The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined for dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction contrary to Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes and for having failed to maintain deposits received in a trust or escrow bank account maintained by the Respondent until disbursement thereof was properly authorized contrary to Subsection 475.75(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Due to the Respondent's failure to receive the Notice of Hearing the Hearing Officer continued the date of final hearing to November 15, 1984, in Clearwater, Florida and notice was provided to the Respondent's last known official address. At the hearing, held November 15, 1984, the Department called Vivian C. Firmin, Sandy MacWatters, Angela Damalos, James Damalos, Rosie Hazealeferiou, Paul Hazealeferiou, Georgia White and Alan E. Shevy as witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 12 were received into evidence. The Respondent failed to appear and no witnesses were called on behalf of the Respondent nor exhibits submitted into evidence on behalf of the Respondent. Proposed findings of fact not included in this order were considered irrelevant to the issues, immaterial to the results reached or were not supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, the Respondent, Mark D. Gabisch was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license number 0189069. (Petitioner's Exhibit #12). Georgia M. White, a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida was employed by the Respondent until September 1, 1983. On July 27, 1983, Ms. White obtained a written offer for the purchase of real property from James and Angela Damalos and Paul and Rosie Hazealeferiou as purchasers. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7). The terms of the contract called for a $500.00 earnest money deposit. On July 27, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Damalos and Mr. and Mrs. Hazealeferiou each issued a check to the Respondent's escrow account in the amount of $250.00 for a total deposit of $500.00. (Petitioner's Exhibits #1 and 9). The $500.00 deposit was placed in the Respondent's escrow bank account (Petitioner's Exhibit #4). The contract for Sale and Purchase was presented to the sellers by Ms. White and the contract was rejected and no counter-offer was made. This information was passed on to the purchasers by Ms. White and the purchasers requested the return of their deposit. On August 11, 3.983, the Respondent issued from his escrow bank account Check No. 102 in the amount of $250.00 payable to Mr. and Mrs. Hazealeferiou. On the same day the Respondent issued from his escrow bank account Check No. 103 in the amount of $250.00 payable to Mr. and Mrs. Damalos. (Petitioner's Exhibits #2, 3, 8 and 10). Checks 102 and 103, identified in paragraph 6 above, were deposited by the purchasers, dishonored by the bank upon presentment, and returned stamped "insufficient funds." (Petitioner's Exhibits #2, 3, 5, 8 and 10). Mrs. Damalos contacted Ms. White and informed her that the escrow checks had been returned for insufficient funds. Ms. White, on her own accord, contacted Respondent and eventually the purchasers received their deposit back in cash. The Respondent, in a letter to Mr. Alan Shevy, Investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, admitted that he had misused the escrow funds and acknowledged his guilt in the matter. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finds of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's Mark D. Gabisch, license as a real estate broker, be suspended for a period of six months and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1984 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Mark D. Gabisch 1443 Otten Clearwater, Florida 33515 James R. Mitchell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Respondents' registration as real estate brokers should be suspended for an alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about the middle of March, 1974, Anne Land, a saleswoman for Respondent real estate brokers, met one Timothy B. Howe who had responded to an advertisement in the newspaper concerning the purchase or lease of a home at 185 West Sunrise Avenue, Coral Gable, Florida. After viewing the premises, Mr. Howe decided to lease the property and his attorney prepared a lease in the total sum of $7,200 for one years rent. This proposal was submitted to the owner of the house, Mrs. Joanne Kealy, but upon the advice of counsel, she declined the proposal. Several days later, Howe decided to purchase the home. He signed a standard sales contract, dated March 26, 1974, which provided for a total purchase price of $72,500.00, payable under the following terms: "The sum of $1,800.00 by check hereby deposited in escrow with Magruder Realty, Inc., as escrow agent, in part payment of the purchase price and as a security deposit for the faithful performance of this contract by Purchaser, and the remainder of the purchase price shall be paid as follows: Upon acceptance of this contract the purchaser to deposit with Magruder Realty, Inc., an additional $5,400.00. Purchaser to assume existing mortgage for approx. $38,816.00 with Coral Gables Federal Svgs and Loan Association and the seller to give to the purchaser a second mortgage for balance of approx. $26,500.00 at 8 1/2 percent for 12 years or less with no pre-paid clause penalty..." The contract was signed by Land as witness and also in behalf of the seller and also as an escrow agent of Magruder Realty, Inc. The document was not acknowledged before a notary public (testimony of Lands Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Land contacted the owner who was out of state at the time and asked her to indicate her acceptance of the offer by telegram. The owner did so on March 29, 1974. The evidence is conflicting as to the circumstances surrounding the disposition of the deposit