not habitable as overnight lodging. It was designed to hold repair equipment and corn for seeding the pond for waterfowl and seeding the woods for deer. There is no evidence whether this method of luring game from the surrounding area is legal or illegal, but it is certainly feasible, given the location of the subject property. (See Finding of Fact 38.) Russell Market is General Manager for the Café Erotica restaurant. He was directed by Mr. Sullivan to check on Exit 94, Inc.'s, subject property, and he did so once a week and scattered corn for nine months. He saw wild turkeys on the subject property. Bill King is affiliated with Mr. Sullivan's companies. He has not hunted the subject property, but he sighted one of the deer stands. No witness testified to having camped overnight on the subject property. Bill Harry, who is employed by Mr. Sullivan, has hunted the subject property three or four times without success, despite once seeing a deer. Jerry Sullivan killed a deer on the subject property. There is no parking lot on the subject property. Respondents' witnesses testified that the subject trucks are parked on raised mounds of earth because the subject property is swampy. Only several hundred-by-60 feet have been cleared of brush. There is no telephone service to the subject property. If someone dials the telephone number listed for Exit 94, Inc. on its application to be a fish farm (see Finding of Fact 55) which is the same number on its sign at I-95's exit number 93 (see Finding of Fact 22), a recorded message relays the caller to a telephone number for the cell phone Mr. Sullivan carries on his person. No utilities are currently available on the subject property, but the solar pump is in use at the pond. Bill Harry repaired the pond pump a few days after showing DOT personnel around the subject property. (See Finding of Fact 36.) At hearing, he testified that the pond is now filling well with water. When the pond is full, Mr. Sullivan intends to stock it with fish. Exit 94, Inc., holds an occupational license from St. Johns County as a "fish camp." In issuing this license, the County accepted Exit 94, Inc.'s, designation of its business without further inquiry. Exit 94, Inc., has applied for a "fish farm" license from the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Exit 94, Inc., produced invoices sent to clients for hunting and fishing privileges on the subject property, corresponding checks in payment, and tax returns. Patricia Doorbar, bookkeeper for Exit 94, Inc. and all of Mr. Sullivan's other business entities, testified that she had drafted all of the invoices, and had prepared the tax returns. She further testified that she maintained Exit 94, Inc.'s corporate financial books in accord with generally accepted accounting principles. The invoices and payments reflect that other business entities controlled by Mr. Sullivan or his family members were billed and paid for use of the Exit 94, Inc., property. Exit 94, Inc., currently operates at a loss, made up as necessary by Mr. Sullivan. No legitimate reason was demonstrated to pierce the corporate veil of any of Mr. Sullivan's corporations. Approximately two weeks before the disputed-fact hearing, Exit 94, Inc., made improvements to the subject property. These included laying out feed corn on the ground, repairing a deer stand so it could support one or more hunters, and repairing the solar pump. See supra. These improvements were memorialized by photographs in evidence. Respondents asserted that DOT has selectively enforced the sign law against them on the basis of many photographs of trucks bearing written material which were admitted in evidence. The trucks typically carry a business name, address and telephone number. Some carried only a business name. DOT rarely issues notices of violations for trucks. Within the last three-and-one-half years, trucks constituted approximately five such notices out of 3500 sign violation notices of all kinds, not just off-premises signs. The notices to these two Respondents constitute four of the five notices. DOT has promulgated no rules or policies specifying the factors to be considered when evaluating whether an operational truck constitutes an "off-premises sign" worthy of a violation notice. In the normal course of business, DOT inspectors determine whether trucks constitute "on-premises signs" on a case-by-case analysis which weighs content of the sign, usage of the truck, location and length of time the truck is in a single location, and whether the sign content advertises the business at the location where the truck is parked, advertises another business, or advertises anything at all. Inspectors have wide discretion in issuing notices of violation. With respect to the majority of Respondents' photographs presented at hearing, DOT representatives gave reasonable explanations why the truck owners had not been notified of violations, usually because the truck was being operated on the highway, was not parked over-long away from the business premises which it named, or was parked on the property of the business to which it belonged or which it named. In one instance, a contractor's truck was not charged with a violation because it was parked at a construction site which also bore a sign proclaiming that the construction work was being done by that contractor. Sometimes the reason a truck had not been cited was because the truck had not been located. DOT does not research which corporations or persons own or operate trucks painted with business names, and apparently, precision in painting a business name on other operable trucks had no effect on DOT's decision to treat other operable trucks as "on-premises signs" so that no notices of violation were issued against them. Similar photographs of trucks which Mr. Sullivan had sent to DOT were personally evaluated by DOT's Assistant Right- of-Way Manager for Operations, but this measure was only in response to the Respondents' allegations of selective enforcement in the instant case. The Assistant Right-of-Way Manager directed DOT district personnel to take either further investigative or regulatory action as she instructed on a case- by-case basis. One truck for "Smiley's" was subsequently issued a violation notice.