The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of real estate professionals. On October 19, 1993, Petitioner submitted to Respondent his application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. In his application, Petitioner disclosed that he had been disbarred as a member of the Florida Bar by decision of the Florida Supreme Court. The actions for which Petitioner was disbarred were described in detail by the Florida Supreme Court's decision in The Florid Bar v. Ellis S. Simring, 612 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1993). The Florida Supreme Court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner had repeatedly and intentionally violated trust accounting procedures, had commingled trust and personal funds, and had misappropriated client funds for his personal use. The Florida Supreme Court further found that the Petitioner had violated the Court's order that temporarily suspended him from practice. Petitioner denied that he misappropriated funds from any client, but he admits the other major violations found by the Supreme Court. Petitioner testified that he was suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome and flu-like symptoms when the trust account violations occurred during 1988 and 1989. As a result of a recommendation from an acquaintance, he took large doses of Vitamin C, which aggravated his hemorrhoidal condition and resulted in bleeding. Petitioner testified that his ability to practice law was limited by his medical condition and that his income from his practice suffered as a consequence. Petitioner testified that his secretary acted as his administrative assistant during that period of time and that she was responsible for maintaining his trust account, but he did not attempt to blame her for the admitted deficiencies pertaining to his trust account. Petitioner failed to keep or retain appropriate trust account records, caused the proceeds from the sale of his personal property and from loans he had taken out to be deposited in the trust account, and caused office expenses and personal expenses to be paid out of his trust account. Petitioner settled a personal injury action in which he represented a minor child by the name of Barnett. The proceeds of the settlement in the amount of $45,000 was transferred from his trust account to that of another lawyer who was a non-practicing retired lawyer and friend of the Petitioner. The purpose of that transfer was to hide those funds from the Internal Revenue Service. The Florida Supreme Court found that Petitioner misappropriated a portion of these funds. Petitioner disputes that finding. The misconduct to which Petitioner admitted at the formal hearing and his disbarment from the practice of law by the Florida Supreme Court create a presumption, pursuant to Section 475.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes, that he is not qualified for licensure as a real estate professional. Petitioner did not offer any competent, substantial evidence which would establish that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character or that would otherwise rebut the presumption of disqualification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 6th day of September, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellis Stewart Simring, pro se 3785 Westminister Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Suite 107 South Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Annette J. Ruffin, held real estate broker license number 0076385 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. When the events herein occurred, respondent was owner and broker for Century 21 A Little Bit Country at 915 Lithia Pinecrest Road, Brandon, Florida. She is presently employed by U. S. Homes Corporation in Tampa, Florida. James and Shirley Yaksic wished to sell their residence at 3512 Plainview Drive in Brandon, Florida. They listed their property with Century 21 Solid Gold Properties II, Inc. in Brandon in December, 1983. Deborah Cassidy was a salesman at respondent's office, and knew her parents, J. R. and Helen Anderson, were in the market for a new home. With Cassidy's assistance, the Andersons executed a contract on February 16, 1984, to purchase the Yaksics' residence. The contract called for a purchase price of $65,000 with a down payment of $10,000, including a $500.00 cash deposit which was given to respondent's firm several days after the contract was executed. The deposit was placed in Ruffin's escrow account on February 28, 1984. The Andersons were also required to seek VA financing on the balance owed. After the contract was accepted by the Yaksics on February 17, Helen Anderson made application on February 23 for a $55,000 VA loan with Norwest Mortgage, Inc., a lending institution in Tampa. Florida. Since her husband was in New York State, only Helen signed the loan application agreeing to allow verification of all representations made in the application. While filling out the loan application at Norwest, Helen Anderson learned that the Veterans Administration allowed applicants to apply for loans equal to 100% of the value of the property. Since the Andersons preferred to make no down payment, Helen Anderson wrote Norwest in early March requesting that their loan application be increased from $55,000 to $65,000. She also noted that she did not sign the "disclosure statement" on behalf of her husband since "it would be incorrect." In response to this Letter, Norwest wrote the Andersons in early April requesting a number of items needed to process the application as well as an amendment to the contract reflecting that the sellers agreed to 100% financing by the buyers. The Andersons did not respond to this inquiry. In addition, they never, advised the sellers that they had changed their loan application to 100% financing, and that the sellers would be required to pay more discount points at closing. Because no amendment to the contract was ever filed, Norwest processed the application for a $55,000 loan. Due to insufficient income and excessive obligations, the application was denied. The Andersons were so notified by letter dated May 3, 1984. After Helen Anderson received the denial letter she telephoned respondent's office manager on several occasions to seek a refund of her deposit. This information was apparently conveyed to Ruffin by the office manager. About the same time the sellers were advised by the listing salesman that the Andersons did not intend to close. On May 5, the sellers wrote a letter to Solid Gold requesting that it notify the selling broker to not "release the binder to the buyers as we are entitled to this money." For some reason, a copy of this letter was not mailed to respondent until May 31, and she received it in early June. Even though Ruffin may have been orally advised