Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Samuel J. Marshall, was born on November 19, 1936. In March 1986 he began employment as a truck driver hauling sand for Taylor Concrete and Supply, Inc. (Taylor) at its Palatka, Florida plant. When he began his employment with Taylor, Marshall advised his supervisor that because of his religious beliefs, he could not work on Saturdays. The name of the religion is not of record. Marshall says that after giving such notification to his employer, he was never required to work on Saturdays during his tenure with Taylor. This was not contradicted. In 1989, Taylor sold the plant to respondent, Tarmac Florida, Inc. (Tarmac). As an employer with more than fifteen full-time employees, Tarmac is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). Shortly after the sale, petitioner was advised that his position as a sand truck driver was being eliminated but he could transfer to a position as a ready-mix driver in the ready-mix division at the same plant. Petitioner accepted this offer effective November 28, 1989. Because the new position required the driver to work every other Saturday, petitioner advised the new plant manager, Byron White, that he could not work on Saturdays because of his religious beliefs. After Marshall produced evidence to verify his claim, White excused Marshall from working on Saturdays. Tarmac employee timecards confirm that Marshall was never required to work on a Saturday. Petitioner was required to undergo a brief period of training by riding for several weeks with a senior driver, James Bolt. During petitioner's training period, Bolt was engaged in the illicit practice of selling any concrete left in his truck at the end of the day to third parties and then pocketing the money. This was obviously contrary to company policy. Petitioner was aware of this activity but said nothing. On occasion, Bolt would give petitioner some of the illicit proceeds, which he accepted. In the first week of February 1990, or after he had completed his training with Bolt, petitioner went to White and told him that there was "illicit" activity being conducted at the plant, but he refused to disclose the nature of the activity or the name of the individual engaged in that enterprise. He also failed to tell White that Bolt had given him money. White communicated this conversation to the regional manager, Jack Stegall, but because they had no specific information on which to proceed, they were unable to investigate the allegations. Tarmac has a number of plants within each division. It is not uncommon for drivers to be transferred from one location to another, based on the varying demands of the different plants. In June 1990 Stegall decided to transfer two drivers from the Palatka plant to the Green Cove Springs plant due to increased business at the latter facility. Petitioner and another driver, Dennis Folmer, then approximately thirty years of age, were selected for transfer since they had the least seniority in the Palatka ready-mix division. After learning of Stegall's decision, petitioner contacted Stegall and advised him that he believed the company policy required that transfer decisions be made based on seniority with the company, rather than seniority in a particular position. Stegall then checked with the human resources department and learned petitioner was correct. Petitioner's name was thereafter removed from the transfer list and James Bolt, who had less seniority than petitioner, was placed on the list. During his meeting with Stegall, petitioner informed him about the illegal concrete sales that had occurred during his training period. After petitioner was told to inform White about this matter, he took White to the locations where he was with Bolt when the concrete was illegally sold. He also turned over to White the $30 he had received from Bolt. Based on Marshall's revelation, on June 25, 1990, Bolt was terminated as an employee for the unauthorized sale of concrete. Because he had come forward and disclosed the illegal activity, petitioner was only given a one-week suspension without pay. Petitioner did not question nor challenge the suspension and admitted to White that he was involved in the sales. Also, on July 11, 1990, he was given a warning notice prepared by White and which read in part as follows: Sam confessed to selling unauthorized concrete on three separate occasions. Sam also reported others involved. For this reason only Sam was given one week off. If for any reason this happens again or attempt (sic) to, Sam will be terminated. Although petitioner was handed a copy of the notice, he refused to sign it, threw it back at White and walked away. At the same time petitioner notified Stegall of the illegal concrete sales, he also asked Stegall about the possibility of transferring to Tarmac's Deland facility, which was closer to his home. Stegall indicated he would try to assist petitioner with a transfer, if possible. The next day, petitioner drive to the Deland facility and spoke with the Deland plant manager who indicated there was a ready-mix driving position available. The plant manager also agreed to contact White on petitioner's behalf. Even so, because the Palatka facility was short two drivers due to the transfer of Bolt and Folmer to Green Cove Springs, White could not afford to allow petitioner to transfer to Deland. He did promise petitioner that he would arrange for a transfer as soon as an opportunity arose which would not adversely impact the Palatka facility. After petitioner's suspension for his participation in the illegal sale of concrete, Tarmac received complaints from other Tarmac employees regarding petitioner. Believing this conduct to be detrimental to the integrity of the company and a disruption of the harmony of the work unit, Minor Turrentine, then the Tarmac area production manager, advised petitioner that if he continued to talk about the illegal sale of concrete with other drivers and customers, he would be terminated for breaching company policy, that is, disclosing confidential information that was contrary to the company's best interests. He was also given a written warning on July 16, 1990, which read as follows: You were recently