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his real estate salesperson's license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Seeking to become a licensed real estate salesperson, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application on December 16, 1996. One of the questions on the application form asks: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? . . . [Bold] If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. [End Bold] Respondent checked "yes," but failed to attach the details or otherwise describe them on the form. As alleged, Respondent pleaded no contest to driving under the influence in July 1991, and he was adjudicated guilty. He was placed on supervised probation for one year and lost his driving privileges for six months. As alleged, Respondent pleaded no contest to the traffic misdemeanor of reckless driving and misdemeanor possession of under 20 grams of marijuana in June 1995. He was adjudicated guilty of reckless driving, and adjudication was withheld as to possession of marijuana. He was fined $630 and court costs for reckless driving. In completing the application, Respondent realized that he would have to supply the details of the criminal offenses, of which he admitted when he checked the "yes" box. However, he set aside the application for a week or two, and, when he picked it up again to finish, he forgot about the need to attach a supplement. He thus sent it in incomplete and with a personal attestation that it was complete. Despite the obvious omission from the application, Petitioner issued Respondent a real estate salesperson's license without requesting further information concerning the criminal offenses. Respondent took the licensing examination on February 17, 1997. Passing the examination, he received his license shortly after it was issued on March 24, 1997. The next contact between the parties was when Respondent received a letter, dated February 25, 1998, from Petitioner noting that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement had informed Petitioner of an arrest for the latter criminal offenses. The letter states: "To clear any ambiguity regarding your 'YES' response to the relevant application question, we request additional information." The letter also requests an explanation regarding Respondent's failure to disclose this information on his application form. The letter concludes that Respondent's application would be held in abeyance until receipt of the requested information. By letter dated March 9, 1998, Respondent explained the circumstances surrounding the latter offenses, saying that he had not disclosed the information on the original application due to embarrassment. The letter does not mention the earlier criminal offense of driving under the influence. Respondent testified at the hearing that he claimed embarrassment because he did not think that it would sound as good to say that he had forgotten about the need to add the supplement to his application. This testimony is credited. It is impossible to infer an affirmative misrepresentation or attempt to conceal in the initial application. Respondent disclosed a criminal offense, and it was abundantly clear on the face of the short application form that he had failed to describe the disclosure, as requested to do so. Perhaps Petitioner's employees missed the box checked "yes" or, finding it, forgot to follow up on the matter. Clearly, though, Respondent sufficiently disclosed the matter to preclude a finding, on these facts, of any misrepresentation or intent to conceal. Respondent's March 9 response to the February 25 letter is a different matter. Although the February 25 letter focuses its inquiry upon the latter criminal offenses and does not request a comprehensive response to the question of criminal offenses, Respondent could have also mentioned the earlier offense. This would have negated any inference whatsoever of an affirmative misrepresentation or intent to conceal in the application or at this later stage. However, even considering the shortcoming of the February 25 response, the facts still do not support the finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent intentionally concealed the criminal offenses in his application. As to the omission from the February 25 letter as a basis for discipline in itself, the Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with anything arising directly out of the contents of his February 25 letter. Likewise, Petitioner's proposed recommended order does not even mention Respondent's February 25 response.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Warren Keith Babb, pro se 2310 Southwest 53rd Street Cape Coral, Florida 33914 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether Respondent acted as a real estate agent without being licensed in violation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the administrative hearing, the following findings of facts are made: COMPLAINT This complaint was instituted when Mr. Manning became aware of a $250.00 payment to a Keller Williams real estate agent (KW agent). Upon inquiring, Mr. Manning was told the fee was to pay the KW agent for securing the third tenant of his rental property located at 12522 Belcroft Drive, Riverview, Florida (property). Mr. Manning was not informed that this process would be engaged, and he was caught off guard when the payment came to light. Mr. Manning was also concerned that he was not receiving consistent payments for the rental of his property. PARTIES Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry pursuant to chapters 455 and 475. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute cases against persons who operate as real estate agents or sales associates without a real estate license. At all times material, Respondent was not a licensed real estate broker, sales associate or agent. Respondent is a co-owner of J & D Associates, a property management company that he owns with his wife, Ms. Woltmann. Additionally, J & D Associates was not licensed as a real estate broker, sales associate or agent. PARTICULARS In 2012, Mr. Manning was serving in the U.S. Air Force, and was stationed in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. At some point, Mr. Manning received military orders to report to Texas for additional cross-training. Mr. Manning wanted to sell his property, and he was referred to Ms. Woltmann, a Florida licensed real estate agent. Mr. Manning and Ms. Woltmann met and discussed the possibility of selling Mr. Manning’s property. Ms. Woltmann performed a market analysis and determined that Mr. Manning would have to “bring money” to a closing in order to sell his property. Mr. Manning made the decision that he would rent his property. Thereafter, Ms. Woltmann introduced Mr. Manning to Respondent. Mr. Manning