The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent failed to make documents available to Petitioner in violation of Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes; (b) whether Respondent obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, or hindered the performance of any person acting under the authority of that chapter in violation of Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes; and (c) what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating and enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to persons holding real estate broker and salesperson licenses in Florida. Respondent is and was, at all times material to this case, a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license No. 0372849. Respondent's license is currently voluntarily inactive because she did not renew it in 1999. At all times material here, Petitioner was an agent and the broker of record for Park Avenue Properties, Inc. On or about September 11, 1998, Harper Fields, Esquire, filed a complaint with Petitioner. The complaint alleged that Respondent had mismanaged his wife's rental property pursuant to a property management agreement. The complaint resulted in an investigation and subsequent Administrative Complaint in DBPR Case No. 98-83963. That case became the subject of the Recommended Order in DOAH 02-2720PL, entered contemporaneously with the Recommended Order in the instant case. By letter dated November 25, 1998, Petitioner informed Respondent that Mr. Fields had filed a complaint against her. The letter stated that Petitioner's investigator, Sidney Miller, would be in contact with Respondent to discuss the complaint in detail. Respondent sent Mr. Miller a letter dated December 20, 1998. In the letter, Respondent attempted to explain her involvement in the management of the rental property owned by Mrs. Paula Fields. During the investigation of the complaint, Mr. Miller requested Respondent to furnish him all documentation related to the management of Mrs. Field's rental property. The initial request included documentation about the transaction for the months of February through April 1998, including, but not limited to, monthly statement reconciliations for Respondent's rental escrow account and her operating account, bank statements for these accounts and copies of supporting checks, deposits slips, and transfers. Soon thereafter, Respondent furnished Mr. Miller with some of the requested information. However, Respondent never provided Mr. Miller with a copy of the property management agreement at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-2720PL. Mr. Miller also requested information regarding any background check that Respondent conducted before renting Mrs. Field's property to Donnda Williams. Respondent provided this information to Mr. Miller under cover of a letter received by Mr. Miller on June 16, 1999. Mr. Miller's review of Respondent's monthly statement reconciliations for her rental escrow account from February through April 1998 revealed negative balances. The monthly statement reconciliations are a more accurate reflection of the transactions that occur in an account than a corresponding bank statement. Mr. Miller also discerned that Respondent transferred $1,000 from her rental escrow account to her operating account on February 10, 1998. Additionally, Respondent's February and April bank statements for her rental escrow account and her operating account did not reflect negative balances; but her March 1998 bank statement for the rental escrow account had two overdrafts, one on March 19 and another one on March 20. Respondent transferred $1,000 on March 2, 1998, and $8,000 on March 16, 1998, from her rental escrow account to her operating account. The $8,000 transfer resulted in a negative balance on Respondent's monthly statement reconciliation for her rental escrow account. Mr. Miller addressed his concerns relating to Respondent's rental escrow account in writing on June 25, 1999, and verbally on June 29, 1999. Mr. Miller requested Respondent to explain the March 1998 transfers and the negative balances reflected in the monthly statement reconciliations for the rental escrow account in the months of February through April 1998. Mr. Miller's June 25, 1998, letter requested additional information, stating as follows: I will also need the deposit slips and reconciliation for the rental escrow account for January 1998 along with copies of the bank statements, reconiliation's [sic] and deposits slips for any other account you maintained in January 1998. In addition please provide me with copies of the reconciliation's [sic] for the escrow account and the rental escrow account from May 1998 through the month you closed these accounts. If you maintained any other real estate escrow accounts for the period of January 1998 to this date, provide me with the same information. Respondent received Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. However, she hired an attorney and forwarded to him the records that she believed were responsive to Mr. Miller's request. Mr. Miller did not learn that Respondent had hired an attorney until he talked to her on June 29, 1999. On or about June 29, 1999, Petitioner explained to Mr. Miller that she had been in the State of Washington caring for a sick relative during parts of January, February, and March 1998. She did not have her rental escrow account checkbook with her when disbursements were due from that account. Therefore, Respondent made the disbursements from her operating account. She made the transfers from her rental escrow account to her operating account to facilitate making the payments in this manner. Upon learning that counsel represented Respondent, Mr. Miller contacted the attorney by telephone. The purpose of the call, in part, was to request the attorney to file a letter of representation. Because the attorney was unavailable, Mr. Miller left a message requesting the attorney to return the call. The attorney did not respond to the message. After not receiving any further information from Respondent or her attorney, Mr. Miller sent Respondent a letter dated November 1, 1999. The letter requested the status of the records requested in Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. Respondent received the November 1, 1999, and forwarded it to her attorney. In a letter dated November 29, 1999, Respondent's attorney acknowledged that he had received Mr. Miller's November 1, 1999, letter. The attorney stated that he had instructed Respondent to furnish Mr. Miller with copies of the cashed checks for the two transfers that Mr. Miller was inquiring about. The November 29, 1999, letter from Respondent's attorney did not otherwise address the information requested by Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. In correspondence dated January 22, 2000, Respondent's attorney explained that Respondent had issued the attached copies of checks while she was in the State of Washington during her father's illness only to avoid delay in payment. Attached to the letter were copies of checks, front and back, of Respondent's operating account for her business, Park Avenue Properties, Inc. The copies of checks were issued in February through April 1998. Respondent had furnished Mr. Miller with copies of these checks in June 1999. The January 22, 2000, letter from Respondent's attorney was otherwise not responsive to Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. Specifically, there were no copies of deposit slips and reconciliation for the rental escrow account for January 1998. There were no documents or reference to the same information for any other accounts that Respondent maintained in 1998. There were no copies of the reconciliations for the rental escrow account from May 1998 through January or February 1999 when Respondent closed her accounts. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that the information furnished to Mr. Miller under cover of the January 22, 2000, letter was not responsive to the request in Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. At no time during the investigation did Respondent explain that the documents reflected paid personal expenses, as well as expenses paid on behalf of clients out of the same account. In a letter dated April 6, 2000, Mr. Miller sent yet another request for records and information to Respondent's attorney. This letter requested an explanation regarding certain transfers between Respondent's accounts on March 6, April 6, and April 14, 1998. Mr. Miller needed copies of the cancelled checks and better copies of the bank statement for January 1998 for the rental escrow account. Mr. Miller also requested the bank statements, reconciliations, deposit slips and cancelled checks for the rental escrow, and operating accounts for February 1998. The April 6, 2000, letter again requested information previously requested in June 1999. This information included the following: (a) deposit slips for the rental escrow account in January 1998, along with copies of the bank statements, reconciliations, and deposit slips for any other accounts that Respondent maintained in January 1998; (b) copies of the reconciliations for the operating account and the rental escrow account from May 1998 through the month that Respondent closed the accounts; and (c) the same information for any other real estate escrow accounts that Respondent maintained from January 1998 to June 25, 1999. Mr. Miller's April 6, 2000, letter was sent to Respondent's attorney by certified mail. The return receipt indicates that the attorney's office received the letter on April 10, 2000. In a letter dated October 26, 2000, Respondent's attorney sent Petitioner's counsel a letter. According to the letter, Respondent had provided copies of all the checks and the explanation behind the transactions. The letter states that the attorney had not heard from Mr. Miller after the attorney sent the January 2000 letter. On or about June 3, 2002, Respondent's attorney sent Petitioner's counsel some 351 pages of documents, indicating that they included all documents requested by Mr. Miller and that they were responsive to all discovery requests. However, clear and convincing evidence indicates that the documents were not responsive to Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, and April 6, 2000, record requests. During the hearing, Respondent agreed that the documents were not responsive to Mr. Miller's requests for records related to Respondent's rental escrow account from May 1998 through the time she closed the account. Because Mr. Miller was unable to review the records he requested, he was unable to perform an audit of Respondent's accounts. Mr. Miller needed records covering a six-month period in order to audit Respondent's accounts. Without the records, Mr. Miller was unable to determine whether problems in Respondent's rental escrow account occurred at other times. Respondent testified during the hearing that she had provided Mr. Miller with all of the records in her possession. Her testimony in this regard is not persuasive. Respondent admitted that Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, required her to keep all of her records for four or five years. The instant case is not the only time that Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. She admitted during the hearing that Petitioner previously had cited her and "smacked her on the wrist" for not disbursing funds in a timely fashion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Cooper, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Stacy N. Robinson Pierce, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Buddy Johnson, Director Nancy P. Campiglia, Chief Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute violations of the statutes and rules regulating the practice of real estate in the State of Florida. Respondent, Benjamin C. Rolfe, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0318091 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mr. Rolfe was as a broker with Squires Realty of the Palm Beaches, Inc., 721 U.S. 1, #217, North Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent, Duane C. Heiser, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0038233 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mr. Heiser was as a broker effective February 8, 1991, at Duane C. Heiser Realty Co., 1312 Commerce Lane A1, Jupiter, Florida. On or about December 12, 1998, a Final Order was issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission and received by Mr. Heiser whereby his real estate broker's license was suspended for two (2) years from January 12, 1989, through January 10, 1991. During the month of October 1989, Mr. Heiser violated the lawful suspension order of the Commission by personally delivering rental checks to and ordering the disbursement of escrow funds from the Property Management-Operating Account, which is an escrow account, of Squire's Realty Company of the Palm Beaches, Inc. Between March 22 and March 26, 1990, the escrow account records of Mr. Rolfe, who was the qualifying broker for Squire's Realty of the Palm Beaches, Inc., were audited by Petitioner's authorized representatives. The Escrow/Trust Account Audit revealed that Respondent Rolfe failed to properly document and reconcile the Property Management-Operating Account, which is an escrow account. Mr. Rolfe was responsible for this account. Mr. Rolfe was negligent regarding the management of this escrow account by allowing a suspended licensee, Mr. Heiser, access to this account. Mr. Rolfe and Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate penalty for Mr. Rolfe's violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, would be the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 and the placement of his licensure on probation for a period of one year. They further stipulated that the administrative fine was to be paid within thirty days of the filing of the final order. They also stipulated that during his term of probation Mr. Rolfe would be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education with thirty of those sixty hours being the thirty hour management course for brokers. They further stipulated that Mr. Rolfe would be required to provide to Petitioner satisfactory evidence of his completion of those sixty hours of continuing education and that those sixty hours of continuing education are to be in addition to any other continuing education required of Mr. Rolfe to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Mr. Heiser and Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate penalty for Mr. Heiser's violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, would be the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 and the placement of his licensure on probation for a period of one year. They further stipulated that the administrative fine was to be paid within thirty days of the filing of the final order. They also stipulated that during his term of probation, Mr. Heiser would be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education with thirty of those sixty hours being the thirty hour management course for brokers. They further stipulated that Mr. Heiser would be required to provide to Petitioner satisfactory evidence of his completion of those sixty hours of continuing education and that those sixty hours of continuing education are to be in addition to any other continuing education required of Mr. Heiser to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which: Dismisses Counts I, III, and V of the Administrative Complaint; Finds Mr. Heiser guilty of having violated a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 upon Mr. Heiser and place his licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is also recommended that the conditions of probation require that Respondent Heiser pay the said administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the final order and that he be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education during his term of probation. It is further recommended that as part of the sixty hours of continuing education, Mr. Heiser be required to successfully complete the thirty hour management course for brokers, that he be required to provide satisfactory evidence of completion of such continuing education to Petitioner, and that these sixty hours of continuing education be in addition to any other continuing education required of Respondent Heiser to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Finds Mr. Rolfe guilty of culpable negligience in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 upon Mr. Rolfe and place his licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is also recommended that the conditions of probation require that Respondent Rolfe pay the said administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the final order and that he be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education during his term of probation. It is further recommended that as part of the sixty hours of continuing education, Mr. Rolfe be required to successfully complete the thirty hour management course for brokers, that he be required to provide satisfactory evidence of completion of such continuing education to Petitioner, and that these sixty hours of continuing education be in addition to any other continuing education required of Respondent Rolfe to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of December, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Garfied & Associates, P.A. World Executive Building Suite 333 3500 North State Road 7 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on charges of professional misconduct, including