check for $1,800.00. Land testified that she gave the check to Joseph P. Magruder on March 26 or 27 as was her practice in handling deposits, but said nothing about holding the check. Mr. Magruder, on the other hand, testified that at the time she gave him the check, she said Mr. Howe desired the check be held until the total down payment of $7,200.00 was received from a trust account, and that he therefore put the check in the transaction folder and gave the folder back to her to retain. His statement of the reason for not depositing the check in an escrow account immediately is supported by subsequent events and by the fact that the check was not actually deposited until a subsequent date, which was contrary to his normal office practice (testimony of Land, Magruder, O'Brien; Exhibit 2). Subsequent conversations between Land and Howe during the latter part of March and early April were to the effect that Howe's mother was sending funds for the balance of the down payment. On April 4, Land talked to Howe by telephone and he asked for the escrow account number of Magruder Realty, Inc., in order that his mother could send the additional $5,400.00 and/or $7,200.00. Land asked Respondent O'Brien, who was in the office at the time, for the firm's escrow account number and passed it on to Howe. On the same day, Land went on vacation in North Carolina and did not return to the office until April 15th. At that time, Magruder informed her that the additional funds had not been received from Howe and that although he had tried to reach him on the telephone he had been unsuccessful. Because of the difficulty in reaching Howe as to payment of the balance of the down payment, Magruder deposited the $1,800.00 check in his escrow bank account on April 17, 1974. It was not honored by the Howe's bank because Cristina I. Howe, his wife, had issued a stop payment order on the check on April 15. On March 26, 1974, the date the check was drawn, the Howe bank account was overdrawn by 26 (testimony of Land, Magruder, O'Brien, Garcia; Petitioner's Exhibits 2 & 6; Respondent's Exhibit 1). Although Respondents claimed that the Florida Real Estate Commission had disposed of the instant allegation by its letter of censure dated February 10, 1975, which referenced file CD15240, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that this letter involved other transactions and not the one under consideration at the hearing (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5).
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' Florida licenses as real estate broker, salesperson and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession and the licensing of real estate professionals. Respondents Frank E. Smith, Elaine M Smith, and Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc., were licensed real estate professionals, a broker, a sales person, and a brokerage corporation respectively. Respondent Frank E. Smith was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc.. On or about July 23, 1991, the Respondents and Carolyn Chaple entered into a management agreement whereby Respondent agreed to rent and manage Ms. Chaple's residence located in Tampa. The terms of the management agreement signed by Ms. Chaple and Ms. Smith called for the company to render a monthly statement of receipts, charges and disbursements, and to remit the net proceeds each month to Ms. Chaple whose address was listed in the agreement as P.O. Box 12003, Brooksville, Florida 34601. For performing this service, Respondents were to receive a commission of 8% of the monthly gross receipts. The agreement also called for the Respondents to: ... hire, discharge and pay all engineers, janitors and other employees; to make or cause to be made all ordinary repairs and replacements necessary to preserve the premises in its present condition and for the operating efficiency thereof and all alterations required to comply with lease requirements, and to do decorating on the premises; to negotiate contracts for nonrecurring items not exceeding $100.00 and to enter into agreements for all necessary repairs, maintenance, minor alterations and utility services; and to purchase supplies and pay all bills. An amendment to the agreement, initialed by Ms. Chaple only, made the provision subject to a lease agreement purportedly attached but which was not offered into evidence. Ms. Chaple contends that lease provided she would be responsible only for those repairs costing in excess of $250.00 and which she had approved. This added provision was not, however, initialed by Respondents and, therefore, never became a binding part of the management agreement, regardless of what Ms. Chaple intended. Ms. Smith asserts that if Ms. Chaple had insisted on that change, she would not have entered into the agreement. It is found, therefore, that there was no agreement limiting Ms. Chaple's liability for repairs. Pursuant to the management agreement, Respondents solicited and obtained tenants for Ms. Chaple's property. Respondent admittedly did not send a copy of the first lease to Ms. Chaple, but the tenancy was short lived and terminated when the tenant moved out owing rent. Ms. Chaple claims the Respondents did not advise her of this situation. Instead, she claims, she heard of it from neighbors. However, on December 30, 1991, Respondents obtained another lessee for the property at a rental of $600.00 per month for 12 months. Respondents' fee was %8 of that ($48.00) resulting in a net monthly rental to Ms. Chaple, exclusive of repair expenses if any, of $552.00 per month. Ms. Chaple claims that though she repeatedly asked for a copy of the management agreement she had signed, she never got one. When she began to ask for accountings, she says she got some but not all. By the same token, she claims she did not get all the receipts relating to the repair work done on her property. Between December 4, 1991 and August 16, 1992, Ms. Chaple wrote several