The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165, chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Petitioner seeks to obtain a real estate broker license to practice real estate in Florida. Petitioner is a resident of the State of Utah and has held an active real estate broker license in Utah for at least 24 months during the preceding five years from the date of his application. In 2003, Petitioner was first licensed in Utah as a real estate sales agent. On February 12, 2007, Petitioner was issued a real estate broker license, and his limited-liability company, Ultimate Homes of Utah, LLC, was licensed as a real estate company in Utah. On July 28, 2016, Petitioner submitted an on-line application for a Florida real estate broker license. The application included a section which requested background information. Question No. 1, one of the four questions on the application, requested information about Petitioner’s criminal history. Specifically, Question No. 1 requested in pertinent part the following: “Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction, or are you currently under criminal investigation?” The application also directed applicants, who responded “yes” to Question No. 1, to provide details regarding any criminal offense, including description of the offense, offense type, penalty or disposition, and whether sanctions have been satisfied for each offense. In his application, Petitioner answered Question No. 1 affirmatively. He disclosed that he plead guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony, on July 5, 1995. The criminal offense occurred in Utah. Further details of the criminal offense will be discussed below. Petitioner appeared, pro se, at the December 14, 2016, Commission meeting where his application was considered. On January 12, 2017, Respondent entered a NOID, which stated a number of grounds for the intent to deny Petitioner’s application. Respondent’s NOID recited key findings of fact 1 and 4, and key conclusions of law D, G, and M, as grounds for its proposed denial of Petitioner’s application. Those key findings and conclusions, as set forth on the Key for License Denials, attached to Respondent’s NOID, are as follows: Crimes in Application. Applicant’s criminal record is as revealed in application. * * * 4. Unpersuasive Testimony. Applicant’s testimony or evidence in explanation/mitigation was unpersuasive. * * * D. Having been denied licensure or having a license to practice any regulated business, profession or vocation, for conduct which would constitute a violation of this Chapter. 475.1791)[sic], 475.181 F.S. * * * G. Convicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. 475.25(1)(f), 475.181 F.S. * * * M. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. 455.201, F.S. Regarding the circumstances of Petitioner’s criminal offense, on December 13, 1994, an Information was filed by the County Attorney for Circuit Court of Davis County, State of Utah, which charged Petitioner with three counts as follows: Count One: rape of a child, a first degree felony: On or about July 30, 1993, Petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with a child under 14 years of age. Count Two: Sodomy Upon a Child, a first degree felony: On or about July 30, 1993, Petitioner engaged in a sexual act involving the genitals of the actor and the child under the age of 14 and the mouth or anus of either person. Count Three: Rape of a Child, a first degree felony: On or about August 13, 1993, Petitioner had sexual intercourse with a child who is under the age of 14. The victim involved in the criminal offense was a 13-year-old female, while Petitioner was 21 years old. Petitioner ultimately pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. On July 5, 1995, Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of three years to life, fined $2,000, and ordered to pay restitution for costs of the victim’s counseling. The court also recommended that Petitioner participate in a specialized sex offender treatment program. Petitioner served four years’ imprisonment, followed by five years of parole. Petitioner was released from prison in 1999. Following Petitioner’s release from prison, he was required to register as a sex offender and remained on the registry until October 10, 2015. At hearing, Petitioner expressed remorse for his actions, and acknowledged that the facts of the offense were accurately described in the filed Information. According to Petitioner, the events giving rise to the criminal offense began with his childhood. Petitioner described his childhood as one where he did not have a close relationship with his parents and did not receive affection from them. That lack of affection affected him to the extent that he was “love-starved.” Petitioner explained that “when he was 21 years old, a 13-year- old girl expressed interest in him and he made the mistake of pursing her as a love interest.” After his release from prison, Petitioner worked in the food service industry until he lost his job in 2002. Thereafter, he pursued a career working in real estate. During the time Petitioner has held a real estate license in Utah, he has earned various certifications related to real estate including, e-Pro Certification (2004), Distressed Property Expert (2011-2012), Short Sales and Foreclosure Resource Certification, and Residential Specialist Certification. Petitioner was given the opportunity to submit letters of recommendation to show evidence of his reputation, honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and good character. Petitioner offered several letters from past customers and business partners to attest to his work ethic, responsibility, and trustworthiness in real estate dealings. Those letters are of limited value as it relates to moral turpitude and rehabilitation because the authors of the letters had no knowledge of Petitioner’s criminal history. Petitioner’s testimony regarding his otherwise blemish-free criminal history since the incident, employment history, and achievements since the criminal offense is found to be credible. Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony at the final hearing that what he did in 1993 was wrong. He has not attempted to hide the incident from Respondent as he disclosed the details of the incident on his application. It is undisputed that he completed a sex offender treatment program, completed his probation, and was released from the requirement to register on the Utah sex offender registry in 2015. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Petitioner has been involved in any criminal activity since the criminal offense in 1993, nearly 25 years ago. In his testimony, Petitioner also highlighted his qualifications as a broker, which were corroborated by the letters of support from Petitioner’s former clients that were offered at the hearing. Petitioner is a father of three children, has been married for more than 20 years, has been a licensed real estate broker in the state of Utah for 14 years, and has not exhibited a pattern or practice of violations before or after the incident in 1993. Rather, the incident in 1993 stands alone as the only blemish on Petitioner’s record. No evidence was presented at hearing of any prior discipline against Respondent’s license in any jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Real Estate issue a final order approving Victor Rothaar’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 26th day of July, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Jerry Green, acted as a yacht and ship broker as defined in Section 326.022(1), Florida Statutes, without being licensed by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, as alleged in a Notice to Show Cause entered September 3, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (hereinafter referred to as the “Division”), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is charged with the responsibility for carrying out the provisions of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, the Florida Yacht and Ship Brokers’ Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Respondent is Jerry Green. Mr. Green is not licensed by the Division pursuant to the Act as a yacht and ship broker. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Green was employed at Rick’s on the River (hereinafter referred to as “Rick’s”), in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Green was compensated for his employment at Rick’s by being provided room and board. During 1996 the Division received an anonymous complaint including a copy of an advertisement from a October 13, 1995 edition of a publication known as the “West Florida Boat Trader”. The advertisement indicated it was from Rick’s and included several photographs of boats purportedly for sale at Rick’s. Among other boats listed on the advertisement was the following: 1975 42’POST Full Tuna Tower, Twin Turbo Charge Detroit 671 Out of Town Owner DESPARATE to Sell, $84,500 A similar advertisement was placed in the November 3, 1995 edition of the “West Florida Boat Trader”. Although Mr. Green denied at hearing that he had placed the advertisement, he admitted in his Response to Notice to Show Cause that “between October of 1995 and May of 1996 he advertised a 1975 42’ Post named the ‘Dunn Deal’ . . . .” He also admitted in the Response “that he advertised the 42’ Post at the request of the owner, Richard Dame, who is a personal friend, for the purpose of testing whether there was a market for such a boat and to determine the approximate value of the boat.” It is, therefore, concluded that Mr. Green was responsible for the advertisement. On May 31, 1996, James Courchaine, an investigator for the Division, went to Rick’s. After arriving at Rick’s, Mr. Courchaine met Mr. Green. Mr. Green identified himself as the “dockmaster”. Mr. Courchaine asked about the 42-foot Post and Mr. Green told him that he knew all about the Post and could talk to Mr. Courchaine about it. Mr. Green told Mr. Courchaine the Post belonged to a friend and that he, Mr. Green, could sell it. Mr. Green also indicated the Post was in Key West and that he wasn’t sure if the owner would be bringing it back. Mr. Green also told Mr. Courchaine that the owner was originally asking $84,500.00 for the Post but, that since it had been on the market so long without any interest, he might take between $79,000.00 and $81,000.00 for it. Mr. Courchaine asked Mr. Green whether the amount Mr. Green quoted included Mr. Green’s commission. Mr. Green told Mr. Courchaine that “he would be taken care of.” Mr. Green wasn’t employed as the dock master at Rick’s. Mr. Green lived on the premises and looked after the property, including boats located there. In return, he received room and meals. At the time of the formal hearing Mr. Green testified that he was not employed and that his only source of funds is Social Security. He also testified, however, that he still lives at Rick’s. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Green has any source of funds other than Social Security. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Green offered to sell any vessel regulated under the Act except as described in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ordering Jerry Green to cease and desists from acting as an unlicensed broker in violation of the Act and that he pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 within thirty days of the date this matter becomes final.DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 28th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne V. Estrella Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Paul T. Marks, Esquire Post Office Box 4048 Tampa, Florida 33677 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business & Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert H. Elizey, Jr., Director Department of Business & Professional Regulation Florida Land Sales, Condominium & Mobil Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's real estate salesperson license based upon the alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the Final Hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0606079 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a salesperson, c/o Century 21 Action Realty, Inc., 8904 Taft Street, Hollywood, Florida 33024-4649. Respondent obtained his Florida real estate license on or about December 11, 1993. Respondent's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson (the "Application") was filed with Petitioner on or about October 14, 1993. Question 9 of the Application asked Respondent if he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere even if adjudication was withheld. Respondent answered that question in the negative. The evidence established that Respondent's answer to Question 9 on the Application was not accurate. On April 1, 1985, Respondent pled nolo contendere to a charge of possession of cocaine. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was given a suspended sentence. At the time of Respondent's plea agreement, he was 20 years old. The circumstances surrounding his arrest, arraignment and plea indicate that Respondent did not fully understand the legal technicalities of what was taking place. Respondent entered the plea on the same day that he was arraigned and a public defender was appointed to represent him in connection with charges arising from an arrest that occurred on January 26, 1985. Respondent's arrest on January 26, 1985 took place outside a bar in Fort Lauderdale. Respondent had gone to the bar to meet some friends. While he was waiting for his friends, Respondent met an individual, S.T., with whom he was not previously acquainted. Respondent and S.T. began a conversation and talked about the possibility of going to another bar. Respondent and S.T. went to the parking lot and were sitting in S.T.'s car discussing where to go next. A police officer approached the car and observed S.T. holding a small plastic straw. According to the police report, when the police officer reached the car and asked for identification, S.T. handed the straw to Respondent and exited the car. The police officer then asked Respondent to exit the car. As Respondent was getting out of the car, the police officer saw Respondent drop the straw. The police officer picked up the straw and noticed a white powdery substance which he thought to be cocaine. He arrested Respondent and S.T. and, upon, subsequent search of the car, found a small bag containing cocaine. The amount of cocaine found is not clear from the evidence presented in this case. Because of his shock and surprise when he was arrested and the subsequent passage of time, Respondent does not remember all of the details surrounding his arrest. In particular, he does not remember S.T. handing him the straw and/or dropping it upon leaving the car. Respondent claims that he did not know that there was cocaine in the car and there is no evidence directly tying him to the cocaine. As indicated above, the case was resolved at Respondent's arraignment on April 1, 1985. Respondent does not recall all of the discussions that took place, but it was his understanding that he had not been convicted of a crime. Respondent did not understand the legal significance of the term "withheld adjudication". He was told that he was "free to go". No probation or further conditions were imposed upon him. Consequently, Respondent did not move to have the records of his criminal case sealed or expunged, even though he could have sought such an order from the court. When he was filling out the Application, Respondent believed that since no penalties had been imposed and he had not been convicted of a crime he could truthfully answer no to Question 9 on the Application. While the evidence established that Respondent did not intentionally lie on the Application, it does not appear that he took any steps to verify the accuracy of his belief before submitting the Application. Respondent first learned that there was some question regarding his criminal record when he was contacted by an investigator for Petitioner. Respondent immediately notified his supervisor at Century 21 Action Realty, where he was employed. Respondent's supervisor testified at the hearing in support of Respondent and stated that she found him to be trustworthy, honest, loyal and dependable. She indicated that she would not hesitate to hire Respondent again even after learning of his brush with the criminal justice system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding the Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 12th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6150 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Adopted in pertinent part in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 15. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in pertinent part in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4. 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11. 10. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 7. 11. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 7 and 8. 12. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 9. 13. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 9. 14. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 10. 15. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 10. 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 13. 17. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 12. 18. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11. 19. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. 20. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 6. 21. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 14. Subordinate to findings of fact 14. Subordinate to findings of fact 15. Subordinate to findings of fact 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Theodore R. Gay Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, FL 33128 Harold M. Braxton, Esq. Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, FL 33156-7815
