The Issue There are two issues presented in this case. The first issue is whether a statement by the Department of Banking and Finance (the "Department"), denying joinder of multiple unrelated abandoned property claims, in a Final Order directed to Petitioner is an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The second issue is whether the Department has a policy of delaying decisions on unclaimed property claims past the statutory 90th day, such that the policy constitutes an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for administering the Florida Unclaimed Property Act, Chapter 717, Florida Statutes. As such, the Department is responsible for collecting and maintaining unclaimed property and processing claims for the return of the unclaimed property to its missing owners. The Department accomplishes this task through a staff composed of 12 full-time employees and 14 OPS employees. Individuals as well as private investigative agencies file claims for property held by the Department. Private investigative agencies account for appropriately 12 percent to 14 percent of the claims filed and approximately 38 percent to 42 percent of the property value returned to owners. The Department's Claims Process The Department has established internal procedures so that claims are processed timely, efficiently, and accurately. Claimants must submit claims in writing on a form supplied by the Department. The Department logs-in each claim on the day it is received. If the Department determines a claim is in compliance with Rules 3D-20.0021 and 3D-20.0022, Florida Administrative Code, and the proof submitted with the claim is sufficient to establish the claimant's ownership and entitlement to the funds, it is paid. If the Department determines that the claim is incomplete, within 5 to 15 days of its receipt of the claim, the Department sends the claimant a pre-screen letter advising the claimant of the additional information required to prove the claim. Rule 3D-20.0021(1), Florida Administrative Code. When the claimant resubmits the claim with the additional material that has been requested, the claim is re-logged into the computer and a 90th day is set. Rule 3D-20.0021(2), Florida Administrative Code. Claims supervisors receive a daily computer report alerting them of the claims which are 61 days old and aging. They receive high priority. Complex claims which are submitted with initial insufficient proof are referred to the legal department for review and resolution. During fiscal year 1999/2000 the Department processed and approved approximately 107,000 claims having an aggregate value of approximately $67 million. Throughout the review process, the Department assists claimants in developing the proof necessary to prove the claim in lieu of summarily denying the claim. In mid-1999, the Department's Unclaimed Property Program went on-line, which significantly increased the number of claims filed. From around July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000, the Department processed claims for approximately 132,900 unclaimed property accounts. The statutory 90-day period for determination was exceeded for an estimated 5000 of those accounts: 1,146 claims were denied and 3,991 claims were approved. However, of those 3991 approved accounts, 1,254 accounts were from an extended project with the FDIC which took about a year to complete. In sum, excluding the 1,254 FDIC accounts, the Department exceeded the 90th day on approximately 3 percent of the claims filed during this period. The Petitioner Petitioner is a licensed private investigator who specializes in the recovery of unclaimed property held by the Comptroller's office. Petitioner maintains both an individual and an agency license to engage in the business of locating missing owners of unclaimed property. He has been licensed by the Florida Department of State as a private investigator since 1993. In the course of Petitioner's business, his clients sign a form agreement which authorizes Petitioner to represent the client in recovering the abandoned property held by the Comptroller's Office. Petitioner represents the client through the entire claims process until the claim is either paid to his trust account or denied. If the claim is paid, Petitioner deducts his fractional share and costs and forwards the net value of the claim to the client. If the claim is denied, Petitioner's agreement with his client authorizes him to file a request for hearing on the client's behalf. Petitioner's Agreement Form Petitioner's agreement states that Petitioner has located property which may belong to the client, and pending the requisite proof of ownership, that Petitioner will recover the property for the client. The agreement provides that for his services, the "Agent is assigned a fee of 30 percent" and further provides that the agreement is an "irrevocable limited power of attorney." Lastly, the agreement recites that in any dispute between Petitioner and his client, "proper venue is in Volusia County, Florida." Petitioner's Business Since 1998, Petitioner has filed claims for approximately 3,000 unclaimed property accounts. Of those 3,000 accounts, 152, roughly 5 percent of Petitioner's claims, have exceeded the 90-day determination period. Petitioner files claims for all types of unclaimed property, but primarily involving dissolved corporations. Because of the nature of his business niche, Petitioner's claims are often more complex because they involve older accounts, lost or destroyed corporate documents, and archived banking information. Moreover, a decision by a bankruptcy trustee about whether or not to reopen a bankruptcy estate may also be needed to establish entitlement to the property, if the company was liquidated through a bankruptcy proceeding. Claimants, including Petitioner, routinely request the Department's assistance in obtaining additional information from the reporting company in order to establish ownership and entitlement on behalf of their client. Prior to August 2000, Petitioner had not requested the Department provide a denial letter of any of his claims in which the 90th day had exhausted while additional information was gathered. The Controversy In August 2000, Petitioner had six claims, representing four separate clients, pending with the Department, all of which were over the 90 days. In each case the Department determined the evidence provided was insufficient to establish the client's ownership of the property. Over the months during which these claims were pending, Petitioner met with the Department on several occasions to address the proof issues. On August 9, 2000, the Department sent Petitioner a letter outlining the deficiencies in each of the four files and advising Petitioner that unless he could provide the evidence needed by August 25, 2000, the Department would deny each claim. Petitioner faxed a letter dated September 7, 2000, to the Department stating he would be out of the country during the month of September and requested that the denials for the files listed in the August 9, 2000, letter be held until after he returned home on September 26, 2000. Petitioner's letter also requested that the "DOAH hearing be held in Daytona Beach, Florida, when each of the hearings takes place." To accommodate Petitioner's request, the