Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Real Estate Salesman's License No. 0355517 issued by the Board of Real Estate. Petitioner is employed as a real estate salesman at Norma Star Realty, Key Largo, Florida. During October, 1980, the Respondent applied for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Board of Real Estate. His application was approved, and the Respondent was admitted to the examination, which he passed. The Board of Real Estate issued a real estate salesman's license to the Respondent during December, 1980. In applying for licensure, the Respondent filled out the Board of Real Estate's standard application form. Paragraph 6 of the form sets out the following inquiry: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations) without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? The Respondent answered "No" to this inquiry. The Respondent has been arrested on several occasions. On July 29, 1964, he was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a charge of sodomy. On August 6, 1964, he was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a charge of rape. On May 22, 1966, he was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the charge of notorious cohabitation. On January 31, 1969, he was arrested in Miami, Florida, on the charge of board bill fraud. All of these charges were ultimately dismissed. The Respondent was neither tried nor convicted in connection with any of the charges. The Respondent had been licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Michigan. While in Michigan, he retained counsel, now deceased, who advised him that all of the Las Vegas arrests had been expunged from the Respondent's record, and that the Respondent could respond in the negative to inquiries as to whether he had ever been arrested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Michael Timothy McKee. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 10th day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold W. Braxton, Esquire 45 S.W. 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Arthur L. Miller, Esquire 9101 S.W. 66th Terrace Miami, Florida 33173 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2- 14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department 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 3101946. During the time relevant to this case, Respondent was a sales associate affiliated with Bahia Real Estate ("Bahia"), a brokerage company owned by Raul and Ricardo Aleman, with offices located in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, Florida. Respondent was employed in Bahia's Miami location. In 2010, Respondent acted as a sales associate on behalf of Michael Perricone for a real estate transaction involving the purchase of a condominium in the Blue Lagoon Towers ("Blue Lagoon") in Miami which was purchased as an investment. Mr. Perricone's sister, Francesca Palmeri, and her husband, Santo Palmeri, were present at the closing where they met Respondent for the first and only time. During the closing, which lasted approximately one hour, the Palmeris indicated to Respondent that they would be interested in making a similar purchase of investment property if another comparable condominium unit became available at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no further interaction with Respondent until he contacted them at their home in Pueblo, Colorado, in 2011 to advise them of the availability of a condominium for sale at Blue Lagoon. On or about October 6, 2011, Respondent faxed a partially completed Bahia form "'AS IS' Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase" to Mrs. Palmeri for the Palmeris to use in making an offer on a condominium unit located at 5077 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to forwarding the document to Mrs. Palmeri, Respondent wrote on the form the property description, the escrow agent name and address, the initial escrow deposit amount and additional deposit, the time for acceptance, the closing date, and listed himself as the "Cooperating Sales Associate" with "Bahia Realty Group, LLC." The Palmeris decided to offer a $125,000.00 purchase price. Respondent directed Mrs. Palmeri to complete the contract and provide a ten percent escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri entered a purchase price of $125,000.00, initialed each page, and signed the form as "Buyer." Respondent provided Mrs. Palmeri with instructions on how to wire the funds for the escrow deposit. On October 7, 2011, Mr. Palmeri wired $12,000.00 to J.P. Morgan Chase, which was then deposited in an account for Bonaventure Enterprises, LLC ("Bonaventure").1/ The Palmeris had no knowledge of Bonaventure, but, based upon the representations of Respondent, they understood the money they were asked to wire to the J.P. Morgan Chase account of Bonaventure was an escrow deposit for the property they intended to purchase at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no discussion with Respondent regarding the reason for sending the escrow deposit to Bonaventure. They assumed that Bonaventure was somehow related to the seller or its title company. The condominium unit in question was bank owned; however, the Palmeris were not informed of this. No evidence was presented that Respondent had an ownership interest in Bonaventure. However, Bonaventure is owned by Respondent's brother and sister-in-law. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the managing member of Bonaventure. Bonaventure is not a licensed real estate broker. Bahia does not maintain an escrow account, and its sales associates are authorized to use title companies of their choice for receipt of escrow deposits. Respondent was aware that he was unable to accept the escrow deposit of the Palmeris in his own name, because, as a licensed real estate sales associate, he is prohibited from receiving the money associated with a real estate transaction in the name of anyone other than his broker or employer. In fact, Respondent was disciplined in 2010 for a similar violation.2/ Respondent claims that the Palmeris entrusted him with their $12,000.00 to hold for possible investments, not necessarily related to real estate transaction, and he was doing it as a favor for them as "friends." Respondent contradicted himself by stating his intention in directing the Palmeris to deposit their money into the Bonaventure account was to help them have cash on hand in Florida in order to meet the Blue Lagoon condominium seller's requirements to make the escrow deposit with the seller's title company within 24 hours after an offer was accepted. The Palmeris had no knowledge of the seller's unique restrictions on the escrow money. Further, Respondent's asserted motive in requesting the $12,000.00 to have cash on hand in Florida is undermined by the fact that, if the Palmeris could wire $12,000.00 to Bonaventure's bank account, they could also wire the funds directly to a title company chosen by the selling bank after acceptance of their offer. Shortly after returning the contract to Respondent and sending the escrow deposit, Mrs. Palmeri discussed increasing the purchase price by $1,000.00 for a total of $126,000.00. Based upon the language of the proposed contract, the Palmeris expected a response to their offer within 24 hours. Immediately thereafter, Respondent told the Palmeris that they were "in negotiations." However, almost a month passed before they heard from Respondent regarding the status of the purchase of the condominium. On or about November 4, 2011, Respondent contacted Mrs. Palmeri and stated that he had "good news." He indicated that the seller would be willing to sell the property for a price of $129,500.00. According to Respondent, the seller requested documentation from the Palmeris' bank indicating their ability to pay. Mrs. Palmeri indicated that this was not an acceptable counter-offer. Respondent suggested that he could negotiate a sales price of $129,000.00, but he needed the Palmeris to send an additional $9,000.00 to put into escrow. Mrs. Palmeri told Respondent that she was no longer interested in the property because their maximum offer was $126,000.00. During the same conversation, Mrs. Palmeri asked for the return of her deposit. Respondent expressed agitation that she was retreating from the possible purchase because he had done "so much work." Respondent clearly anticipated he would receive a commission if the deal was consummated. The Palmeris did not get an immediate return of their escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri called Respondent repeatedly and received no answer. She also sent an e-mail to J.P. Morgan Chase trying to find out the status of the deposit and received no reply. Mrs. Palmeri again attempted to contact Respondent on November 18, 2011, and left him a message that he needed to call her regarding the deposit. After receiving no response, she contacted Bahia and spoke with Ricardo Aleman. Mrs. Palmeri explained to Aleman that she had signed a real estate contract with Respondent on October 6, 2011. She no longer wanted to pursue this real estate transaction and wanted the escrow deposit returned. Aleman was unaware that Respondent was negotiating a real estate transaction for the Palmeris or had accepted their deposit money. Aleman contacted Respondent who confirmed by email that the Palmeris were no longer interested in purchasing the condominium at Blue Lagoon. Respondent wrote, "After a month of hard work . . . the client decided to drop. It was a little bit problematic. I lost time and money because the offer was already accepted and she had no reason to negotiate." Respondent assured Aleman he would return the deposit to the Palmeris. In accordance with Bahia's policies and procedures, its sales associates are required to complete a deposit form at the time of receipt of funds for escrow. No such receipt was received by Bahia from Respondent with regard to the transaction involving the Palmeris. However, it was not unusual for Bahia not to receive information regarding real estate transactions conducted by their sales associates until the time of closing. After discussing the matter with Aleman, Respondent advised the Palmeris that he could return their money within ten days. Respondent advised Mrs. Palmeri that he would send her two checks for the total amount--one check which she could cash immediately and a second check which would be postdated. In order to get a return of their deposit, Mrs. Palmeri agreed. On or about November 28, 2011, the Palmeris received two checks, each in the amount of $6,000.00, including one postdated for December 16, 2011. These checks were written on the account of Bonaventure and signed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order imposing on Alfonso Miranda an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00 and suspending the real estate sales associate license of Alfonso Miranda for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 2nd day of April, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the crime of which Petitioner was convicted in the District of Columbia, namely simple assault under that jurisdiction's law, directly relates to the activities of a real estate sales associate, thereby warranting Respondent's intended decision to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a sales associate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Florida Real Estate Commission ("FREC") is authorized to certify for licensure persons who are qualified to practice as real estate brokers and sales associates in the state of Florida. On September 11, 2018, Petitioner Milain David Fayulu ("Fayulu") applied for licensure as a real estate sales associate. In his application, Fayulu truthfully answered the question asking whether he had ever been convicted of a crime. Fayulu disclosed that he had been convicted of simple assault in the District of Columbia as the result of "[a]n altercation with a fellow student at American University in Washington DC," which