assumed that Respondent was a licensed real estate agent. If he had known that Respondent was not a licensed real estate agent, Mr. Manning would not have hired Respondent. On or about April 26, 2012, Respondent executed a “Management Agreement”5/ (Agreement) with Mr. Manning, regarding his property. The Agreement provided in pertinent part the following: EMPLOYMENT & AUTHORITY OF AGENT The OWNER [Mr. Manning] hereby appoints J & D Associates as its sole and exclusive AGENT to rent, manage and operate the PREMISES [12522 Belcroft Drive, Riverview, Florida]. The AGENT is empowered to institute legal action or other proceedings on the OWNER’S behalf to collect the rents and other sums due, and to dispossess tenants and other persons from the PREMISES for cause. * * * RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AGENT: In addition to the forgoing authorizations, the AGENT will perform the following functions on the OWNER’S behalf. Collect all rents due form [sic] the tenants. Deduct from said rent all funds needed for proper disbursements of expenses against the PROPERTY and payable by the OWNER, including the AGENT’S compensation. Collect a security deposit received from a tenant of the PROPERTY and place it into an escrow account as required by the laws of the State of Florida. COMPENSATION OF THE AGENT: In consideration of the services rendered by the AGENT, the OWNER agrees to pay the AGENT a fee equal to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE FIRST MONTH’S RENT AND ten percent (10%) per month of the monthly rent thereafter during the term of the tenancy as management fees for the PROPERTY. In the case of holding over the lease beyond the terms of the lease by the same tenant, the Fifty (50%) up front [sic] fee shall also be waived and only the TEN PERCENT (10%) per month fee shall apply. The Fifty (50%) fee shall apply to new tenants only. In the case of a tenant moving out within the first three months of the tenancy, then the fee for obtaining a new tenant and new lease shall be only FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%) of the first month’s rent from the new tenant and TEN PERCENT (10%) of the monthly rent thereafter. (Emphasis added via underline.) At various times, Respondent provided Mr. Manning a list of eligible tenants. Also, Respondent would provide his opinion as to who would be the best candidate to rent the property. Mr. Manning would, “nine times out of ten,” go with Respondent’s recommendation for the rental tenant. In June 2012, “Richard L. Sovich J & D Associates, Agent For Elijah Manning,” executed a “Residential Lease for Single Family Home and Duplex” with a tenant. On the signatory page, the following printed form language is found on the upper half of the page: This Lease has been executed by the parties on the date indicated below: Respondent’s signature is over the “Landlord’s Signature line, “As” “Agent.” On the lower half of the signatory page, the following printed form language is found; the handwritten information is found in italics: This form was completed with the assistance of Name Richard Sovich Address 1925 Inverness Greens Drive Sun City Center, Fl 33573-7219 Telephone No. 813/784-8159 Ms. Woltmann testified that she had a listing agreement for each time she listed Mr. Manning’s property for rent. With each listing agreement, Ms. Woltmann was able to list the property in the multiple-listing system (MLS)6/ while she was associated with the Century 21, Shaw Realty Group. The three listings, as found in Respondent’s composite Exhibit E, included (along with other information) the list date, a picture of the property taken by Ms. Woltmann, and the dates the property would be available: May 5, 2012, for the rental beginning on June 1, 2012, at $1,550.00 per month; November 1, 2012, for the rental beginning on December 1, 2012, at $1,550.00 per month; and March 14, 2014, for rental beginning on May 1, 2014, at $1,600.00 per month. Each time the property was rented, Ms. Woltmann changed the MLS listing to reflect the actual lease dates: June 16, 2012; December 13, 2012; and May 19, 2014, and each was rented at the monthly rental price listed. Ms. Woltmann claimed that the rental price had to be lowered for the second rental. However, the documentation that she confirmed she inputted into the MLS at the time the property was rented, reflects the rental price was not lowered during the second rental period.7/ The rental price was actually raised for the third rental period. Ms. Woltmann also claimed she procured the first two tenants for Mr. Manning’s property and waived (with the consent of her broker agent) her lease fee each time. Three years ago (2014) during the Manning lease periods, Ms. Woltmann “left abruptly” the real estate company she was working for and that company “is now closed.” Yet, she testified that those listing agreements “should be there” if she went back to her broker and asked for them. Based on inconsistencies in her testimony, Ms. Woltmann’s testimony is not credible. Mr. Manning received payments from Respondent for approximately three years totaling “about $45,000.” Mr. Manning paid Respondent “maybe four or five thousand dollars. Maybe a little bit less” for his service. Respondent admitted he received compensation from the rental of Mr. Manning’s property for approximately three years, but denied that he procured any tenants for the property. It is determined that the testimony of Respondent and his wife Ms. Woltmann, is not credible and persuasive. Neither can be considered “disinterested.” The testimony of Mr. Manning is more credible. As the investigator supervisor, Mr. McAvoy is knowledgeable about the purpose of conducting unlicensed activity investigations. Its purpose is “to investigate matters surrounding unlicensed activity within the real estate profession . . . so to protect the public from possible harm surrounding those transactions.” Each investigator is required to record the amount of time spent in an investigation. An investigation was undertaken regarding Mr. Manning’s complaint. Petitioner incurred $49.50 in investigative costs during this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of 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 Richard Sovich in violation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and imposing an administrative fine of $500, and $49.50 as reasonable costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause herein, Respondent, Grand Saloon