The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d), (e), and (k), Florida Statutes, 1/ by committing the acts alleged in two administrative complaints; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0377781. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker at Wilson Realty International, 1059 Aurora Road, Melbourne, Florida 32935. The Myrie Transaction On July 22, 1993, Respondent negotiated a property management agreement with Harold E. and Bernia L. Myrie (the "Myries") who are residents of New York. Pursuant to the property management agreement, Respondent agreed to manage a rental house owned by the Myries and located in Florida (the "Myrie property"). On August 20, 1993, Respondent negotiated a lease agreement for the Myrie property with Mr. Eric A. Bogle and Ms. Jearlene Davis, as tenants. The tenants paid Respondent $2,590.60 in rental payments for the period August 20 through November 18, 1993. Respondent failed to deposit the rental payments into her escrow account. On November 19, 1993, Respondent issued check number 1501 to the Myries in the amount of $562.50. Respondent represented to the Myries that $562.50 was the net amount due them. The Myries deposited check number 1501. However, the check was returned for insufficient funds. Respondent replaced check number 1501 with another check for $562.50. There were sufficient funds to cover the second check. On December 29, 1993, the Myries cancelled their property management agreement with Respondent. They demanded the balance of $2,028.10. Respondent claimed that $562.50 was the total amount Respondent owed the Myries. Respondent represented that she had incurred expenses for repairs and maintenance to the Myrie property. Respondent never provided an accounting of either the rental proceeds received from the tenants or the alleged expenses for repairs and maintenance. 2/ Respondent failed to produce documents Petitioner needed to conduct an audit of her escrow account. Respondent failed to produce deposit receipts for rent and cancelled checks and written receipts for expenses incurred by Respondent. After Respondent failed to comply with two requests to produce the records Petitioner needed to conduct an audit, Petitioner subpoenaed Respondent's records on August 1, 1994. 3/ Respondent agreed to produce her records for review and audit on August 12, 1994. However, Respondent failed to keep her appointment and never produced the documents subpoenaed by Petitioner. 4/ Respondent misappropriated $2,028.10 paid to her by the tenants and converted those funds to Respondent's personal use. The tenants paid those funds to Respondent in trust for the Myries. The Myries authorized Respondent to collect those funds in trust and to remit the funds to them. Respondent breached the trust of both parties in a business transaction within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent misrepresented and concealed her use of escrow funds for personal purposes. Respondent engaged in false pretenses to justify her misappropriation and conversion of the escrow funds. Respondent's failure to account for escrow funds paid to her in the Myrie transaction and her failure to produce records needed by Petitioner to audit Respondent's account is culpable negligence. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent in the Myrie transaction constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent failed to timely account or deliver rental trust funds within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(d). Respondent failed to preserve and make available to Petitioner all books, records, and supporting documents and failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.012(1). 5/ Respondent failed to maintain trust funds in her real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was authorized within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(k). 2. The Timoll Transaction In June, 1993, Respondent negotiated a property management agreement with Lawrence and Sheila Timoll (the "Timolls") who were residents of New York. Pursuant to the property management agreement, Respondent agreed to manage a rental house owned by the Timolls and located in Florida. (the "Timoll property"). On July 14, 1993, Respondent procured tenants for the Timoll property. William and Sambri Dulmage (the "Dulmages") executed a one year lease. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the Dulmages agreed to pay a security deposit of $625 and rent at the monthly rate of $600. Respondent received $4,800 from the Dulmages as payment of rent, a security deposit, and expenses associated with the Timoll property. Respondent never delivered any part of the $4,800 to the Timolls. Respondent represented to the Timolls that they were not entitled to any of the $4,800 because the Dulmages had vacated the property and stopped paying rent. Respondent also represented that she had incurred expenses for repairs and maintenance to the Timoll property. 6/ The Dulmages in fact occupied the Timoll property for the duration of the lease and timely paid all amounts in accordance with the terms of the lease. The Timolls knew that the Dulmages were complying with the lease and arranged for the rent to be paid directly to the Timolls in February, 1994. With three minor exceptions, 7/ Respondent did not incur expenses for maintenance and repairs to the Timoll property. 8/ From July 14, 1993, through February 22, 1994, the Timolls made repeated demands for Respondent to deliver the rent and security deposit, and to account for the expenses allegedly incurred by Respondent. Respondent produced property accounting forms describing expenses for maintenance and repairs to the Timoll property. With three minor exceptions, the accounting forms provided by Respondent contained fabricated expenses for maintenance and repairs. 9/ Respondent misappropriated $4,419.45 10/ paid to her by the Dulmages and converted those funds to Respondent's personal use. Those funds were paid to Respondent in trust for the Timolls. The Timolls authorized Respondent to collect those funds in trust and to remit the funds to them. Respondent breached the trust of both parties in a business transaction within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent misrepresented and concealed her use of escrow funds for personal purposes. Respondent engaged in false pretenses to justify her misappropriation and conversion of escrow funds. Respondent's failure to account for the escrow funds paid to her in the Timoll transaction and her failure to produce records needed by Petitioner to audit Respondent's account constitutes culpable negligence. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent in the Timoll transaction constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent failed to timely account or deliver rental trust funds within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(d). Respondent failed to preserve and make available to Petitioner all books, records, and supporting documents and failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions within the meaning of Rule 61J2- 14.012(1). Respondent failed to maintain trust funds in her real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was authorized within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(k). 