in early May of the Yaksics' intended claim by the listing office, she had no concrete evidence of this intention until she received their letter in early June. On June 29, 1984, Helen Anderson wrote respondent's office manager a letter requesting a return of her deposit no later than July 9. She also indicated the letter was being sent pursuant to instructions received from petitioner. On July 2, Ruffin replied by letter stating that "we cannot release your deposit as the house was off the market for such a long time," and that Norwest had advised her that the Andersons "did not bring in a lot of the information until it was too late." After Helen Anderson filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), DPR wrote respondent a letter dated July 19, 1984, stating in part that Anderson had been refused her deposit and that its records did not show that respondent had notified DPR of conflicting demands for that money. On July 30, 1984, respondent replied to DPR's inquiry and gave her version of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. After receiving no reply to this letter, she wrote a second letter in late December, 1984 to the Division of Real Estate (Division) requesting advice on the deposit matter. The Division sent a her form for requesting an escrow disbursement order on January 4, 1985 which was returned by respondent within a few weeks. An escrow disbursement order was eventually issued by the Division on April 19, 1985 directing her to refund the deposit to the Andersons. She did so on May 5, 1985. In conjunction with its investigation, DPR obtained copies of respondent's escrow account bank statements during the period when the Andersons' deposit was retained by Ruffin. Although the $500.00 deposit should have been maintained in that account from February, 1984 until disbursement in May, 1985, her account dropped below $500.00 on sixteen separate days during this period of time, and continuously from February 28 through April 30, 1985. Respondent, who has been a broker since 1977, maintained a record of all escrow deposits and expenditures in a ledger book which reflected when the Anderson money was deposited and when it was paid out. Although she inferred the problem may have been attributable to her bookkeeper, no adequate explanation was given as to why her bank balances dropped below $500.00 on a number of occasions. She acknowledged that she learned of the conflicting demands in May, 1984, but felt that she could still "solve" the credit problem of the Andersons. She stated that she intended to give notice to the Division of the conflicting claims on the deposit and needed no encouragement from the Division to do so. There is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined on any other occasion since first receiving her salesman license around twelve years ago.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is recommended that respondent's broker license be suspended for ninety days and that she be fined $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Bearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1985.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' licenses as real estate broker and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Florida Real Estate Commission was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of real estate salespersons, brokers, and brokerage operations in Florida. The Respondents, Arthur B. Karns and Karns Real Estate Inc., were a licensed real estate broker and brokerage corporation, respectively. Sharon Thayer has been an investigator with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation's Division of Real Estate for over 3 1/2 years. As a part of her duties, she is required to conduct random, no-notice inspections of real estate brokerage offices in Florida. As a part of these inspections, she conducts audits of the broker's escrow account and over time has conducted approximately 1,000 audits. In her audits, she follows a standard audit procedure to reconcile the trust liability of the broker with the escrow account bank balance. In early September, 1991, Ms. Thayer conducted an escrow audit and office inspection of the Respondent's company. During her initial visits, on September 3 and 5, 1991, she requested he furnish her with the office records pertinent to his trust escrow account. Respondent promptly provided most of the records excepting only the account reconciliation forms required by the Commission. When Respondent provided Ms. Thayer with the records, including what he felt were the reconciliations, she reviewed them and then discussed them with him, indicating wherein they were deficient and what, in addition, she would need. In her initial report, completed on the conclusion of the initial visit, she indicated there was an overage of $3,452.75 in the Respondent's escrow account. This figure was in error. She also noted that Respondent was not accounting for his trust liability and indicated he had 5 days in which to take corrective action and provide documentation of the action taken. When she returned for a follow-up visit on September 20, 1991, Ms. Thayer noted that the original note of overage had been in error and that the account now balanced. To achieve balance, however, she referred to the original $500.00 in seed money Respondent had used to open the escrow account. This covered errors in the account as of December, 1990 and service charges. Without this, she noted, the account would have been short by $446.45. Ms. Thayer determined that the Respondent had opened his escrow account with $500.00 of his own funds as seed money. She contend this was improper as the Department allows only $200.00 of seed money which is to be reported each month on the account reconciliation. The $200.00 "limit" is relatively recent. At the time in issue, she claims, the "limit" was set, by unwritten, unpublished Department policy, at $100.00. The only evidence of the existence of such a policy is an article in the Fall, 1991 FREC newsletter, written by Howard M. Gunter, Jr., then Chairman, which notes: There is an unwritten rule that currently allows a broker to keep a minimum amount in his escrow account to cover bank charges, .... The April, 1992 edition of the Central Palm Beach County Association of Realtors' Realtor Review advises of new FREC rules, one of which allows a broker to maintain up to $200.00 of his own or the company's funds in the escrow account to keep it open or to pay for bank monthly service charges. Ms. Thayer's investigation also appeared to indicate that in January, 1991, Respondent disbursed an $850.00 security deposit to lessors of a rented unit when the actual deposit collected was only $500.00. This was also determined to be in error. The evidence demonstrates that on January 3, 