Tavern, Inc., was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage license number 15-00028, Series 4-COP issued by Petitioner (DABT) to Respondent for the Inner Room located at 74 North Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the evening of April 24, 1984, Beverage Investigator Gloria Smith and Special Agent Terry Altman, both in an undercover capacity, entered Respondent's licensed premises and took a seat near the disc jockey's booth. Smith asked an employee of the bar, a dancer named Janice Decker, who used the stage name "Angel," whom she had met weeks previously and established a friendship with, if Angel could get her some cocaine. Angel agreed and made arrangements for some cocaine, which she told Smith and Altman would arrive in about a "half hour." Somewhat later, Angel came up to the two agents where they were sitting in the bar, told them the cocaine had arrived, and received a $100 bill from Smith. Smith saw Angel engage in an exchange between Angel and the courier known to Smith as "Tommy" after which Angel came back to the agents' table and delivered to them a match box and told them it contained cocaine in two half-gram packages. When Angel left the table, Smith opened the match box and observed it contained two clear plastic bags which both had a white powder in them subsequently properly identified as cocaine. She took one of the bags out of the match box to check it. In Altman's opinion, the disc jockey saw her do this but that individual denies having done so. He contends that, given her position in the booth, with the lights adjusted as they are, he cannot see the people sitting at the tables below him and he knows nothing of any sale of drugs by Angel to Smith. Smith and Altman had gone into the Inner Room as a part of an ongoing investigation of several establishments to see if they could purchase drugs in them. Smith had met Angel at the Show Bar, another Cocoa Beach bar, in early March when Angel, who was working there at the time, did a personal dance for Agent Altman. After that, she made several purchases from Angel at the Show Bar using the cover story that she the, widow of an older man, who had been left a good income, and was now out looking for some "fun" with some younger man of whom Altman was supposed to be one. She said she wanted the cocaine for recreational use. The first time she want into the Inner Room she went in part to meet people and see the atmosphere of the place. On the first occasion, when she asked for Angel, Angel was not there. Smith returned to the Inner Room on May 10, 1984, this time in the company of United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Eslingor and the two of them sat along the east wall of the lounge. On this occasion, she met Mr. Johnson, one of the owners who introduced her to the other owner, Mr. Crockett. The licensed premises is divided into three general areas--a small lounge, a larger lounge, and a game room. The east wall, where Smith sat, is in the area near the disc jockey's booth. Smith spoke with Angel about Angel's inability to deliver the cocaine she had promised on a previous occasion and asked her if she knew of anyone else who might have any cocaine for sale. When inquiry by Angel failed to reveal any available sources that evening, Smith gave Angel $100.00 for 1 gram of cocaine to be delivered the next night. Just about that time, Smith observed another dancer, Danielle, going into the restroom and followed her in. She went after Danielle because, based on information she had received from a third dancer, Deosia, she thought Danielle might have some for sale. When she got into the restroom, Smith asked Danielle if she had any cocaine to which Danielle replied she had only a little in her personal stack, of which she could give Smith a "line." Danielle then poured some white powdery substance, subsequently identified as cocaine, from a plastic triangular bag into a cellophane cigarette wrapper and handed it to Smith. Smith does not recall if Danielle asked for payment, but when Smith handed her $5.00 and when asked if that was enough, Danielle replied, "That's what I usually get." When Smith and Eslinger went back the following night, approximately 11:15 p.m., Angel, to whom Smith had given $100.00 the previous evening, told her that she had the cocaine Smith had asked for. She then delivered the substance, later identified as cocaine, and stated that she had taken a "line" for herself out of it. Smith agreed to that. Smith does not recall if the cocaine was delivered in a matchbook or in a folded $1.00 bill. In either case, however, consistent with her routine practice, upon delivery she checked the delivered substance out in the open by opening the package, tapping the enclosure on the table, and examining it, a procedure, he feels, that takes about 10 seconds. On this occasion, as on all other occasions, when she was in this lounge, she sat in an area off to the side of the bar which is visible from all other areas of the bar except the entrance. There are also other tables there as well. On May 25, 1984, Smith, Altman and Eslinger went into the Inner Room, actually at about 12:15 a.m. on May 28. On this occasion, Angel told Smith she had gotten rid of the cocaine she had promised to get for Smith because she had fronted the money for it. However, she stated she would have her husband bring some more, and later the same evening came back to the table where Smith and the others were sitting, sat down with them, and handed Smith a folded $1.00 bill for which Smith gave her $100.00. From this $1.00 bill, Smith took a small plastic bag which contained a substance later identified as cocaine. Not all cocaine sales ware arranged at the licensed premises, however. On June 4, 1984, Agent Smith phoned Angel at home and suggested that Angel get her some cocaine and deliver it at the Inner Room. She thereafter took $100.00 to Angel at her home and made the definite arrangements for the delivery of the cocaine at the licensed premises. When Smith, Altman, and Eslinger went to the Inner Room at approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, Angel came over to them and delivered a cigarette package to Smith. After Angel left, Smith took a plastic bag from the cigarette pack and checked it on top of the table so that it could be seen by other patrons and Hank, the manager, was standing over near the disco booth talking with two men who appeared to be Cocoa Beach police officers. Smith cannot say that her actions were seen by these people, but the package contained