3. The Veil Transaction On November 29, 1993, Respondent entered into a short term lease agreement between Respondent, as the landlord, and Herman J. and Joyce Veil (the "Veils") as tenants (the "Veil transaction"). The Veils lived out of state. They paid Respondent a deposit of $1,919.36 to secure the seasonal rental of Unit 511, Ocean Walk Condominiums ("unit 511"). On March 1, 1994, the Veils traveled to Melbourne and discovered that unit 511 was not available. Respondent never provided the Veils with a rental unit of any kind. The Veils demanded the return of their deposit. On March 11, 1994, Respondent issued check number 1127 in the amount of $1,394.01. Respondent represented to the Veils that $1,394.01 was the total amount due. Respondent deducted $525.35 for motel charges allegedly incurred by Respondent to provide the Veils with temporary lodging for 11 days while Respondent attempted to procure an alternate rental for the Veils. The deduction of $525.35 was not authorized by the Veils. The Veils did not agree to pay for their own motel room. In addition, the motel charges deducted by Respondent included charges for two nights paid by the Veils. After Respondent issued check number 1127 for $1,394.01, Respondent ordered the bank to stop payment on the check. The bank erroneously cashed the check and subsequently requested the Veils to return the proceeds. The Veils refused. Respondent misappropriated $525.35 paid to her by the Veils and converted those escrow funds to Respondent's personal use. Those funds were paid to Respondent in trust for the Veils' seasonal condominium. Respondent breached that trust in a business transaction within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent misrepresented and concealed her use of escrow funds belonging to the Veils. Respondent engaged in false pretenses to justify her misappropriation and conversion of the escrow funds. Respondent's failure to account for escrow funds paid to her in the Veil transaction and her failure to produce records needed by Petitioner to audit Respondent's accounts constitutes culpable negligence. When all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the Veil transaction are considered, Respondent's attempt to stop payment of her check to the Veils constitutes dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent failed to timely account or deliver rental trust funds within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(d). Respondent failed to preserve and make available to Petitioner all books, records, and supporting documents and failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions within the meaning of Rule 61J2-14.012(1). Respondent failed to maintain trust funds in her real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was authorized within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(k). 4. The Sella Transaction On February 14, 1994, Respondent procured a construction contract between Militano Construction, Inc. (the "seller"), and Mr. Lino Sella, (the "buyer"). The buyer lived in Italy and required an interpreter for his negotiations with Respondent. On February 14, 1994, the buyer entrusted Respondent with an escrow deposit of $12,250. The buyer authorized Respondent to administer funds entrusted to her because the buyer was in Italy. 11/ On February 15, 1994, Respondent cashed the check for the escrow deposit. Respondent obtained a cashier's check for $12,250 made payable to "Wilson Realty." Respondent then endorsed the cashier's check for her personal use. 12/ In July, 1994, the buyer authorized Respondent to release the escrow deposit to the seller upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy ("CO") by the City of Indian Harbour Beach, Florida (the "city"). The city issued the CO on September 1, 1994. After the city issued the CO, the seller repeatedly made verbal demands for Respondent to deliver the escrow deposit. On September 9, 1994, the seller wrote a letter to Respondent demanding the escrow deposit. On September 13, 1994, the buyer physically inspected the house, found that it was acceptable, and again authorized disbursement of the escrow deposit. The seller again demanded the escrow deposit. Respondent never delivered the escrow deposit. Respondent never accounted for the deposit to the seller, the buyer, or Petitioner. The seller was unable to pay approximately $9,000 to subcontractors used to construct the buyer's house. The subcontractors recorded mechanics' liens against the Sella property and precluded the seller from delivering good and sufficient title to the buyer. The seller's failure to provide the buyer with good and sufficient title precluded the seller from satisfying its obligations under the terms of the contract with the buyer and caused the seller to breach the contract. The buyer incurred legal expenses in an attempt to quiet title to his house. The seller incurred legal expenses in an attempt to recover the escrow deposit from Respondent. Respondent misappropriated a $12,250 escrow deposit in the Sella transaction and converted that escrow deposit for personal use. The escrow deposit was given to Respondent in trust. Respondent breached that trust in a business transaction within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent misrepresented and concealed her use of the escrow deposit in the Sella transaction. Respondent's failure to account for the escrow deposit and her failure to produce records needed by Petitioner to audit Respondent's escrow account constitutes culpable negligence. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent in the Sella transaction constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent failed to timely account or deliver trust funds within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(d). Respondent failed to preserve and make available to Petitioner all books, records, and supporting documents and failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions within the meaning of Rule 61J2-14.012(1). Respondent failed to maintain trust funds in her real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was authorized within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(k). 5. The Stanley Transaction In March, 1994, Respondent procured a construction contract between Atlantic Construction, Inc. (the "seller"), and Trevor and Carol Stanley (the "buyers") who are residents of New York. The buyers entrusted Respondent with an escrow deposit of $7,800. The buyers were unable to qualify for a mortgage and terminated the agreement in accordance with the terms of the construction contract. The buyers agreed to forfeit $500 of the escrow deposit to Respondent as real estate commission. On July 12, 1994, the buyers demanded that Respondent return $7,300 of their escrow deposit. Respondent claimed the entire $7,800 escrow deposit and neither delivered the $7,300 agreed to by the buyers nor accounted for any of the escrow deposit. Petitioner was unable to audit Respondent's escrow account. The bank where the escrow account was maintained closed the account because the account was overdrawn. The bank charged off $3,483.45 in overdrawn funds. Respondent misappropriated a $7,300 escrow deposit in the Stanley transaction and converted the escrow deposit to Respondent's personal use. Those funds were given to Respondent in trust. Respondent breached that trust in a business transaction within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent misrepresented and concealed her use of escrow funds in the Stanley transaction. Respondent's failure to account for the escrow deposit and her failure to produce records needed by Petitioner to audit Respondent's account constitutes culpable negligence. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent in the Stanley transaction constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Respondent failed to timely account or deliver trust funds within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(d). Respondent failed to preserve and make available to Petitioner all books, records, and supporting documents and failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions within the meaning of Rule 61J2-14.012(1). Respondent failed to maintain trust funds in her real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was authorized within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(k). 6. Respondent's Conduct Respondent evidenced a gross disregard for the rights and property of others, applicable laws, and the legal process. 