1991, Respondent drew check number 1040 on his escrow account to open an escrow account for the Alexandre to Livingston rental. The deposit of $1,700.00 in that case included an $850.00 security deposit. This money was not disbursed to the client, however, as it was placed in an escrow account for that lease. In any case, the security deposit should have been only $500.00 as that was all that had been collected by the prior agent and transferred to the Respondent. When the deposit was made here, Respondent, whose practice was to collect the first and last month rent in advance, along with a security deposit of one month rent, mistakenly assumed the prior agent had done the same. When he learned of his mistake, by letter dated September 13, 1991, he notified the Alexandre's of the mistake and noted the excess $350.00 would be paid back to Karns Real Estate, Inc. Therefore, the extra $350.00 in the trust account had been placed there by Respondent from his own funds, not from any client funds and was due back. Since the $96.45 in bank charges were also accounted for previously and deducted, there was in actuality no shortage. Ms. Thayer also discovered that with regard to two contracts for the sale of real property, both dated in early May, 1991, between E. Buwalda as seller and Ronald Cecere as buyer on one, and Cecelia Barraclough as seller and Jeanne Cecere as buyer on the other, $100.00 in cash was accepted as a partial down payment on each, with each contract calling for an additional deposit of $2,900.00. A special clause in each contract provided: The purchaser will post a Certificate(s) of Deposit with a face amount of at least $3,000.00 with Karns Real Estate, Inc. to be held in escrow as and for the $2,900.00 additional deposit. The Certificate(s) of Deposit can be returned to the Purchaser if and when the Purchaser posts $2,900.00 in cleared funds to cover the additional deposit. In fulfillment of that clause requirement, the Ceceres deposited with the Respondent CD Numbers 020002358756 and 020002359408, from Nova Savings Bank, each in the amount of $2,000.00, the former dated October 24, 1990 and the latter dated December 3, 1990, both showing Jeanne A. Cecere as trustee for Patrick J. and Ronald P. Cecere. The certificates also reflected they were "Not Transferable except on the books of Nova Savings Bank." By his own admission, at no time did Respondent notify either of the sellers that the certificates he held on their behalf as additional deposit were not transferable outside the Nova Savings Bank. At the same time he received the certificates as deposit on the Barraclough property, Respondent also received an additional $1,000.00 in cash to constitute the balance of the $3,000.00 deposit called for in the contract. Aside from a letter from the Ceceres' chastising the Department for its action against Respondent and expressing outrage that the agency should have a negative opinion as to the propriety and legality of the Respondent's activities, there is no independent evidence of any additional deposit placed with regard to the Buwalda contract. In any event, when the matter was noted by Ms. Thayer, the Ceceres, by checks dated September 5, 1991 in the amounts of $1,900.00 each, made payable to Karns Realty, Inc., replaced the two certificates. When Ms. Thayer discussed this matter with Mr. Karns, he seemed surprised at her concern. He indicated he felt accepting the certificates was the same as taking jewelry as security. However, he promised to get replacement security and, as was seen, did so immediately. Ms. Thayer was also concerned about the Respondent's apparent inability to properly reconcile his escrow account with the related bank balance. Her audit revealed he was using a lengthy, self-developed form to balance the checking account statement but this is not enough. There is no requirement that any particular form be used, but the Commission had developed a sample form which contains all the information required in a proper reconciliation and Department rules set out those requirements. On May 13, 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation, in a letter to all real estate brokers, indicated the concern of the Commission that brokers be aware of and comply with their responsibilities regarding monthly escrow account reconciliation. The letter cited the provisions of Commission Rule 21V-14.012 which, while noting there is no official form to be used, reminds brokers the reconciliation must contain certain required information. The sample form, referenced above, requires a bank reconciliation and, in addition, a trust liability reconciliation. Ms. Thayer concluded Respondent had, indeed, completed a full bank reconciliation, but had not completed the additionally required trust liability reconciliation and merged the two. Notwithstanding Respondent's continuing protestations that he had done a complete reconciliation, the evidence indicates rather that he has not. As Respondent's own exhibit, an extract from the 1991 Gaines & Coleman continuing education book points out at paragraph 23 on page 7, the provisions of the rule on escrow reconciliation "is much more than a mere balancing of checkbook accounts." The evidence demonstrates Respondent did no more than that and his reconciliations were not adequate. Mr. Geil, who assisted Ms. Thayer in the audit, has reviewed between 100 and 150 offices in addition to Respondent's office. Of all of these, he would rate Respondent among the 5 or 6 brokers who did the most detailed reconciliations, but he cannot say, from what he saw of Respondent's records, whether Respondent was making a bona fide effort to do an accurate reconciliation. It is clear, however, that, as Respondent repeatedly asserted at hearing, everyone makes mistakes, and Respondent's delicts, established by the evidence, do not show any fraudulent or criminal intent. As Ms. Thayer noted, she found no evidence of fraud, theft or an abuse of trust money for Respondent's own purposes, and the Commission has received no complaints about him from any of his clients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing Counts I through VI of the Administrative Complaint, but placing the licenses of Respondents, Arthur B. Karns and Karns Real Estate, Inc. on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions, specifically including post licensure education, as the Commission may require, and imposing a reprimand on the Respondent, Arthur B. Karns. RECOMMENDED this 21 day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-1266 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated except for the word shortage which should be prefaced by the work "apparent." Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First three sentences accepted. Balance is a comment on the evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and resolved in favor of Respondent. Accepted and resolved in favor of Respondent. 6A -C. Accepted and discussed within the body of the Order. 6D. Not a Finding of Fact but a discussion of the evidence. 6E & F. Not relevant. 7A - C. Not a Finding of fact but a statement of evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate Hurston Building, N-308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Arthur B. Karns,. pro se Karns Real Estate, Inc. 6346-63 West Lantana Road Lake Worth, Florida 3343 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