Department delayed issuing the Individual Notices of Intent to Deny each of the four claims until October 3, 2000. Petitioner timely responded to the four denials with a single Petition for Hearing, attempting to consolidate the four unrelated cases. On November 27, 2000, the Department entered an Order denying his Petition for failure to comply with the Florida Administrative Code and granted Petitioner 20 days in which to re-file a conforming petition. The Order also advised Petitioner that consolidating these unrelated cases was inappropriate. On December 1, 2000, Petitioner signed and mailed the instant Rule Challenge, which specifically identified these four files. It was received by DOAH on December 6, 2000. On December 1, 2000, the same day the Rule Challenge was mailed to DOAH, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a standstill agreement, tolling all matters related to these four files as well as several other files. The agreement was reduced to writing and signed on December 7 and 8, 2000. On December 13, 2000, Petitioner and his attorney again met with the Department to discuss the evidence required to prove the claims in these four files. The Challenged Statement Petitioner challenges the "joinder" statement in the Department's Order which advised him that "it is inappropriate to consolidate four unrelated cases in a single Petition for Hearing." Petitioner contends this statement is a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. He further contends that the statement as applied is contrary to Rule 1.110(g), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The Challenged Policy As a separate but related matter, Petitioner also asserts that the Department has a tacit policy of delaying determinations on claims past the 90th day. Petitioner argues that the effect of this policy is to deny the claimant a point of entry into administrative proceedings. He contends that this policy has the force of a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Sanctions The Department requested that attorneys' fees be assessed against Petitioner. The Department incorrectly asserts this matter is completely without merit and was brought for an improper purpose, namely, to harass.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered real estate salesman who holds license no. 005499. He was employed as a "listing solicitor" three days per week by World Wide Property Services, Inc., a registered real estate broker (now dissolved) from December 1, 1975 to June 1, 1976, soliciting listings for real estate in Florida. The solicitation was by telephone nationwide except Florida. Seymour L. Rottman was President of World Wide Property Services, Inc. and Lee Small was Vice President of the corporation during the time Respondent was employed. The purpose of World Wide Property Services, Inc. was to secure listings of and purchasers for various Florida properties. Mr. Rottman was a subpoenaed witness for Petitioner at subject hearing. During Respondent's period of employment he and Mr. Small were in charge of hiring salesmen for the company and hired Respondent. Respondent was employed to obtain listings by telephone from property owners who lived out of state but owned Florida property. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out of state land owner picked from a list of prospects and inquire if he or she would be interested in selling their property at a higher price than it had been purchased for. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as a "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing the property, his or her name was provided to World Wide Property Services, Inc. who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell the property. Enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to World Wide Property Services, Inc. which would be credited against a 10 percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, the corporation agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other medium of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring and cateloging the information. The material also stated, that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that the property would be "analyzed", comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the course of the calls to prospects Respondent advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States and that bona fide efforts would be made to sell the property. He represented himself as a salesman for that organization. After the promotional literature was sent to the prospect, the salesmen including Respondent, made what was called a "drive" call to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls Respondent had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee was $325. The salesmen received approximately one-third of the fee, about $100 per listing. The salesmen, including Respondent, telephoned the prospects and then read from the script entitled "front" and "drive". The instructions from the broker was to stay within the script but Respondent was not monitored at all times. During the course of operation of less than a year World Wide Property Services, Inc. secured about 200 listings and grossed approximately $80,000 to $90,000 in the "advance fee" listings, but no sales were made. Respondent made no sales but did secure a limited number of listings making a total of $2,400 during the six months employment at the rate of approximately $100 per listing. Respondent said he never visited the properties World Wide Property Services, Inc. had for sale in Florida except properties in Port St. Lucie and in the Grand Bahamas. He felt that property in those two areas was salable. Respondent testified that he read from the script heretofore referred to as "front" and "drive" and did not vary from it. He worked in a "listing office" which was one of the two offices of the employer. He was unaware of articles stating foreign investors were interested in buying Florida property. Respondent did not attempt to make sales inasmuch as it was not the job for which he was employed. He had no knowledge or information that the advance fee operation of which he was a part was an illegal operation or an unethical operation. Respondent had no supervisory capacity in the corporation for which he worked and he testified that he never guaranteed the sale of property to anyone, a fact which was borne out by a deposition of a client Respondent solicited. Petitioner contends: that while a salesman for World Wide Property Services, Inc. Respondent solicited and obtained listings by telephone of property owners and that as an inducement to list the property, falsely represented that the property could be sold for a price far in excess of its purchase price; that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property and that it would be listed nationally and internationally and that the company had foreign investors wanting to purchase United States property. Respondent contends: that he did not know the "advance fee" operation was fraudulent; that World Wide Property Services, Inc. was a registered broker; that at the time of his employment the actions of his employer had not been held illegal; that he never misrepresented or fraudulently induced any potential customer to get his money.