suspended for your admitted involvement in certain activities that are against company policy. It has been reported that you have openly discussed these matters with employees at various locations. Be advised that any further discussion concerning your suspension and the circum- stances surrounding it will be considered breach of confidentiality, which is a violation of company policy. Any further violation of company policy will subject you to severe disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. After White received further complaints regarding petitioner, Tarmac terminated petitioner's employment effective August 21, 1990, for breaching company policy. The separation notice, which was dated the same date, gave the following reason for his termination: Employee was formally warned on July 16 to discuss no further his recent suspension. Discharged for further discussion on or about 8/20/90. There is no evidence as to whether petitioner was replaced by another driver, and if so, the age of that driver. When terminating petitioner, Tarmac did not do so because of petitioner's age or religious beliefs. Indeed, Marshall conceded at hearing that he had no direct proof of discrimination but merely believed he was improperly terminated for those reasons. As evidence of age discrimination, petitioner speculated that Tarmac may have been attempting to lower its insurance rates by removing an older person from its payroll, a belief based solely on a conversation he had with an insurance agent a few weeks prior to hearing. However, at least three other ready mix drivers at the Palatka plant are older than Marshall. He also speculated that because he was not required to work on Saturdays, this caused ill-will among his co-workers, and Tarmac terminated him for his religious beliefs. Again, there was no proof, either circumstantial or direct, to support this assertion. Regarding the claim that Tarmac's decision to transfer petitioner to Green Cove Springs in June 1990 was in retaliation for him telling White that working Saturdays was against his religion, the evidence shows that petitioner was removed from the transfer list once his seniority was brought to the company's attention. Petitioner also suggests that he was denied a transfer to the Deland facility in June 1990 as retaliation for his religious beliefs. However, the evidence shows that it was not feasible for Tarmac to transfer him at that time due to a shortage of drivers but Tarmac promised that an effort would be made to comply with his request when it was feasible. Petitioner did not state whether he desires reinstatement to his former position. In his petition for relief, petitioner did request "70 percent of (his) average yearly base pay since August 20 on". However, petitioner's salary at the time of discharge is not of record. Further, there was no evidence presented to establish his salary nor the monetary losses, if any, petitioner has suffered by virtue of his termination. He is currently employed with another company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5927 Respondent: Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 12-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 16-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 20-23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 24. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordinate, a conclusion of law, or not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Samuel J. Marshall S. R. Box 1075 Georgetown, Florida 32139 Grant D. Petersen, Esquire Donna M. Griffin, Esquire 1408 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's real estate broker license be suspended for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of November, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Heriberto Alonso, violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005- 2006), as alleged in a one-count Administrative Complaint filed with the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his Florida real estate associate license.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the “Division”), is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes. The Division is charged with the responsibility for the regulation of the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Heriberto Alonso, was at the times material to this matter, the holder of a Florida real estate associate license, license number 3037527, issued by the Division. At the times relevant, Mr. Alonso was an active sales associate with The Keyes Company, 690 Lincoln Road No. 300, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. The “Frow Avenue Property” Listing Agreement. On or about March 9, 2006, Mr. Alonso entered into a listing agreement with Mark Saracino and Suzanne Lloyd, husband and wife, whereby Mr. Alonso agreed to list property they owned located at 106 Frow Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Frow Avenue Property”). Pursuant to the listing agreement for the Frow Avenue Property, the property was to be listed by Mr. Alonso on the MLS for $359,000.00. Consistent with the listing agreement for the Frow Avenue Property, the property was listed on the MLS on March 10, 2006, for $359,000.00. The “Thomas Avenue Property” Listing Agreement. On or about March 14, 2006, Mr. Alonso entered into a listing agreement with Mr. Saracino and Ms. Lloyd, whereby Mr. Alonso agreed to list property they owned located at 3837 Thomas Avenue, Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Thomas Avenue Property”). Pursuant to the listing agreement for the Thomas Avenue Property, the property was to be listed by Mr. Alonso on the MLS for $350,000.00. Consistent with the listing agreement for the Thomas Avenue Property, the property was listed on the MLS on March 21, 2006, for $350,000.00. Sale of the Frow Avenue and Thomas Avenue Properties. In June of 2006, Ms. Lloyd entered into a sale and purchase contract with Reinaldo Gonzalez whereby it was agreed that the Frow Avenue Property would be sold to Mr. Gonzalez for $329,000.00. At the same time, Mr. Saracino entered into a sale and purchase contract with Mr. Gonzalez, whereby it was agreed that the Thomas Avenue Property would be sold to Mr. Gonzalez for $325,000.00. Without the knowledge or permission of Mr. Saracino and/or Ms. Lloyd, on July 26, 2006, Mr. Alonso raised the listing price on each property to $450,000.00. Mr. Saracino and Ms. Lloyd first learned of the increased listing price when they appeared at the scheduled closing on the properties and were presented with closing documents with a sales price on each property of $450,000.00. On the advice of counsel, Mr. Saracino and Ms. Lloyd refused to complete the sale of the properties. Mr. Alonso’s testimony to the effect that he disclosed the increase in the sales price of the properties prior to the aborted closing is rejected as inconsistent with the credible testimony of Mr. Saracino and Ms. Lloyd. Cost of Investigation. The cost of investigating this matter totaled $1,551.