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 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.
The Issue The issues in this case include whether Respondent is guilty of having committed culpable negligence in a business transaction or failed to maintain trust funds in a proper account until disbursement was authorized and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida since 1983 and holds license number 0405933. His most current license was as a broker trading as Realty Trend. Respondent started Realty Trend in 1985 for the primary purpose of managing rental properties. Although he had little or no training or experience in accounting, Respondent retained considerable responsibility for the day-to- day bookkeeping associated with his business, though at times he employed a bookkeeper. Respondent maintained one account for sales transactions, in which he participated as the broker, and one account for property management activity. Respondent participated in few sales transactions and is phasing out of that part of the business. All escrow monies held by Respondent were kept in interest-bearing accounts. Although Respondent retained the interest, he disclosed this fact to the parties through the sales contract. Within about 18 months, Respondent had acquired about 100 properties to manage. Respondent decided to automate the bookkeeping and purchased a computer program that would write checks, track income and expenses, generate reports, and generally handle all aspects of bookkeeping. The program was designed to assist in property management operations. Emphasizing service to property owners, Respondent had always tried to send his checks for rent collected the past month between the tenth and fifteenth of each month. By August, 1989, Respondent had been warned by Petitioner that he had to allow two or three weeks for tenant's checks to clear and determine what emergency maintenance expenses might be incurred. Through a combination of ignorance about bookkeeping, his responsibilities as a broker holding escrow monies, and the property management computer program, Respondent mishandled his trust account. His repeated bookkeeping errors and failure to take corrective action allowed a sizable shortage to accumulate by the time Petitioner conducted a routine office audit on November 17, 1989. Respondent cooperated fully with the audit and promptly provided Petitioner's investigator with a box full of bank statements. His account was reaudited on January 8, 1990. Poor bookkeeping prevents a precise determination of the shortage, but it exceeds $10,000. It is difficult to understand how Respondent's books became so confused as to become nearly worthless. There was no evidence of fraudulent intent. It appears as likely that Respondent overpaid property owners as that he overpaid himself. Respondent's ongoing ignorance of his serious trust account shortages or, in the alternative, repeated failure to solve recognized trust account shortages represents culpable negligence. Even by the time of hearing, Respondent candidly admitted that he could not provide an accurate figure for the shortage and had not yet been able to repay the deficiency, although he intended to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondent; imposing an administrative fine of $500; requiring Respondent to complete an approved 60-hour course; suspending his license for a period of six months, commencing retroactive to the date on which Respondent cease operations due to the emergency suspension; and placing his license on probation for a period of three years following the conclusion of the suspension, during which time Respondent shall file escrow account reports with the Commission or other person designated by the Commission at such intervals as the Commission requires. DONE and ORDERED this 8 day of October, 1990, 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 this 8 day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Attorney Steven W. Johnson Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Thomas I. McIntosh 13542 N. Florida Ave. Tampa, FL 33613 Attorney Neil F. Garfield Envirwood Executive Plaza, Suite 200 5950 West Oakland Park Blvd. Lauderhill, FL 33313 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent (all references to Respondent are to Respondent Simmonds) is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida holding license numbers 0404486 and 0245930. His most current licenses are as a broker, c/o the corporate Respondent. He has been licensed about six years in Florida. The corporate Respondent (all references to the corporate Respondent are to Respondent L. G. Simmonds Realty, Inc.) is a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida holding license number 0245825. At all material times, Respondent was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer of the corporate Respondent. He is the sole shareholder of the corporate Respondent and the only broker employed by the corporate Respondent. Respondents were brokers in three sales transactions in which they received competing claims for earnest money deposits that they held in trust. The three contracts are the sale from Durant to Durant by contract dated February 13, 1987, and amended December 7, 1987; the sale from Dyer to James by contract dated August 27, 1988; and the sale from Kollar and Nilands Bar & Package, Inc. to Hamilton by contract dated October 11, 1988. Each of the three contracts is on a standard printed form. Each contract requires the corporate Respondent to hold the earnest money deposit in escrow and disburse it at closing, at which time the corporate Respondent earns its commission. Each contract provides that the corporate Respondent may interplead the funds in circuit court in the event of a dispute and further provides that the corporate Respondent shall comply with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Durant contract provides for the corporate Respondent to hold a $1000 earnest money deposit. A dispute between the parties to the Durant contract arose, and Respondent contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission for advice. By letter dated November 22, 1988, Respondent informed the Florida