The Issue Whether Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary measures against her license as a licensed Real Estate Salesperson.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Barbara Gordon Schneider, at all times material to this matter, was a licensed Florida Real Estate Salesperson, holding license no. 0481077 with an address of 5825 Indian Trail, Keystone Heights, Florida 32656-9773. As a consequence of previous disciplinary action, Respondent’s license has been suspended since February 17, 1995, due to non-payment of a fine. Basically, that case revolved around a finding of Respondent’s guilt of culpable negligence and operating as a broker while licensed as a salesperson. Respondent did not inform her then current employer, Coursey and Associates Real Estate (Coursey and Associates) of the February 1995 suspension of her license. Additionally, as documented by a certified copy of judgment admitted at final hearing as Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, Respondent also failed to notify Petitioner of Respondent’s plea of guilty to a felony charge of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, Florida, on December 19, 1989. Adjudication was withheld by the Court and Respondent was placed on probation for 18 months. On or about July 14, 1995, while employed as office manager and selling manager for Coursey and Associates, Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase for Flint and Jessica Banther as buyers for property located at 2276 Chablis Court, West, Orange Park, Florida. Also, Respondent negotiated an occupancy agreement whereby the Banthers agreed to rent the property they were planning to purchase. Kevin Coursey, the broker for Coursey and Associates, had no knowledge of this transaction although Respondent signed the occupancy agreement on behalf of Coursey and Associates. On or about July 14, 1995, the Banthers gave Respondent a $500 cash binder for the purchase of the Chablis Court property. The money was not turned over to her employer by Respondent. Respondent had previously procured, on or about May 17, 1995, a listing agreement on behalf of Coursey and Associates for a home owned by Gary J. and Agnes Beagles which was located at 4854 Gopher Circle North, Middleburg, Florida. Respondent rented the Beagles’ home to Christine and Jim Weaver, without the knowledge or permission of Kevin Coursey on behalf of Coursey and Associates. Coursey and Associates were not in the business of brokering rental property and had no insurance to cover such activity. Respondent was accepting checks from the Weavers and depositing them into the Beagles’ bank account. On or about June 23, 1995, Christine Weaver made check no. 2952 in the amount of $250 payable to Coursey and Associates. Respondent endorsed the check by writing “Coursey & Assoc.” On the back of the check and signed her name with “co-owner” written under her name. Kevin Coursey did not authorize Respondent to endorse the check. Respondent never informed Kevin Coursey of the check’s existence and deposited it into her personal bank account at the Jax Navy Federal Credit Union without Coursey’s authorization. Respondent also procured renters for the Weavers’ home without the knowledge and consent of her employer. Initially, Robert and Pamela Campbell, the renters of the Weaver home, gave Respondent a check which was returned for insufficient funds. When the check was returned, the Campbells gave Respondent cash in the amount of $600 in place of the check. Respondent did not turn the cash over to the Weavers and, as a result, Coursey and Associates were later compelled to pay the Weavers the $600. Sometime around July 26, 1995, Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase for Charles Crum as the buyer of property located at 5615 Indians Trail, Keystone Heights, Florida. Crum gave Respondent a binder for the property consisting of three money orders totaling $500. The money orders were payable to Coursey and Associates, but Respondent did not deliver the funds to her employer. Approximately three weeks later, Respondent did deliver the binder, in the form of a different set of money orders, to Kevin Coursey. At some point prior to July 30, 1995, Respondent negotiated the rental of property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richard J. Connell. The renter was James Cawley. This was accomplished without knowledge or consent of Kevin Coursey, although Respondent led the Connells to believe that the property was being rented through Coursey and Associates. The Connells never received the cash security deposit paid to Respondent by Cawley. By letter dated September 19, 1995, Richard J. Connell and James L. Cawley informed Coursey and Associates of Connell’s entry into a rental agreement with that firm on February 25, 1995. Respondent had negotiated the agreement which provided that Cawley would initially rent the property for $350 a month until he established credit for the purchase. Respondent, it was agreed, on behalf of Coursey and Associates, would collect the rent every month. Coursey and Associates would receive a ten percent commission on the rental proceeds and also retain $65 per month in escrow for repairs. Respondent signed the Connells’ names to the agreement without their consent. Respondent left the employ of Coursey and Associates, without notice, on or about July 30, 1995, and contacted Martha J. O’Shields, co-broker for Century 21 Bryant and O’Shields Realty, about coming to work for O’Shields. Respondent did not tell O’Shields that Respondent’s salesperson license was suspended. O’Shields hired Respondent. On or about August 2, 1995, Respondent negotiated a contract for sale and purchase of the property owned by the Beagles. Coursey and Associates were, of course, the listing agents. Instead of presenting the offer to Coursey and Associates, Respondent presented the offer directly to the owners. Respondent signed the contract on behalf of Coursey and Associates, although she was then working for O’Shields. Respondent had the buyers of the property sign a consent to dual agency although she was not acting as a dual agent and had not been authorized by O’Shields to present the offer in this fashion. On or about August 2, 1995, Respondent proceeded to list the buyers’ property located at 1594 Twin Oaks Drive West in Middleburg, Florida, on behalf of Bryant and O’Shields. O’Shields discovered on or about August 15, 1995, that Respondent had taken all files upon which she was working from the office. By letter dated August 18, 1995, O’Shields notified Petitioner that she had terminated Respondent’s employment on August 15, 1995. According to O’Shields’ notification, Respondent had sales pending and O’Shields had not been previously aware of Respondent’s license suspension.