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission: Finding that Heriberto Alonso, by his failure to disclose the change in listing price for the properties, did conceal pertinent facts from Mr. Saracino and Ms. Lloyd and, in so doing, violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and Suspending his real estate associate’s license for a period of one year, requiring the payment of a fine of $1,000.00, and requiring the payment of the Division’s cost of investigation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Heriberto Alonso 11336 Southwest 75th Terrace Miami, Florida 33173 Jennifer Leigh Blakeman, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Petitioner, Lee C. Smith, was unlawfully discriminated against by the Respondent, Food Lion, Inc., on the basis of his marital status.
Findings Of Fact At all times in issue, Respondent, Food Lion, Inc., operated its food supermarket, No. 728, in Tampa, Florida. Petitioner, Lee C. Smith, was employed by Respondent as manager. Petitioner was discharged from employment with the Respondent on December 2, 1990. The "constructive advice memo" supporting the discharge indicated the action was being taken because of "dishonesty - fraud - reputation of manager." The background to the charge related that 9 checks, totalling $1,100.00 were cashed by Petitioner's wife and "possibly endorsed or OK'd by Mr. Smith." The memo went on to further state that the decision [to discharge] was based on current evidence "and also failure to maintain mgt. role." The memo further indicated that while in management training, Mr. Smith had a problem with returned checks and "was documented on same." The memo was signed by Mr. Legett and was also signed by the Petitioner on December 5, 1990. Petitioner claims that when he first learned of the check situation, during the period March through June, 1990, when he was a management trainee, on his own initiative and without prompting by anyone in authority, he notified his store manager and assistant manager of the situation and suggested they call in a tel-alert advising all Food Lion stores in the area not to cash any checks for his wife. He was not discharged at that time. He also claims that after he was promoted to manager, his wife again started passing bad checks without his knowledge. When he found out about them, in October and November, 1990, before he was discharged, he paid some of them off. He also instituted another tel-alert through the Dunedin store, where some of the checks had been written, but he did not alert the people in his own store not to cash them. Apparently, Mrs. Smith cashed some checks in Store 728 but only one was approved by Petitioner. An area-wide listing of dishonored checks shows some that were cashed by Mrs. Smith. This listing is sent to each store and probably came to Petitioner's store. Petitioner admits he may have seen it but most of the checks written by Mrs. Smith were approved by the assistant manager. Whenever he saw a check listing with his wife's name on it, he redeemed that check, but the listing he saw was for his store only. He claims not to have seen listings from other stores, but from time to time, the manager of other stores would call him to ask if they could take her checks. He claims always to have said no. None of the checks relied upon by Respondent in the discharge action were admitted in evidence. Petitioner claims that at the time in issue, he had no knowledge his wife was writing the bad checks. During this period, he and his wife were having domestic difficulties. Some of the time they were living together and some of the time they were separated. Even when they were separated, she continued to come into the store for purchases and to cash checks. Petitioner claims that as a result of his discharge by the Respondent he has been damaged in a total amount of between $452,122.55 and $518,122.55, including legal fees. These sums are based on his salary at the time of his discharge, modified by certain assumptions regarding sick pay, bonus, profit sharing and holiday pay. At the time of his discharge, Petitioner was earning $550.00 per week and claims he was due an increase to $610.00 per week. Therefore, he claims, his base salary for December, which he was not paid, would have been $2,440.00. Added to that, he claims is 2 percent for sick pay totalling $572.00, a 2 percent bonus of $572.00, a 15 percent profit sharing pay out of $4,290.00 and holiday pay for 6 days at $110.00 per day, for $660.00. This additional amount totals $6,094.00 which, when added to the base salary claimed due amounts to $8,534.00 for December, 1990, not paid to him because of his termination. His base salary of $610.00 per week for calendar year 1991, would have totaled $31,720.00 and his insurance benefit would have been an additional $1,242.60. This totals $32,962.60. Added to that, he claims are the bonuses, sick pay, profit sharing, profit forfeiture, holiday pay at $122.00 per day for 6 days, and two weeks vacation ($1,220.00) for a subtotal of $9,566.00. When this figure is added to his base for 1991, he claims his total income from Respondent would have been $42,528.60 for the year. However, when his actual earnings from Kash & Karry, with whom he found employment after he was discharged by Respondent, in the amount of $13,941.58 are deducted, his actual loss for calendar year 1991 is, he claims, $28,587.60. Following