detailed letters to the Respondents requesting information on the status of the first tenancy and efforts being made to receive compensation, and detailed explanations for expenditures made and charged to her on the account statements that were sent. She also complained of the lateness of the statements, of the Respondents' notice of intended termination of the agreement, and an explanation of large expense charged almost every month. Respondents claim they furnished Ms. Chaple a copy of the management agreement on at least 3 separate occasions by mailing a copy to her Brooksville address, that address listed for her in the agreement. Ms. Chaple, however, was living in Houston, Texas during all this period and requested the use of the Brooksville address, apparently her father's post office box. Respondents also claim they sent Ms. Chaple a monthly statement of account along with her net rent check each month. Every check sent was cashed by Ms. Chaple indicating she received them. There is no explanation as to why she did not also receive the account statements. In light of Ms. Chaple's moves, and the use of an intermediary to transmit mail, it cannot be said Respondents did not send the agreements. This is not to say Ms. Chaple did receive them all, merely that the Respondents dispatched them to her. Ms. Chaple also claimed she never got a copy of a lease from the Respondents. Respondent, Elaine Smith, admits this indicating she did not send copies of leases to owners as a matter of practice. It is noted that Ms. Chaple repeatedly requested itemized explanations for the major expenditures deducted from the rent each month and characterized on the account statement solely as "maintenance." The management agreement obliging the owner to pay for such expenditures as a deduction from rent is silent on the need on the Respondents to explain such deductions. The agreement obliges the agent to "render a monthly statement of receipts, disbursements and charges and to remit each month the net proceeds to the [owner]." While it may be true the monthly statement of accounting showing "maintenance" might be acceptable evidence to the Internal Revenue Service, when, as here, such expenses are relatively large and frequent, it is not at all unusual or unreasonable for the owner to request and expect to receive an explanation of those deductions. To be sure, Respondents did send some receipts as requested, but it is clear they did not do so in all cases. Clearly the mere use of the word, "maintenance" does not constitute a sufficient showing of "disbursements" or "charges" as are called for in the agreement. This is so especially in light of the fact Respondents also operated a maintenance company through which they contracted for almost all maintenance and repair work except air conditioning. The charge to the owners was cost plus 10%. Ms. Chaple ultimately filed a complaint with the Division which, on March 18, 1992, sent its investigator, J.L. Graham, to the Respondents' office. As a part of her investigations, Ms. Graham did an audit of the Respondents' escrow accounts maintained at the Sun Bank in Tampa. She discovered that Respondents maintained a security escrow account which had a shortage of $5,780.00 and a rental escrow account which had a shortage of $4,261.31. Respondents admit a shortage had existed ever since the business was purchased in 1986 and claim that due to the shrinking inventory of properties they managed, the need to pay $500.00 a month on the purchase price, and $1,300.00 a month on obligated rent, they did not have sufficient income from operations to reimburse the accounts the amount of the shortages. There is no evidence that Respondents misappropriated any of the funds represented by the shortages and it is accepted they did not cause or increase either shortage. However, it is equally true they did nothing to eradicate or reduce either, routinely drawing their lawful commissions which were placed in the company's operating account and used to pay routine expenses. In any event, within 2 days of Ms. Graham's inspection, Respondents borrowed the money to reimburse the escrow accounts for the amount of the shortages in full. Ms. Graham also found that Respondents failed to prepare and sign written monthly reconciliations of the escrow accounts and had no supporting documentation for the accounts other than the check register, leases and the management agreements. Respondents' books were primarily kept in a computer and the information in support of the escrow accounts was not being kept in a manner readily accessible to the Division's representatives. Mr. Smith admits he did not do the required reconciliations, claiming that between the computer records and the bank statements, he knew what was going on. This is insufficient to satisfy the Division's requirements. Mr. Smith contends that immediately after the audit, he began doing the required reconciliations and would be willing to furnish them to the Division on a repeated basis if necessary. Respondents also failed to prepare and furnish to the tenants of clients' properties the required disclosure of agency relationship, notifying the tenants in writing that they, Respondents, represented the respective landlords, not them. Respondents asserted they made it clear to each tenant that they did not own the units being rented, but this does not meet the rule or statutory requirement. Review of the corporation records also revealed that Mrs. Smith, a licensed salesperson, was listed as an officer of the brokerage corporation. Respondents admit this but claim they did not know it was improper and that their accountant failed to so advise them. Gennie Amick has known and been friends with Respondents for more than 7 years. She has used their services in the past as managers of property she then owned and both her son and her daughter do so at the present time. They have had absolutely no complaints about the