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of counts I through V, counts VII through VIII, counts X through XII, counts XV through XVI, and counts XIX through XXI of the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent’s license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 28th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Barbara Gordon Schneider 5086 Granny's Place Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 James Kimbler, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent operated as a salesperson without being the holder of a valid and current license as a real estate salesperson, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0475436 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license was issued to Respondent as a salesperson c/o Dolphin Realty Referral Inc., 2525 Pasadena Avenue, Suite L., South Pasadena, Florida 33707. On December 18, 1996, Respondent presented a written offer to listing agent Sharon Simms for property located at 3900 48th Avenue, South, St. Petersburg, Florida. In connection therewith, Respondent, who was the building contractor for buyer Joseph S. Sparra, accepted a $2,000 deposit which was placed in the escrow account of Dolphin Realty Referral Inc., of which Thomas J. Hassel was qualifying broker. Hassel drafted the contract and qualified Joseph S. Sparra with Sigmund Financial for a first mortgage. The Respondent was employed by Hassel as an independent contractor. Thomas Hassel, the Respondent's employing broker, advised him that he was not sure Respondent's license was active, but the Respondent made no attempt to contact the Petitioner to ascertain his licensure status. On January 24, 1997, the Respondent accompanied Joseph S. Sparra to the closing at Anclote Title Services, where the Respondent provided the escrow money and accepted a $5,780 commission check on behalf of Dolphin Realty Referral, Inc. During the entire transaction, Respondent was not properly licensed with Dolphin Realty Referral, Inc., nor with any other real estate brokerage. Respondent's license was involuntarily placed on inactive status from January 1, 1996, through July 20, 1997, due to no employing broker. Hassel later advised Respondent that his license was not transferred to the new corporation when the broker changed its name from Dolphin Realty of Pinellas County to Dolphin Realty Referrals, Inc. The Respondent did not accept a share of the commission on the house in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent did not participate as a real estate salesperson in any other transaction while his license was on inactive status.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, Impose an administrative fine of $500 and require Respondent to complete a 45-hour salesperson's post-licensure course, as prescribed by the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 15th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John A. Kitzmiller, pro se 2613 59th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33707 James Kimbler, Acting 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 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules which establish the licensure and practice standards for real estate brokers and salesmen in the State of Florida and provide for a method of enforcing those standards. The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, being issued license number 0443228, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Respondent's last licensed practice location was as a salesman with John Davidson Realty, Inc., at 949 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32401. The Respondent was first licensed in January of 1985. In November of 1983, the Respondent engaged in a telephone call(s) to introduce or serve as an intermediary between two old friends. The purpose of the calls was to arrange for one of his friends to buy a quantity of marijuana from the other. This arrangement arose out of friendships based upon the Respondent's former residence in Key West, Florida. The Respondent helped his friends arrange a marijuana sale transaction; and a few months later, in approximately June of 1984, he again telephoned one of them to urge him to pay the money he owed the seller of the marijuana. That was the extent of the Respondent's involvement in the illegal drug transaction. On December 29, 1988, the Respondent, was indicted, with other defendants, on a number of related charges concerning the use of the mails and telephones in promoting and facilitating the distribution, and the conspiracy to distribute, marijuana, and the commission of acts which are felonies under federal drug laws. He pled guilty to Count V of that indictment involving the intentional use of the telephone in facilitating another in commission of acts which are felonies under federal drug laws, specifically, the distribution and conspiracy to distribute a quantity of a controlled substance: to wit, marijuana. Thus, the Respondent was ultimately convicted of a violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 843, after his agreed plea was ultimately entered on April 18, 1989. On that date, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida entered a judgment convicting the Respondent of violating that Section of the United States Code, as charged in Count V of the indictment. The court sentenced the Respondent to three years of imprisonment, which was then suspended on the condition that the Respondent be confined in a treatment institution for 90 days. The Respondent carried out that sentence by spending nights in a "halfway house", while working during the day. The Respondent immediately notified the Petitioner of his conviction on or about April 24, 1989, by