Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Thomas Brown, is registered with the Board of Real Estate (hereafter "Board") as a real estate salesman. The Respondent's application for registration was approved by the Board, and on December 22, 1978, he was issued a salesman's license. Question 6 of the Respondent's application filed with the Board reads as follows: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of 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? In response to this question, the Respondent inserted the work "no." The Respondent knew the answer he supplied to Question 6 was false because of a prior arrest and conviction for burglary in Kent County, Delaware in 1967. The Respondent was adjudicated guilty and received a one year suspended sentence. The Respondent was served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing in this proceeding by certified mail on or about October 29, 1979.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's real estate salesman's license be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of November 1980. SHARYN S. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Thomas Brown 604 Avenue "E" Southeast Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Robert Thomas Brown Post Office Box 612 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified residential real estate appraiser. His license number is RD-4163. Respondent was licensed as a registered trainee appraiser in December 2001. He passed the certification exam and received his current license in November 2003. Respondent has not previously had any disciplinary action taken against him by the Division or the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (Board). On June 14, 2005, Respondent was engaged by a mortgage company to appraise the single-family residence located at 620 Adirondack Avenue in Orlando (“the subject property”). The subject property was owned at the time by Cosme Abreu and his wife. The Abreus also owned a single-family residence located at 623 Adirondack Avenue, which is across the street from the subject property. The subject property was at the time of the appraisal under contract for sale to Jose Ciro, who was a co-worker of Mr. Abreu's. Respondent previously conducted an appraisal of the subject property in March 2005. His firm also conducted several appraisals of the Abreus' property at 623 Adirondack Avenue, including an appraisal on June 14, 2005. Respondent went to the subject property on June 14, 2005, and walked around the inside and outside of the residence taking measurements and observing the condition of the property. He testified that at the time of the appraisal the subject property was in good overall condition; that all of the appliances were in place; that the air conditioner was working; that the carpet and flooring were in place; and that there was no readily observable water damage or rotten wood on the interior or exterior of the residence. Respondent prepared an appraisal report of the subject property on June 14, 2005. Respondent estimated in his report that the market value of the subject property as of the date of the appraisal was $185,000. Respondent used the cost approach and the sales comparison approach to arrive at that valuation. The Division’s expert appraiser, Ben Cole, III, did not take issue with the methodology used by Respondent in his appraisal of the subject property. Indeed, Mr. Cole stated in his report that: “The [comparative] sales were legitimate transactions, pertinent and in close proximity to the subject. The home was measured correctly and the square footage correctly computed with the room count and placement shown properly.” Nevertheless, Mr. Cole testified that the appraisal report prepared by Respondent was misleading because it did not disclose the actual condition of the subject property as of the date of the appraisal. Mr. Cole did not have any personal knowledge as to the condition of the property as of the date of the appraisal; his opinion regarding the misleading nature of Respondent’s appraisal report was based upon the assumption that the condition of the subject property at the time of the appraisal was as reflected in the photographs taken in August 2005. However, as discussed below, the validity of that assumption was not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent did not take photographs of the subject property in connection with the June appraisal. The exterior photographs of the subject property included in his appraisal report were the photographs that he took in connection with the March appraisal. Respondent testified that the March photographs accurately depicted the condition of the subject property as he observed it in June, and he stated in his appraisal report that the subject property has been “maintained in good overall condition.” Mr. Abreu testified that subject property was in good condition at the time of the appraisal, which was consistent with and corroborated Respondent’s assessment of the condition of the subject property.3 Mr. Ciro had no direct personal knowledge about the condition of the subject property in June 2005. He did not take possession of the property until mid-August 2005, even though the closing occurred in mid-July 2005. Mr. Ciro had only visited the subject property twice before August 2005. One of those visits occurred prior to the three hurricanes that hit the Orlando area in August and September of 2004. Mr. Ciro could not recall the date of his other visit to the property, but it was before June 2005. Mr. Ciro testified that the subject property was in good condition at the time of his visits, although he acknowledged that he did not closely examine the outside of the house because it was nighttime when he was at the subject property. The condition of the subject property in August 2005 was not good, as reflected in the photographs and videotape that were received into evidence. For example, the carpet in the family room was missing, appliances were missing, the kitchen sink and cabinets had been removed and were on the back patio, there was a stain of some kind on the ceiling in at least one of the rooms, the backyard was overgrown and full of trash, and there was damage to the soffit on the right-front of the house. Mr. Abreu testified that some of the damage depicted in the photographs and videotape -- e.g., removal of the sink from the kitchen, floor damage caused by a plumbing problem -- occurred between the time of the appraisal and the time that Mr. Ciro took possession of the subject property, and that he was in the process of fixing the damage when Mr. Ciro took possession of the property. Mr. Abreu attributed the remainder of the damage to Mr. Ciro. Mr. Ciro and the Abreus are currently in litigation regarding the sale of the subject property and its condition in August 2005. Respondent is not a party to that litigation. Respondent and Mr. Abreu testified that the August 2005 photographs do not reflect the condition of the property as of the time of the appraisal on June 14, 2005. That testimony is called into question by the photograph in the appraisal report that appears to show that the soffit damage observed in August 2005 on the right-front corner of the house was present at the time of the March appraisal,4 but the evidence was not clear and convincing on that issue. In October 2005, the Division received a complaint from Mr. Ciro regarding Respondent’s appraisal of the subject property. Beverly Ridenauer was assigned to investigate