the same formula, using identical factors but with slightly different amounts for each due to a projected increase in weekly salary, the net loss to Petitioner is claimed to be $19,903.32 for calendar year 1992, and through March 5, 1993, the date of the hearing, his calendar year 1993 loss is claimed to be $6,474.39. The sum total of the yearly losses is $71,109.77 to which Petitioner has added a 1 percent per month interest figure which totals $19,910.73 for the 28 months in issue. The sum of these figures is $91,020.50. To this Petitioner has also added a 4 year loss of projected profit sharing pay outs had he stayed with Food Lion which he estimates at between $30,000.00 to $45,000.00 per year. At $30,000.00 the total would be $120,000 to which Petitioner has added an unexplained $200,000.00. Adding this to the $120,000.00, and the $91,020.50 amounts to $411,020.50 to which Petitioner has added 10 percent legal fees of $41,102.05 for a grand total of $452,122.55. Applying the same calculations to a loss of profit sharing figure of $45,000 per year for 4 years, and the unexplained $200,000.00 addition, with similar 10 percent legal fees and the actual claimed out of pocket loss described above, his claim amounts to $518,122.55. In support of his claim of Food Lion earnings, Petitioner submitted only one pay slip, for the period ending 12/01/90 which showed his regular earnings to be $1,100.00 and special earnings of $650.00 for the period. The evidence he presented is insufficient to support his monetary claim. His earnings at Kash and Karry are not questioned. Petitioner's wife's bad check activity first came to light when he was a manager trainee and he paid those checks off immediately. However, in the latter part of 1990, a loss prevention investigation was initiated into alleged cash shortages and bad checks at Petitioner's store. Mr. Satterfield, the Area Perishable Supervisor was told by the investigator that Petitioner was aware of his wife's passing of bad checks. Mr. Satterfield also talked to other employees. One of these, Mr. Koonce, cashed several checks for Mrs. Smith which had been approved by one of the managers. Petitioner was one of those approving managers on only one occasion. Based on that one approval, which he does not know to have been for a subsequently dishonored check, he merely assumed the Petitioner approved the others. An unsworn written statement to the investigator, Mr. Greer, by Kimberly Lantrip, an employee of another Food Lion store, indicates that Petitioner told the grocery manager it was OK to cash his wife's checks and hid the bad check register bearing his wife's name for several weeks when it came in. This evidence is clearly double and even triple hearsay evidence, however, and though admissible here, is of minimal probative value. Furthermore, neither were the checks themselves nor photocopies thereof were offered. Mrs. Smith, by sworn affidavit, also hearsay, indicated that at no time did Petitioner have any knowledge she had written checks in Food Lion stores, nor did he ever approve any for her or tell anyone else to cash them. This statement carries little evidentiary weight. Petitioner clearly had knowledge of his wife's prior check writing activity and, in fact, paid off several. He obviously failed to take appropriate action to correct her activity or to preclude her writing other checks at Food Lion stores. After the investigation, Satterfield met with Petitioner and other supervisors, and as a result of that meeting, where at least one supervisor recommended termination, Mr. Satterfield, who had observed Petitioner over the months in both training and as assistant manager and saw him do nothing wrong, nonetheless decided to put the Petitioner on indefinite suspension with pay pending further investigation. Mr. Satterfield then notified the Regional Supervisor and Mr. Legett, the Area Supervisor, of what he had done. The next he heard about it was when the constructive advice memo terminating Petitioner was issued. He thereafter had nothing more to do with the matter. Mr. Legett was satisfied at the way Petitioner took care of the first series of bad checks written by Petitioner's wife in the Spring of 1990. However, based on what he was told by Mr. Satterfield, and the information contained in the loss prevention investigation, he concluded that Petitioner was aware of the second series of bad checks his wife was writing and did not attempt to stop them. Based on this, which he found showed fraud and dishonesty on Petitioner's part, he decided to discharge Petitioner Before doing so, however, he discussed the matter with Food lion's Vice President for Personnel who agreed with the decision to discharge. While Petitioner's failure to take corrective action to preclude his wife from cashing any further checks at Food Lion stores reflects on his management ability and may support termination for that reason, absent a clear showing of his conspiracy with her, his encouragement of her actions, or his knowing acquiescence in her misconduct, it does not rise to the level of fraud or dishonesty. Regarding Petitioner's claim for damages, Mr. Legett indicates a proposed raise of $60.00 per week in 1990 is not justified. A maximum raise is $20.00 per 6 month increment based on performance. Not all managers get raises each year. In addition, continuing employees do not get paid for holidays they don't take off. If the time is not taken, it is lost. However, if a person is terminated, any unused accrued vacation time for that year is paid. By the same token, sick days are not compensated. Employees receive 2 percent of salary as a sick pay bonus at the end of the year unless too much sick leave is taken. In general, a sick day taken once a week results in a net loss, not earned bonus. Also, profit sharing is not a constant but varies year by year. In 1990 and 1991, the amount was 15 percent. The amount for 1992 had not been determined as of the hearing, but 15 percent is a maximum. In any case, employees do not become eligible to participate in the profit sharing plan until they have been with the company for 5 years. If the employee leaves before the five years are up, the accrued but unpaid profit sharing maintained in his name is forfeited and paid on a pro rata basis to other employees. The most Mr. Legett, an individual relatively high up in management, ever got was 2 percent. He has never received anywhere near 5 percent of his salary. Effective January 1, 1993, employees contribute $21.00 per month for insurance. Prior to that time, there was no contribution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that Lee C. Smith's Petition for Relief from Unlawful Discrimination based on marital status, relating to his discharge from employment by Respondent, Food Lion, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 13th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6047 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's counsel submitted Proposed Findings of Fact but failed to number them. They will be treated paragraph by paragraph, however, in this appendix. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and, except for references to hearsay evidence, incorporated herein. Mr. Koonce, the only individual interviewed by the investigator who appeared at hearing indicated he had seen Petitioner approve only one check for his wife and assumed from that, he had approved others. The balance of the hearsay evidence, though admissible for a limited purpose, is considered of minimal probative value. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but more a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted only as to the showing that the issue of Petitioner's knowledge of his wife's check writing activities was a part of the related case involving discrimination based on race. Irrelevant to the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee C. Smith P.O. Box 260922 Tampa, Florida 33685-0922 Steven C. Ellingson, Esquire Arnold & Anderson 1200 Peachtree Center Cain Tower 229 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Margaret Jones Clerk Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Respondent, at all times pertinent, was a registered real estate salesman holding license number 0314085. This license is currently under suspension as a result of disciplinary action by Petitioner. Respondent was, at all times pertinent, the President and a stock holder in D.S.A.E., Inc. D.S.A.E., in turn, was the owner (or co-owner with another corporation) of a tract of land located adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 in Broward County. Respondent, acting in his capacity as a real estate salesman, sought buyers for segments 1/ of the U.S. 27 property. He had made earlier sales of other property to Mrs. Lottie Kay and her son Michael Kay, and contacted the former in October, 1980, regarding the U.S. 27 property. The D.S.A.E. tract was zoned B-3 (business) on that portion which fronted U.S. 27. The rear segments were zoned A-1 (limited agriculture) and did not front U.S. 27. Initially, Respondent mentioned segments being offered for $60,000 and $24,000. However, Lottie Kay indicated that she could not afford the higher priced segments (which were zoned B-3). Lottie Kay asked Respondent to show her the property, and a visit to the general area was made. However, Respondent told her they could not get to the property which he said was located "on the other side of the construction." After visiting the area, she was not aware of the actual location of her property or of its character. 2/ She continued to believe that the property was "right on" U.S. 27. She based this belief on Respondent's original sales presentation rather than her visit to the area. The segment she purchased is about one quarter of a mile from U.S. 27. Lottie Kay was also confused as to the zoning on the property. She believed it was "commercial" and does not recall being told of the agricultural zoning by Respondent until about a year after the purchase. Her son, Michael Kay, who was present during a part of Respondent's initial sales presentation, heard only the B-3 zoning mentioned. Since he was not present throughout the discussion, he could have missed Respondent's reference, which he claims to have made, to the agricultural zoning on the back segments. On October 8, 1980, Lottie Kay, as buyer, contracted with Respondent on behalf of D.S.A.E. and a third party corporation, as sellers, to purchase "Tract 14" for $24,000 on an "agreement for deed." Under the terms of the contract, Lottie Kay paid $4,000 down and was to pay $215.59 per month thereafter beginning in November, 1980. Lottie Kay made the monthly payments through 1983. When she missed her first two payments in 1984, Respondent offered to reduce the contract price by $2,000 if she would resume monthly payments and make up the missing payments. Lottie Kay agreed to this modification of the contract, but discontinued further payments in April, 1984. Lottie Kay bought this property for speculation in reliance on Respondent's claim that its value would increase substantially in the immediate future. Respondent showed her newspaper clippings which supported his claim that the general area was one of future growth. He predicted her segment would be worth at least $30,000 in one year and stated that as to possible appreciation, "The sky's the limit." Respondent did not, however, point out that Lottie Kay's property could not be resold for any use other than agriculture since her segment was too small for even a home site under the existing zoning. Respondent also neglected to advise her that the property was underwater much of the year, and would have to be filled and probably permitted before any development could take place. The testimony of a real estate appraiser called by Petitioner established that the property was worth about $750 when purchased by Lottie Kay in October, 1980. 