Real Estate Commission of a demand by the seller for the deposit because the buyer had failed to follow through on his mortgage application. The letter states that Respondent is convinced that the seller is entitled to the deposit and that Respondent intends to pursue interpleader. By Notice dated February 2, 1989, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents that it could not issue an Escrow Disbursement Order because of the unenforceability of certain contractual language. Referring to Rule 21V-10.32, the letter advised Respondents that, within 30 days of receipt of the letter, they must pursue arbitration, with the consent of all parties, or a judicial adjudication, such as through interpleader. At some point, Respondents obtained an application for arbitration and sent it to the parties. By letter dated June 12, 1989, Respondents informed the Florida Real Estate Commission that they had sent an arbitration contract on March 21, 1989, to the seller, who had not yet responded to the request to arbitrate. Subsequently, Respondents retained counsel at their expense to discuss interpleading the funds in circuit court. Counsel advised them that the relatively modest sum involved, as a practical matter, precluded the judicial remedy because the attorneys' fees would exceed the amount in dispute. Eventually, the parties to the Durant contract settled their dispute, and Respondents disbursed the funds pursuant to the parties' stipulation. There is no evidence of a complaint about Respondents' handling of the earnest money deposits, nor is there any evidence that Respondent failed to account or deliver the deposit to any person as required by law. The Dyer contract also involved an earnest money deposit of $1000, which was later increased by addendum to a total of $3000. The Dyer contract, which also failed to close, provides for the corporate Respondent to hold the earnest money deposit. By letter dated March 2, 1989, Respondents informed the Florida Real Estate Commission that, as of the same day, they had received conflicting demands for the earnest money deposit. By Notice dated August 28, 1989, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents that it could not issue an Escrow Disbursement Order because of factual disputes that the Commission is not empowered to resolve. The Notice states that Respondents must "immediately" choose one of the remaining alternatives--arbitration or interpleader in circuit court. By letter dated September 8, 1989, Respondents informed the Florida Real Estate Commission that they would seek help through the Arbitration Society of Florida, Inc. It is unclear whether Respondents sent an arbitration application to the parties in the Dyer contract, but no arbitration ensued. The parties to the Dyer contract resolved their dispute in March, 1990, and Respondents disbursed the funds pursuant to the parties' stipulation. There is no evidence of a complaint about Respondents' handling of the earnest money deposits, nor is there any evidence that Respondents failed to account or deliver the deposit to any person as required by law. The Kollar contract resulted in the receipt by the corporate Respondent of an earnest money deposit of $10,000. This contract also failed to close. By letter dated January 19, 1989, Respondents informed the Florida Real Estate Commission of conflicting demands received the same day. The Commission issued an Escrow Disbursement Order on August 16, 1989, with which Respondents promptly complied. There is no evidence of a complaint about Respondents' handling of the earnest money deposit, nor is there any evidence that Respondents failed to account or deliver the deposit to any person as required by law. On January 30, 1990, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondents' office pursuant to a complaint that never provided any basis for disciplinary action. Respondent said that he was ill and asked her to reschedule the visit. They agreed to reset it for February 6, 1990. On February 6, 1990, Petitioner's investigator met Respondent at his office and asked for copies of all pending contracts, bank statements, deposit slips, cancelled checks, and similar materials so that she could reconcile the trust account. Respondent supplied her with all of these materials except for the cancelled checks, which he said were at the accountant's office. Respondent gave the investigator access to his office copier so that she could copy whatever she needed. She apparently copied various documents, but failed to copy the pending contracts. From February, 1988, through February, 1990, Respondents held 6-10 earnest money deposits. On February 6, Respondents had only three pending contracts for which they held deposits. These were the Dyer contract and two unidentified contracts with $3500 and $500 earnest money deposits. Respondents did not handle other trust funds, such as property management funds. Petitioner's investigator determined that the trust account was short $2897.73. She found pending contracts indicating that Respondents should be holding a total of $7000 in earnest money deposits, but she found a bank balance of only $4102.27, which included a deposit of $1392.26 made on February 5. Respondents' trust account has been short previously. For example, in August, 1989, the Dyer, Durant, and Kollar contracts, which were still outstanding, generated a trust account liability of $14,000, but the account balance was as low as $700. Respondent admits that he improperly removed funds from the trust account, without the parties' knowledge, to apply toward personal medical expenses that he had incurred. In the fall of 1989, he deposited into the trust account proceeds from a loan he had recently received. However, he removed additional trust funds when he later incurred more medical expenses. By February 6, Respondent knew that the trust account was short, but evidently did not know precisely by how much. His repeated vagueness concerning the specifics of trust account withdrawals and deposits from August, 1989, through February, 1990, discredits his testimony that he never withdrew more than the amounts of pending commissions, which were unearned in any event when withdrawn by Respondent. On February 7, Respondent deposited $2897.73 into the trust account to eliminate the deficiency found by Petitioner's investigator. During the following week, the investigator returned to Respondents' office. She requested Respondent to produce the same documents that she had examined previously, but Respondent refused on the grounds that he had already produced all the documents once and he was seeking legal counsel. The investigator contacted Respondent a couple more times concerning the requested documents, but Respondent continued to refuse to cooperate. Petitioner next tried to compel