13/ Respondent's conduct demonstrated culpable intent to commit the offenses for which she is charged. Respondent has made no attempt at restitution to any of the five clients she harmed, and has made no attempt to pay the overdraws charged off by the bank. Respondent has made no attempt to pay the Sella subcontractors or otherwise remove any cloud on the title to the Sella property. Respondent ignored valid subpoenas issued by Petitioner. Respondent engaged in dilatory acts and misrepresentations. Respondent delayed this proceeding through repeated false pretenses that she was represented by counsel who was unable to appear for previously scheduled formal hearings. Respondent participated in this proceeding for a frivolous purpose. There was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact in Respondent's defense. Respondent's defense was baseless and a sham. It was no more than a stonewall defense presented for the purpose of delay. Respondent failed to show any of the facts asserted in her defense. She called no witnesses and submitted no material exhibits for admission in evidence. Respondent's cross examination of Petitioner's witnesses nominally attempted to create issues but failed to produce any competent and substantial evidence to support those issues. Respondent repeatedly attempted to establish issues either by unsworn representations or by arguing with witnesses during cross examination. Respondent's sworn testimony at the formal hearing was not credible and was unpersuasive. No competent and substantial evidence supported her testimony. Any evidence that Respondent adduced during her testimony, her cross examination of other witnesses, and in her exhibits was immaterial. Respondent's conduct in this proceeding constituted a reckless waste of quasi-judicial resources as well as a waste of the time and money of Petitioner and its witnesses. Many of those witnesses had already lost time and money as a result of Respondent's conduct before this proceeding began.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d)1., (e), and (k); and Rule 61J2- 14.012(1); revoking Respondent's real estate license; and imposing a fine of $20,000. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY 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 15th day of November 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order holding Respondent, Stephen E. Schiller, t/a Allstate Realty, guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and (k), Florida Statutes (1985), under Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint in this case, and suspending his real estate broker's license no. 0374362 for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of August, 1986.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate brokers. Respondent's real estate broker license number 0325307 was active in Florida between October 1985 and November 1987. During this period, the business address registered at the Department for AmBest Realty was: 333-31st Street North #24, St. Petersburg, Florida 33713. Respondent was the qualifying broker for this real estate firm. The real estate office at the above-mentioned address was officially closed by Respondent in November 1987. At this particular time, there had been a decrease in real estate sales throughout the state. Respondent changed careers and became a long haul trucker in order to provide for his family under the then prevailing real estate market conditions. Post Office Box 12811, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733, was acquired by Respondent in November 1987 so that he could continue to receive communications regarding his former real estate practice, if necessary. His current profession as a long haul trucker frequently required his absence from the state for days at a time. The use of the post office box allowed him to review all correspondence regarding AmBest Realty whenever he returned to St. Petersburg, Florida from his trucking route. Respondent did not surrender or account for his license to the Real Estate Commission when he closed or moved his real estate business to his home in November 1987. By statute, Respondent was required to do so within 10 days of the address change or office closure. Notification to the Board should have been done by Respondent on a form provided by the Real Estate Commission for that purpose. Respondent's license ceased to be in force when he closed the real estate office at 333-31st Street North #24, St. Petersburg, Florida. In March 1988, Respondent attempted to allow his broker license to automatically revert to inactive status, pursuant to Section 475.182(3), Florida Statutes [1987]. Although this decision ignored the previous deactivation of the license, it corroborates Respondent's testimony that the office closed in November 1987. When Respondent attempted to place the license in an inactive status in March 1988, it was his intention to reactivate his license within a four-year period if the real estate market recovered from its slump. Respondent notified the Department of his new mailing address at the post office box prior to his attempted placement of the license in an inactive status. Respondent's failure to notify the Board of the change in his business address caused the Board to improperly rely on that business address as the proper location for office inspections and the Department's review of escrow/trust accounts. In August of 1990, an investigator with the Department unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Respondent at the registered business address at 333- 31st Street North #24, St. Petersburg, Florida. The real estate office and a real estate sign were no longer at the location. Respondent was later contacted by the investigator through the home address previously listed on his license that had been replaced in March 1988 by the post office box number. The investigator requested Respondent make his escrow trust account records and supporting documentation available for inspection. Respondent advised that he was unable to comply with the request as his original escrow trust account records had been stolen in a garage burglary in late November 1987. No effort was made by Respondent to reconstruct or to aid in the reconstruction of the missing records. No additional mitigating factors were presented at hearing other than the break-in to the location where Respondent stored his original escrow trust account records.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, James E. Willis t/a AmBest Realty be found not guilty of Count I of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent be found guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count II, based upon his failure to preserve and make available to the Department all escrow trust account records with supporting documentation, as required by Rule 21V-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code. That the privilege of Respondent Willis to reinstate his real estate broker's license be suspended for three years, subject to a reduction in the suspension term if the escrow trust account records are reconstructed and presented to the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 14th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: JAMES H GILLIS ESQUIRE DPR - DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W ROBINSON ST ORLANDO FL 32801 1772 JAMES E WILLIS, AMBEST REALTY PO BOX 12811 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733 2811 DARLENE F KELLER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DPR - DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 400 W ROBINSON ST ORLANDO FL 32801 1772 JACK McRAY ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of age.