Respondents' management. Ms. Amick knows Mrs. Smith very well and considers her to be a very honorable person. Respondent's integrity has never been questioned, to the best of Amick's knowledge, and she goes out of her way to help her clients, doing more than her contract requires of her. Mr. Smith is also an honorable person. Because of Ms. Amick's trust in the Respondents, she loaned them $6,000.00 when she learned of their difficulties with the Division and this loan was repaid when Respondents thereafter mortgaged their home. Respondents have owned Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc. since they bought it in 1986, paying $20,000.00 for the business. They put $1,500.00 down and agreed to pay the balance off at $500.00 per month. They also agreed with the seller to rent his office for $1,300.00 per month. It was these commitments, and the shrinking of the client list, which prevented them from making up the shortages in the escrow accounts. Mr. Smith has been in the real estate business, both in Florida and elsewhere, since 1967. He has been licensed as a broker since 1988 and he and his wife have operated Sunshine, which does not handle sales, only property management, since 1986. It is their livelihood. He became the qualifying broker for the firm in 1988. Neither he nor Mrs. Smith has been the subject of a complaint before now. At no time did either Respondent intend to break any rules or to unlawfully profit by their improper actions. They claim any infractions are as a result of ignorance rather than design and so it would appear. Their relationship with Ms. Chaple was less than an acceptable business relationship, yet Ms. Chaple did not make a good witness. It appeared she had her own agenda to follow and her memory of facts seemed selective. She appears to be difficult to deal with and it is reasonable to believe that much of the difficulty she had with the Respondents was as a result of her own attitude and approach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered placing all Respondents' licenses on probation for a period of 1 year under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Division and imposing an administrative file of $500.00 upon each Respondent Smith for a total fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3898 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: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the word, solicited. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein, Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein 5. Accepted to the extent that the evidence shows the agree-ment and accountings were sent to the best evidence available to the Respondents. 6. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law, 7. & 8. More a comment on the state of the evidence, than a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 14. Accepted. Rejected as implying the disclosures made satisfied the rule requirements. Accepted. & 18. Accepted as to what Respondent's did and that no harm to the public or any client resulted, but rejected to the extent public benefit is asserted. 19. & 20. Accepted but relevant only to the quantum of punishment to be imposed. 21. - 23. Accepted. 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Hurston Building - N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Sheldon L. Wind, Esquire 110 E. Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33504 Jack McRay General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondents' real estate brokers licenses should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Barbara Odom, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0189819. Ms. Odom is the owner of and the qualifying broker for Respondent, Odom Realty, Inc., located in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent, Odom Realty, Inc. is a corporation registered as a real estate brokerage company in the State of Florida, holding license number 0226080. Ms. Odom has been licensed since 1982 and has been the owner of Odom Realty, Inc., since 1983. Rita Leonard has been the corporation's bookkeeper since Ms. Odom's acquisition of the company. Previous to her employment with Odom Realty, Ms. Leonard was the financial manager in charge of a large bank's accounting and bookkeeping department. Ms. Leonard was and is highly qualified as an accountant/bookkeeper. In addition to Ms. Leonard's bookkeeping services, Ms. Odom also has Odom Realty's books and records, including the various escrow account books and records, annually audited and reviewed by her CPA. Early in the company's history Ms. Odom entered into the rental property management business. Initially, Ms. Leonard was paying clients' repair bills on that client's rental property out of the corporation's operating account. The CPA questioned whether it was appropriate to pay those bills out of the corporation's operating account and indicated that the bills should be paid out of the corporation's rental property management escrow account, #11823890431. The CPA was not sure what the appropriate bookkeeping practice should be and indicated that Ms. Leonard should check with the Florida Real Estate Commission to discover what the appropriate procedure was. Ms. Leonard called the Florida Real Estate Commission to inquire about the proper method of paying clients' repair bills. Her impression of that conversation was that client repair bills should be paid out of the escrow account regardless of whether the individual had the money in the account. After this conversation with the Florida Real Estate Commission, Ms. Leonard began paying all the clients' repair bills out of the rental property management escrow account. All such client bills were paid promptly upon the repair bill's presentation, whether or not the individual client had the money available in the escrow account. Each client was later billed for the amount not covered by the balance in that individuals' escrow account. The client