3/ This valuation was based on the witness' study of nearby land sales over a period of years as well as his inspection of the area in which the Kay segment is located. Respondent attempted to establish a higher market value by producing various warranty deeds whereby he or his affiliates had sold similar segments to other buyers for amounts approximating that agreed to by Lottie Kay. These sales do not establish value but, rather, indicate the gullibility of other buyers in making such purchases. After she fell behind in her payments, Lottie Kay tried to resell her property through Respondent in reliance on his claim at the time of his initial sales presentation that he could resell it for her in one week. When requested to do so he was unable to produce any prospective buyer. Thus, there appears to be no real market for this property, other than that generated by Respondent in his initial sales campaign. Lottie Kay did not consult an attorney or have the land surveyed or appraised prior to contracting for the purchase. Rather, she trusted Respondent who she knew to be a real estate professional. She was also aware that he was an owner of the property, but still believed she could rely on his statements that the current market value of her segment was at least $24,000 and that future profits were assured. Respondent attacks the fairness of these proceedings on the alleged misconduct of Petitioner's investigator, who encouraged Lottie Kay to come forward after she (with the help of her son) had filed a complaint with Petitioner. The investigator made statements to the Kays which indicated his belief that Respondent was engaged in fraudulent land sales, and was a menace to the public. Although the investigator's statements to the Kays were gratuitous and inconsistent with his fact finding role, there is no indication that such statements resulted in any false testimony or other unreliable evidence. Respondent notes that Lottie Kay continued to make payments on her contract with Respondent even after she had filed a complaint with Petitioner and reasons that she must have considered the property a worthwhile investment. Lottie Kay demonstrated through her testimony and recitation of her dealings with Respondent that she is gullible and imprudent in financial matters. Thus, her continued investment of funds in this property indicated lack of prudence rather than an informed belief that the property had any substantial value.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misrepresenting property value as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and suspending his license as a real estate salesman for a period of three years to begin upon completion of his current license suspension period. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 3rd day of December, 1984.
Findings Of Fact 1. The evidential facts in this cause are presented by a joint stiulation between the parties. That stipulation is made a part of the record herein. The exhibits referenced as being attached to the stipulation are not actually attached, but are available for review in the Petitioner's file, by agreement of the parties. The following is a recitation of the stipulation.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license held by the Respondent, Manhattan Liquors, Inc., t/a Manhattan Liquors, license no. 39-1086, series 4-COP, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Esquire Spicola and Larkin, P.A. 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact K & B Enterprises, Respondent, purchased plants from Roy Amerson, Inc., Petitioner, and they were delivered to Respondent on February 19, 1980. Respondent had ordered Bottlebrush and Cuban laurel (Ficus Nitida) packaged in wire baskets to protect root ball in shipment. Upon arrival Respondent noted that the wires were mangled and some root balls appeared separated from the roots. Before the trees were unloaded Mrs. Benway telephoned the salesman for Petitioner and told him about the condition of the trees. The salesman advised her to accept the trees, water them, and they (Amerson) would make an allowance for the damage. This, he said, would be better and cause less damage to the trees than if they were sent back on the truck that brought them. The driver was requested by Mr. Benway to note the condition of the trees on the invoice accompanying the shipment (Exhibit 1). No such notation was made. The driver did note the date of delivery. Respondent Benway acknowledged receipt of the merchandise by signing Exhibit 1 below the following statement printed near the bottom of Exhibit 1: STOCK MAY BE REFUSED AT TIME OF DELIVERY FOR A DEFINITE REASON, BUT ONCE SIGNED FOR CUSTOMER ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVOICE. OPEN ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BY THE 10TH OF THE MONTH. 1 1/2 PERCENT CHARGE ADDED IF NOT PAID BY THE 25TH WHICH IS ANNUAL RATE OF 18 PERCENT. Respondent is a plant retailer and landscape contractor. After accepting the February 19, 1980 delivery the Cuban laurel was planted as were the other plants. Attempts to settle the dispute with Petitioner's salesman were unsuccessful. Nine of the Bottlebrush died but all of the Cuban laurel have survived. At the instruction of the salesman these plants were watered but not trimmed or fertilized. Respondent paid for the other plants received on this invoice and for the damaged plants as they have been sold. As of the date of the hearing the balance owed on the stock delivered on Exhibit 1 was $1,494.90.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Oglesby Nursery, Inc., is a commercial nursery providing a variety of landscape agricultural products. The principal office for Petitioner is located at 3714 SW 52nd Avenues Hollywood, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden Landscape and Nursery, Inc., is an agricultural dealer with its office located at 3317 So. Dixie Highway, Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden, is subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As such, Garden of Eden is obligated to obtain and to post a surety bond to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this requirement, Garden of Eden delivered a certificate of deposit from Sun Bank of Palm Beach County to the Department. On or about August 22, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $7673.40 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of nine may pan coconuts and thirty green malayans trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. On or about September 2, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1190.