the production of the requested documents by service of an administrative subpoena. By subpoena duces tecum issued February 19, 1990, and served February 21, 1990, Petitioner demanded that Respondents produce, on February 26, 1990: All current pending sales contracts, on L. G. Simmonds Realty Escrow Account #144100004792 all bank deposit slips from 2/1/88-2/1/90, the check book for account #14410004792. Upon receipt of the subpoena, Respondent contacted his attorney, who prepared a petition to invalidate subpoena, which was served by mail on February 25, 1990, and received by Petitioner on February 28, 1990. The basic objections are that the subpoena is "unreasonably broad in scope and/or requires the production of irrelevant material" and that Respondents are entitled to know what complaint is being investigated prior to producing the information. Petitioner issued another administrative subpoena on March 12, 1990, which was served upon Respondents on March 26, 1990, and requested, by March 30, 1990: On L. G. Simmonds Realty Escrow Account #14410004792: All sales contracts for which L. G. Simmonds Realty, Inc. is holding escrow deposits, the 1/90 and 2/90 bank statements, cancelled checks, number 177 through 270. On March 29, 1990, Respondents' attorney served the same objections to the petition, and Petitioner received the objections on April 4, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondents; imposing on each Respondent an administrative fine of $3000 (for a total from the two Respondents of $6000); requiring Respondent to complete an approved 60-hour course; suspending the licenses of both Respondents for a period of six months, commencing retroactive to when their licenses were revoked pursuant to the emergency order; placing both licenses on probation for a period of three years commencing the conclusion of the suspension; and requiring, during the period of suspension, that Respondents provide the Florida Real Estate Commission, or its signated representative, with escrow account status reports at such intervals as the Commission shall require. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4438 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-7: adopted. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9-10 (first sentence): adopted. 10 (second and third sentences): rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. In fact, Respondent supplied the investigator with copies of the contracts on February 6, but refused subsequent requests to produce them. He indicated that he wanted to obtain advice of counsel. 11: rejected as subordinate. In addition, the implication that files of the Division of Real Estate were the sole source of information regarding the contracts is rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. The investigator found in the EDO files of the Division of Real Estate a copy of the Dyer contract, which, as noted in the recommended order, was one of the three contracts generating the escrow account liability that the investigator calculated on February 6. Although she saw the other two contracts (in order to generate the liability), she never received copies of them, even through the final hearing. 12-19: adopted or adopted in substance. 20-21 (with respect to each paragraph, first sentence and first clause of second sentence): adopted. 20-21 (with respect to each paragraph, remainder): rejected as irrelevant. 22: adopted. 23: rejected as irrelevant. 24-27 and 30-33: adopted. 28 and 34: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and unnecessary. 29: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondents 1-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13: rejected as subordinate. 14-15: adopted. 16 and 19: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 17: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 18: adopted. 20: rejected as irrelevant. 21: rejected as subordinate. 22: adopted. 23-24 and 26-27: rejected as recitation of testimony. 25: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 28-33 (first clause of second sentence): adopted. 33 (second clause of second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 33 (remainder): adopted. 34-35: except as to the fact of the issuance of the subpoena and petition to invalidate, rejected as unnecessary. 36: rejected as unclear. Respondent gave the investigator a chance to see the three pending contracts generating the February 6 trust account liability, but never gave her copies of any of them when she later discovered that she had failed to copy them. She found a copy of the Dyer contract in the EDO file, but she never received copies of the other two contracts, even at the final hearing. The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The determination in the recommended order on this point was not dependent upon Respondents' handling of the subpoenas, but on their handling of repeated and reasonable requests for relevant information. 37: rejected as irrelevant. 38: adopted. 39: rejected as unnecessary. 40-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted. 45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-49: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Thomas V. Infantino Infantino and Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Attorney James H. Gillis Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 *Previously assigned DOAH Case No. 90-4319 closed as a duplicate.
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Carlson is guilty of misconduct in his practice as a certified public accountant by making personal use of trust fund monies or by his firm's issuance of an audit report on a bank while one of the firm's partners was a shareholder in the bank.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Carlson has been licensed as a certified public accountant in Florida, holding license #AC0002345. His address is 930 North Chrome Avenue, Suite 2B, Homestead, Florida 33030. Mr. Carlson became a partner in an accounting firm known as Brown, Carlson, and Derrer in 1985. Prior to Mr. Carlson's association with Richard Brown, one of the partners in that firm, the Islamorada Bank was a major client of Mr. Brown. Brown had issued audit opinions on the financial statements of the bank without disclosing that Brown was a stockholder of the bank, and therefore lacked independence with respect to the bank. Financial statements for the year ending December 31, 1986, were issued on the letterhead of Brown, Carlson, and Derrer, and signed by Richard Brown, along with an audit opinion with respect to the financial statements of the Islamorada Bank. Brown's lack of independence was not disclosed in the audit opinion letter. Mr. Carlson had specifically asked Mr. Brown on all audits, including the audit of the Islamorada Bank, whether Brown was