the complaint. It took Ms. Ridenauer several months to make contact with Respondent because the address that the Division had on file for him was incorrect. Respondent was not able to produce his work file for the subject property when it was initially requested by Ms. Ridenauer.5 When the original work file could not be located, Respondent “reconstructed” the file and provided it to Ms. Ridenauer. The original work file was subsequently located and provided to the Division during discovery. There is no evidence of any discrepancies between the “reconstructed” file and the original file. The work file was not offered into evidence, but Respondent testified that it included the property appraiser records, Multiple Listing Service print-outs, and other information he reviewed and considered in his appraisal of the subject property. Respondent required his trainees to take interior photographs of the property they appraised for his use in reviewing and signing-off on their work, but he did not take interior photographs of properties that he appraised unless the lender specifically requested such photographs. As a result of this case, however, Respondent now takes interior photographs as a standard practice in order to “protect [him]self.” There is no statute, rule, or USPAP standard that requires interior photographs to be taken as part of an appraisal. The Division’s expert appraiser, Mr. Cole, did not know whether it was even typical for appraisers to take interior photographs; he simply testified that such photographs “would have been helpful” in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(e) and (1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is 58 years old. He is employed full-time as a real estate sales associate. Respondent holds an active real estate sales associate license. His license number is SL706350. The license was issued to Respondent based upon his sworn application for licensure submitted on or about March 14, 2001. Question No. 9 on the license application asked whether Respondent had “ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if [he] received a withhold of adjudication.” The following explanation is provided as part of the question: This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer “NO” because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering “NO.” (Emphasis supplied) Immediately following Question No. 9 is the following statement in all capital letters: YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE OR THE DENIAL OF A REAL ESTATE LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR THE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE. Respondent checked the box marked “NO” for Question No. 9 on the application that he submitted. Respondent’s negative answer to Question No. 9 was a material misstatement of his criminal record. On March 27, 1972, Respondent pled guilty to attempted robbery in the third degree in the Erie County Court in New York. The offense was a felony. On May 5, 1972, Respondent was sentenced to five years of probation for that offense. Respondent’s probation was revoked on January 14, 1974, and he was sentenced to “the care and custody of the NY State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission for an indefinite period of 60 months.” The latter sentence ran concurrently with a sentence imposed for another offense, the substance of which is not reflected in the record. On August 3, 1992, the Erie County Court issued a Certificate of Relief From Disabilities to Respondent, which relieved him of “all disabilities and bars to employment, excluding the right to be eligible for public office.” The certificate expressly states that it “shall NOT be deemed nor construed to be a pardon,” and it is limited to the “crime or offense specified [t]herein.” The Certificate of Relief From Disabilities makes no mention of expungement or sealing of the records related to the enumerated offense. The only offense enumerated in the Certificate of Relief From Disabilities is the third degree attempted robbery conviction with a sentence date of May 5, 1972. No other offenses are mentioned. On February 18, 1993, the New York Executive Department, Board of Parole, issued a Certificate of Good Conduct to Respondent. The certificate referenced three offenses: the third degree attempted robbery conviction discussed above; a second degree robbery conviction with a sentence date of May 8, 1975; and a federal distribution of heroine conviction with a sentence date of May 1, 1978. The purpose of the Certificate of Good Conduct was to “remove all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license and privilege except those pertaining to firearms . . . and except the right to be eligible for public office.” The certificate states that it “shall be considered permanent.” The Certificate of Good Conduct makes no mention of expungement or sealing of the records related to the enumerated offenses. Respondent testified that his negative answer to Question No. 9 was based upon his understanding of the legal effect of the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and the Certificate of Good Conduct. Specifically, Respondent testified that although he understood that the certificates did not “remove” his criminal history or expunge his records, it was his understanding that the certificates provided him a “safe harbor” to answer “no” to Question No. 9 because all legal bars to employment had been removed by the certificates. Respondent’s understanding regarding the legal effect of the certificates and his obligation to disclose his prior offenses based upon the certificates was based, in part, on advice he received from an attorney in New York. Respondent knew that the Department would learn of his criminal history through the background check based upon the fingerprint card that he submitted with his license application, and he credibly testified that he did not intend to mislead the Department regarding his criminal history through his negative answer to Question No. 9. Respondent was unaware at the time he submitted his license application that the Department and/or the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) processed applications in which no criminal history was disclosed differently than applications in which a criminal history is disclosed.2 Respondent’s understanding regarding the legal effect of the certificates was erroneous. Respondent acknowledged as much in his testimony at the final hearing (Tr. 54) and in his PRO (at ¶29). The record does not establish precise legal effect of the certificates,3 but it is inferred that the certificates restore the civil rights that Respondent lost due to his felony convictions. It is also inferred that the reason that the Certificate of Good Conduct does not mention Respondent’s misdemeanor offenses (See Endnote 5) even though it was issued after those offenses is because misdemeanor convictions typically do not result is the loss of civil rights as is the case with felony convictions.4 Neither of the certificates expunge or seal any of Respondent’s criminal records and, contrary to his understanding at the time, the certificates did not excuse Respondent from disclosing his criminal offenses in response to Question No. 9 on the license application. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent was convicted of third degree attempted robbery, a felony, in 1972; that the offense was not sealed or expunged; and that Respondent failed to disclose that conviction on his license application when he answered “no” to Question No. 9.5 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent intentionally misrepresented or fraudulently concealed his criminal history from the Department by answering “no” to Question No. 9.6 To contrary, the evidence establishes that Respondent’s negative answer to Question No. 9 was based upon his good faith, albeit erroneous belief, that he was not required to disclose his prior criminal offenses in light of the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and/or the Certificate of Good Conduct. It has been 34 years since Respondent’s third degree attempted robbery conviction, which is the basis of the Administrative Complaint. It has been more than 18 years since Respondent’s last criminal offense, which was a misdemeanor petit larceny offense. All of Respondent’s criminal offenses occurred in the state of New York. He has remained out of trouble with the law since he came to Florida in 2000. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action, other than this proceeding, since receiving his license. Respondent did not present the testimony of any character witnesses, but he credibly testified that he has completely turned his life around since the time of his criminal offenses in New York. Respondent served in the U.S. Air Force Security Service in Viet Nam. He was honorably discharged. Respondent was licensed as a mental health counselor in New York and Virginia prior to coming to Florida and obtaining his real estate sales associate license. Respondent testified that he was required to disclose his criminal background and undergo a background check in order to obtain those licenses; that he did not disclose his criminal background on the license applications based upon his understanding of the certificates described above; that his criminal background was not an issue to the licensing agencies in New York and Virginia, even though it was not disclosed on his license applications; and that this experience (along with the advice he received from the attorney in New York) led him to believe that his criminal records were sealed and need not be disclosed. Respondent offered no evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony, and it is given very little weight because it is unknown how, if at all, the disclosure requirements and licensure regimes for mental health counselors in New York and Virginia compare with the disclosure requirements and licensure regime for real estate sales associates in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order that: finds Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count I of the Administrative Complaint); finds Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2) and, hence, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Count II of the Administrative Complaint); imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; suspends Respondent’s license for 30 days; places Respondent on probation for one year after the end of the suspension period; and imposes the costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Teresita de Jesus Rangel, who is a thirty-four year old female, made application in early 1987 for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondents Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: 6. Conviction of crimes: January 28th, 1983 - Charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Was found guilty and charged with 3 years incarcerated and 3 years Special Parole. Conviction took place in Los Angeles, Ca. March 17th, 1983 - Charges: Conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana. These were started as two different cases. Pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was sentenced five years on each case to run concurrent with the case in California. This conviction took place in Fort Lauderdale, Fl. I started my sentence on January 11th, 1984 at F.C.I., Lexington, Kentucky and was released to a Half-way House on October 2nd, 1986. These arrests stem from the same circumstances and were handled together and treated as one. The arrests occurred as a result of my involvement with my then boyfriend. Approximately a year and a half prior to my arrests I became romantically involved with this individual. This individual was Co- defendant in the case I was arrested. My involvement in the criminal case stands on my romantic involvement with him. Due to lack of judgement [sic] on my part, I became criminally involved with him eventually leading to our arrest. I have had no contact whatsoever with this individual since my incarceration. I further intend to avoid all contact with him in the future. At this time, I have an outstanding offer from Dominion Realty, Inc. In fact, the Broker at this firm is encouraging me to make this application to become a real estate salesperson. I realize this is a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to begin a career. It will allow me to stand on my own and provide a respectable home and future for my children. Based upon the above response, the Division issued proposed agency action on July 14, 1987 denying the application. As grounds, the Division stated its action was "based upon (her) answer to Question #6 of the licensing application and/or (her) criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency." The denial prompted this proceeding. Petitioner is divorced and the sole support of three young children. She has been in the work force since 1972. According to all accounts, her work performance over the years has been exemplary, and Rangel was steadily promoted to positions of greater responsibility and duties in each of her jobs. Her work experience includes stints with a mortgage brokerage firm, an air freight carrier, an equipment distributor and a property management firm where she is now employed. In 1983 Rangel was arrested on the previously cited charges, and pled guilty. She received three and five year prison terms in California and Florida, respectively, to run concurrently. Her involvement in the crimes was due to a romantic relationship with another man (the father of one of her children), who was also arrested and charged with the same offenses. Needless to say, their relationship went on the skids and they no longer have contact with one another. After her plea, Rangel began serving her sentence in January, 1984 at a federal institution in Lexington, Kentucky. In early October, 1986, or thirty-four months later, she was given an early release. Rangel then lived in a halfway house in Coral Gables until April- 1987. She now lives with her parents and three children in Miami. She will remain on probation until July, 1991. As such, she is subject to a number of special conditions, including random drug testing, a restriction on travel, and regular reporting to a parole officer. So far, she has had no problem in conforming with all restrictions imposed by the government, and anticipates none in the future. Independent testimony established that petitioner is highly regarded by her employer. She is considered to be honest and of good character, and even though her employer is aware of her criminal record, Rangel has been entrusted with the responsibility of handling large amounts of cash (up to 10,000) each day without supervision. She is in charge of managing four executive office centers, and if licensed, will become a rental agent for Dominion Realty, Inc., a subsidiary company of the corporation for which she now works. Rangel was candid and forthright in her testimony. She