had occurred on April 7, 2014. He further reported that he had completed all terms of sentence, which included one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. Fayulu did not mention that he also had been sentenced to 180 days of incarceration, the execution of which had been suspended, but FREC has not faulted him for this. The Judgment of conviction entered on January 15, 2016, by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in United States v. Fayulu, Case No. 2014-CF2-006367, confirms that Fayulu pleaded guilty to one count of simple assault and received the sentence just described. As evidence of what happened on April 7, 2014, FREC relies almost entirely on the Affidavit in Support of an Arrest Warrant (the "Arrest Report"), which was subscribed and sworn to on April 10, 2014, by a District of Columbia law enforcement officer whose name is illegible (the "detective"). According to the Arrest Report, the detective interviewed three people in preparing his description of the incident: the arresting officer, the complainant, and a witness to the offense. To the extent relevant,1/ however, the entire narrative of the Arrest Report (the "Probable Cause Allegations"), with one possible, but largely immaterial exception,2/ is hearsay that is neither admissible pursuant to a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, nor corroborative of any competent, persuasive, nonhearsay evidence in the record that needs to be supplemented or explained.3/ Thus, the Arrest Report is not competent substantial evidence of the truth of the matters concerning the offense asserted therein.4/ The Arrest Report is not hearsay evidence of one fact, however; namely, that the prosecutor, and the judicial officer who approved the issuance of an arrest warrant, concluded (along with the detective) that the Probable Cause Allegations justified a charge of aggravated assault while armed ("AAWA") under D.C. Code section 22-404.01——a far more serious offense5/ than the simple assault of which Fayulu ultimately would be convicted.6/ This means that the government did not need to prove all of the Probable Cause Allegations——and, for all we know based on the instant record, could not have proved them beyond a reasonable doubt——to obtain Fayulu's conviction. The actual charging document containing the government's formal allegations against Fayulu is not in evidence. Nor is the transcript of the plea colloquy. As a result, the undersigned cannot make any findings regarding the specific factual admissions Fayulu made when he pleaded guilty to the simple assault charge. To be clear, Fayulu's guilty plea is not an admission to the truth of the Probable Cause Allegations in their entirety, for, as just explained, the government did not have the burden of proving those allegations in toto to support a simple assault conviction. If this sounds like hair-splitting, it is only because the undersigned has not recited (and will not repeat) the unproved Probable Cause Allegations. To be sure, it is extremely tempting to evaluate Fayulu's testimony against the backdrop of the alarming Probable Cause Allegations and to conclude that he is being cagey or unforthcoming about what really happened during the incident that led to his arrest and conviction. This is because the Arrest Report enjoys unearned credibility, probably owing to a general respect for law enforcement, whereas Fayulu's testimony, which depicts the incident in a much less malevolent light (as perpetrators do, we imagine), is readily, albeit unfairly, presumed to be self- serving. FREC's intended decision to deny Fayulu's application is, in fact, based on the premise that, as a matter of historical fact, Fayulu behaved as described in the Arrest Report, even though there is no competent substantial evidence in the record proving the Probable Cause Allegations. Fayulu tried to make this legal point in the proceedings before FREC, but——not being a lawyer and representing himself——he did so somewhat clumsily and managed mostly to come off sounding like he had something to hide. At hearing, after some prodding, Fayulu testified that on the evening of April 7, 2014, he and his two roommates were in a car heading home from the library, where they had been studying, when the alleged victim (the complainant) approached their vehicle, which was stopped at the exit from the library's parking lot as the driver waited for a break in traffic to pull out onto the street. The complainant spit on the driver through an open window. The driver parked the car and the three men got out. They began yelling at the complainant. According to Fayulu, the complainant threw the first punch, so to speak, which triggered a brawl that lasted for two or three minutes. Fayulu was directly involved in the fight, which was violent and caused the combatants to fall to the ground. Fayulu and his friends then decided to stop the altercation. The complainant, who afterwards remained standing on the side of the street, "seemed perfectly fine" and was "in a physically decent condition" in Fayulu's opinion, having been neither bloodied nor knocked unconscious during the affray. Fayulu and his two companions walked back to their car and left. Fayulu's account of the incident provides a sufficient basis in fact to support a conviction for simple assault under D.C. law, which is analogous to misdemeanor battery under section 784.04, Florida Statutes. Fayulu's testimony about what happened is not inherently unbelievable, moreover, and there is no competent substantial evidence in the record refuting his version of the event. While it is likely that Fayulu has tried to put himself in the best possible light consistent with the truth, and despite some obvious testimonial ducking and weaving, the undersigned cannot find that he intentionally lied. At any rate, if it weren't for Fayulu's evidence about the facts and circumstances comprising the underlying offense (as opposed to the fact of his conviction, which is undisputed), there would be none at all.