Recommendation Reprimand the Respondent in writing. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Bush, Esquire Murray & Bush, P.A. Suite 1602-One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3110 vs. DADE COUNTY DOAH CASE NO. 77-1582 LEONARD P. MARCUS, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Mark S. Henderson (hereinafter "Henderson") has been a real estate salesman licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0441662. At all times material hereto, Respondent Auction World of West Florida, Inc., (hereinafter "Auction World") has been a corporate real estate broker registered in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0238372. Respondent Henderson is a real estate salesman/auctioneer employed by Auction World. He moved to Florida in October, 1984, and became a licensed real estate salesman in Florida in February, 1985, some 8 months prior to the transaction forming the basis for the Administrative Complaint. John and Joanne Henneberry signed a listing for the auction/sale of their home with Auction World through Henderson. The Henneberrys are both educated people who had prior experience in buying and selling real estate. The October 1, 1985 listing signed by the Henneberrys provided that it was a 30-day listings provided for a seven percent commission, provided for the Henneberrys to pay advertising costs not to exceed $750, and provided specifically that the $750 would not be considered as an advance fee. The listing further provided for an accounting to be made within 30 days. The Henneberrys gave Auction World a check for $750. The Henneberrys' best friend is Ralph Marciano, a real estate broker. He sold his home through Auction World and referred the Henneberrys to Auction World. The Henneberrys purchased a home through Marciano and throughout the transactions involved here consulted Marciano about how to proceed. Auction World was engaged primarily to sell the Henneberrys' home in Lehigh Acres, and Marciano was involved in the purchase or offers to purchase their new home. Pursuant to the listings advertising for the auction was published by Auction World. The auction was held on October 19, 1985, but no sale resulted from the contract negotiated through the auction. Auction World continued to work on behalf of the Henneberrys pursuant to an oral extension. Johan Ruhe and his wife were advised by Henderson of the availability of the Henneberrys' home in Lehigh Acres. Johan Ruhe is a retired real estate broker who now works for Lee County as its Director of Land Management. In December, 1984, an offer of $66,000 was made by the Ruhes to the Henneberrys through Auction World, but this offer was not accepted. On January 2 or 3, 1985, the Ruhes made an offer on the Henneberrys' home in the amount of $68,000. The offer provided for no down payment; included the range, refrigerator, dishwasher, washer, dryer, curtains and draperies to be included in the sale price; and called for financing over 30 years at an 11 percent fixed rate of interest. It further required that financing be obtained for 80 to 95 percent of the purchase price. This offer was accepted by the Henneberrys, and all parties considered this to be a binding legal contract. The original listing had called for a 7 percent commission, but when the $68,000 contract was signed, the Henneberrys negotiated Auction World from a 7 percent commission down to a $3,000 commission. The Ruhes filed a loan application with B. F. Saul Mortgage Company (hereinafter "B. F. Saul") based upon the $68,000 contract. B. F. Saul has an office in Fort Myers, Florida, which was opened on May 2, 1983, by Robert W. Prange (hereinafter "Prange") who at all times relevant to this action was a vice-president of B. F. Saul and branch manager of the local office. On January 11, 1986, the Henneberrys made an offer to purchase a home from the Jamilles, which was contingent on the Henneberrys closing with the Ruhes. Prior to signing the contract with the Ruhes, the Henneberrys discussed the contract with their best friend, real estate broker Marciano who made changes to the contract and discussed with the Henneberrys the fact that there was no deposit provided in reference to that contract. After the Henneberrys signed the contract to purchase a home from the Jamilles, the Jamilles' broker indicated to the Henneberrys that the Jamilles would like the Henneberrys' contract with the Ruhes to have a provision for a deposit. During this period of time, the Henneberrys were in direct contact with Prange at B. F. Saul, and Prange indicated to them that there was no problem with the Ruhe contract and loan application. After the Jamilles' broker contacted the Henneberrys and asked for a contract showing an escrow deposit on the Henneberry home, the Henneberrys contacted Henderson at Auction World and asked him to draw a new contract to show that a down payment had been made. Henderson prepared a new contract, and the Ruhes signed it. The new contract showed a deposit of $3,600, a purchase price increase of $3,600, and a commission increase of $3,600. In order to show the deposit requested by the Henneberrys, Auction World "gifted" by letter the $3,600 to the Ruhes. The contract was then presented to the Henneberrys. In fact, the Ruhes were not paying $3,600 more to purchase the home for which they already had a contract. Since the new agreement increased the commission by $3,600, Auction World by letter was giving back that sum to the Ruhes so that everything actually stayed the same but an escrow was shown as requested by the Henneberrys. The Henneberrys signed the new contract. At the time that they signed, they knew that the Ruhes were not paying the $3,600 additional purchase price. About the same time that the Henneberrys were requesting that the contract be redrawn to reflect a down payment from the Ruhes, Prange at B. F. Saul became concerned as to whether the Ruhes had sufficient cash available to them to consummate the transaction. When the second contract was taken by Henderson to Prange, Prange suggested that a change be made in it from a fixed interest rate to a variable interest rate so that the Ruhes could qualify for the loan. Prange then "whited out" the listing of personal property that appeared in the contract, suggesting that the deletion of the personal property would reflect an increased value in the price of the real estate. Although Prange was an officer of B. F. Saul, he was on a commission basis. He was not only the loan officer on the Henneberrys/Ruhes transaction, he was also the loan officer on the Henneberrys/Jamilles transaction. Accordingly, he knew that a successful consummation of the Ruhe transaction would ensure him of receiving two commissions but that a lack of success on the Ruhe transaction would automatically defeat the Jamille transaction. Prange knew that there was no escrow of $3,600 as reflected by the second contract Henderson presented to him. Yet, he requested Henderson to execute a "Verification of Earnest Money" form, which stated that an earnest money deposit had been received in the amount of $3,600 to be held toward the down payment and/or closing costs on the Henneberrys home. The form did not represent that the money was held in escrow, nor did it differentiate between whether that