willingly accepted responsibility for her prior actions, and now wants the opportunity to use a real estate license as a means to provide support for her family. She appeared to the undersigned to be mature, and capable of handling the responsibilities of a real estate salesperson. Given her present job responsibilities, including the handling of large sums of money, and subsequent good conduct since release from prison, it is found Rangel is sufficiently rehabilitated to justify granting her application. Moreover, it is not likely that the public and investors will be endangered by licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Teresita de Jesus Rangel for licensure as a real estate salesperson be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3028 Respondent: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis N. Urbano, Esquire 1000 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33132 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the "Department"), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Maureen Teresa Mobley, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0647773. On or about January 22, 1997, Respondent filed an application with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer "Yes" or "No" to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered item 9 by checking the box marked "No." The application concluded with an "Affidavit of Applicant," which was acknowledged before a Notary Public of the State of Florida, as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. (Emphasis added.) On March 3, 1997, Respondent passed the salesperson examination and was issued license number 0647773. From March 15, 1997, through April 7, 1997, Respondent was an inactive salesperson. From April 8, 1997, through the present, Respondent has been an active salesperson associated with Betty K. Woolridge, an individual broker trading as B. K. Woolridge and Associates, currently in Tampa, Florida. Steve Pence, Investigative Supervisor for the Department, investigated Respondent’s criminal history. He discovered that Respondent had "a problem" with a worthless check charge. Mr. Pence obtained a Certificate of Disposition from the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida. The Certificate indicated that on November 4, 1992, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor charge of obtaining property with a worthless check, an offense that occurred on July 25, 1991. The Certificate further indicates that adjudication was withheld. After Mr. Pence concluded his investigation, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid criminal disposition, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes" and sought to take disciplinary action against her license. According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought . . . may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. . . . At the hearing, Respondent testified that six or seven years ago, she wrote a check for $19.00 that was not cleared at her bank. She had moved during this period, and for some reason the notification did not reach her. When she found out the check had not been paid, she went directly to the intended payee and made the payment. A year later, she was stopped for a minor traffic violation and was arrested on an outstanding warrant for her arrest on the worthless check charge. At the time, she thought the matter had been taken care of and had no idea there was warrant out for her arrest. Respondent testified that she went before the judge, who noted that she had made good on the check more than a year before her arrest. Respondent admitted pleading no contest to the charge. However, Respondent’s understanding of "adjudication withheld" was that the judge had dismissed the charge, provided she pay the court costs. She never saw the Certificate of Disposition until Mr. Pence brought it to her attention several years later. Respondent's explanation for her failure to disclose the worthless check charge on her application is credited. It is found that, at the time she submitted her application, Respondent did not intend to mislead or deceive those who would be reviewing her application. In so finding, it is observed that Respondent's testimony was candid and her understanding of the disposition of the matter was reasonable, given the passage of time since the events in question, the minor nature of the underlying charge, and the fact that the judge acknowledged she had long since made good on the $19.00 check at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Leonard H. Johnson, Esquire Schrader, Johnson, Auvil and Brock, P.A. Post Office Box 2337 37837 Meridian Avenue Dade City, Florida 33526-2337 William Woodyard Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Kimbler Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32302-1900
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0073256 authorizing his practice in such a capacity in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, for realtors in the State of Florida. From approximately April 16, 1977, through November 17, 1977, the Respondent, acting in the capacity of a real estate salesman, was employed by a broker by the name of Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation of Miami, Florida. That entity with Broker Kane was involved in the advertisement, promotion and sale of parcels of unimproved land in west Texas. The Respondent's duties involved making long-distance telephone calls to prospective purchasers of that land (in Cochran County, Texas), attempting to induce them to buy one or more parcels. In the course of this telephone sales campaign, in which the Respondent participated with approximately 20 salesmen making such phone calls, the Respondent used a script prepared for him by Irwin Kane, his employing broker. The script, in general, extolled the attributes of the unimproved property in an arid region of west Texas, representing that the land possessed favorable climatic conditions, water supply and soil conditions for agricultural purposes and was near property in which oil companies were interested. The Respondent contacted a potential buyer by phone who lived in Wisconsin and attempted to persuade the buyer to purchase a parcel of the property through use of the prepared "script" given him by his broker. That potential customer apparently became suspicious of the sales method, manner or assurances given by phone and ultimately was instrumental, along with the United State Attorney, in the filing of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, charging the Respondent (along with his broker, principals of the corporation and other salesmen) with the use of wire communication in furtherance of a scheme to defraud potential purchasers of real estate in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. In that proceeding, the Respondent initially professed his lack of knowledge of the truth or falsity of the representations made in the prepared script his broker gave him and required him to use concerning the attributes of the west Texas land involved. Due in part to a dearth of financial resources to devote to litigation, the Respondent ultimately pled nolo contendere on November 7, 1978, to the charge involving using wire communication in a scheme to defraud. He was ultimately found guilty and was placed on probation for three years, with imposition of a sentence of imprisonment being suspended by the court. The Respondent had no part in the preparation of any written materials or "script" which he employed in making the telephone conversation and representations describing the supposed attributes of the property he was attempting to market on behalf of his employer, Broker Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation. That script was prepared by his broker or others and the Respondent read or consulted from it as he was communicating with prospective purchasers, but had no actual knowledge of its truthfulness or falsity with regard to the representations contained therein. He was shown to have made no representation or verbal communication which he knew to be false when he made it. The Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding involving the same factual transaction in the past which culminated in a final order dismissing that administrative complaint. 