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of seven coconut malayans dwarf trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. The total amount of the agricultural products purchased by Garden of Eden from Petitioner was $8863.40. The total amount Garden of Eden paid on this account was $5000.00. The balance of indebtedness owed by Garden of Eden t o Petitioner for the purchases listed above is $3863.40. Petitioner claims it is due an additional sum of $247.77 representing interest on the unpaid account since the assessment of interest to an unpaid balance is standard practice in the industry and since Respondent took delivery of additional products knowing interest on past due accounts to be Petitioner's policy. No written agreement of acknowledgment executed by Garden of Eden was presented with regard to the interest claim.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2- 14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate sales associate having been issued license number 3101946. During the time relevant to this case, Respondent was a sales associate affiliated with Bahia Real Estate ("Bahia"), a brokerage company owned by Raul and Ricardo Aleman, with offices located in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, Florida. Respondent was employed in Bahia's Miami location. In 2010, Respondent acted as a sales associate on behalf of Michael Perricone for a real estate transaction involving the purchase of a condominium in the Blue Lagoon Towers ("Blue Lagoon") in Miami which was purchased as an investment. Mr. Perricone's sister, Francesca Palmeri, and her husband, Santo Palmeri, were present at the closing where they met Respondent for the first and only time. During the closing, which lasted approximately one hour, the Palmeris indicated to Respondent that they would be interested in making a similar purchase of investment property if another comparable condominium unit became available at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no further interaction with Respondent until he contacted them at their home in Pueblo, Colorado, in 2011 to advise them of the availability of a condominium for sale at Blue Lagoon. On or about October 6, 2011, Respondent faxed a partially completed Bahia form "'AS IS' Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase" to Mrs. Palmeri for the Palmeris to use in making an offer on a condominium unit located at 5077 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to forwarding the document to Mrs. Palmeri, Respondent wrote on the form the property description, the escrow agent name and address, the initial escrow deposit amount and additional deposit, the time for acceptance, the closing date, and listed himself as the "Cooperating Sales Associate" with "Bahia Realty Group, LLC." The Palmeris decided to offer a $125,000.00 purchase price. Respondent directed Mrs. Palmeri to complete the contract and provide a ten percent escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri entered a purchase price of $125,000.00, initialed each page, and signed the form as "Buyer." Respondent provided Mrs. Palmeri with instructions on how to wire the funds for the escrow deposit. On October 7, 2011, Mr. Palmeri wired $12,000.00 to J.P. Morgan Chase, which was then deposited in an account for Bonaventure Enterprises, LLC ("Bonaventure").1/ The Palmeris had no knowledge of Bonaventure, but, based upon the representations of Respondent, they understood the money they were asked to wire to the J.P. Morgan Chase account of Bonaventure was an escrow deposit for the property they intended to purchase at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no discussion with Respondent regarding the reason for sending the escrow deposit to Bonaventure. They assumed that Bonaventure was somehow related to the seller or its title company. The condominium unit in question was bank owned; however, the Palmeris were not informed of this. No evidence was presented that Respondent had an ownership interest in Bonaventure. However, Bonaventure is owned by Respondent's brother and sister-in-law. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the managing member of Bonaventure. Bonaventure is not a licensed real estate broker. Bahia does not maintain an escrow account, and its sales associates are authorized to use title companies of their choice for receipt of escrow deposits. Respondent was aware that he was unable to accept the escrow deposit of the Palmeris in his own name, because, as a licensed real estate sales associate, he is prohibited from receiving the money associated with a real estate transaction in the name of anyone other than his broker or employer. In fact, Respondent was disciplined in 2010 for a similar violation.2/ Respondent claims that the Palmeris entrusted him with their $12,000.00 to hold for possible investments, not necessarily related to real estate transaction, and he was doing it as a favor for them as "friends." Respondent contradicted himself by stating his intention in directing the Palmeris to deposit their money into the Bonaventure account was to help them have cash on hand in Florida in order to meet the Blue Lagoon condominium seller's requirements to make the escrow deposit with the seller's title company within 24 hours after an offer was accepted. The Palmeris had no knowledge of the seller's unique restrictions on the escrow money. Further, Respondent's asserted motive in requesting the $12,000.00 to have cash on hand in Florida is undermined by the fact that, if the Palmeris could wire $12,000.00 to Bonaventure's bank account, they could also wire the funds directly to a title company chosen by the selling bank after acceptance of their offer. Shortly after returning the contract to Respondent and sending the escrow deposit, Mrs. Palmeri discussed increasing the purchase price by $1,000.00 for a total of $126,000.00. Based upon the language of the proposed contract, the Palmeris expected a response to their offer within 24 hours. Immediately thereafter, Respondent told the Palmeris that they were "in negotiations." However, almost a month passed before they heard from Respondent regarding the status of the purchase of the condominium. On or about November 4, 2011, Respondent contacted Mrs. Palmeri and stated that he had "good