money was the down payment toward the purchase or whether that money was to be used toward closing costs. Henderson signed the verification that the $3,600 deposit was being held by Auction World because he believed the gift to the Ruhes was the same as having the deposit since it was Auction World's $3,600. Additionally, the buyer, the seller, and the loan officer were aware of the contents and reasons for the series of contracts, and the gift was evident from the series of contracts involved. Henderson prepared another contract. He also prepared an addendum to that contract containing an agreement on the purchase of the personal property since he believed the personal property had to be mentioned somewhere in order to protect both the buyer and the seller. The addendum was signed on or about February 13, 1985. The newest contract also provided for the seller to pay the closing costs. When the addendum was presented to the Henneberrys they insisted that an additional provision be added to the addendum that would guarantee that the buyer would pay the Henneberrys $4,000 toward the closing costs prior to the closing. Therefore, at the Henneberrys' request, language was added to the addendum to provide that $4,000 would be paid to the Henneberrys 72 hours prior to the closing by either Auction World or by the Ruhes. Despite the efforts of Henderson and Prange to successfully structure the Henneberry/Ruhe transaction, the Ruhes were not able to obtain approval on their loan application, and the Henneberry/Ruhe sale was not consummated. The listing agreement for the auction of the Henneberry home required that the Henneberrys pay $750 to Auction World to pay for the costs of advertising the auction. The listing contract specifically provided that the $750 did not represent an advance fee but simply represented costs of advertising. Since the statutes regulating the real estate profession do not define what constitutes an advance fee, Henderson consulted an attorney regarding the desire to obtain advertising costs in advance. The listing form used and the method of handling the Henneberrys' $750 was in compliance with the recommendation to Auction World and Henderson by that attorney. The legal advice given to them was that none of the $750 should be used on any overhead or internal expenses but rather the $750 must all be spent on independent outside advertising. Since the listing agreement specified that the $750 was not an advance fee, and since Henderson and Auction World followed the procedure recommended to them by an attorney, all parties believed that the funds were not an advance fee. The listing called for an accounting within 30 days, and an oral accounting was provided at that time. The Henneberrys did not request a further accounting until February 27 or 28, 1985. A written accounting was provided by March 11, 1985. No evidence was offered to show that any of the $750 was kept other than in a trust or escrow account at Auction World, and no evidence was offered to indicate that any of it was misused. In fact, the advertising expenses on the Henneberry home exceeded $750, and Auction World bore the extra expense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents Henderson and Auction World not guilty of the allegations contained within Counts I, III, and V, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against them. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 3rd day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0602 Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 30, 35, 36, and 38 have been rejected as not constituting findings or fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 6, and 7 have been rejected as being immaterial to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-5, 8-29, 31-34, 37, and 39-42 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 E. G. Couse Esquire Post Office Drawer 1647 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Edward W. Hayden (herein Petitioner), was employed by Respondent, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (herein Respondent or the Authority), from April 19, 1992 until his discharge on May 5, 1993. During the entire period of his employment, Petitioner held the position of Purchasing and Property Records Manager. Respondent is a water wholesaler for the Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough tri-county area. Respondent is managed by a general manager, Harold Aiken, who reports to a board of directors which is comprised of elected officials from five member governments. The five member governments are Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and the Cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. Four directors report to general manager Aiken. These directors manage different parts of the Authority subject to the direction of manager Aiken. The general manager implements the policies and directives of the board of directors, administers personnel rules and oversees the day-to-day functions of Respondent. The general manager's authority specifically includes the ability to discharge employees. Petitioner, as purchasing and property records manager, was the person charged with overseeing Respondent's property and purchasing functions. Petitioner was responsible for developing and following procedures for purchasing, inventory control and maintenance of property records. In a nutshell, Petitioner was charged with protecting and safeguarding Respondent's assets. Petitioner's specific duties included developing, administering and managing the disposal of surplus property on behalf of the Authority. Petitioner reported to Koni Cassini, Respondent's director of finance, and general manager Aiken. Petitioner was hired because Respondent had experienced some difficulty maintaining inventory control and the management of its assets. In this regard, Petitioner has extensive experience in accounting and logistics management, having earned a bachelor's degree in business management and a master's degree in business administration. Additionally, he has extensive training in inventory control and management techniques. He served in the U.S. Air Force in excess of twenty years as an inventory management specialist and was assigned a number of critically responsible supervisory/leadership positions. Petitioner, while in the Air Force, managed operations as large as 72 assigned personnel and $42 million of inventory within a strict budget of taxpayer dollars. The purchasing, inventory control and property functions of the Authority are carried out through the finance department. The Authority works under a purchase order system wherein each item that is purchased must have a corresponding purchase order. Purchase orders must be approved by various officials within the Authority depending upon the purchase price. As example, if the price of the item to be purchased is anywhere from zero to $500, a manager's signature is required on the purchase order. For items priced between $500 to $1000, a department director's signature is required on the purchase order. For items priced between $1000 to $15,000, the general manager must approve and sign the purchase order. For items priced in excess of $15,000, the board of directors' approval is required to effectuate the purchase. The