1/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Ed Rich, be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(i)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a two (2) year suspension of licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel S. Fass, Esquire 626 Northeast 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Mr. Ed Rich 1950 South Ocean Drive Hallendale, Florida 33009 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, William James Barbour, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0631568. On September 28, 1995, Respondent filed an application (dated September 22, 1995) with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer yes or no to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent responded to the question by checking the box marked "Yes," and attached documents relating to his arrest on June 17, 1992, and conviction on March 1, 1993, for the offense of driving under the influence. The documents further revealed that Respondent's driving privilege was revoked by the court for a six-month period (nunc pro tunc to June 17, 1992), and that by August 9, 1992, he had successfully completed the Broward County Court Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. Respondent's driving privileges were restored February 25, 1993. No other offenses were disclosed on the application. The application concluded with an "Affidavit of Applicant," which was acknowledged before a Notary Public of the State of Florida, as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. (Emphasis added.) Following approval of Respondent's application, and his licensure as a real estate salesperson, the Department discovered that on March 4, 1993, in the County Court, Dade County, Florida, Respondent was arraigned on a charge of simple battery (date of occurrence January 9, 1993), a first degree misdemeanor, proscribed by Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. Respondent entered a plea of not guilty; however, on March 30, 1993, the court, following hearing, found Respondent guilty of the charge, but withheld adjudication. Respondent was subsequently ordered to pay $2,536 in restitution, $105.00 in court costs, and participate in a pre-trial diversion anger control class. After receipt of the foregoing information, the Department apprised Respondent of its discovery. Respondent addressed the Department's concerns by letter of September 5, 1997, as follows: After our conversation on this morning of 9-5-97 I am aware that I filled out the application for Real Estate incorrectly. At the time, my understanding to the question about an arrest or convictions on the application, was for a felony. I have had arrest but all of the 3 I've had were misdemeanors. One was for a DUI. In June of 1992 where I was found guilty and lost my Drivers License for 6 months & had to attend a counter measures class. I completed all required classes and now hold a safe Driver's Lic. I had two other arrest[s]. Both were for battery. I had to attend an advocate program for violence. I completed all classes. I believe that ajudication [sic] was witheld [sic] for both charges. I am sorry for any inconvenience that I have caused over this matter, and hope that I can continue to keep my Real Estate License. Thereafter, on November 20, 1997, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid finding of guilty to the crime of battery, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Fla. Stat." and sought to take disciplinary action against his license. According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought . . . may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 1 At hearing, Respondent offered the following explanation for his response to item 9 of the application or, stated differently, for his failure to disclose the charge of battery for which he had been found guilty (albeit adjudication being withheld): . . . Your Honor, at the time that I had filled out the application -- okay, right before that I had been arrested for a DUI. That's one thing that I did list in the application. But at the time of the application, you know, the question had stated: If you had ever been arrested -- anyhow I answered yes to the question. But when it said to list the details, my first understanding of the question was that it was for felonies only, but the charges that I had -- I had a charge for a fight, actually two times I was arrested for fighting. And I didn't know what the outcome of the charge was to be able to list it, you know, in detail. So when I answered the question I answered yes, you know, believing that the Real Estate Commission would, you know, because it said at the end of the question your answer would be checked with state, local, and federal officials, and I didn't know the detailed charges that I was -- that were placed upon me. So I just answered the question yes figuring that they would find what the charges were. I was not trying to hide anything from the Real Estate Commission. I had great feeling that they were going to find out everything that I had been arrested for. (Transcript, at pages 4 and 5.) And, on cross-examination, Respondent responded regarding his response to the application question, as follows: Q. And in attaching materials you listed a conviction for driving under the influence charge? A. Right. Because at the time I had understood that the question was for a felony, but even still I answered it yes, because, you know, I knew the other ones were like misdemeanors or something, but I didn't know what degree or any of that, you know, so I answered yes. And the only thing I had attached was the DUI because that's the only thing that I even had paperwork on. (Transcript, at pages 7 and 8.) Apart from the foregoing incidents, Respondent has had no other involvement with the criminal justice system. Here, Respondent's explanation for his failure to disclose the battery charge on his application is wanting in substance, and does not detract from the conclusion that the application he submitted was false. In so concluding, it is observed that Respondent's answer to the question posed by the application (given the information requested and his attestation) purported to divulge every offense for which he had "been convicted . . . , found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Under such circumstances, it cannot be subject to serious debate that, when the application was submitted, Respondent knew he provided false or misleading information regarding his criminal record. In concluding that Respondent knowingly and intentionally provided false or misleading information on his application, his explanation that he lacked paper work on the battery arrest and assumed the Department would uncover the charge upon a background check, has not been overlooked; however, such explanation does not detract from the conclusion reached. Indeed, it is inherently improbable, given the proximity in time of the offenses (Respondent was convicted of DUI on March 1, 1993, and arraigned on the battery charge on March 4, 1993), that Respondent would be able to relate the particulars of the DUI conviction on his application, but not one iota of information regarding the battery charge. Rather, Respondent's failure to even mention the battery charge on his application renders his claim of reliance on the Department's investigation to uncover it ring hollow.