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Boots is 56 years old. Prior to his termination, he had been employed in the life insurance business by Respondent or its predecessors for over 20 years. Until early 1988, Petitioner's employer was Security Trust Life Insurance Company. During that year, Respondent or its parent, Southlife Holding Company, purchased the assets or stock of Security Trust Life Insurance Company. In any event, the result from Petitioner's point of view was that Respondent became his new employer. Following the change in ownership, the operations of the two companies were combined. Prior and subsequent to the merger of operations, Petitioner was the manager of the Orlando district office, which was primarily involved in the sale of debit insurance. The physical turnover of operations in the Orlando office took place on or about March 7, 1988. Prior to this date, representatives of Respondent had conducted meetings with the employees of Security Trust Life Insurance Company and discussed with them, among other things, the compensation that they could expect to receive as employees of the new company, especially during the start-up period. Following the merger, Petitioner believed that Respondent was not living up to the promises that it had made to him and the employees under his supervision. Unable to reach his immediate supervisor, Petitioner called Ted Lazenby, who is president and chairman of the board of Southlife Holding Company. Petitioner voiced his complaints to Mr. Lazenby. Following the telephone conversation, Mr. Lazenby contacted Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Frank Gregor, and expressed his displeasure with Petitioner and his attitude. Mr. Gregor consulted with his immediate supervisor, James C. Bellamy, who is the senior vice president of Respondent. Messrs. Gregor and Bellamy had previously discussed Petitioner's attitude that Respondent was poorly managed and cheap with its employees. Messrs. Gregor and Bellamy had already discussed Petitioner's record with Respondent. In general, it was not good, and the Orlando district did not show signs of the kind of growth necessary for a successful debit insurance business. Petitioner's production record was the worst in the division and the region. The manager of the next-worst district was also fired. With Mr. Lazenby's complaint as a catalyst, Messrs. Gregor and Bellamy decided to terminate Petitioner. The following morning, Mr. Gregor visited Petitioner in the Orlando office and fired him, citing Petitioner's poor record combined with questionable judgment in complaining to the head of the holding company. Respondent replaced Petitioner with a 44 year old man, who had been assistant manager of the Orlando office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner be dismissed. ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on this 16th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-7 Adopted or adopted in substance. There was a conflict in testimony between Mr. Gregor and Petitioner as to when the merger took place. Mr. Gregor's testimony has been given the greater weight, but the difference is immaterial to the outcome of the case. 8-9 Rejected as subordinate to the finding that Petitioner's performance was substandard. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1 Adopted 2-3 Rejected as legal argument. 4-6 Adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 10-12 Adopted in substance. 13-15 Rejected as subordinate. 16. Rejected as recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 N. James Turner Buso & Turner, P.A. 17 South Lake Avenue, Suite 104 Orlando, FL 32801 Joseph A. Woodruff Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis 2100 One Commerce Place Nashville, TN 37239
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated Sections 475.25(1)(e) and (b), Florida Statutes (1995),1 by failing to provide timely written notification to the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") of any good faith doubt as to whom funds in Respondents' escrow account should be disbursed; by engaging in fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust; and, if Respondents violated either or both statutes, what, if any, penalty should be imposed against Respondents' licenses.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of licensees in the state. Respondents are both licensed in the state. Respondent Carey is licensed as a real estate broker and holds license number 0577832. The last license was issued to Respondent Carey as a broker at Crescent Properties, Inc., 200 N. Denning Drive, Suite 2, Winter Park, Florida 32789-3762. Respondent Carey was licensed and operating as broker and officer of Respondent Crescent Properties, Inc. ("Crescent"). Crescent is registered as a real estate broker corporation and holds registration number 0577832. The last registration was issued to Crescent as a broker, Crescent Properties, Inc., 200 N. Denning Drive, Suite 2, Winter Park, Florida 32789-3762. On October 10, 1995, Respondents and Estrella Acosta entered into a property management agreement for a residence located at 563 Northbridge Drive, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The landlord agreed to pay Respondents half of the first month's rent for securing a tenant and 10 percent of all rent payments for managing the property. On December 16, 1995, Respondents, as Acosta's agent, leased the property to Victor and Maria Thompson (the "tenants"). The lease agreement provided in relevant part that: the tenants would pay a $735.00 security deposit and $735.00 a month in rent for 12 months; Crescent would act as the landlord's agent and would collect all funds due under the lease. The tenants paid the $735.00 security deposit to Respondents. Respondents placed the security deposit into the escrow account. However, the tenants paid monthly rent directly to the landlord. By letter dated January 31, 1996, Acosta advised Respondents that Acosta was terminating the property management agreement. The letter requested that Respondents release the $735.00 security deposit to Acosta. On February 12, 1996, Respondents mailed a letter to the tenants. The letter requested the tenants' consent to release the security deposit to Acosta. The tenants did not respond to the letter. Respondents did not know whether the tenants agreed to or objected to release the security deposit. Respondents continued to hold the security deposit in Respondents' escrow account. Respondent Carey sought advice from the legal hot line service made available by the local Realtor association. Respondent Carey was confused and erroneously believed that the hot line acted as an agent for the Commission. Respondents did not advise the Commission in writing that Respondents had a good faith doubt as to whom the security deposit should be disbursed. Respondents did not send the tenants a certified letter advising that the tenants must respond by a date certain or Respondents would disburse the security deposit to Acosta. Respondents did not institute one of the settlement procedures set forth in Section 475.25(1)(d)1 including a request that the Commission issue an escrow disbursement order. Respondents had a good faith doubt as to whom the security deposit should be disbursed. Respondents mailed Acosta a monthly accounting dated February 6, 1996, which stated in relevant part: SECURITY DEPOSIT: $735.00 IN DISPUTE AN ESCROW DISBURSEMENT ORDER HAS BEEN FILED. The reference to a disbursement order was not a misrepresentation. Respondent believed that she was undertaking the appropriate steps for a disbursement order by following the advice obtained on the hot line provided by the local Realtor association. On February 12, 1996, less than two weeks after the landlord advised Respondents that the landlord had terminated the lease, Acosta filed a complaint against Respondents with Petitioner. By letter dated February 26, 1996, Petitioner notified Respondent Carey of Acosta's complaint. Respondents did not know whether Acosta's termination of the lease was based on a default by the tenants or was itself a default by the landlord. Pursuant to the terms of the lease agreement, Respondents asserted an offset against the landlord for half of the first month's lease and 10 percent of the lease payments due for the 12 month lease term. In a letter to Acosta dated August 27, 1996, Respondents stated in relevant part: Per my conversation with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate: It has been determined that your claim against us was unwarranted and false . . . You have caused everyone us, DBPR, our attorney, a great deal of unwarranted lost time . . . .