what was later identified as cocaine. Smith was not arrested by these police officers even though they did not know she was an undercover agent. This leads to the conclusion that her "checking out" of the deliveries was not so open or notorious as, by Smith's own admission, had they seen what she was doing, they probably would have had cause to arrest her. When Smith first bought cocaine from Angel in the Inner Room, she had already made two or three purchases from her at another bar in the area and it was always Smith who made the purchases. She also paid Angel to "dance" for her "boyfriend" Altman several times and for each "dance" paid Angel $3.00. Over the period of the investigation, including this establishment and others, she got to know Angel and liked her. In doing so, she built up Angel's trust in her which Angel contends was the only reason she sold Smith cocaine. Smith purchased from only Angel and Danielle at the Inner Room. There is no evidence of other drug sales by other employees to other agents nor does Smith have any personal knowledge of any drugs on the premises except for those forming the bases of the allegations here. Altman played the part of the hanger-on sponging off a rich lady consistent with Smith's cover story. He was introduced to one of the co-owners, Mr. Johnson, on one occasion but had no conversations with him or anyone else regarding drugs. He made no drug purchases because his DATF investigation related to firearms. Though he was in the Inner Room quite a few times with and without Smith, he never saw any independent opportunity to buy drugs except for Smith's buys and he has no personal knowledge of anyone other than Angel or Danielle who had drugs for sale or were dealing drugs there. While in the Inner Room, Smith had several general conversations with owner Johnson during which she says she may have mentioned her "mid-life crisis" cover story. She denies any conversations with him, however, in which she tried to entice him into using drugs with her or when he said he did not use drugs or permit them on the premises. She does not recall them discussing what steps he took to keep drugs out. She did not notice any posted rules or notices regarding drugs. On each occasion Smith was in the Inner Room, either one or both of the owners were there in addition to a manager. She does not know what this latter individual's responsibilities were. There were also always men at the door but she does not knew what their function was other than to collect the entrance fee. Angel, whose real name is Janice M. Decker, was employed at the Inner Room as a dancer. She had just returned there prior to April 24, 1984, after working at the Show Bar, another club in Cocoa Beach, for 9 months. Prior to that, she worked at the Inner Room for 3 1/2 years. When she was first hired, she was instructed by owners that their rules included no drugs, no alcohol, and no solicitation for prostitution on the premises and during the first 3 1/2 years she worked there, she never had any drugs or saw any there. She first met Agent Smith at the Show Bar in July 1983 and developed a friendship with her. Smith did not make any requests for cocaine until their fourth meeting. By this time, Angel had accepted Smith's cover story and thought she was a nice lady. They had talked of going shopping together and of going out to dinner with their respective man as couples. In fact, Smith gave Angel her home phone number, but whenever Smith would call Angel, she would say she was out of town. Smith's first request for cocaine from Angel came at the Show Bar. Angel contends that even though she did not use cocaine and did not have any, because of her friendship for Smith and the fact that she felt sorry for her, she agreed to try to get some from someone. She found a source and whenever she bought any for Smith, she would deliver all she got and keep more for herself. She also felt close enough to Smith to front the money for these purchases and each time Smith requested cocaine, the purchase details ware always secondary to social conversation and "girl talk." When Angel quit the Show Bar and went back to the Inner Room, though she had fears about bringing drugs into the premises because she knew the owners' anti-drug policy, she did so because: (1) she knew her reputation there was as a "straight," and (2) she felt sorry for Smith and wanted to help her. As a result, she deceived her employers. On several of the occasions alleged, Angel didn't want be deliver on the premises but Smith insisted she deliver there. Their agreement was to meet outside for the transfer on two occasions, but each time Smith was not there and since Angel had to go to work, she had to go inside and when Smith showed up deliver there. Aside from the sales to Smith, Angel contends she has never had any drugs inside the Inner Room, nor has she ever seen any other employee with it in their possession there. She got the cocaine from a supplier she knows as Terry who she would meet at McDonald's-- never her husband. When she would get cocaine for Smith, she would keep it in her work purse with her in the lounge and not in her street purse in her locker. Neither she nor her locker has ever been searched for drugs. In her opinion, the licensees run a legitimate operation. They are strict about people who break the rules and seem to know what is going on there. Either one or both owners are on the premises every night along with two security people. This opinion is shared by other club employees like the dancers Angie and Danielle. Angie worked for the licensees for 11 months before they closed on June 8 and never saw any drug dealings or employees with drugs on the premises. Customers have asked her about drugs on various occasions but she always refused to get involved. When she was hired, she was advised that the club rules included no use or sale of drugs and called for the employee to be fired if this rule was violated. Danielle, who has worked there for 9 or 10 months, had the same understanding of the rules. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the posted rules and the owners have periodic meetings of the employees at which they are reminded of the rules regarding no alcohol, no drugs, no prostitution, and the need to report any infractions. She knew that a violation of those rules would result in termination. Regarding the sale to Smith, Danielle admits the transfer, but contends she at first refused and gave Smith the cocaine only after Smith said it was for her boyfriend who needed it badly. She didn't ask Smith for any money, intending it to be a gift even though she had never met Smith before. After the transfer, Smith threw her $5.00 and left. She is concerned about her job even though she has not been told she was fired. The disc jockey, Ken Carlin, who has worked at the Inner Room for 4 years, relates much the same story regarding the owners' efforts to keep drugs out as do the dancers. There are frequent meetings of all personnel regarding illegal activities and anyone caught involved in them is fired. Whereas the dancers disclaim any knowledge of any employees involved in drugs, Mr. Carlin, however, indicates at least one a month is fired. This must be for other reasons, however, because, according to him, he has seen drugs on the premises only once about a year ago and had fired the dancer who had them immediately. In addition to his job as disc jockey, his responsibilities also include policing the premises on a frequent basis and this includes inspecting the dancers' dressing room which he does about three times each night. When he does these inspections, he does not go into the house, however. In addition to the owners, the managers and Carlin, all of whom exercise the responsibility to check the premises for drugs, Gary O. Greenwald, one of the doormen and bouncers, also patrols the inside for violations. He has bean briefed regarding certain known drug users or dealers who are barred from entering the club. He has also been instructed to throw anyone suspected of possessing drugs out and if anyone is caught with it, he is to hold that person and call the police. During the three months he has worked there, ha has not observed any drugs on the premises. The Inner Room's reputation with at least a portion of the Cocoa Beach police force is high. William McDonald, who has been an officer for 11 years, has visited the licensed premises two or three times a week for 11 years and has never, at any time, seen any drug activity there. He has been called there by the owners several times (never for drugs) and has made some arrests for such offenses as drunk and disorderly, firearms, and assaults. In his opinion, none of the bars in the area are completely drug-free, but comparing this bar with others in the area, it is run better because the owners are more conscientious. Mr. Johnston has talked with him repeatedly about the effort made to keep drug activity out of the bar and considering the fact that the owners are not police, he feels they do a good job of it. So, too, does David E. Schoch, also a Cocoa Beach Police Officer who has gone into the Inner Room three to four times a week on duty and at least one night a week off duty for the past several months. In all that time, he has never seen drugs on the premises except one time when he was called there on duty. By the time he arrived, one of the owners and the bouncer had the situation under control and had confiscated some cocaine. He finds this bar to be one of the better and safer bars in the area due to the preventive actions of the management. He is convinced it is one of the more drug-free bars in the area due primarily to these efforts and considers that, considering their lack of training, the owners do a good job of it. Lamar L. Johnston has been a co-owner of the Inner Room with Jesse Crockett for 8 1/2 years. During that time, the bar has never been cited for any infractions of the beverage laws. He has what is to him a lot of money invested in this bar and to keep from losing it, he has worked hard and been through in indoctrinating his people on the no drug policy. He has published a list of employee rules which are made known to every employee at monthly meetings and are posted in the dancers' dressing room, behind the bar, and in the disc jockey booth. He keeps tabs not only on his employees but also on his clientele and if he sees someone in the bar who he knows to be involved in any type of illegal activity, he advises his bouncers to keep that person out. He personally patrols the bar on a regular basis each night and has his disc jockey, managers, 2 bouncers, and security men do the same. He requests the Police Department to come in on duty and has given off-duty policemen passes to come in without paying the admission charge. With the exception of the one occasion described by Officer McDonald, he has never seen any drugs in his club. With regard be the personnel he hires, he keeps tabs on all dancers in the area including as far away as Orlando and Daytona Beach, by real and stage names, who have been arrested or fired for prostitution or drugs. If one of these apply for work, he will not hire them. However, he contends he cannot prevent an employee from breaking a rule if that person is bent on doing so. All he can do is publicize the rules and warn his employees of the consequences of breaking them. He checks the dressing room six times a night and, recognizing that thirty pairs of eyes are better than one, put into effect the rule relating to firing employees who have knowledge of but fail to report drug activity. His bar is not brightly lighted because, in his experience, bar patrons do not like a brightly lighted bar. Because of that, he tries to patrol as much as possible. On top of that, his lounge caters to a higher element clientele such as engineers from Cape Kennedy Space Center, Administrators from Brevard Community College, and professional people. His bouncers are instructed to keep the lower element out and a dress code is enforced.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent, and his testimony during the proceeding herein, the documentary evidence received, including a prehearing stipulation executed by counsel for the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts 1/ are found. Respondent, Stewart Sax, is a real estate salesman who holds License No. 0347241. Respondent is presently employed by Choice Rentals and Realty Corporation, 3365 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The prosecution of this matter was initiated by Petitioner against Respondent based on an Administrative Complaint filed herein, signed August 3, 1981. On July 24, 1980, Respondent submitted an application for licensure with the Petitioner. In connection therewith, Respondent answered question No. 6 in the negative by asserting "No." That question reads in total: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violation), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Respondent was first arrested on