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that for such violation, the Final Order revoke Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent Stephen S. Hautala was licensed as a registered real estate broker in Florida; Almar Realty, Inc., was licensed as a real estate brokerage corporation in Florida; and Arlene J. Guennel was licensed as a real estate salesman in Florida. At the time of the alleged misconduct, Robert J. Tracey owned and occupied a home located at 1123 SE 36th Terrace in Cape Coral, Florida, which he occupied as his private residence. He met Respondent, Arlene Guennel, at a construction site at which he was working and agreed to let her attempt to sell the house. He gave her a key so she could preview it and never received the key back. After this meeting, Mr. Tracey did not contact Ms. Guennel, nor did he hear from her for quite a while. From time to time he would come home and find his bed had been made and he assumed that Ms. Guennel had done it. She had on several occasions straightened up the house so that it would be presentable to show. Mr. Tracey did not execute a formal listing agreement with Ms. Guennel. One evening in early April, 1986, she came to the Tracey home with a sales contract bearing an offer of $115,000.00. Mr. Tracey did not accept that offer by signing his name to the contract which now bears his purported signature, "Bob" Tracey. The listing agreement purportedly entered into by Mr. Tracey with Ms. Guennel, who was representing Almar Realty, also bears the signature of the lister as "Bob" Tracey. Mr. Tracey strongly contends that he never signs his name that way and it is found that Mr. Tracey did not sign either document. Respondent, Guennel, admits to having signed Mr. Tracey's name to the sales contract and though she denies having signed the listing contract, it is found that she signed it, or procured someone else to sign it. Mr. Tracey contends that he did not agree to the terms of the contract presented to him by Ms. Guennel. He did, however, initial certain counterproposals which are contained on the document and admits to having initialed it in the lower right hand corner. Mr. Tracey denies having given Ms. Guennel any permission to sign documents or initial corrections to documents in his name, utilizing his signature or initials. However, it is found that on the evening that Respondent Guennel came to Tracey's house with the contract containing the offer to purchase the property, he did propose a counter offer. He also indicated that in the event that Ms. Guennel could not get to him in person with a proposal, it would be all right for her to secure verbal approval by phone and thereafter make the appropriate changes in the contract. At no time, however, was Mr. Guennel or Mr. Hautala authorized to commit Mr. Tracey to any change without at least his verbal approval and neither was authorized to affix his signature to any document. William C. Rhoad was referred by his former broker to the local Merrill, Lynch office and Ms. Ciavarella, the local representative, showed him the Tracey home which was listed in the multiple listing book. Mr. Rhoad had indicated his need for a large home in excess of 2200 square feet and chose the Tracey home after seeing several others on the basis of the square footage represented in the multiple listing book. Neither Mr. Rhoad nor his agent measured the property. He made an offer which was presented by his agent to Respondent Guennel at Ms. Guennel's home on or about April 7, 1986. Ms. Guennel called her back on or about April 9, 1986, to advise that the contract had been signed by the seller. The seller's signature, however, was in conjunction with a counter offer of $119,500.00 as opposed to the $115,000.00 offered plus a split of 50/50 on the cost of the title insurance. Mr. Rhoad countered that counteroffer with another offer of $119,000.00 and Ms. Guennel, after talking with Mr. Tracey about it, advised that Tracey had accepted the contract at $119,000.00 without the need to pay 50 percent of the title insurance costs. When the closing was held, Respondent Guennel was not present. As the parties were going over the closing statement, Mr. Tracey said he would not pay $363.00 for title insurance. When he asked why he should pay, Ms. Ciavarella, who was also present, advised him that it had been provided for in handwriting on the contract which he had allegedly initialed. Mr. Tracey, immediately denied having initialed that change and denied signing the contract. It became apparent then that Respondent, Guennel had signed the contract and at that point, Mr. Tracey's broker, the Almar representative, agreed to pay the title insurance cost and have it come out of their portion of the commission. Mr. Tracey had, however, initialed the title insurance change and was subsequently held responsible for it in court. It also appeared that the room size, as described on the multiple listing placed by Ms. Guennel, as well as the lot size, the year the house was built, it's elevation above sea level, and several other particulars were incorrect. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Rhoad looked at the house four or five time prior to deciding to buy it and had some doubt as to the size, he said nothing about this until shortly before closing. Because of the various discrepancies described above and Mr. Rhoad's feeling he was being cheated, Mr. Rhoad attempted to back out of the deal. He was contacted, however, by his own agent and asked if he would reconsider going through with the purchase if concessions were made. He agreed and the listing agent, Mr. Tracey, and his agent reduced their commissions by a total of $3,500.00, all of which was passed on to Mr. Rhoad. This reduction in price was prorated $2,500 to Almar Realty, $500.00 to Mr. Tracey, and $500.00 to Merrill, Lynch Realty. The errors which appeared in the multiple listing book were the result of the input accomplished by Ms. Guennel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent Arlene J. Guennel's license be suspended for one year and that she pay a fine of $500.00; that the license of Almar Realty, Inc. be suspended for one year; and that the charges against Respondent Stephen S. Hautala be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1507 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Darlene F. Keller Acting Executive Director DPR, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner should be accepted for licensure as a real estate salesman or whether that application for licensure should be denied on account of her past criminal record.