news." He indicated that the seller would be willing to sell the property for a price of $129,500.00. According to Respondent, the seller requested documentation from the Palmeris' bank indicating their ability to pay. Mrs. Palmeri indicated that this was not an acceptable counter-offer. Respondent suggested that he could negotiate a sales price of $129,000.00, but he needed the Palmeris to send an additional $9,000.00 to put into escrow. Mrs. Palmeri told Respondent that she was no longer interested in the property because their maximum offer was $126,000.00. During the same conversation, Mrs. Palmeri asked for the return of her deposit. Respondent expressed agitation that she was retreating from the possible purchase because he had done "so much work." Respondent clearly anticipated he would receive a commission if the deal was consummated. The Palmeris did not get an immediate return of their escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri called Respondent repeatedly and received no answer. She also sent an e-mail to J.P. Morgan Chase trying to find out the status of the deposit and received no reply. Mrs. Palmeri again attempted to contact Respondent on November 18, 2011, and left him a message that he needed to call her regarding the deposit. After receiving no response, she contacted Bahia and spoke with Ricardo Aleman. Mrs. Palmeri explained to Aleman that she had signed a real estate contract with Respondent on October 6, 2011. She no longer wanted to pursue this real estate transaction and wanted the escrow deposit returned. Aleman was unaware that Respondent was negotiating a real estate transaction for the Palmeris or had accepted their deposit money. Aleman contacted Respondent who confirmed by email that the Palmeris were no longer interested in purchasing the condominium at Blue Lagoon. Respondent wrote, "After a month of hard work . . . the client decided to drop. It was a little bit problematic. I lost time and money because the offer was already accepted and she had no reason to negotiate." Respondent assured Aleman he would return the deposit to the Palmeris. In accordance with Bahia's policies and procedures, its sales associates are required to complete a deposit form at the time of receipt of funds for escrow. No such receipt was received by Bahia from Respondent with regard to the transaction involving the Palmeris. However, it was not unusual for Bahia not to receive information regarding real estate transactions conducted by their sales associates until the time of closing. After discussing the matter with Aleman, Respondent advised the Palmeris that he could return their money within ten days. Respondent advised Mrs. Palmeri that he would send her two checks for the total amount--one check which she could cash immediately and a second check which would be postdated. In order to get a return of their deposit, Mrs. Palmeri agreed. On or about November 28, 2011, the Palmeris received two checks, each in the amount of $6,000.00, including one postdated for December 16, 2011. These checks were written on the account of Bonaventure and signed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order imposing on Alfonso Miranda an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00 and suspending the real estate sales associate license of Alfonso Miranda for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a residential contractor. Respondent entered into a contract (Exhibit 1) to do the masonry and plumbing work on a residence constructed for J.F. Demers at Citrus Springs, Florida, for a price of $7310. This final price was changed slightly due to additions to and deletions from the work to be done by Respondent. There is no dispute regarding these contract changes, and no issue is thereby raised. Demers paid Respondent as the work progressed, and made a final payment of $3740 on May 31, 1983. At the time this payment was made, Respondent provided Demers with a Waiver of Lien (Exhibit 3) releasing the property from all liens for labor and materials. At this time Respondent owed Carroll Contracting and Ready Mix, Inc. approximately $5000, some of which represented materials delivered to the Demers project. On August 26, 1983, Carroll Contracting filed a Claim of Lien (Exhibit 4) against Demers' property. At the time this lien was filed, Demers was out of state. When he returned, he talked to William Hausman, Secretary-Treasury of Carroll Contracting and presented to Hausman the Waiver of Lien he had received from Respondent. Upon advice of attorney, Carroll Contracting released the lien filed against Demers' property on September 21, 1983 (Exhibit 6). By check dated July 20, 1983 (Exhibit 7) Respondent paid Carroll Contracting $2054.58. Writing on the face of this check indicated balance due of $3600. The exact amount was not disclosed, but a substantial amount of the balance due was for materials purchased for jobs done by Respondent other than the Demers job. Respondent had purchased materials from Carroll Contracting for many years, and had paid his bills promptly before 1983. Prior to delivering the first concrete to the Demers project, Carroll Contracting required Respondent to pay $1000 on his account. When Respondent learned Carroll Contracting had filed a lien against Demers' property, he called Hausman to offer to pay part of his indebtedness if Carroll Contracting would release the lien. Hausman refused and he and Respondent exchanged angry words over the telephone. A consumer complaint was filed against Respondent and an Information was filed against Respondent charging him with diverting funds received from Demers to another purpose (Exhibit 9). Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to petit theft of this charge, was adjudicated guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $1000 with probation for one year or until the fine is paid (Exhibit 11). Exhibit 10 indicates Respondent pleaded guilty to petit theft and was sentenced as shown in Exhibit 11. Respondent denies pleading guilty and the inconsistency between Exhibits 10 and 11 support his testimony. Respondent has paid all of the monies owed to Carroll Contracting, and is paying off his fine at the rate of $100 per month.