gross immorality, acts involving moral turpitude, conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, exploiting a professional relationship with a student for personal gain, and failing to conform to standards of ethical conduct, in violation of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.06(3)(e) and (h), and 6B-1.01(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate 342171, covering the area of physical education. At all times material to the administrative complaint, respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Lake Worth High School in the Palm Beach County School District. From 1973, when he joined the Palm Beach County School District, to the date of his suspension for the acts complained of in the administrative complaint, he was consistently rated to be a good teacher. His teaching ability and performance were not in question. He also maintained a close relationship with his students, frequently assisting them beyond the requirements of his job. On the afternoon of May 23, 1983, at approximately 2:30 p.m., respondent entered the K-Mart department store in Lantana, Florida, accompanied by his niece, Cathy Brown. While shopping in the store, he selected a 68-quart cooler, bearing a price tag of $43.58, then proceeded to the hardware department, where he selected a Black and Decker electric drill, bearing a price tag of $22.99. He left the hardware department and proceeded to the garden/patio area or Garden Shop. Before reaching the double glass doors separating the main building from the Garden Shop, he stopped and placed the large box (containing the 68-quart cooler) and the small box (containing the electric drill) on the floor at the end of an aisle approximately 30 feet from the double glass doors. Be then walked directly to the double glass doors opening onto the Garden Shop, and glanced in the direction of the checkout counter located at the Garden Shop exit. He then walked back past the cooler and electric drill, and proceeded into the appliance department where he met Cathy Brown. Ms. Brown had previously selected a package of hair curlers, bearing a price tag of $1.38. He and Ms. Brown briefly examined several items on a display counter in the appliance department, then returned to the place where he had placed the cooler and electric drill. He picked up these two items and proceeded to the Garden Shop; Cathy Brown, who was carrying the hair curlers, accompanied him. Jeanette Grimes, a 17-year-old Lake Worth High School student, was--at that particular time--the cashier at the register located at the Garden Shop checkout counter. Ms. Grimes knew respondent. Be had been her physical education teacher for two years and basketball coach for one year. She considered him a friend. As respondent approached the checkout counter where Ms. Grimes was serving as cashier, he placed the box containing the cooler and the box containing the electric drill on the floor at the far end of the checkout counter, not on the counter itself. At that time there were customers at the checkout counter who were being waited on by Ms. Grimes. He and Cathy Brown walked away from the checkout counter and began looking at plants. After Ms. Grimes had finished checking out the customers at her counter, he and Ms. Brown again approached the checkout counter, where he engaged Ms. Grimes in conversation. At no time did he place any items on the counter for Ms. Grimes to examine and ring up. At that time she rang up a $1.00 item and a $5.00 item, totalled the transaction at $6.00, then rang up a $.30 tax, and totalled the transaction at $6.30. He handed Ms. Grimes $10.00 in payment for the merchandise. She mistakenly rang up $10.00 for an additional item of merchandise, voided the $10.00 item off her tape, and re-rang $10.00 as cash tendered. At that point the cash register opened and indicated that change in the amount of $3.70 was due. Ms. Grimes gave respondent $3.70 in change and a receipt for the transaction. During the course of ringing up the transaction, the items of merchandise remained on the floor at the end of the counter. Ms. Grimes did not pick up the items and examine them for a price tag while ringing up the amounts. Upon the completion of the transaction, Ms. Brown engaged Ms. Grimes in conversation. Ms. Brown handed to Ms. Grimes the box containing the electric drill and the package containing the curlers; Ms. Grimes placed the items into a bag which she gave to Ms. Brown. Respondent then picked up the box containing the 68-quart cooler and left the store, accompanied by Ms. Brown, who carried the bag containing the curlers and the electric drill. Both respondent and Ms. Brown were aware that they had not paid the full price for the merchandise, and that what they were doing was wrong. Mr. Frank Heim, K-Mart's Lobs Prevention Manager, (store detective) observed respondent's activities in the K-Mart continuously, from the time respondent selected the electric drill in the hardware department to his exit from the store. Mr. Heim observed the transaction at the checkout counter, then immediately proceeded to Ms. Grimes' register, examined the register tape, and proceeded to the parking lot to ask that respondent return to the store. Mr. Heim located respondent at his (respondent's) truck in the parking lot. Respondent had placed the cooler in the back of his truck and Cathy Brown was still holding the bag containing the curlers and the electric drill. Mr. Heim identified himself to respondent, advised him of a problem with the purchase which he had just made, and requested that he return to the store with the merchandise to clear the matter up. Respondent replied that he had paid for the merchandise and had a receipt, that it was not his fault if the cashier rang up the wrong prices. After some additional conversation, respondent removed the cooler from the back of his truck and accompanied Mr. Heim back to the store. Upon entering the store through the Garden Shop entrance, respondent placed the cooler on the floor just inside the entrance, then stopped and attempted to discuss the matter with Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim advised respondent that they could not discuss the matter at that location, that they would have to go to his office. As they approached Mr. Heim's office, respondent again stopped, placed the cooler and the bag containing the other two items on the floor, and stated to Mr. Heim that he was not going inside his office. Mr. Heim replied that they could not discuss the matter in the store, and that respondent would have to accompany him inside his office. Respondent replied that he did not have time to discuss the matter, that he was in a hurry and had to leave. Mr. Heim then advised respondent that he was not free to leave and that he was being detained for shoplifting. Respondent became agitated, stated "You've got your stuff back," and began walking away. Mr. Heim sought help from others, then blocked respondent's path at the glass doors between the main store and the Garden Shop. He told respondent not to make the situation worse by trying to leave the store, but respondent attempted to force his way by Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim grabbed him by the arm and a brief scuffle ensued. At that point, respondent ripped up his cash register receipt and discarded the remnants onto a display counter. Mr. Heim immediately retrieved the remnants and later Scotch- taped the pieces together. After respondent became calmer, he returned with Mr. Heim to his office. After entering the office, Mr. Heim advised respondent of his "Miranda" rights. Mr. Heim asked him for identification and asked him to empty his pockets in order to make sure he had no weapons. Respondent removed a total of approximately $22.00 from one of his socks while in the office. Respondent admits that at the time he entered the K-Mart store, he had only approximately $30.00 on his person. The total retail price of the three items, according to the price tags affixed to each, totalled $67.95. In response to Mr. Heim's questions, respondent continuously stated that it was not his fault that the cashier rang up the wrong prices and that he paid her the amount she rang up. Conflicting accounts of this incident were given by Mr. Heim and respondent. Taking into account Mr. Heim's detached and professional manner, and his lack of apparent bias or motive to falsify, it is concluded that his testimony is more credible than respondent's, and is persuasive. As a result of this incident, respondent was arrested and charged with the crime of retail theft. Based upon the circumstances described herein, Jeanette Grimes was fired by the K-Mart department store. She was also arrested and charged with the crime of retail theft. Jeanette Grimes' job at K-Mart was a requirement for one of her school classes, "Work Experience." As a result of her being fired, she failed the course. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced as a result of his conduct and the accompanying notoriety which it received in the community. The circumstances of his offense, his arrest, and his suspension from his teaching position, all received notoriety through publication of articles in three newspapers of general circulation in the Lake Worth community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission find respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28 and Rule 6B-1.06, as alleged, and revoke his Florida Teacher's Certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire P. O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Chamblee, Esquire 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Donald L. Griesheimer, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, James P. Hudson, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: At all pertinent times, Respondent, James P. Hudson, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0148841 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been operating as a broker from an office at 413 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435. Respondent maintains an escrow account No. 018200602689 at Sun Bank in Boynton Beach, Florida into which he deposits trusts funds received in his capacity as a real estate broker. Sometime in the early part of September 1989, Petitioner initiated a random audit of Respondent's business. Prior to the audit, Petitioner's investigator advised the Respondent that he would need to produce all the records related to his escrow account. An investigator for Petitioner visited Respondent's office on or about September 18, 1989 to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow accounts. Based upon the investigator's review of the records, five different transactions were identified as allegedly involving delays or mishandling of escrow funds by Respondent. Those transactions are the basis for several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Each transaction is addressed separately below. The first transaction involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Fitz as buyer and Kerstin as seller (the "Fitz Contract"). Included in Respondent's files on this transaction was a copy of a contract for sale and purchase that was dated and signed by the buyer on September 6, 1989 and dated and signed by the seller on September 9, 1989. The buyer in the Fitz Contract gave Respondent a check for $1000 as a deposit to be held in escrow in connection with the transaction. The Respondent's written receipt for that check is dated September 7, 1989. The evidence established that this initial deposit check was delivered to Respondent on Thursday evening, September 7, 1989. Respondent was out of town on Friday, September 8 and returned on Monday evening, September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as a deposit on September 13. The sellers (the Kerstins) signed the contract on September 9, 1989. However, in executing the contract, they crossed out the $900,000 sales price submitted by the buyer and increased the price to $1,400,000. In other words, the sellers made a counteroffer with respect to this contract. The initial deposit was timely returned to the sellers when the counteroffer was rejected. Petitioner's investigator erroneously assumed that Respondent did not timely collect the additional deposit required under this contract. While Petitioner's investigator considered this signed contract in Respondent's files to be a binding agreement on the parties, it is clear that the change in sales price was only initialed by the sellers and, therefore, there was no enforceable agreement. The parties to the Fitz Contract subsequently executed another written contract. This second agreement provided for a sales price of $1,100,000. That contract was executed by the buyer on September 20, 1989 and by the sellers on September 24, 1989. This second contract called for a $49,000.00 deposit upon acceptance. The buyers gave Respondent a check dated September 25, 1989 in the amount of $49,000.00. That check was deposited by Respondent in his escrow account on the afternoon of September 26, 1989. The $49,000 deposit is reflected in the bank records as being deposited on September 27, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay by Respondent in collecting or depositing the funds into escrow. The second transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Campanis as buyer and Hoffman as seller. The buyer in this transaction gave Respondent a check dated September 6, 1990 to be held as a deposit for this contract. A photocopy of the check presented to Petitioner's investigator included a handwritten note that states "hold until Friday 9/8/89." The evidence did not establish who wrote this note. The evidence established that the check was received by one of Respondent's sales associates on September 7 and left on the Respondent's desk on September 8. Respondent is the only company employee authorized to deposit checks or otherwise handle transactions involving the escrow account. As indicated above, Respondent was out of town from September 8 through the evening of September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as being credited to the escrow account on September 13. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was not delinquent in depositing these funds. The third transaction involved a contract for the purchase and sale of real property between White as buyer and Adkins as seller (the "White Contract.") The White Contract was executed by the buyer on July 26, 1989 and by one of the sellers on July 27 and by the other seller on Friday, July 28. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500.00 with an additional deposit of $1,700 upon acceptance. The initial deposit check was dated July 26, 1989. That deposit check was attached to the contract executed by the purchaser and presented to a cooperating real estate agent who was to present the proposed contract to the seller. The executed contract was not returned to Respondent until sometime during the weekend of July 29 and 30. The initial deposit check along with the additional deposit were then deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, July 31, 1989. Under the circumstances, the evidence established that there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The next transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for sale and purchase of real property between Milera as buyer and Twillie as seller (the "Milera Contract.") The Milera Contract provided for an additional deposit due upon acceptance. The contract was accepted by Twillie on August 23, 1989. The parties to the contract agreed that the time for making the additional deposit would be extended for two days. The check for the additional deposit was dated and received by Respondent on Friday, August 25, 1989. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Tuesday, August 29, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The final transaction involved a contract with the sale and purchase of real property between Gerrety as buyer and the estate of John Walsh as seller (the "Gerrety Contract.") The Gerrety Contract was executed by the purchaser on August 10, 1989. The deposit check was given to one of the Respondent's associates on that Thursday evening. The deposit check was not delivered to Respondent until after business hours on Friday, August 11. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, August 14. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money on this transaction. During the audit, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent was holding deposits on two separate rental properties in his escrow account. At the time of the audit, Petitioner's investigator was not provided with any leases or other documentation regarding these transactions even though Respondent was supposed to produce records for all sums in the escrow account. Respondent contends that he did not realize he was supposed to produce his rental files, was never specifically asked to produce these files and did not know that Petitioner was questioning these transactions until he received the Administrative Complaint in this action. While there was apparently some miscommunication at the time of the audit, adequate documentation for these rental deposits was produced at the hearing. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not maintain adequate documentation regarding these deposits is without merit. Petitioner has also charged that Respondent did not produce all of the deposit slips in connection with the escrow account and did not produce any evidence of reconciliation of the escrow account. The evidence at the hearing established that all deposit slips are available even though they were not all kept with the bank statements. Moreover, the evidence failed to substantiate the allegation that Respondent did not reconcile his escrow account. Thus, these charges were not substantiated. At the time of the audit, Respondent advised Petitioner's investigator that the escrow account included some commission money that had not yet been removed. In the past, Respondent would sometimes collect his commissions at the close of a transaction from the funds held in escrow. (Respondent no longer collects commissions in this manner.) In auditing Respondent's escrow account, Petitioner's investigator determined that there was an overage of approximately $8,178.17 in the account. Within thirty days of the completion of the audit, Respondent removed $7,500 of the overage which represented his commission on two previously closed transactions. While Respondent believed that the remaining amount of the overage was also his commission money, he refrained from removing any more money until completion of a year-end audit by his accountant. Respondent's records reflected a slight difference in the amount of the overage than the amount calculated by Petitioner during the audit. Respondent wanted to be absolutely certain that only the proper amount was removed from the escrow account. At the conclusion of the audit on September 18, 1989, Respondent signed an office inspection report form prepared by Petitioner which contained the following pre-printed statement: ...I certify that to the best of my knowledge all records pertaining to my sales escrow/trust account(s) and my rental property management account(s) have been provided to the investigator. The above violations are brought to my attention this date and thoroughly explained. I will take corrective action within thirty days and furnish photo/sketches of corrections and documents on the same... There is some confusion as to what additional documentation Respondent was expected to provide following the completion of the September, 1989 audit. Respondent did not believe he was required to provide any additional evidence to Petitioner or its investigator and no further documentation was provided by Respondent until Petitioner's investigator returned to his office in January of 1990. Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's office on January 17, 1990. At that time, $7500.00 of the overage had been removed from the escrow account. The remaining amount of the overage was removed later in January. It does not appear that Respondent provided Petitioner's investigator with copies of the rental agreements or the second contract in the Kerstin transaction during the January visit by Petitioner's investigator. Respondent contends that this information was never specifically requested. It is clear that communication between Respondent and Petitioner's investigator had deteriorated from bad to worse by the time of this January visit. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted new record keeping requirements regarding escrow accounts in July of 1989. The new rules require a written monthly reconciliation of a broker's escrow account. At the time of the audit, Respondent was not keeping the minimum written statement comparing broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance of all trust accounts as required by the new rules. Even after the audit in September, Respondent did not keep the written reconciliations in the format required by the new rules. Respondent was reconciling the account on his computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts III and IV and reprimanding him for minor and techinical violations of those counts and imposing a fine of $100.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31st day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3589 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in pertinenet part in Findings of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 15. Subordinate 23. to Findings of Fact 8, 9 and Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. This subject is also addressed in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Rejected as not established by competent susbstantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findigns of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed to some degree in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not numbered. The numbers below refer to the numerical sections contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6-9. The second two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in some degree in Findings of Fact 21. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentencess are subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The next two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentence are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The second sentence is rejected as vague. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 and 25. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18, 19 and 22. The fourth sentence is rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. This subject matter is addressed in part in Findings of Fact 19. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James P. Hudson 413 South Federal Highway Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Lake Area State Bank's branch bank application was filed on August 12, 1981. The Department deemed the application substantially complete on September 2, 1981, and timely noticed the application in the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 11, 1981. On September 24, 1981, the Respondent Keystone State Bank requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Lake Area State Bank's proposed branch bank site is located on the corner of State Road 26 and Quail Street, Melrose, Alachua County, Florida. The proposed branch bank site is approximately seven miles from the Petitioner's main office in Hawthorne, Alachua County, Florida, and approximately 1.5 miles south and west of Keystone's Melrose branch facility in Clay County, Florida. The branch bank proposed by the Petitioner would be located in the "Tolles House", a large historic residence constructed before 1900. All of the services provided by Petitioner at its main banking facility in Hawthorne will be provided at the Melrose branch location, including a loan office, teller windows, drive-in teller facilities, loans, deposits, cashier's checks and other services normally offered by a commercial bank. Petitioner will initially staff the Melrose branch bank with a branch manager and loan officer, a teller and a clerk. Harold Boatright, presently Senior Vice-President of the Hawthorne office of Lake Area State Bank, will be branch manager and loan officer. Several persons presently working in Petitioner's Hawthorne office and living in the Melrose area have requested transfers to the branch office if it is authorized. The management of Lake Area State Bank consists of K. O. Arnold, Shreveport, Louisiana, Chairman of the Board of Directors and owner of 95 percent of the outstanding stock of the bank, M. G. Bull, President of Lake Area State Bank for two years, Harold Boatright, Senior Vice-President, Betty Coggins, cashier with fifteen years of experience with Petitioner, Pat Stroud, Vice-President of Operations with seven years experience with Petitioner and Chris Joyce, Vice-President and Comptroller with eight years of experience with Petitioner. On November 30, 1981, Lake Area State Bank's capital accounts totaled $1,340,029 and total deposits equaled $7,442,447 for a ratio of capital to total deposits of approximately eighteen (18) percent. Petitioner's net profit for calendar year 1980 was $154,977 and total assets for the same period was $8,597,391 for a ratio of net profits to total assets of 1.8 percent. Net profits before taxes for the first eleven months of 1981 totaled $317,414. Keystone State Bank's main facility is 7.3 miles north of Petitioner's proposed branch. The closest commercial banking facilities other than Keystone State Bank's branch which is 1.5 miles away from the proposed branch and Lake Area's main office, which is 13.3 miles away, are in Gainesville, 20 miles, Starke, 25 miles, and Palatka, 26 miles. Other banking and credit needs are provided by the Keystone Branch of Fortune Federal Savings and Loan, 7.2 miles, Clay Electric Employees Credit Union, approximately 8 miles, and the Interlachen Branch of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Putnam County, mileage unknown. Keystone State Bank invested $95,000 in its Melrose branch. The branch met or exceeded the projections for deposits, revenues, operating expenses and profits found in its 1978 application for a branch bank. Total deposits increased from $13,716,989 to $18,722,444 in eleven months from December 