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 19, 1989, the Petitioner filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of licensed real estate salespersons and with regulating and controlling entry into that profession in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules. The Petitioner answered question 6 on that application, the question inquiring as to her criminal history, by enclosing a copy of her arrest record and candidly admitting that she had been subjected to criminal prosecution in the past. That arrest record reflected charges of driving under the influence (DUI) to which she plead guilty and was placed on probation for a term of six months in each of two cases. The record also reflected 22 incidents of issuing worthless checks. She was prosecuted for these with the result that adjudication was withheld and the Petitioner was ordered to make restitution and to pay court costs. The criminal record further discloses that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of grand theft in 1985 involving a retail store, apparently Sears, in Pensacola, for which she was adjudicated guilty and placed under community control for one year, ordered to make restitution and to perform six weeks of community service followed by one year of probation. The denial was only based upon the worthless check charges and the 1983 DUI conviction as well as a conviction in Texas occurring in 1981, when the Petitioner was 17 years old. The Petitioner candidly admitted this criminal histor both on her application form and in her testimony at hearing. The Texas charge was not indicated on her application form because the Petitioner had been told by the prosecutor in Texas that the result of her offense would not be of record for purposes of later employment. That charge involved alleged grand theft which was reduced by the prosecution to a charge of disorderly conduct for which she was adjudicated guilty and required to pay a fine and court costs. The factual circumstance in the Texas charge involved the theft of a tube of lipstick and a bottle of nail polish. The Petitioner testified that the prosecutor in San Antonio had told the Petitioner's mother that it was a juvenile offense which would have no effect on her record. With regard to the bad check charges, full restitution was made to all the vendors involved before the matter went before the court for adjudication. Although the criminal records reflect various arrests through 1985 and in 1986 on the worthless check charges, in fact the Petitioner established that the checks were all written in a very short period in the summer of 1985, but were prosecuted at different times, hence the different arrests. The Petitioner is genuinely remorseful about those charges and the related conduct and established that, by way of mitigation, they occurred at a time when she was only 21 years old, was married, but was having marital discord with her then husband, who exerted a great deal of influence in inducing her to issue the worthless checks. They have since become divorced and she is making an effort to better herself and engage in a productive life and career. She freely acknowledges that at the time of the San Antonio, Texas, disorderly conduct conviction she was 17 years old and at the time of the worthless check and grand theft convictions in Florida she was only approximately 21 years of age, was quite immature and having significant personal problems which she has since overcome. She is genuinely sorry for engaging in such conduct and has consistently attempted to improve her life ever since. She has held a number of jobs as waitress and cashier for local restaurants in the Pensacola area and the Navy Club at the Pensacola Naval base. This includes the handling of large sums of money or her employers for which she has an unblemished record, accounting for all monies entrusted to her in an honest, reliable way. This testimony to this effect is borne out by various letters of recommendation which the Respondent stipulated into evidence and in which former employers and friends all uniformly attest to her good reputation and character, all of whom knew of her past criminal history. They unhesitatingly describe her reputation and character as good. Her employers so attesting to her reputation for honesty and good morals attest to the fact that she worked in a capacity as waitress and cashier and successfully and honestly handle their funds. In particular, as a waitress at the Pensacola "Navy Club," she was placed in charge of the bingo concession or activity and served as the cashier for thousands of dollars collected in the course of such activities. She handled and accounted for these large sums of money in an honest, reliable and accurate fashion to the satisfaction of her employer. The Petitioner's one witness aside from herself was Rusty Coleman. He has known the Petitioner for at least three years and they are best friends. He was aware of her past criminal problems because she has told him about them herself. He finds her trustworthy and an honest, decent person who is seeking to better herself and become a reliable, productive citizen and member of society, as evidenced by her pursuing her higher education since the criminal episodes of record. It is noteworthy that although 22 incidents of prosecution for worthless checks appear at first to be a significant level of such miscreant conduct, that all the checks were issued within a short period of time in 1985 when she was under considerable stress due to her unfortunate and successful marriage situation, and related financial difficulties, and the same consideration applies to the issue of the grand theft conviction and the DUI convictions in 1983. Under ordinary circumstances this aggregation of criminal convictions and conduct would appear sufficient to preclude an applicant from licensure approval only four years after the last incident of such conduct, as was reflected in her criminal record. It is noteworthy however, that, in addition to the Petitioner's own credible, candid testimony concerning her genuine change in attitude and attempt to live an honest, productive life, that none of this type of conduct was repeated after the time when she ended her unsuccessful marriage and the related stress it caused in both an emotional and financial sense. She has honestly pursued gainful employment ever since, in positions of trust, handling large sums of money and further has embarked on a higher education career as well as, at the same time, successfully completing and passing her real estate instruction course in an effort to prepare herself for a productive, honorable profession. Under these circumstances, established by the Petitioner, her attending witness, and the corroborative statements admitted in evidence, although only four years have elapsed; it is found that in her particular situation that is sufficient time, coupled with the other evidence of her rehabilitation, to justify admitting her to licensure if she should pass the state examination involved. This is particularly true given that the Respondent has sufficient regulatory authority to oversee her entry into and practice of the profession so that it can ensure that the public is protected through its authority to impose accounting and reporting requirements on all funds and transactions the Petitioner might engage in as a realtor as conditions upon her entry into the profession. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case it is thus fund that the Petitioner has established her rehabilitation and resultant qualification for licensure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the pleadings and arguments of the parties, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2127 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted except that the criminal record in evidence shows that only 22 charges of issuing worthless checks were the subject of criminal proceedings. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted in a general context, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Delia H. Dolan 2635 Belle Christiane Circle Pensacola, Florida 32503-5860 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against the Respondent, Jack V. Quick, alleging that the Respondent has been found guilty of crimes against the laws of the United States, which crimes directly relate to the activities of a licensed broker or salesman or involve moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it is charged that the Respondent was found guilty on or about December 11, 1979, of certain offenses, namely counts Three, Four, Five and Six of an indictment dated July 31, 1979. Those offenses involved: (1) the willful and knowing conspiracy with others to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana, (2) the use and arrangement for the use of telephonic communications in the aforementioned enterprise, two counts, and (3) travel in interstate commerce to carry out the business of distributing a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code; Section 846, Title 21, United States Code; and Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, brought an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jack V. Quick, setting forth those allegations as are found in the Issues statement of the Recommended Order. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and on February 9, 1981, that hearing was conducted. The case was presented on the basis of the introduction of Joint Exhibits A, B and C, by the parties. Joint Exhibit A is an indictment by the Grand Jury in the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, Case No. 79-7-VAL, placed against the Respondent Jack V. Quick who is referred to in the indictment as Jack Vernon Quick. Joint Exhibit B is the Judgment and Commitment Order of the U.S. District Court in the aforementioned case arising from a finding/verdict directed to the aforementioned indictment. Joint Exhibit C is the Judgment of the United States Court of Appeal, for the Fifth Circuit, directed to the judgment of the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division. From the position taken by the parties in this action and the documents stipulated to by the parties, the following facts are found: Respondent, Jack V. Quick, is a real estate broker, licensed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. The Respondent, Jack V. Quick, under the name Jack Vernon Quick, was indicted by the Grand Jury of the United States District, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, Case No. 79-7-VAL on the following Counts: COUNT ONE From on or about August 17, 1978, to and including on or about August 19, 1978, within the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, wilfully and knowingly did transport and cause to be transported and did aid and abet the transportation in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to the State of Georgia, David Karl Roberts who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, confined, kidnapped, abducted, carried away, and held by the said defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, for ransom, reward and otherwise, that is, for the purpose of obtaining a particular hoard of one thousand pounds of marijuana or the return of the defendant's downpayment of $68,000 on the purchase price of $138,000 of the said marijuana; in violation of Sections 1201(a)(1) and (2), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT TWO From on or about August 17, 1978, to and including on or about August 19, 1978, within the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, wilfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to violate Section 1201 (a)(1), Title 18, United States Code, that is, to wilfully and knowingly transport in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to the State of Georgia, David Karl Roberts, who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, confined, kidnapped, abducted, carried away and held by the said defendant for ransom, reward and otherwise, to wit, for the purpose of obtaining a particular hoard of one thousand pounds of marijuana or the return of the defendant's downpayment on said marijuana. OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect that objects thereof the defendant performed the following overt acts: On or about August 17, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion by the defendant and others from the residence of James Mann Ervin to the residence of defendant JACK VERNON QUICK, both residences being in the State of Florida. On or about August 18, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion from the residence of defendant JACK VERNON QUICK in Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, by the defendant JACK VERNON QUICK and others. On or about August 19, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion from Valdosta, Georgia, to defendant JACK VERNON QUICK's residence in Tallahassee, Florida, where he was held against his will by the defendant and others. All in violation of Section 1201(c), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT THREE From on or about July 1, 1978, to and including on or about August 18, 1978, in Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly combine, conspire and confederate and agree together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit an offense in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, to wit, to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute approximately 1,000 pounds of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance; all in violation of Section 846, Title 21, United States Code. COUNT FOUR On or about August 16, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did use and cause to be used a facility in interstate commerce, that is, telephonic wire communications from Tallahassee, Florida, to Adel, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT FIVE On or about August 18, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did travel in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT SIX On or about August 18, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did use and cause to be used a facility in interstate commerce, that is, telephonic wire communications from Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1), and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3). On December 11, 1979, the Respondent was found not guilty of the aforementioned Counts One and Two. On December 11, 1979, the Respondent was found guilty of Counts Three, Four, Five and Six and was sentenced to five (5) years under Count Three or until otherwise discharged as provided by law, to be followed by special parole for two (2) years. On each of the Counts Four, Five and Six, the Respondent was given a five (5) year sentence to be served to run concurrently with the sentence set forth in Count Three. On November 7, 1980, in an action on Summary Calendar, United States Court of Appeal, for the Fifth Circuit, No. 79-5729, the court upheld the aforementioned judgment entered December 11, 1979, by the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division. The appellate court order of affirmance was issued as a mandate on December 4, 1980.