signatures are required as part of the Authority's checks and balance system which is used to preserve and protect public funds expended by the Authority. Respondent has specific inventory control guidelines which govern the disposal of surplus property. The guidelines encompass six different procedures to dispose of surplus property. The first, and preferred method of surplus disposal, is by donation to one of the five member governments. The Authority uses a second method of disposal of surplus property which is classified as "junk" if it has no value, is beyond repair, and cannot be donated to a member government. A third method of disposal is to sell the property by sealed bid. The sealed bid method is used when either the quality or quantity of the items for sale is insufficient to justify public auction, i.e., the items are without value to the Authority. The most common way of determining whether the property has any value is to conduct a public auction or to "spot bid" the property. The sealed bid method can be utilized by outside vendors and/or employees. The Authority uses the employee sealed bid surplus sale for items that have no value. It is generally understood throughout the Authority that items that are placed in an employee's sealed bid surplus sale are useless to the Authority or have no commercial value whatsoever. Items placed in that sale are items which are basically to be "thrown away". A fourth method of disposal is "spot bidding". This entails contacting buyers, on an informal basis, to determine whether they are interested in bidding on the surplus property. A fifth and another preferred method of disposal is to sell the property via public auction. The Authority has conducted public auctions in the past either by itself or through the use of a private entity, the Tampa machinery auction, which conducts public auctions on behalf of private and governmental bodies. Tampa machinery auction handles all administrative duties, such as advertising, marketing and operations of the auction including collection of proceeds from the sale. The final method of disposal of surplus property is by "trade-in". This method involves obtaining a trade-in value for surplus property when the Authority is purchasing new property. Upon completion of Petitioner's probationary term of employment, a six-month period, his work performance declined considerably. Specifically, Petitioner was assigned the task of drafting a purchasing manual to be used by the board of directors for the board's approval. Petitioner failed to complete the purchasing manual in a timely manner and the director of finance, Koni Cassini, undertook the drafting and completion of the manual. Cassini completed the draft of the manual and it was approved by the board. During February, 1993, Petitioner decided to conduct the employee surplus property sale which is at issue herein. Petitioner's subordinate, James Krug, who held the position of property specialist, compiled a list of surplus property to be sold at Petitioner's direction. Petitioner and Krug circulated the surplus property list to the general manager and the department directors and also notified them of their decision to conduct an employee surplus property sale to dispose of items on the submitted list. Krug prepared the surplus property list which was reviewed by Petitioner. The surplus property sale was the first employee surplus property sale conducted by Petitioner during his tenure as purchasing and property records manager. Petitioner initially considered having a public auction prior to conducting the surplus property sale, but decided against it based on his "busy schedule". When manager Aiken received Krug's memorandum attaching the list of items to be sold in the surplus sale, he noticed that the list included a telecopier machine. He directed his secretary to contact Petitioner to determine the condition of the telecopier machine. Based on his inquiry, manager Aiken learned that the telecopier machine was functional and, therefore, instructed Petitioner to remove it from the list. He subsequently contacted Cassini to advise that the list contained at least one item of value. He directed Cassini to require that Petitioner provide a detailed description of the items on the list including whether the items were functional, non- repairable, or had any value to the Authority. Subsequently, on March 19, 1993, Cassini contacted Petitioner by memorandum and directed that he provide a description of all items on the list as Aiken requested. The surplus sale was to be held on March 24, 1993. On March 22, 1993, Petitioner sent a memorandum to Cassini stating that he would not provide the requested description of the items for the current sale, but would do so at the next time that the Authority had a surplus sale. At that time, Petitioner assured Cassini that there were no items of value on the current list. Cassini did not follow up on her March 19, 1993, memorandum based on Petitioner's assurance that there were no items of value remaining on the surplus list. Petitioner conducted the surplus property sale, which sale included several items of value including three trench safety units, a three-ton air conditioning unit and a refrigerator. Trench safety units are suspension systems that are used to lower workers into the ground to inspect and repair open pipes. The trench safety units cost Respondent $5,000 each when purchased new during 1990. The surplus property list described the trench safety units as "mini- lift systems". Petitioner described the trench safety units in this manner, even though employees of the Authority referred to the units as "trench safety units" and not "mini-lift systems". Petitioner advised several Authority personnel, including manager Aiken and Cassini, that all of the items on the surplus property list were in rough to poor condition and had no value. As example, he advised the Authority's personnel manager, Holly Manning, that the items on the surplus list were "junk". Respondent purchased the trench safety units for a pipeline investigation in 1990 at the direction of Allison Adams, the Authority's special projects coordinator. The Authority only utilized the safety units during that investigation; however, it could and intended to utilize the safety units in the future for the maintenance of underground pipes or to conduct other subterranean investigations. Petitioner did not contact either the member directors or the general manager for authorization to dispose of the safety units. Likewise, Petitioner did not contact the member governments to determine whether they could use the safety units, nor did he attempt to obtain any sealed bids on the safety units other than through the employee surplus sale. Petitioner did not "spot bid" the safety units prior to including them in the employee surplus sale. Petitioner also listed a three-ton air conditioning unit in the employee surplus sale, despite the fact that it was in good operating condition and had a value of approximately $1,500. Although it was his duty to know all items of value on the surplus sale, Petitioner did not have any idea of the value of the air conditioning unit. Likewise, Petitioner did not spot bid the air conditioning unit prior to including it in the surplus property sale. Two