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 approving Fayulu's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2019.
The Issue Whether or not, on or about January 25, 1977, in the licensed premises located at 1600 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the licensed premises of the Respondent, the Respondent's employee, agent, servant, or entertainer, to wit: Linda Sue Richardson and/or Gayle Jeanette Landrum, allegedly employed at the licensed premises or employed on a contractual basis by the Respondent to entertain, perform, or work on the licensed premises known as, Tigers Den A Go Go, did commit or engage in a lewd and lascivious performance by a live person by committing obscene and indecent acts in violation of 847.011, F.S. and thereby subject the licensee to the penalty provisions of s. 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At present and at all times pertinent to this cause, to include January 25, 1977, the Respondent, Mardi Gras De Tampa, Inc., was the holder of license no. 39-0246, series 4-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This license was held to trade as Tigers Den A Go Go in a premises located at 1600 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. On January 25, 1977, officers of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office entered the licensed premises. The officers were Detectives Ridgeway and Coakley. While in the licensed premises the officers observed an entertainer Linda Sue Richardson dancing. In the course of the dancing Richardson inserted a plastic straw into the g-string costume which she was wearing, and simulated masturbation. The officers also observed Richardson, in the course of the dance, take a napkin and rub it on her vagina, and then roll the napkin up and place it in her mouth and simulate oral sexual activity. At the time the officers were in the licensed premises and on the same date, they observed the dancing of a second female entertainer, one Gayle Jeanette Landrum. They saw Landrum place her hand in her g-string costume and simulate masturbation. Landrum also fondled her breasts in a provocative manner. The exact location within the licensed premises where the above described dancing took place is not specifically known, beyond the fact that one dancer was dancing on a large stage behind the bar and the other dancer was dancing on a smaller stage which was placed in the area where patrons would be seated. The dancing took place at a time that customers were in the licensed premises. The two women were arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious conduct and both were convicted of a violation of s. 847.011, F.S. On the date of the arrest of the two dancers, Carol Alcorn was in charge of the licensed premises in the capacity of manager. Alcorn was also serving as bartender on that occasion. The two female entertainers were employed on January 25, 1977 for compensation by the Respondent, Mardi Gras De Tampa, Inc. The two women were operating under the specific instructions of the Respondent on the subject of their conduct while performing. These instructions were generally to not commit acts which would be considered lewd and lascivious within the meaning of the "Florida Law". In addition the dancers were not to touch themselves or fondle themselves or let customers touch them. The women had been told these basic rules in individual conferences. Another policy which the management had, was to call the performers attention to any improper conduct, and dismiss performer if the performer failed to abide by management rules on the subject of proper conduct. In fact, the Respondent's management employees had corrected dancers before. On the occasion when the officers observed the conduct of Richardson and Landrum, it is unclear what period of time was encompassed to achieve the acts described. In the normal course of events the women would have been dancing for the duration of three records, which would be approximately nine minutes. They would have been dancing as a part of a group of six to eight dancers. The bartender would have been able to see any dancer performing on the stage behind the bar or performing on the stage in the area where the patrons were seated. The view of the two stages from the location the bartender would have behind the bar would have been unobstructed. Whether or not the bartender, Carol Alcorn, actually saw the subject dancing of Richardson and Landrum can not be determined from the facts offered in the hearing. What was shown was that the bartender went to the restroom, which was away from the bar itself, and was confronted by the two officers when leaving the restroom area. This confrontation was for the purposes of complaining about the activities the officers had observed on the apart of Richardson and Landrum. The acts which took place in the course of the dancing, by Linda Sue Richardson and Gayle Jeanette Landrum, constitute lewd and lascivious conduct within the meaning of s. 847.011, F.S. From the facts presented in the course of the hearing, it has not been shown that the Respondent, Mardi Gras De Tampa, Inc., has violated s. 561.29, F.S., as a result of the acts of their employees Linda Sue Richardson and Gayle Jeanette Landrum. The facts do not show that the Respondent is responsible for those acts of the employees either through its own negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or lack of diligence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charge filed by the Petitioner against the license of Mardi Gras De Tampa, Inc., t/a Tigers Den a Go Go, under license no. 39-0246, series 4-COP, as set forth above, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Tom Whitaker, Esquire Division of Beverage 403 North Morgan Street 725 South Bronough Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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 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.
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