April 21, 1972, when he was charged with credit card theft in Atlanta, Georgia. At this time, he was approximately 22 years old and was a student at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charges and received three years probation and a $500.00 fine based upon this plea. Respondent contends that the credit card belonged to a girl friend's mother and he initially had the right to use that credit card. Respondent was next arrested on January 25, 1974, when he was arrested for credit card theft, public indecency and public drunkenness in Atlanta. The charges on the first two counts were dismissed and Respondent received a 30-day suspended sentence on the public drunkenness charge. Respondent was next arrested on July 24, 1980, in Fort Lauderdale, and was charged with grand larceny and issuing a worthless check. The worthless check charge was nolle prosequi and the grand larceny charge was reduced to petty theft, to which Respondent pled no contest. Respondent was placed on probation for six (6) months; he paid $50.00 court costs and adjudication of guilt was withheld. On July 24, 1980, Respondent was again arrested for driving while intoxicated and with an expired driver's license. No information was issued on the driving while intoxicated charge and Respondent pled no contest to the expired driver's license charge. He paid $25.00 for court costs and adjudication was withheld. Finally, Respondent was arrested on July 30, 1980, and charged with prowling in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. These charges were dismissed. Respondent contends that he was under a great deal of pressure when he submitted his application for licensure and was of the opinion, based on representations of his former counsel, that he did not have to reveal these matters on applications, etc.; that these matters were dropped, and would not follow him in the future. (Prehearing Stipulation) As noted above, the matter was presented based upon a prehearing stipulation, prepared by counsel for the parties whereby Respondent admitted each of the allegations as contained in the Administrative Complaint with explanations for each allegation. Evidence presented at the hearing indicated that, except for the Public drunkenness charge, all remaining charges were either nolle prosequi, dismissed without any information being filed or adjudication was withheld and sentences were probated. Respondent has enjoyed success in his field as a real estate salesman since he has been licensed. Respondent as far as the record reveals, has not had any disciplinary charges brought against him since he has been licensed as a real estate salesman. Other professionals in the area have a high regard for Petitioner, both personally and professionally as a real estate salesman. Respondent is a highly intelligent real estate salesman who, it can be assumed, understood the application for licensure which he executed to become a real estate salesman. Based on the admissions contained in the prehearing stipulation and Respondent's testimony, his failure to truthfully answer all questions on his application, he (Respondent) violated the provisions of Chapter 475.17(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's real estate License No. 0347241 be REVOKED. That Respondent be afforded an opportunity to reapply for a license as a real estate salesman and that pending a decision by the Board on Respondent's reapplication for licensure, the Board spend the revocation referred to in the Recommendation above. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of May, 1982, 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 25th day of May, 1982.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 63J2-14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate sales associate, having been issued license number SL 706026. During the time relevant to this case, Respondent was a sales associate affiliated with Jacksonville Home Finders, Inc., a brokerage company located in Jacksonville, Florida. Katrin Rabren was the broker/owner of Jacksonville Home Finders, Inc. (Homefinders). In approximately 2006, she hired Respondent as a sales associate, and Respondent's license was listed as affiliated with Homefinders in September 2006. In early April 2007, Ms. Rabren received a call from Alvin Reynolds, the owner of some property Homefinders was managing at 3501 Kernan Boulevard, Number 234, in Jacksonville. Mr. Reynolds was calling to ask for his funds from the rental of the property. The property was apparently rented and funds received from the tenant for a security deposit and first month's rent on or about March 12, 2007. However, those funds, totaling $1,444.99, were not placed in the broker's trust account. Ms. Rabren confronted Respondent about the funds and was told that Respondent spent the money on personal bills. Respondent told Ms. Rabren that she would replace the money. On April 5, 2007, Respondent gave Ms. Rabren a check made out to Jacksonville Homefinders for $1,489.99. The check was from an account for Winter Property Maintenance, Respondent's husband's company. Ms. Rabren's husband deposited the check in Homefinder's escrow account. On April 6, 2007, the check was returned for insufficient funds. Ms. Rabren paid the property owner out of her personal funds. Respondent has not replaced the funds or delivered funds to the employer/broker for deposit into the escrow account.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated the provisions of Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 63J2- 14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking Respondent's license as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 2010.