Authority employees purchased the three trench safety units through the sale. Jim Krug, the property specialist who included the units in the surplus property list, purchased one of the units for $223. The other two safety units were sold to Rick Minjarez, a water plant operator, for $175 each. The safety units were in good condition when they were sold. Within ten days of purchasing the safety units from the Authority, Krug and Minjarez sold the items to an outside vendor, who had engaged in business with the Authority in the past, for $1,000 per unit. Cassini conducted an investigation when she learned that the surplus sale had been conducted and that items of value had been sold. Based upon her initial investigation, Cassini recommended that Petitioner and Krug be put on administrative leave without pay pending the outcome of her investigation. Petitioner and Krug were then given an opportunity to explain why the safety units and other valuable property items were included in the sale contrary to his assurance. After Hayden and Krug received pre-termination hearings, Aiken terminated Hayden and Krug on May 5, 1993, based upon Cassini's recommendation. Aiken issued Minjarez a written reprimand for his part because of his failure to bring to the Authority's attention the fact that the items which he purchased were "items of value". Minjarez was not discharged because of Respondent's determination that he was not specifically responsible for protecting the Authority's assets and did not prepare the list of items which were sold. (Minjarez and Krug's disciplinary action is not at issue herein). Petitioner was recommended for discharge by Cassini based upon the fact that he was hired to oversee the purchasing and property functions of the Authority and he failed to fulfill his duties in that regard. Cassini also determined that, by Petitioner's actions, he was insubordinate and misused the Authority's assets to its detriment. Finally, Cassini recommended that Petitioner be discharged because of his insubordination and his failure to comply with her directive that he protect the property interests of the Authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition for relief and terminate him from employment. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 21st day of January, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Aiken, General Manager West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire THOMPSON, SIZEMORE Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Edward W. Hayden 505 Hedgerow Brandon, Florida 33510 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire DE LA PARTE & GILBERT One Tampa City Center, Suite 2300 Post Office Box 172537 Tampa, Florida 33672-0537
Findings Of Fact On September 19, 1974 Eleanor Van Treese, as agent for Futrell Company, obtained a listing on a residence located at 12250 S. W. 67th Avenue in Miami, Florida from Newton J. Mulford and Elizabeth N. Mulford, the record owners of said property. A copy of this sales management agreement was admitted into evidence as Exhibit number 1. Thereon was shown one existing mortgage with Coral Gables Federal, with a balance of approximately $47,500. At the time the Mulfords executed Exhibit number 1, a second mortgage in the amount of some $25,000 was also recorded against this property and foreclosure proceedings had been instituted. The holder of the second mortgage was James V. O'Connor. George Bender, a Miami attorney, was aware that foreclosure proceedings had been instituted against this property prior to the time that Futrell obtained the listing agreement. He called Mulford to inquire about purchasing the property, but apparently his offer was not high enough to interest Mulford. After the Futrell sign was placed in front of the house, Mrs. Capps met Mrs. George Bender at a social affair. When Mrs. Bender learned that Mrs. Capps was a real estate salesperson working for Futrell Company, she asked if she would show her the Mulford house. In late November or early December Mrs. Bender was shown the house and thereafter her husband also was shown the premises. On January 2, 1975 a final judgment of foreclosure was entered in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial District of Florida. Therein the court found that James V. O'Connor was the holder of a second mortgage on the premises in the principal sum of $25,000 together with interest accrued thereon from August 15, 1970 in the amount of $12,976.34. The court also awarded O'Connor $500 as a reasonable attorney's fee. The judgment further provided that the defendant, O'Connor, or any of the parties to the suit, may become bidders for purchase of the premises at the forthcoming sale thereof; and that the court would retain jurisdiction of the cause for the purpose of entertaining a Motion for Deficiency Judgment and "settle all other questions under the proceedings not settled by this order." O'Connor thereafter called Eleanor Van Treese to advise her that he had obtained the foreclosure order and that he would bid on the property when the judicial sale was held on the 15th of January. He further advised that he was anxious to turn over the property and get his money out of it. Mrs. Van Treese telephoned Mary Capps on January 10, 1975 to advise her of the information she had received from O'Connor. Not understanding the legal implication thereof Mrs. Capps decided that she should come to Mrs. Van Treese's house and the two of them talk to O'Connor regarding the property. This was done; and, with the two salespersons on the telephone with O'Connor, he read to them the judgment that he had obtained; advised them that he would be bidding on the property on January 15th and expected to purchase same; and that he would consider offers to purchase the property from him. Mrs. Capps, that same evening, called Mrs. Bender to advise that O'Connor was going to bid on the property on January 15th and was interested in selling the property. When Mr. Bender came home, Mrs. Bender and he discussed the purchase of the property and decided to submit an offer. Mrs. Bender so advised Mrs. Capps. The following morning, on Saturday, January 11th, Mr. and Mrs. Bender sent to the Futrell Company office and Mrs. Capps typed an offer to Purchase the property which the Benders executed. This was the deposit receipt and sales purchase agreement dated January 11, 1975 admitted into evidence as Exhibit number 2. While at the office Mr. Bender called another attorney, William A. Friedlander, who he considered to be more knowledgeable in real estate transactions than himself, for legal advice in the premises. Friedlander advised him that it was proper to submit an offer to O'Connor although O'Connor did not have present title and was therefore unable to execute a valid deed for the property until after he purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Friedlander considered the contract would be based upon a condition subsequent, viz: the acquisition of title by O'Connor, and such contract would be enforceable. Friedlander was also aware that several judgments had been entered against Mulford and that Mulford would be unable to execute a contract and deliver clear title at the amount Bender was offering. This was so because the sum of first mortgage, second mortgage, real