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(e), not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), issuing a written reprimand to Respondents, and requiring Respondent Carey to complete seven hours of continuing education in one or more escrow management courses for real estate brokers. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 4889675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 6th day of January, 1998.
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether the Respondent's license as a real estate broker should be disciplined because he violated a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission and because he failed to timely account for and deliver an escrowed real estate deposit.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant to those statutes. Respondent Richard F. Gallo was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0029993 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued the Respondent, as of November 7, 1990, was as a broker-salesman % Bucek & Bucek, Inc., in Port St. Lucie, Florida, with a home address of 2664 West End Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406. That is the same address Respondent placed on the request for hearing he filed in this case. On or about March 20, 1989, an Escrow Disbursement Order was issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission and received by the Respondent whereby the Respondent, as a broker, was ordered to disburse a $300 earnest money deposit to the buyers, Eugene and Dorothy McCrory, as a refund in accordance with the terms of a sales contract. The escrow funds were to be disbursed to the buyers in accord with the terms of their offer. As of March 22, 1990, the Respondent and not disbursed the $300 earnest money deposit to the buyer, Eugene McCrory. On April 11, 1990, almost one year after the filing of the Administrative Complaint, a stale-dated check for $300 was delivered to Eugene McCrory. From January 3, 1990 through January 22, 1990, Petitioner's Investigator Terry Giles made a diligent effort to locate the Respondent at his business address and listed home address, but could not contact him at either place. Investigator Giles has been unable to locate and interview the R Respondent and no response from the Respondent was made to Investigator Giles. The only statement received from Mr. Gallo was the letter addressed to counsel for the Commission in this case on July 9, 1990. (Exhibit 2) No proof of the contentions made in that letter was offered at the final hearing. The contentions are rejected as unsupported. The Respondent was aware that a Division of Administrative Hearing's case number had been assigned and therefore that the proceeding were forthcoming. (See, Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent: guilty of failing to account for or deliver money which has come into his hands and which is not his property or which he is not in law or equity entitled to retain under the circumstances, as prohibited by Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; and guilty of having violated the provisions of a lawful escrow disbursement order as prohibited by Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order suspend all real estate certifications, licenses, permits and registrations of the Respondent as to Counts II of the Administrative Complaint, for a period of 2 years and that he be fined $1,000 and that such real estate certifications, licenses, permits and registrations of the Respondent also be suspended concurrently for a period of one (1) year as to Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and that he be fined an additional $1,000 for a total fine of $2,000. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 15th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Richard F. Gallo 2664 West End Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue An Administrative Complaint dated June 20, 1997, alleges that the Respondents, Dessie B. Castell and A. Plus Service Network Realty, Inc., violated certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission within 15 business days of a good faith doubt as to appropriate disbursement of trust funds in an escrow account, and by failing to maintain those trust funds until disbursement was properly authorized. The issues for determination are whether those violations occurred and, if so, what discipline should be imposed upon the licensees.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Dessie B. Castell is, and was at all material times, a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license number 0342283 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. Castell is owner, president and qualifying broker of A. Plus Service Network Realty, Inc., which corporation is registered and licensed in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, at 901 Mock Avenue, Orlando, Florida. Ms. Castell negotiated a contract for sale and purchase of a home at 638 18th Street in Orlando, Florida. Rosemary Jackson was the proposed buyer and Valerie Crane, trustee, was the seller. At the time of the contract dated June 26, 1996, Ms. Castell had already been working with Rosemary Jackson and held a $500.00 escrow deposit from Ms. Jackson in her broker’s escrow account. Also, at the time of the contract on June 26, 1996, Ms. Jackson had been pre-qualified for an FHA loan through ESD Lending Corporation, Inc. The contract for sale and purchase between Ms. Jackson and Ms. Crane established July 2, 1996, as the closing date. Ms. Jackson liked the house and needed to move in quickly. The contract failed to close on July 2, 1996. Both Ms. Jackson and Ms. Castell understood that the ESD lending Corporation did not have an approved appraisal required by FHA for the loan. There was an appraisal done on the property for a previous prospective buyer and Ms. Crane furnished that appraisal to ESD before July 2, 1996. Ms. Crane’s own testimony was confused and conflicting as to whether the appraisal she furnished was approved. Ms. Jackson’s and Ms Castell’s testimony was clear and credible that they were never informed that the appraisal was approved, and Ms. Castell did not receive the HUD settlement papers required for closing. Soon after July 2, 1996, someone came to Ms. Jackson’s workplace identifying himself as a representative of Ms. Crane and offering to extend the closing and to provide a refrigerator and some other items. Ms. Jackson was suspicious of this person as she felt that he was trying to circumvent the mortgage company staff with whom she had been dealing. Ms. Jackson had looked at another house earlier that she did not like as well as the house offered by Ms. Crane; but since she needed to move quickly, Ms. Jackson told Ms. Castell to transfer her escrow deposit to a contract on this prior house. Ms. Castell did that on July 5, 1996, and that contract closed shortly thereafter. On July 6, 1996, Ms. Crane faxed to Ms. Castell a letter offering to add the refrigerator and to extend closing to the next Friday. The letter asked that the offer be accepted by 5:00 p.m. on that same day, the 6th or if not accepted, that the $500.00 deposit be released to Ms. Crane. When she received no response, Ms. Crane sent another letter to Ms. Castell on July 13, 1996, demanding the $500.00 escrow deposit, reiterating that Ms. Jackson forfeited her deposit when she did not close on the property after qualifying for the loan and reminding Ms. Castell of her obligation as escrow agent pursuant to Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, in the event of a dispute over the deposit. Ms. Crane sent a copy of her letter to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Ms. Castell and her company did not notify the Florida Real Estate Commission regarding a dispute over the $500.00 escrow deposit. She felt that it was Ms. Crane’s failure to provide an approved appraisal that caused the contract to expire on July 2, 1996, and thereafter, that she and the buyer were entitled to transfer the funds to another contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint in this case. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Dean F. Mosley, Esquire McCrary & Mosley Suite 211 47 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondents violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b),(e), and (q), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21V-10.033, 21V-14.012(2) and (3) and 21V-14.014, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rhoda Kurzman (Kurzman), is currently and was at all times relevant to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker in this state. Respondent, Security Realty Investments, Inc. (Security), is currently and was at all times relevant to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker corporation in this state. Security is a small company which deals primarily with the property management of its own properties. Ms. Kurzman is the president of and broker for Security. In April, 1992, Respondents came up for a routine audit. Joseph L. Wilson, then an investigative auditor for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), conducted an office inspection and escrow/trust account audit on April 14, 1992. The inspection and the audit were in four areas: 1) office 2) required office sign 3) agency disclosure and 4) broker's records, including reconciliation statements and escrow/trust accounts. Respondents maintained a trust account in an interest bearing savings account with County National Bank of South Florida. Respondents received quarterly statements from the bank. As part of the audit, Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Kurzman to produce the reconciliation statements for Security's escrow/trust account. She gave him a running journal (Pet. Exhibit 2) which she had prepared in her own handwriting. The journal was entitled " Escrow Account # 0120056458-20, County Bank, Miami, Florida 33164." There were entries beginning June 29, 1988 through December 31, 1991. The dates listed on the left side of the journal represented the dates for either deposits or withdrawals. The last deposit in the account other than interest was on March 20, 1991. There were double check marks on the right side which represented the amounts reconciled with the bank statements. The entire document contained five double check marks. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 does not reflect the dates the reconciliations took place. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 was not signed and dated by Ms. Kurzman each time the account was reconciled. Petitioner did not reconcile the account on a monthly basis. The bank statement for the period ending December 31, 1991 showed a balance of $375.54, as did the balance in the December 31, 1991 entry of the journal. The bank statement for the period ending March 31, 1992 showed a balance of $379.83. Respondents did not have any escrow security liability on these dates; thus these balances represented overages in the escrow account. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 did not contain a description or explanation for the overages. Mr. Wilson discussed the overages with Ms. Kurzman, and she indicated that the balance in the bank account resulted from accumulated interest from 1988. Mr. Wilson advised her that prior to March, 1992, an escrow account could carry an overage of only $100, but that after March 1992, overages of up to $200 could be carried in escrow accounts. Ms. Kurzman agreed to withdraw sufficient funds from the account to bring it in compliance with the allowed overage. By letter dated April 14, 1992, Ms. Kurzman advised Mr. Wilson that she had withdrawn $300 from the escrow account, bringing the balance to $79.83, and included a copy of the withdrawal slip with the letter. All the sales made by the Respondents are listed in the journal maintained by the Respondents. There have been eight sales since 1988. Some of the transactions did not result in a contract. From September 1, 1991 through October 1, 1992, Mr. Wilson conducted approximately 300 audits, 40 of which were done during the month of April, 1992. The audit of Respondents was approximately two to four hours long. Ms. Kurzman produced one sales contract during the audit, the other contracts were stored in a different location. During the audit, Mr. Wilson prepared an Office Inspection and Escrow/Trust Account Audit Form, which he and Ms. Kurzman signed. After the audit he prepared an investigative report. No specific transactions were mentioned in either document. Mr. Wilson destroyed the specific notes or tic sheets that he made during the audit. At hearing he admitted that if someone showed him one of the contracts for the transactions appearing in the journal, he would not be able to recall if he had looked at the contract during the audit. Ms. Kurzman specifically recalls the audit and her recollection of the audit is much clearer than Mr. Wilson's. At hearing Mr. Wilson was unable to recall specific transactions dealing with the alleged failure to disclose that escrow funds were being placed in an interest bearing account. He believes that they discussed names of contracts or types of situations, but can't recall because of the length of time that had passed since he performed the audit. Ms. Kurzman specifically recalls that other than the transaction in which she was the seller they only discussed one sales contract. He believes that Ms. Kurzman said that she had made oral disclosure in some but not all transactions in which there were principals other than the broker, and that there were no written disclosures. In one of the sales listed in the escrow account journal, Ms. Kurzman was the seller and had divested herself as broker during that transaction. In the Baldoria transaction, the contract required that Ms. Baldoria receive interest and the interest was paid to her. Obviously there was disclosure to Ms. Baldoria, and it appears that the disclosure was in writing. Ms. Kurzman and Mr. Wilson discussed the issue of the disclosure of interest bearing accounts during the audit. There was a disagreement between them as to when such disclosure had to be made. Having judged the credibility of the witnesses and in particular having considered Mr. Wilson's difficulty in recalling specifics of the audit, I find that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that the Respondents failed to disclose that escrow/trust funds were being placed in an interest-bearing account. Mr. Wilson was unable to recall any contracts in which Respondents were alleged to have failed to make agency disclosure. There have been no prior audits of Respondents. No prior disciplinary actions have been taken by Petitioner against Respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondents guilty of violating Rule 21V-14.012, Florida Administrative Code and Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, reprimanding each Respondent, imposing against Rhoda Kurzman an administrative fine of $100, and requiring Rhoda Kurzman to provide within six months after the date of the Final Order satisfactory evidence to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Legal Section, Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N-308, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801-1772, of having completed a 30-hour postlicensure broker management course. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 20th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5542 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-3: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 6-7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11-13: Accepted. Paragraphs 14-19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 20-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 30: Accepted. Paragraph 31: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 32: Accepted. Paragraphs 33-34: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 35-37: Accepted in substance. 