independent of the client, and Brown unequivocally told Carlson that he (Brown), was independent. Other members of the firm, including Roger Infante, also specifically inquired about Brown's independence and was assured that Brown was independent with respect to the Islamorada Bank. After the audit report on the financial statements of the Islamorada Bank for 1986 was issued, the firm of Brown, Carlson, and Derrer broke up in April, 1987. In connection with the breakup, Carlson discovered that Brown had held stock in the Islamorada Bank, and was not independent with respect to the bank. At that time, Mr. Carlson's lawyer advised him that: If he notified all shareholders of the bank, this would be improper because Carlson was currently in acrimonious litigation with Brown over the breakup of the accounting firm, and such action could be viewed as harassment; Brown still denied the lack of indepen- dence despite the appearance of shares in the bank on Brown's personal financial statements, and If Carlson failed to notify anyone, he might be guilty of a potential violation of his professional responsibility. Thus, Carlson's lawyer told him that no matter what he did, he could be guilty of wrongdoing. In order to resolve this problem, Carlson reported the situation to the Department of Professional Regulation. He did not attempt to recall the audit that Brown had done on the bank. A certified public accountant who owns even one share of stock in a company for which he issues financial statements lacks independence. Because Brown lacked independence and the financial statements were issued on the letterhead of Brown, Carlson, and Derrer, the firm also lacked independence. Willard Teft, a client of Mr. Carlson, established an educational trust fund known as a Clifford Trust. Those trust funds were delivered to Mr. Carlson and held in Carlson's trust account. Mr. Carlson failed to post and reconcile the Teft trust account from January 1, 1985 until May, 1988. The failure to perform the posting and reconciliations resulted in overdrafts against the Teft trust. These overdrafts consisted of payments to clients and fees paid to the accounting firm. Only after the Teft trust was reconciled did Mr. Carlson realized he had used money that was not his. The Teft trust should have had a balance of $7,500-10,000 at all times. Mr. Carlson should have known by looking at the balance of his trust account that he was misusing trust fund money. Mr. Carlson's misuse of the trust fund money constitutes misconduct in the practice of public accounting. The Teft trust account had been reconciled and posted to date before the Department began its investigation. All monies due to the trust because of overdrafts had been returned to the account before the Department's investigation. Mr. Carlson provided full and complete cooperation in the investigation conducted by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Mr. Carlson guilty of violation of Section 473.323(1)(g), Florida Statutes, that he be reprimanded, and placed on probation with the usual probationary terms for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1990, 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 22nd day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi C. Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Victor K. Rones, Esquire MARGULIES AND RONES 16105 Northeast 18th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Martha Willis, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Accountancy Suite 16 4001 Northwest 43rd Street Gainesville, Florida 32606
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents committed fraud, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; failed to prepare monthly trust account reconciliations, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code; failed to account for or deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; and failed to preserve books and accounts, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent Maria L. Nuevo (Respondent) was a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 3006548. Respondent was first licensed, as a real estate salesperson, in Florida in 1984 and became a broker in 1986. Respondent is president of, and qualifying broker for, Respondent Realco Realty, Inc. (Realco Realty), which is a corporation registered as a real estate broker, holding license number 1011738. In late August or early September 2000, Respondent prepared a Residential Sales and Purchase Contract (Contract) on behalf of Omar Canizares, as buyer, to purchase a residence at 10620 Southwest 139th Street in Miami (Property). The Contract provided for a purchase price of $260,000 and a deposit of $1000 to be held by Realco Realty. Respondent presented the Contract to Zoila de Castro, a real estate broker who was representing Antonio and Lorraine Lambo, and Mrs. Lambo. The record is poorly developed on these points, but it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Lambo jointly owned the Property and that both of them never signed the Contract. Respondent left the Contract with Mrs. Lambo because Mr. Lambo was out of town. A few days later, Ms. de Castro returned the Contract to Respondent, intending to convey a counteroffer that raised the purchase price to $265,000 and the deposit to $5000--to be paid within three days after the inspection. However, the Contract delivered by Ms. de Castro to Respondent is notable for two omissions--a signature of one of the Lambos and a deadline for Canizares' acceptance of the counteroffer. Ms. de Castro's testimony that she delivered to Respondent the only original contract with signatures of both Lambos is discredited for two reasons. First, Respondent would likely use the better version of the Contract--i.e., the one with both sellers' signatures--when providing a copy to the appraiser. Second, Ms. de Castro appears to have maintained, at best, an imperfect grasp of all that was transpiring in this attempted transaction and may be claiming to have delivered a fully signed contract--though still without a deadline for Mr. Canizares' acceptance--in order to place herself in a better light. At this point in the transaction, the lack of an enforceable agreement between Mr. Canizares and the Lambos should have been obvious to the Lambos' real estate broker, but it was not. The testimony depicts a series of unanswered letters and unsatisfied demands, as the Lambos initially tried to get the deal to close and eventually tried only to get the deposits, which they believed now totalled $5000. In fact, neither Respondent held any deposit. Although relieved from the obligation to collect another $4000 in deposit, due to the failure of the parties to come to an agreement, Respondents had misrepresented to the Lambos and Ms. de Castro that they held the initial $1000 