letter. The Respondent candidly explained his predicament to the Florida Real Estate Commission without any prompting by the Commission and asked for the Commission's guidance. Ultimately, the Petitioner responded by filing the subject administrative complaint. The Respondent also fully cooperated with the federal authorities in the prosecution of the various criminal matters relating to the confiscation of property acquired with drug sale proceeds by other individual defendants named in the original indictment. This criminal act was committed by the Respondent prior to his licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. Since the original criminal conduct, the Respondent, in early 1984, married and has since had four children. He, through his own testimony and that of his witnesses, established that he is an exemplary family man, husband and father of his children. He has been a good provider for his family and himself since he has been a very successful real estate salesman, with a higher professional certification pending for him in the field of commercial real estate. A number of real estate brokers in the Panama City area with whom the Respondent has worked as a business associate or employee attested to his excellent reputation for honesty and fair dealing in all business and personal transactions and to the purity of his personal character. Since his entry into the real estate sales profession, he has become prominent both in the actual practice of his profession and in related professional organizations and civic activities. He has truly proved himself to be a rather admirable citizen since his unfortunate illegal conduct and resulting conviction. This altercation with the federal criminal justice system was the only one on his record, and he has had no violations in a professional context since he was licensed as a real estate salesman. The Respondent's evidence establishes unequivocally that he has rehabilitated himself from the effects and personal blemish of his past miscreant conduct. No evidence was adduced to refute that showing, because the Petitioner essentially no longer disputes those facts. His rehabilitation is to such an extent that it is obvious that his prior criminal conduct, should it become known to the public, would not likely cause or induce the public to fear that he would act to his clients' detriment in the conduct of their business affairs and the handling of their funds. In summary, the peculiar circumstances of this case, starting with the fact that the Respondent himself was not directly involved in the sale of illegal drugs, but rather was seeking to "help out a friend", albeit wrongfully, through the remaining facts established, which prove his rehabilitation, have shown that his prior criminal conduct does not reflect adversely on his ability to serve as an exemplary licensed real estate professional in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner finding the Respondent guilty of a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, as prohibited by Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a private, written reprimand be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 6th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-6876 The following discussion is given concerning the fact proposals of the parties: Petitioner's Facts 1-9. Accepted. Respondent' s Facts The Respondent filed no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Glen L. Hess, Esquire 9108 West Highway 98 Panama City Beach, FL 32407
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 0466167. Respondent's real estate license was invalid during the dates at issue in this proceeding. The license expired on September 30, 1993, and was activated on February 1, 1994. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a voluntary inactive sales person at 171C Springwood Boulevard, Longwood, Florida. On October 28, 1993, Mr. Frank Canty, terminated Respondent from employment at Frank G. Canty Realty ("Canty"). Mr. Canty notified Respondent of the termination by telephone on or about the same day and immediately filed the form required to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") of Respondent's change in status. 2/ Mr. Robert Sirianni and Respondent are long time friends. Mr. Sirianni is the broker and owner for Bay Hill Realty, Inc ("Bay Hill"). Mr. Sirianni hired Respondent as a real estate sales person for Bay Hill on November 22, 1993. Mr. Sirianni signed the completed form required to notify the Commission that Respondent had placed his license with Bay Hill. Mr. Sirianni gave the completed form to Respondent to hand deliver to the Commission. However, Respondent failed to deliver the form to the Commission. On November 22, 1993, Respondent showed a condominium to prospective buyers. Respondent represented that he was an employee of Canty. Respondent delivered a written offer of $36,000 to Watson Realty Corporation ("Watson"), the listing office. Respondent used his Canty business card in the transaction. A representative of Watson contacted Mr. Canty to discuss some problems in the transaction. Mr. Canty informed the representative that Respondent was terminated from Canty on October 28, 1993. Watson caused a new contract to be executed between the buyers and sellers showing Watson Realty as the listing and selling office. The transaction closed on the new contract. On December 13, 1993, Mr. Sirianni faxed a memorandum to Watson claiming the sales commission purportedly earned by Respondent. Mr. Sirianni withdrew the demand after learning of the facts and circumstances surrounding the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order: finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.42(1)(b); authorizing the issuance of a written reprimand; placing Respondent on probation for one year; and imposing a fine of $1,000 to be paid in accordance with this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May 1995.