31, 1980, to November 31, 1981. Keystone State's total profits for the first eleven months of 1981 were $225,000 of which $29,000 was attributed to its Melrose branch. The town of Melrose is situated at the intersection of four counties: Alachua, Bradford, Clay and Putnam. A substantial number of the residents of Melrose work in the Gainesville area which is south and west of Melrose. According to 1980 census data, the immediate market area of Melrose has a population of 565. Five miles from the immediate market area the population is 4,762 and ten miles from that area the population is 10,474. Estimated annual average population growth in the state and pertinent four-county area from 1980-1990 is as follows: Florida, 2.3 percent; Alachua, 29 percent; Bradford, 2.2 percent; Clay, 3.8 percent; and Putnam, 2.2 percent. Average annual growth of personal income per capita from 1979 to 1990 for the state and pertinent four-county area is as follows: Florida, 8.5 percent; Alachua, 9.0 percent; Bradford, 8.3 percent; Clay, 5.7 percent; and Putnam 7.4 percent. The Petitioner has projected deposits, revenues, operating costs and profits for the proposed Melrose branch as follows: 1ST YEAR 2ND YEAR 3RD YEAR Total estimated deposits $1,957,000 $2,250,550 $2,588,132 Estimated gross revenue 237,971 273,666 314,716 Total estimated expenses 223,078 249,345 274,187 Estimated profit $14,892 $24,321 $40,529 The above fiscal projections appear to be reasonable based on the population and personal income data available for the area, the growth experienced by Keystone State Bank in the Keystone Heights area and the growth experienced by Lake Area State Bank in the Hawthorne area. Lake Area State Bank has sufficient earnings and earning prospects to support the anticipated expenses of its proposed Melrose branch without jeopardizing the profitable position of the bank, its retained earnings or the dividend return to its shareholders. Lake Area State Bank has sufficient depth and quality of management to operate the branch without reducing its current level of services or exceeding its management or operational capacity. The proposed Melrose branch bank site is still subject to meeting further county approval regarding adequate parking and highway ingress and egress. The Petitioner's proposed branch name, Lake Area State Bank, Melrose Office, reasonably identifies the branch and is not likely to unduly confuse the public. Lake Area State Bank is in substantial compliance with applicable laws governing its operations. Lake Area State Bank's proposed Melrose branch will increase competition in the Melrose area which can reasonably be expected to result in new and improved services, increased earnings on time deposits and decreased interest rates on loans. The proposed branch should stimulate economic activity in the Melrose area. For persons living west and south of Keystone's Melrose branch, the proposed branch would be closer and more convenient than the existing banking facility. Lake Area State Bank has an option to buy the proposed branch site for $108,000, which option will be exercised if all governmental regulatory approvals are obtained. The cost of renovating and converting the "Tolles House" residence to accommodate commercial activity is estimated at 75,000. A number of residents living in the vicinity of the proposed site expressed concern that the proposed branch would be located in a former residence in a neighborhood otherwise zoned residential. Many residents of Melrose are opposed to the proposed branch bank due to the site selected by Lake Area State Bank's management which is in an area of older restored homes. Their opposition is a direct result of Petitioner's successful efforts before the Alachua County Commission to have the property rezoned from residential to commercial. Lake Area State Bank's ability to meet its fiscal projections would be enhanced if the bank was supported by the local residents of Melrose. If the proposed branch was located in an area of Melrose less disruptive to existing local residents, the antagonism of local residents toward the bank would be significantly reduced if not eliminated. In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(a)(12), Florida Statutes, conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Andrews, Esquire SCRUGGS & CARMICHAEL Post Office Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 Carl Morstadt, Esquire Assistant General Counsel The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire MOFFITT HART & MILLER 1618 Exchange Bank Building 610 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, holding license number 0419502. Ms. Linton was the owner and qualifying broker for Respondent Key Realty Co. of Pensacola, Inc. (Key Realty). Key Realty was a licensed real estate brokerage company in Florida, holding license number 0244319. Both Respondents, and in particular Ms. Linton, have excellent character references from other active members of the real estate community. On November 7, 1989, Petitioner entered a Final Order against Respondents for escrow account violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Final Order required Respondents to submit monthly escrow account status reports. From November 7, 1989, through March 27, 1990, the Respondents did not file any escrow account status reports as required by the Final Order. Ms. Linton had turned the responsibility of filing those reports over to her accountant. However, Ms. Linton did not check to see if the escrow reports were filed by her accountant. Her accountant's full-time employment was as a contract auditor for the U.S. Navy. In October, 1989, the accountant was assigned to audit a contract in the Pacific and moved to the Pacific island which was the site of the contract. The accountant advised Ms. Linton that he would be leaving in October. After' October, 1989, the accountant no longer did any accounting work for Respondent. However, Ms. Linton did not make arrangements for the filing of the escrow account reports required by the Final Order after her accountant left the country. No sufficient excuse was offered by Ms. Linton for her failure to file or ensure the filing of these escrow reports. The Respondents' rental escrow account revealed a shortage of $2,008.14 as of March 21, 1990. The money to cover the shortage was placed in a desk drawer in the Respondent's office for deposit while the Respondent was on vacation. Her employees failed to make the deposit. Given these facts, the resultant shortage was a very minor transgression of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21-V, Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, Bank charges totaling $328 were debited from the rental escrow account from June 1989 to February 1990. The Respondent's bank, Barnett Bank of Pensacola, had erroneously charged the rental escrow account for these bank charges despite instructions from the Respondent not to do so. All of the debited bank charges were either replaced by the bank or Ms. Linton. Since it was the bank's actions which caused these charges to be made to Respondents' rental escrow account and not Respondents' actions, no violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, can be attributed to either Respondent. Several checks totaling $3,605.15 were written by Respondent, Sandra K. Linton, from the rental escrow account and later returned due to nonsufficient funds. The checks were returned for nonsufficient funds due to the bank's hold policy. Since Respondent had consummated numerous transactions with Barnett Bank of Pensacola in which the hold policy was not applied to her account, Respondent had no knowledge that the bank's hold policy would be applied to her account. No reliable evidence was presented that this set of facts constituted bad accounting methods on the part of Respondents or otherwise violated the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In the course of operating a rental management business, Respondents, on October 25, 1989, entered into a rental property management agreement with Richard and Susan Vigeant. The agreement called for monthly rental statements and disbursements. Respondents collected rental funds on behalf of the Vigeants from November, 1989, to February, 1990. However, Respondents did not provide monthly statements or deliver net rental funds to the Vigeants until March 6, 1990. Respondents were under the impression that the Vigeant's funds were to be held by the Respondents for minor repairs to the Lessor's property. The Vigeants were not under such an impression and, after numerous phone calls for more than a month, the Vigeants' requested disbursement of the net rental funds on February 20, 1990. The funds were disbursed to the Vigeants on March 6, 1990. Respondents failure to give the Vigeants monthly accounting reports as required by the