deposit. Although Petitioner has failed to prove other fraudulent acts by either Respondent toward the Lambos or Ms. de Castro, Petitioner has proved another fraudulent act by Respondents in connection with this transaction. Exploiting Ms. de Castro's lack of diligence, Respondents appear to have shopped the Contract. On September 22, 2000, Respondent ordered an appraisal on a form showing the purchase price as $325,880. At the request of the appraiser, Respondent sent to the appraisal a copy of an altered Contract, which provided for a purchase price of $310,100 and reflected total deposits of $5000. The Lambos-Canizares sale never closed, and the Lambos never received any money representing the deposit that they claimed to be owed. Respondents opened an escrow account in September 2000, but had never performed written monthly escrow reconciliation for their trust account through the date of the audit in February 2001. Additionally, at the time of the audit, Respondents were unable to produce any documentation pertaining to their real estate practice. However, Respondents later produced banking records and reconciliations for January and February 2001, which were undoubtedly prepared after the February 2001 audit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking the real estate broker licenses of Maria L. Nuevo and Realco Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 29th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Christopher J. DeCosta Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-809 Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael H. Wolf Michael H. Wolf & Associates, LLC. 3832 North University Drive Sunrise, Florida 33322
Findings Of Fact The Department rules on the Proposed Findings of Fact and Exceptions, submitted by the parties as follows: APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Applicant's Proposed Finding numbers 1 and 2 are accepted to the extent that factual matters are discussed, consistent with the Final Order. Proposed Finding numbers 3-6 are accepted as consistent with the Final Order. PROTESTANT'S (FLORIDA BANKERS ASSOCIATION) PROPOSED FINDINGS ON BEHALF OF PROTESTANTS AND INTERVENORS Proposed Findings 1-32 concern proposed facts relevant to all applications, and Proposed Findings 45-55 concern proposed facts concerning the specific application of DBT Trust Company of Florida. Proposed Finding numbers 1-5, 10-17, 26-30 are accepted to the extent that they are generally consistent with the Hearing Officer's Finding or with the Final Order. Proposed Finding numbers 6-9, 18-25, 31 are rejected to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact or with this Final Order, or are otherwise irrelevant or immaterial. Proposed Finding numbers 45, 46, 51-55 are rejected to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact or with this Final Order, or are otherwise irrelevant or immaterial. Proposed Finding numbers 47-48 are accepted to the extent that they are generally consistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact or with the Final Order. PROTESTANT'S AND INTERVENOR'S EXCEPTIONS Exception numbers 1, 3-7 are rejected and the Hearing Officer's ruling is affirmed. Exception number 2 is rejected. Exception number 8 is misplaced. Many Findings of Fact submitted by the parties were not specifically incorporated into the Findings, but were consistent with the Findings, and have been accepted in this Final Order. Those that have not, are deemed inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings, or are irrelevant or immaterial. Exception number 9 is rejected. All parties had an opportunity to challenge the incipient policy of the Department, pursuant to McDonald vs. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (1st DCA Fla. 1977) Exception number 10 was not considered a significant factor, and the Department followed its incipient policy and other trust company order regarding capital adequacy. Exception numbers 11-16 are rejected as inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, and the Final Order. Exception numbers 17-26 concern Proposed Findings which have been discussed above, and considered in paragraphs 6-9. SUPPLEMENTAL POST HEARING SUBMISSION OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN PALM BEACH AND BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA This submission is primarily limited to the issue of transfer accounts. Points 1-3 are rejected to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, and the Final Order. The Hearing Officer made specific findings as the trier of fact, regarding the transfer of accounts, and those Findings have been adopted by the Comptroller. SCHEDULE "A" Thomas C. Oldham, Esquire Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen E. Day Attorney for Respondent Bankers Trust Company of Florida Taylor, Day, Rio & Mercier 701 Fisk Street, Suite 320 Jacksonville, Florida 32204 (904) 356-0700 John A. Jones Bruce Roberson Attorneys for DBT Trust Company of Florida Case No. 79-1228; 79-1234 Holland and Knight 610 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33601 (813) 223-1621 John Radey Holland and Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (904) 224-7000 J. Thomas Cardwell Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bankers Association and Intervenor Atlantic National Bank of Palm Beach County Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 843-7860 Bruce Culpepper Attorney for Petitioner Florida Association of Registered Bank Holding Companies, Inc. 350 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 222-6071 James G. Pressly, Jr. Attorney for Intervenor First National Bank in Palm Beach Attorney for Intervenor Bessemer Trust Company of Florida Gunster, Yoakley, Criser, Stewart and Hirsey, P.A. First National Bank Building Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (305) 655-1980 H. David Faust Attorney for Intervenor Bank of Palm Beach and Trust Company Attorney for Intervenor First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton Burns, Middleton, Farrell and Faust 205 Worth Avenue Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (305) 655-5311 Robert I. MacLaren, II Attorney for Intervenor Boca Raton National Bank Osborne and Hankins Post Office Drawer 40 855 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 (305) 395-1000 Ralph J. Blank, Jr. Attorney for Intervenor First National Bank and Trust Company of Riviera Beach Blank, Will and Benn Post Office Box 2100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (305) 832-2889 John C. Miller, Jr. Attorney for All Intervenors Post Office Box 46 Mobile, Alabama 36601 (205) 432-1414 Phillip G. Newcomm Bowman Brown Arnold L. Berman Attorneys for Respondent U.S. Trust Company of Florida 1000 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 358-6300