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Noel Anthony Brown, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0642242. On July 23, 1996, Respondent filed an application (dated July 19, 1996) with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer "Yes" or "No" to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent responded to the question by checking the box marked "No." The application concluded with an "Affidavit of Applicant," which was acknowledged before a Notary Public of the State of Florida, as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. (Emphasis added.) On September 30, 1996, Respondent passed the salesperson examination and he was issued license number 0642242 as an inactive salesperson. From November 12, 1996, through the date of the hearing, Respondent has been an active salesperson associated with Premiere Homes Realty, Inc., a broker corporation located at 5737 Pembroke Road, Hollywood, Florida. By letter of March 16, 1998, the Department requested an explanation from the Respondent regarding certain information it had received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement regarding Respondent's criminal record. That letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has returned information to this office that an arrest was made on January 3, 1992 by the Metro-Dade Police Department for Marijuana- Possess-MISD[EMEANOR]. To clear any ambiguity regarding your "No" response to the relevant application question, we request additional information. If charges were Dismissed or Nolle Prossed, please forward a copy of the dismissal or a notarized statement so that we may clear your records. If the charge(s) resulted in a conviction(s), or adjudication withheld, you will need to forward a copy of the Information, Plea and Sentencing to this office along with a statement or explanation regarding your failure to disclose this information on your application form. By letter of May 5, 1998, Respondent responded to the Department's inquiry, as follows: Please correct the answer to question nine (9) on my application to "Yes". A copy of the printed docket case action summary is enclosed as indicated. I did not in anyway write "NO" to hide the information. I was not familiar with the terms used in the Criminal Justice System and was confused when I was told that I was not found guilty. This was an honest mistake and I do apologize. As for the disposition of the charge, the case summary (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) reveals that Respondent was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis (marijuana), a misdemeanor.1 According to the summary, Respondent apparently entered a plea (although whether the plea was guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendre is not of record) on or about April 13, 1992, and the court apparently found Respondent guilty of the charge since it "withheld ADJUDICATION WITH FINE AND COSTS." Thereafter, on August 19, 1998, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid criminal disposition, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Fla. Stat." and sought to take disciplinary action against his license. According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought . . . may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 2 Consistent with the explanation he offered the Department in his letter of May 5, 1998, Respondent explained, at hearing, that his response to item 9 on the application was, at the time, an accurate reflection of his understanding of the disposition of the charge. According to Respondent, who was not represented in the criminal matter, he simply followed the instructions of the court personnel, since he was unfamiliar with court procedure, and, after having complied with those instructions, it was his understanding that the matter was dismissed. Here, Respondent's explanation for his failure to disclose the marijuana possession charge on his application is credited, and it is resolved that, at the time he submitted his application, Respondent did not intend to mislead or deceive those who would be reviewing his application. In so concluding, it is observed that Respondent's testimony was candid and his understanding of the disposition of the matter was, given the alien nature of the experience, reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 5th day of January, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the exhibits received into evidence, I make the following: The Defendant is a real estate salesman registered with the Commission and currently holds registration certificate number 0151729 (non-active). Defendant applied for registration as a real estate salesman by execution of a sworn application with the Commission on March 4, 1975 and was issued an initial registration certificate as such effective September 29, 1975. In response to the question as to whether or not she had ever been arrested for the commission of any offense against the laws of this state, she responded that "in 26years of living, I could honestly say I had (sic) never been arrested, either justly or unjustly." (See Commission's Exhibit #1). Exhibits introduced and received during the course of the hearing clearly reveal that the Defendant was arrested on January 21, 1975 and charged with engaging in the unlawful practice of massage for a fee or gratuity without a certificate or registration in violation of Section 480.02(1), Florida Statutes; and for the unlawful receipt of a fee for touching or offering to touch the sexual parts of another for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire. Officer White, a police officer for Broward County was called and credibly testified that the Defendant, Sharon Lee (Blackburn) Jarvis is the same Sharon Lee Blackburn that was arrested on January 21, 1975, and stated that the charges were nolle prosequi because of the Defendant's cooperation with the police on other related charges. Michael H. White, a police officer with the City of Ft. Lauderdale, was called and testified that he arrested the Defendant on June 13, 1975 and charged her (Defendant) for the offense of "indecent assault upon a child". On June 2, 1976 the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendre to the above offense and was placed on probation for a period of six years. (See Commission's Composite Exhibit #5) Although Defendant complained that she was not served with copies of the administrative complaint and notice of hearing, evidence reveals that such was mailed to her at her last known address. It was noted that the complaint and notice of hearing which was mailed by the Commission was returned as "undeliverable". These documents were mailed to Defendant at her last known address. A registrant is required to immediately notify the Commission of address changes. (Chapter 475.23, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-9.01, F.A.C.) This the Defendant failed to do. As an aside, evidence reveals that Defendant received a copy of the notice of hearing sent by the undersigned. Accordingly, Defendant lacks standing to now complain that she did not receive notice of the proceedings herein. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, I make the following:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Defendant's registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