estate commission, and other judgments that had been entered against Mulford exceeded the amount Bender was offering to pay for the residence. He advised Bender that, if the foreclosure suit had joined all necessary parties, the deed obtained by O'Connor at the foreclosure sale would be good and O'Connor would be able to give a good and merchantable title. He further advised Bender that a contract with Mulford would have been futile due to the amount of the offer and unworkable due to the short period of time before the foreclosure sale in which to obtain the cash necessary to provide Mulford sufficient funds to pay off all his creditors and the mortgages. At the time the Benders executed the contract for the purchase of the residence in question it was their intention that the offer be presented only to O'Connor. Mary Capps presented this offer by the Benders (Exhibit 2) to O'Connor who accepted same on January 11, 1975. The $6,000 earnest money deposit was delivered by Mrs. Capps to the Secretary of the Futrell Company for deposit in the Futrell Escrow Account. No evidence was presented that the earnest money deposit has ever been refunded to the Benders or that they have requested this earnest money deposit to be refunded. Mr. and Mrs. Mulford were not advised of the existence of the offer to purchase dated January 11, 1975 until long after O'Connor purchased the property at the foreclosure sale.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device in a real estate transaction in violation of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes. Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked or suspended or whether Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered real estate salesperson who holds License No. 0099812. She was employed as a "listing solicitor" by World Wide Property Services, Inc. (World Wide), a registered real estate broker (now dissolved), from March 10, 1976 through July 1, 1976, soliciting listings for real estate in Florida. The solicitation was by telephone nationwide, except Florida. Seymour L. Rottman was President of World Wide, and Lee Small was Vice President of the corporation during the time Respondent was employed. The purpose of World Wide was to secure listings of and purchasers for various Florida properties. Mr. Rottman was a subpoenaed witness for Petitioner at the subject hearing. During Respondent's period of employment, he and Mr. Small were in charge of hiring salesmen for the corporation and hired Respondent. Respondent was employed to obtain listings by telephone from property owners who lived out of state but owned Florida property. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out-of-state land owner picked from a list of prospects and inquire if he or she would be interested in selling their property at a higher price than it had been purchased for. This was termed a "front" call, and the salesman was termed as a "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing the property, his or her name was provided to World Wide, who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell the property. Enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to World Wide, which would be credited against a 10% commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, the corporation agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one-year period, directs its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property, as deemed advisable, in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring and cataloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that the property would be "analyzed", comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval of the owner. During the course of the calls to prospects, Respondent advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States and that bona fide efforts would be made to sell the property. She represented herself as a salesman for that organization. After the promotional literature was sent to the prospect, the salesmen, including Respondent, made what was called a "drive" call to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls, Respondent had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee was $325.00. The salesmen received approximately one-third of the fee, about $100.00 per listing. The salesmen, including Respondent, telephoned the prospects and then read from the script entitled "front" and "drive". The instructions from the broker was to stay within the script, but Respondent was not monitored at all times. During the course of operation of less than a year, World Wide secured about 200 listings and grossed approximately $80,000.00 to $90,000.00 in the "advance fee" listing, but no sales were made. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, as noticed for March 8, 1976, at 1:00 p.m. Her hearing was continued until March 9, 1976, at 1:30 p.m., to give her an additional period of time in which to appear, but Respondent failed to appear. She did not dispute the charged filed by Petitioner in its administrative complaint. Petitioner contends that while a salesperson for World Wide, Respondent solicited and obtained listings by telephone from property owners and that as an inducement to list the property, she falsely represented that the property could be sold for a price far in excess of its purchase price, that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property, and that it would be listed nationally and internationally and that the company had foreign investors wanting to purchase United States property.
Recommendation Reprimand the Respondent in writing. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Kimberly Zimmerman 449 N.W. 8th Street Apt. 1 Miami, FL 33136
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to execute a written agreement with the owner of property to be auctioned and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed auctioneer, holding license number AU 0000415. Respondent and Danny Mitchell are coworkers at a County mosquito control agency. Mr. Mitchell and his wife Joan were selling their house and moving out of town. Wanting to sell their personal possessions fast, they agreed that Mr. Mitchell would contact Respondent and ask him about conducting an auction. In late March 1993, Respondent visited the Mitchells at their home to view the property to be auctioned. Based on the number and quality of the property available for auction, Respondent realized that the auction would not raise much money. He estimated the value of the property to be auctioned at $1200 to $2000. Respondent did not require the Mitchells to sign a contract right away. Because of the friendship between Mr. Mitchell and Respondent, Respondent allowed the Mitchells to sell or give away items without Respondent's approval prior to the auction, and they sold $525 worth of items in the interim. Even the auction date was left open. The Mitchells did not want the auction to take place until they were closing on the sale of their house. For the next three months, the Mitchells sold and gave away what property they could. Then, without much notice, they told Respondent that they wanted the auction to take place. The Mitchells and Respondent agreed that the auction would take place July 24, 1993. Respondent discussed with Mr. Mitchell