rental management agreement violates Section 475.25 (1)(d), Florida Statutes. However, this violation, while not minor, is also not overly serious and should not receive severe discipline. None of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Linton or her business were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction. The evidence did show that Ms. Linton is not very good at maintaining the rental escrow account or at seeing that the rental escrow account was properly maintained. Respondents' recordkeeping is poor and in disarray. The evidence was clear that Ms. Linton does not have the inclination, desire, or capability to maintain her broker's escrow account. The strongest evidence to support this conclusion is that all of Respondent's latest difficulties with her escrow account occurred after she had already been disciplined for escrow account violations which occurred prior to the events under consideration here. 1/ Given this inability, Respondent cannot be entrusted to properly handle escrow funds given to her. Since Respondents are not competent to handle escrow matters Respondents' licenses should be revoked. The Respondent does not currently have the financial ability to pay any fines and such a penalty would not be appropriate in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Division enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of four violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker's licenses. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 24th day of September, 1990.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Admini-strative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue Whether respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the Palm Beach County School District on charges of engaging in misconduct and immorality which impaired his effectiveness as a teacher, in violation of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and of exploiting a professional relationship with a student for personal gain in violation of Rules 6B-1.06(3)(h) and 6B-1.01(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate 342171, covering the area of physical education. At all times material to the administrative complaint, respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Lake Worth High School in the Palm Beach County School District. From 1973, when he joined the Palm Beach County School District, to the date of his suspension for the acts complained of in the administrative complaint, he was consistently rated to be a good teacher. His teaching ability and performance were not in question. He also maintained a close relationship with his students, frequently assisting them beyond the requirements of his job. On the afternoon of May 23, 1983, at approximately 2:30 p.m., respondent entered the K-Mart department store in Lantana, Florida, accompanied by his niece, Cathy Brown. While shopping in the store, he selected a 68-quart cooler, bearing a price tag of $43.58, then proceeded to the hardware department, where he selected a Black and Decker electric drill, bearing a price tag of $22.99. He left the hardware department and proceeded to the garden/patio area or "Garden Shop." Before reaching the double glass doors separating the main building from the Garden Shop, he stopped and placed the large box (containing the 68-quart cooler) and the small box (containing the electric drill) on the floor at the end of an aisle approximately 30 feet from the double glass doors. He then walked directly to the double glass doors opening onto the Garden Shop, and glanced in the direction of the checkout counter located at the Garden Shop exit. He then walked back past the cooler and electric drill, and proceeded into the appliance department where he met Cathy Brown. Ms. Brown had previously selected a package of hair curlers, bearing a price tag of $1.38. He and Ms. Brown briefly examined several items on a display counter in the appliance department, then returned to the place where he had placed the cooler and electric drill. He picked up these two items and proceeded to the Garden Shop; Cathy Brown, who was carrying the hair curlers, accompanied him. Jeanette Grimes, a 17-year-old Lake Worth High School student, was--at that particular time--the cashier at the register located at the Garden Shop checkout counter. Ms. Grimes knew respondent. He had been her physical education teacher for two years and basketball coach for one year. She considered him a friend. As respondent approached the checkout counter where Ms. Grimes was serving as cashier, he placed the box containing the cooler and the box containing the electric drill on the floor at the far end of the checkout counter, not on the counter itself. At that time there were customers at the checkout counter who were being waited on by Ms. Grimes. He and Cathy Brown walked away from the checkout counter and began looking at plants. After Ms. Grimes had finished checking out the customers at her counter, he and Ms. Brown again approached the checkout counter, where he engaged Ms. Grimes in conversation. At no time did he place any items on the counter for Ms. Grimes to examine and ring up. At that time she rang up a $1.00 item and a $5.00 item, totalled the transaction at $6.00, then rang up a $.30 tax, and totalled the transaction at $6.30. He handed Ms. Grimes $10.00 in payment for the merchandise. She mistakenly rang up $10.00 for an additional item of merchandise, voided the $10.00 item off her tape, and re-rang $10.00 as cash tendered. At that point the cash register opened and indicated that change in the amount of $3.70 was due. Ms. Grimes gave respondent $3.70 in change and a receipt for the transaction. During the course of ringing up the transaction, the items of merchandise remained on the floor at the end of the counter. Ms. Grimes did not pick up the items and examine them for a price tag while ringing up the amounts. Upon the completion of the transaction, Ms. Brown engaged Ms. Grimes in conversation. Ms. Brown handed to Ms. Grimes the box containing the electric drill and the package containing the curlers; Ms. Grimes placed the items into a bag which she gave to Ms. Brown. Respondent then picked up the box containing the 68-quart cooler and left the store, accompanied by Ms. Brown, who carried the bag containing the curlers and the electric drill. Both respondent and Ms. Brown were aware that they had not paid the full price for the merchandise, and that what they were doing was wrong. Mr. Frank Heim, K-Mart's Loss Prevention Manager, (store detective) observed respondent's activities in the K-Mart continuously, from the time respondent selected the electric drill in the hardware department to his exit from the store. Mr. Heim observed the transaction at the checkout counter, then immediately proceeded to Ms. Grimes' register, examined the register tape, and proceeded to the parking lot to ask that respondent return to the store. Mr. Heim located respondent at his (respondent's) truck in the parking lot. Respondent had placed the cooler in the back of his truck and Cathy Brown was still holding the bag containing the curlers and the electric drill. Mr. Heim identified himself to respondent, advised him of a problem with the purchase which he had just made, and requested that he return to the store with the merchandise to clear the matter up. Respondent replied that he had paid for the merchandise and had a receipt, that it was not his fault if the cashier rang up the wrong prices. After some additional conversation, respondent removed the cooler from the back of his truck and accompanied Mr. Heim back to the store. Upon entering the store through the Garden Shop entrance, respondent placed the cooler on the floor just inside the entrance, then stopped and attempted to discuss the matter with Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim advised respondent that they could not discuss the matter at that location, that they would have to go to his office. As they approached Mr. Heim's office, respondent again stopped, placed the cooler and the bag containing the other two items on the floor, and stated to Mr. Heim that he was not going inside his office. Mr. Heim replied that they could not discuss the matter in the store, and that respondent would have to accompany him inside his office. Respondent replied that he did not have time to discuss the matter, that he was in a hurry and had to leave. Mr. Heim then advised respondent that he was not free to leave and that he was being detained for shoplifting. Respondent became agitated, stated "You've got your stuff back," and began walking away. Mr. Heim sought help from others, then blocked respondent's path at the glass doors between the main store and the Garden Shop. He told respondent not to make the situation worse by trying to leave the store, but respondent