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses 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, Evers Aurubin, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0650984. On February 24, 1997, Respondent filed an application (dated February 12, 1997) 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 June 9, 1997, Respondent passed the salesperson examination and he was issued license number 0650984 as an inactive salesperson. From July 17, 1997, through the date of the hearing, Respondent has been an active salesperson associated with The Keyes Company, a broker corporation located at One Southeast Third Avenue, Miami, Florida. Following approval of Respondent's application, and his licensure as a real estate salesperson, the Department discovered that Respondent had been involved in an incident that was not revealed on his application. According to the Certified Record Search (Petitioner's Exhibit 1), attested to by the Clerk of Courts, Dade County, Florida, their records revealed that Respondent was arrested on February 21, 1991, for "obstructing street," convicted on February 22, 1991, and sentenced to and credited with time served (overnight detention). No further record existed concerning the nature of the charge since, according to the clerk's certification "pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 2.075, Retention of Court Records, the requirement for retaining misdemeanor cases under this rule is 5 years, therefore the file is unavailable." Consequently, there is no record evidence of the specific provision of law Respondent was convicted of violating and, therefore, no showing that the offense was criminal and, if so, the degree of felony or misdemeanor. Upon discovery of such information, the Department apparently apprised Respondent of its discovery and requested an explanation. Respondent addressed the Department's concerns by letter of July 16, 1998, as follows: I,m writting (sic) this letter to explain the incident of my arrest and the reason I answer not to the question on my application for the real estate license. There in the Amocco (sic) Gas Station on 27th Avenue close to 135th St., I gas-up there a few time. On the night of 2-21-91 in my way home from work, I stop to gas-up while doing so I noticed a young lady at the stop sign, but previously I thought that I saw her inside the gas station. By curiosity I drove by to talk to her, I asked her how are you doing just to have a conversation with her. She approached and ask me do I have $20.00 I said I have $9.00 to my surprise she said can she go with me I laugh then she walk toward the back of the car. All the doors of the car were locked so I did not have any intention of letting her in. I put my head down to look for the stack (sic) shift because my car was not automatic so I can put it on first gear to go, when I raised my head I saw an unmarked car pull in front of me vertically at the same time two to three Police car pull-up behind me, they ordered me out and arrested me, they took me to the Police Station to take me to jail that,s there (sic) I find out she was an under cover cop or working for the Police. I ask one of the officer when will I get out he answer probably the next morning because this is a minor offense. In the morning they took me to the court house the officer there told us, those of us that are there for the first time it is better to plead guilty, if we plead no contest or any other way we will have to come back to the court spend more time since this is a very minor case, plead guilty and we will be out the same day. I was working did not have time to come back, so when the Judge called me and asked me how do I plea I said guilty then they let me out the next (sic) morning. The cause of the arrest remain unclear to me. Because I find out that they arrested me for mentioning money, but I did not enter to any agreement what so ever with the lady and I did not mention anything about sex. Since it was a very minor case practically nothing I never pay any attention to it, that,s why I answer no to the question on the applycation (sic). I regret the incident very deeply and I will not let it happen to me ever again. Thereafter, on October 21, 1998, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid incident on his application, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Fla. Stat." (Count I), and that "Respondent has failed to disclose in his real estate license application the information required under Rule 61J2- 2.027(2), Fla. Admin. Code, and therefore, in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(e), Fla. Stat." (Count II). According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought for such violations was stated to be as follows: . . . [T]he penalty for each count or separate offense 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. 1 Consistent with the explanation he offered the Department in his letter of July 16, 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 significance of the charge. According to Respondent, who was not represented in the matter, it was his understanding that the charge ("obstructing street") was a non-criminal matter; that he was unfamiliar with the process, as well as scared; that he pled guilty to the charge so he would not have to return; and thereafter was released with credit for time served (an evening of incarceration). There was no other penalty imposed for the incident (no fine or probation), and Respondent has never been charged with any other offense. Here, Respondent's explanation for his failure to disclose the information regarding his arrest and conviction 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, the nature of the incident was not shown to be significant, and Respondent's understanding of the matter as non-criminal was, given the nature of the charge and Respondent's lack of experience with the judicial system, reasonable. Moreover, as heretofore noted, the court record fails to disclose, and the Department offered no proof to demonstrate, the provision of law violated or its significance.2
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 23rd day of April, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1999.
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.