the need for advertising, which would come out of the Mitchells' share of the proceeds. The Mitchells agreed on fairly modest advertising. Respondent never obtained a written contract in the days prior to the auction. Although he was in frequent contact with Mr. Mitchell at work, there was some awkwardness in presenting the contract to him because Mr. Mitchell does not read or write. Respondent instead agreed to meet the Mitchells at their house on the morning of the auction, and he intended to present them a contract at that time to sign. Respondent appeared at their house at the agreed-upon time with a contract to be signed. However, he did not insist that they read and sign the contract because, as Respondent arrived, the Mitchells were rushing out of the house to take care of other matters. Consistent with their intent all along, the last instructions that the Mitchells gave Respondent was that he had to sell everything so the new homeowners could get into the house and the Mitchells would not have to move anything. Only about ten bidders appeared for the auction. Bidding was low. Respondent wanted to stop the auction, but had no way to contact the Mitchells, who did not try to contact him that day. Recalling the final instructions about selling everything, Respondent continued with the auction. After about an hour and a half, the auction ended with everything sold. Respondent claims that he received $499.50 in sale proceeds. It is unnecessary to determine whether this testimony should be credited. Respondent did not hear from the Mitchells for two weeks after the auction. One day, Mr. Mitchell returned to work from his vacation and asked for his money. Bringing the money the next day to work, Respondent gave the Mitchells a check for $200 with a settlement sheet itemizing the expenses. Upon the insistence of Mrs. Mitchell for documentation of the auction sales, Respondent later provided the Mitchells with copies of the clerking tickets. The estimated value of the auctioned property exceeded $500.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Auctioneers enter a final order reprimanding Respondent. ENTERED on July 28, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on July 28, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Auctioneers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Bruce C. Scott 2424 McGregor Boulevard Ft. Myers, FL 33901
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device in a real estate transaction in violation of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes. Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked or suspended or whether the Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered real estate salesperson who holds license no. 0098090. He was employed as a "listing solicitor" by World Wide Property Services, Inc., a registered real estate broker (now dissolved) for about a month, from December, 1975 to January, 1976, soliciting listings for real estate in Florida. The solicitation was by telephone nationwide except Florida Seymour L. Rottman was President of World Wide Property Services, Inc. and Lee Small was Vice President of the corporation during the time Respondent was employed. The purpose of World Wide Property Services, Inc. was to secure listings of and purchasers for various Florida properties. Mr. Rottman subpoenaed witness for Petitioner at subject hearing. During Respondent's period of employment he and Mr. Small were in charge of hiring salesmen for the company and hired Respondent. Respondent was employed to obtain listings by telephone from property owners who lived out of state but owned Florida property. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out of state land owner picked from a list of prospects and inquire if he or she would be interested in selling their property at a higher price than it had been purchased for. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as a "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing the property, his or her name was provided to World Wide Property Services, Inc. who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell the property. Enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to World Wide Property Services, Inc. which would be credited against a 10 percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, the corporation agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring and cateloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that the property would be "analyzed", comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price baked on recent sales of neighboring property and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the curse of the calls to prospects Respondent advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States and that bona fide efforts would be made to sell the property. She represented herself as a salesman for that organization. After the promotional literature was sent to the prospect, the salesmen including Respondent, made what was called a "drive" call to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls Respondent had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee was $325. The salesmen received approximately one-third of the fee, about $100 per listing. The salesmen, including Respondent, telephoned the prospects and then read from the script entitled "front" and "drive". The instructions from the broker was to stay within the script but Respondent was not monitored at all times. During the course of operation of less than a year World Wide Property Services, Inc. secured about 200 listings and grossed approximately $80,000 to $90,000 in the "advance fee" listings, but no sales were made. Respondent said he visited the properties World Wide Property Services, Inc. had for sale in Florida and that most of it was salable. Respondent testified that he read from the script heretofore referred to as "front" and "drive" but varied it from time to time. He was aware of articles stating foreign investors were interested in buying Florida property and thought it entirely possible. Respondent did not attempt to make sales inasmuch as it was not the job for which he was employed. Petitioner contends: that while a salesman for World Wide Property Services, Inc. Respondent solicited and obtained listings by telephone of property owners and that as an inducement to list the property, falsely represented that the property could be sold for a price far in excess of its purchase price; that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property and that it would be listed nationally and internationally and that the company had foreign investors wanting to purchase United States property; that Respondent solicited Frank Austin, a number of times by telephone and induced him to send to World Wide Property Services, Inc. $285.00 claiming Mr. Austin's property bought for $4,700 could be sold for $14,000 `but that no offer to purchase was ever made. Respondent contends: that he never misrepresented or fraudulently represented anything to any client; induced any potential customer to get his money and that the property was mostly salable.
Recommendation Reprimand the Respondent in writing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Clifford C. Woodard 231 Roxboro East Longwood, Florida 32750