attempted to force his way by Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim grabbed him by the arm and a brief scuffle ensued. At that point, respondent ripped up his cash register receipt and discarded the remnants onto a display counter. Mr. Heim immediately retrieved the remnants and later Scotch- taped the pieces together. After respondent became calmer, he returned with Mr. Heim to his office. After entering the office, Mr. Heim advised respondent of his "Miranda" rights. Mr. Heim asked him for identification and asked him to empty his pockets in order to make sure he had no weapons. Respondent removed a total of approximately $22.00 from one of his socks while in the office. Respondent admits that at the time he entered the K-Mart store, he had only approximately $30.00 on his person. The total retail price of the three items, according to the price tags affixed to each, totalled $67.95. In response to Mr. Heim's questions, respondent continuously stated that it was not his fault that the cashier rang up the wrong prices and that he paid her the amount she rang up. Conflicting accounts of this incident were given by Mr. Heim and respondent. Taking into account Mr. Heim's detached and professional manner, and his lack of apparent bias or motive to falsify, it is concluded that his testimony is more credible than respondent's, and is persuasive. As a result of this incident, respondent was arrested and charged with the crime of retail theft. Based upon the circumstances described herein, Jeanette Grimes was fired by the K-Mart department store. She was also arrested and charged with the crime of retail theft. Jeanette Grimes' job at K-Mart was a requirement for one of her school classes, "Work Experience." As a result of her being fired, she failed the course. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced as a result of his conduct and the accompanying notoriety which it received in the community. The circumstances of his offense, his arrest, and his suspension from his teaching position, all received notoriety through publication of articles in three newspapers of general circulation in the Lake Worth community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Palm Beach County dismiss respondent from his employment for violating Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B- 1.06(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 11th day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John Chamblee, Esquire 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Abbey G Hairston, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503, Room 232 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue Whether Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations of misconduct in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Deering, was licensed as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0563366. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Advantage, was licensed as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273342. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Deering, was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for Respondent, Advantage. On October 22, 1992, Petitioner conducted an office inspection and audit of Advantage. The audit reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's security deposit escrow account (Number 027000122700) in the amount of $580.00, calculated as $6,600.00 in total trust liability, but only $6,020.00 as a reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's rental distribution escrow account (Number 27000121900) in the amount of $369.40, calculated as $3,174.82 in total trust liability, but only $2,805.42 as reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected that Deering, as the qualifying broker, failed to sign and properly reconcile Advantage's escrow accounts by comparing the total trust liability with the reconciled bank balance of the escrow accounts for the months of September and October, 1992. Marie Deering, Respondent, Deering's, wife and a corporate officer of Respondent, Advantage, signed the reconciliation form for the months of September and October, 1992. It appears from the record (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondents' Licensure file) that Roger J. Kathman was the Broker of Record for Respondent, Advantage until August 21, 1992, when he resigned. Apparently, part of the problem stemmed from using a form developed by the previous real estate agency which was not the form suggested by the Petitioner for this purpose. Since being advised about the form and that comparing the total trust liability of each escrow account with the reconciled the bank balance of each escrow account and signing the reconciliation form was the responsibility of the broker of record, Deering has been properly fulfilling that responsibility and reporting on the correct form. The total trust liability of Advantage's security deposit escrow account should have been $5,700.00 rather than the $6,600.00 indicated by the audit because the $900.00 included in the audit figure from the San Juan lease should not have been included since this amount was not to be escrowed pursuant to the lease. This was a verbal agreement between the parties that was later executed as an addendum to the lease. Advantage's reconciled bank balance for the security deposit escrow account should also be $5,700.00, calculated as $6,020.00 reflected in the audit, minus $1,000.00 that was erroneously disbursed from the Rental distribution escrow account (also called the property management escrow account) instead of the security deposit escrow account , plus $680.00 that was erroneously deposited into the rental distribution escrow account instead of the security deposit escrow account ( $6,020.00 - $1,000.00 + $680.00 = $5,700.00). The total trust fund liability of the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $3,174.82 as reflected in audit plus $0.60 to correct bookkeeping error ($3,174.82 + $0.60 = $3,175.42). The reconciled bank balance for the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $2,805.42 reflected in the audit, plus $1,000.00 transferred from the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, minus $680.00 transferred to the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, plus a deposit of $50.00 to correct an error made in crediting a tenant account with $50.00 more than was deposited from tenant ($2,805.42 + $1,000.00 - $680.00 + $50.00 = $3,175.42). Although there were clerical or bookkeeping errors made in the handling of Advantage's escrow accounts, there was no evidence that Deering failed to immediately deposit funds received in trust in an escrow account, albeit not always the correct one. After the audit, Respondent, Deering promptly and properly corrected the escrow accounts and accounted for the funds resulting in balanced escrow accounts. While the Respondents were negligent in the handling of the escrow accounts, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Respondents were culpably negligent or that there was a breach of trust. The Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida has never been disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent Deering and Respondent Advantage guilty of technical violations of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes. For such violations, Respondent Advantage should be given a written reprimand and Respondent Deering should be given a written reprimand and required to complete a 30-hour broker management course. Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. In making this recommendation, consideration has been given to the mitigating factors in relation to the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21V-24, Florida Administrative Code. Also, taken into consideration was the purpose of regulating any profession, the protection of the public by requiring compliance with those laws governing the profession. In this case, the recommended penalties will serve that purpose, the public has not been harmed, compliance has been accomplished and the penalty sufficient to remind the Respondents to be more diligent in the future. Adding any further penalty, including an administrative fine, would be unduly punitive. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0606 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 in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Unnecessary. 2.-12. Adopted in substance as modified by Findings of Fact 1 through 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 8 through 13. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower #308A 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Albert R. Deering, Pro se c/o Advantage Realty of Sarasota, Inc. t/a Century 21 Advantage 4121 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900