20 Paragraphs 38-40: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Kurzman, Esquire Grand Bay Plaza, Suite 702 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Theodore Gay, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Darlene F. Keller Divison Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents are guilty of dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b); failing to maintain trust accounts in an escrow account until disbursement is authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k); operating as a broker without holding a valid broker's license, in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e); failing to prepare the required written monthly escrow-statement reconciliations, as required by Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), and thus Section 475.25(1)(e); failing to give written notice to a party to a transaction, before the party signs a contract, that the broker is a representative of another party, in violation of Rule 61J2-10.033 and Section 475.25(1)(q); failing to comply with Section 475.25(1)(q), and thus Section 475.25(1)(e); and, as to Respondent Dume, engaging for a second time in misconduct that warrants his suspension or engaging in conduct or practices that show he is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest, or untruthful that clients and their money cannot safely be entrusted to him, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(o). If either Respondent is guilty of any of these alleged violations, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Dume has been licensed in Florida as a real estate broker, and Respondent Southwest Florida Home Realty, Inc. has been licensed in Florida as a corporate broker. Petitioner did not file licensing documentation as an exhibit. Petitioner's witness testified that the licenses expired on September 30, 1995, for Respondent Dume and March 31, 1995, for Respondent Southwest Florida Home Realty. This testimony is hearsay and does not establish the licensing status of Respondents. In their proposed recommended order, Respondents propose a finding that they are now and have been at all material times licensed real estate brokers in Florida. The evidence does not support this assertion. However, the pleadings of the parties establish that Respondents were licensed at least up to the dates alleged by Petitioner. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent Dume's license expired on September 30, 1995, and Respondent Southwest Florida Home Realty's license expired on March 31, 1995. The obvious inference from these allegations is that Respondents were licensed up to those dates. Combining these inferred allegations in the Administrative Complaint with the assertion of Respondents in their proposed recommended order that they are now and have been at all material times licensed, it is clear that the parties do not dispute that Respondents were licensed at least up to the dates set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The only real dispute as to licensing is whether Respondents were licensed after these dates, and the record supplies no answer to this question. By final order filed August 8, 1994, the Florida Real Estate Commission found both Respondents guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k) and Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3). The final order is based on an administrative complaint alleging, as of February 1 and 2, 1994, a shortage of about $6000 in one escrow account and an overage of about $400 in another escrow account. The administrative complaint alleges that Respondent Dume prepared written monthly escrow-account reconciliation statements. The final order reprimands each Respondent. As to Respondent Dume only, the final order imposes a $300 fine, suspends his license until the fine is paid, and places Respondent Dume's license on probation for one year, during which time he was required to "enroll in and satisfactorily complete a 30-hour broker management course." The final order states that a failure to complete all conditions of probation may result in the filing of a new complaint. The final order establishes that Respondents have been licensed brokers in Florida, but does not establish their licensing status as of anytime after the expiration of Respondent Dume's probation, which ended on September 8, 1995. In mid-September 1995, an investigator employed by Petitioner contacted Respondent Dume to determine whether he had complied with the final order of August 8, 1994. Respondent Dume admitted that he had not undertaken the required education. The investigator set up an office audit for November 1, 1995. On November 1, 1995, the investigator visited Respondents' office to conduct the audit. She had access to all relevant documents and found that Respondent Southwest Florida Home Realty, Inc. maintained an escrow account for real estate rental deposits. The investigator audited the period from January 31, 1995, through September 30, 1995. The investigator found that neither Respondent conducted written reconciliations of the escrow account during this period of time. The investigator found checks drawn on the escrow account improperly paid to another corporation owned by Respondent Dume and, in one case, paid to Respondent Dume personally. Two of the checks payable to the other corporation, which was not a licensed corporate broker, were dated September 30 and October 31, 1994. The investigator did not testify as to the date of the check paid personally to Respondent Dume. The investigator asked Respondent Dume about these disbursements. As to the check made to him personally, he explained that a bank would not cash his check and he needed funds. All of the checks paid to the other corporation or Respondent Dume personally were unauthorized and an improper use of escrow funds. Petitioner proved that the two checks to the corporation owned by Respondent Dume related to a time period not covered in the case resulting in the August 8 final order. When the investigator attempted to reconcile the escrow account for the period from January 31 through September 30, 1995, she found a shortage of about $31,500. Respondent Dume told her that he had repaid the escrow account about $20,000, but this was in January 1994. There is no evidence that any client has suffered any losses due to Respondents' failure to maintain the escrow account in the manner required by law. As already noted, the parties in effect agree that Respondents were licensed until certain dates in 1995, but the evidence fails to establish that Respondents' licenses expired after that time. But even if the evidence had proved the alleged expiration dates, the evidence would still be less than clear and convincing that Respondents conducted real estate business after those dates. There is even less evidence that Respondents failed to make required written disclosures in real estate transactions, as Petitioner has failed to prove any real estate transactions or the absence of any such disclosures.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking the licenses of Respondent Dume and Respondent Southwest Florida Home Realty, Inc. ENTERED on December 2, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven D. Fieldman Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston Building, North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Frederick H. Wilsen Gillis and Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is fifty-two years of age. He became licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida in 1981, after returning to the state (where he was born and raised) from New Jersey. The following year he obtained a license that allowed him to operate as a real estate broker in Florida. In or about 1984, Petitioner formed Landmark Realty, Inc. (Landmark), which operated in Broward County, Florida, as a Century 21 franchise. On or about June 29, 1989, in DPR Case Nos. 0163964 and 0164128, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner and Landmark containing the following allegations: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0344112 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Landmark Realty, Inc., 1860 N. Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida 33322. Respondent Landmark Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0239155 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 1860 N. Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida 33322. COUNT I The Department of Professional Regulation conducted a routine office inspection/escrow account audit of Respondents' escrow accounts between June 15, 1989 and June 16, 1989. Respondents' escrow account number 55322000377 is held at First Union National Bank of Florida. Respondents' escrow account number 55322000377 had a balance of $1,368.36 on June 16, 1989. The pending sales files revealed that the escrow monies balance should have been $65,250 on June 16, 1989. The escrow account had a shortage of $63,881.64. . . . Respondent Caprio claims he transferred $80,700 from Respondents' escrow account number 55322000377 to the Keys & Keys trust account number 0304301543 on the advice of counsel. . . . Kathy Clements, Operations Officer for County National Bank of South Florida furnished a written letter that the Keys & Keys trust account number 0304301543, had a current balance of $101,901.43 on June 20, 1989. . . . The Respondents failed to furnish any validated documents detailing the dates and amounts of deposits into the aforementioned Keys & Keys trust account from the aforementioned Respondents' escrow account. The Respondents' escrow account number 55322000377 is a commercial money market investment account with the interest going to Landmark Realty, Inc., without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties. . . . The Respondents failed to timely notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of conflicting demands on the earnest money deposit on the contract, dated July 17, 1988, between David B. Perry, as seller, and Earle A. and Yvonne M. Levy, as buyers. The buyers entrusted an earnest money deposit of $1,000 with the Respondents on or about July 17, 1988, and an additional earnest money deposit of $20,000 was entrusted to the Respondents on or about August 22, 1988. The Respondents received a demand letter f[rom] the buyers on December 13, 1988 and a demand letter from the seller's attorney on February 21, 1989. . . . On or about April 19, 1989, the Respondents received or should have received a total earnest money deposit of $4,000 from Perry Silver, as buyer, and Charles Hennessey, as seller. The audit revealed no proof that the additional deposit of $2,000 as required by the contract dated April 19, 1989 was received by the Respondents. . . . The Respondents failed to timely notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of conflicting demands on the earnest money deposit on the contract, dated May 31, 1989, between C. McCanes and J. Steele, as sellers, and Jacqueline W. Mayers, as buyer. The buyer entrusted an earnest money deposit of $1,000 with the Respondents on or about May 31, 1989. The additional deposit of $4,000 as called for in the contract was never received by the Respondents. On June 1, 1989, the buyers made a demand on the earnest money deposit and on June 6, 1989 the seller made a demand for the earnest money deposit. . . . The Respondents, on or about May 16, 1989, did unlawfully disburse check number 0963 from the Respondents' escrow account number 55322000377 to the Respondents' operating account to cover office expenses. The Administrative Complaint further alleged that, "[b]ased upon the foregoing," Petitioner and Landmark were guilty of "fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes"; "having failed to account and deliver a deposit in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes"; "having failed to maintain trust funds in [their] real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes"; and "having failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission upon receiving conflicting demands or having a good faith doubt as to who is entitled to an earnest money deposit according to Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code and therefore in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes." Petitioner had never before had a complaint filed against him. On December 21, 1989, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued a Final Order in DPR Case Nos. 0163964 and 0164128 finding Petitioner guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and revoking his license, notwithstanding his unblemished disciplinary record. The Final Order read, in pertinent part, as follows: On December 5, 1989, the Florida Real Estate Commission heard this case to issue a Final Order. On or about June 29, 1989, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Respondents. The Respondents admitted the allegations of fact. . . . The Respondents were properly served with the Notice of Hearing, appeared and presented matters in mitigation. Based upon the allegations of fact and upon the information provided to the Commission at its meeting of December 5, 1989, the Commission finds the Respondents guilty of violating s.475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d), 475.25(1)(e), and 475(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. Therefore, the Commission ORDERS that the license of Respondent Philip Caprio be revoked. The Commission further ORDERS that Respondent Landmark Realty Inc. be reprimanded and that said Respondent pay an administrative fine of $1000.00 within 30 days of the date of this Order. Petitioner did not appeal the Final Order. Following the issuance of the Final Order, reimbursement was made to the victims of the violations of which Petitioner and Landmark had been found guilty. The loss of Petitioner's real estate license has adversely affected his ability to make a living and support his family. Petitioner is married to Teresa Caprio. He and Teresa have a twenty-five year old disabled daughter, who requires assistance in performing the normal activities of daily living. Before the revocation of Petitioner's license, the Caprios' daughter lived at home with them. Teresa was able to stay at home and care full-time for her daughter. After Petitioner's license was revoked, however, she no longer was able to do so, inasmuch as she needed to work outside the home to supplement the family income. The Caprios therefore had to place their daughter in a group home. Although Petitioner has not been able to earn nearly as much as he did when he had his real estate license, he has been gainfully employed since the revocation of his license. From 1989 to 1995, he worked for Potamkin Toyota (Potamkin), an automobile dealership. He started as a salesman at Potamkin. After approximately six months at the dealership, he was promoted to customer relations manager/weekend sales manager. He left the employ of Potamkin in 1995, following a change in management at the dealership. Petitioner is now, and has been since July of 1995, employed by Central Florida Investments, Inc., d/b/a Westgate Miami Beach (Westgate), a seller of timeshare plans. He currently is a salaried employee occupying the position of finance manager, a position to which he was promoted after his first six months with the company. He will be unable to advance further in the company if he does not obtain a Florida real estate license. In his position as finance manager, Petitioner takes deposits made by purchasers and prospective purchasers2 and delivers them to Westgate's contract office, which is approximately 20 feet from his office. Using hidden security cameras, Westgate management closely monitors the workplace activities of Petitioner and his coworkers. Petitioner has performed his job duties in a manner that has impressed Westgate management. He has proven to be a competent, reliable, responsible, honest, and trustworthy employee.3 Petitioner is involved in community activities. He and his wife volunteer their time to operate the Rainbow Foundation, a non-profit organization that they formed two years ago to promote the growth of residential facilities for the developmentally disabled in the South Florida area. It appears that since the revocation of his real estate license, Petitioner has rehabilitated himself and that therefore it is not likely that his relicensure would endanger the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that Petitioner is qualified to practice as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1997.