billings occurred on at least a monthly basis and the majority of the rental clients remitted their payments on a monthly basis. Occasionally, one of Respondent's clients was permitted to carry a negative balance for more than a month. These carry- overs occurred in the off-season and were paid when rentals picked back up during the areas main tourist season. As a consequence of this practice, some of Respondents' clients would have negative escrow balances on their individual escrow ledger account. Respondents were under the impression that such a practice was all right as long as the corporation had money available to cover those negative balances. In fact, the corporation always had such money available, although the actual transfers of funds were never made from the corporation's operating account to the rental property management escrow account. Respondents believed this practice was tantamount to loaning the respective clients money to cover the client's negative balance until that client corrected the deficit. No client ever complained about this practice. In fact, most of Respondents' clients wanted the repair bills paid promptly so that good repair service could be maintained on that client's property. On March 15, 1990, Elaine Brantley, Petitioner's investigator, conducted an audit of all of Respondents' escrow accounts. The only account she found a problem with was the rental property management account. During that investigation, Ms. Brantley found that Respondents had a trust liability of $10,081.71 and a bank balance of $9,480.97, leaving a shortage of $600.74. Respondents, the same day and prior to Ms. Brantley leaving, transferred the amount of the shortage from the corporation's operating account to the escrow account. Ms. Brantley then explained to Ms. Odom and her bookkeeper her opinion of how the Commission wanted escrow accounts maintained. Since that time, Respondents have maintained the escrow accounts in the manner prescribed by Ms. Brantley and no longer follow their policy of maintaining negative balances on the individual ledger sheets of their clients. They now make the actual transfer of funds from the operating account to the escrow account prior to paying any bill which would take an individual client over the amount of money that client has in the escrow account. The Respondents' books and records for the rental property management account were meticulously kept and both total and individual reconciliations were completed on a monthly basis by Respondents. All the records, including the monthly reconciliations reflected the appropriate negative balances if a particular client should have such a balance. As a consequence of this method of bookkeeping, there were no discrepancies, as opposed to a total shortage, between the total reconciliations and the escrow account's bank statement. Likewise, there were no discrepancies on the individual ledger accounts. There were no discrepancies because everything was added and subtracted out according to the records being kept and the bookkeeping method used in maintaining those records. Importantly, Respondents' CPA never criticized or commented on Respondents' method of accounting and maintenance of negative balances in Respondents' escrow account. As indicated earlier, the temporary negative balances were maintained for the convenience of the customer in order to obtain better service from repairmen. In reality, Respondents' clients probably never thought about the intricacies and inner workings of the trust account in which that client's money was maintained. Given the desires of Respondents' customers, such payments and the maintenance of a negative balance on behalf of that individual client were impliedly authorized by those respective customers. However none of the clients expressly authorized Respondents to use that client's money to pay another client's repair bills. The clients' general desires on getting prompt payment of repair bills is, by itself, insufficient to establish express authorization for one client to use another client's escrow money. Without such express authority Respondents made improper disbursements from the property management escrow account in violation of Section 475.25 (1)(k), Florida Statutes. However, because of the client's general desires regarding their repair bills, the record keeping utilized by Respondents, the manner of billing and the obvious lack of any intent to defraud on the part of Respondents, there was no evidence of any fraud, misrepresentation, trick, scheme or device, or breach of trust or culpable negligence on the part of Respondents in the maintenance of their property management escrow account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order that Respondents are guilty of one violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and issuing a letter of guidance to Respondents for the violation. It is further recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final Order dismissing the Counts of the Administrative Complaint charging Respondents with violations of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1990.
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 The issue is whether Mr. Powell should be disciplined for irregularities in the handling of an escrow deposit by a real estate firm for which he was the qualifying broker.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie Powell, was at all relevant times a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0070494. Mr. Powell was the sole qualifying broker of Future Investments & Development II Co., Inc., trading as ERA Thompkins and Saunders Realty Company (hereafter, T & S), 2734 N.W. 183rd Street, Suite 206, Miami, Florida 33056. On or about November 12, 1990, Guillermo Castillo, a licensed real estate broker for Emerald Enterprises, Inc., received a listing agreement from Horace B. Miller to sell residential property (a duplex) owned by Miller located at 2331 N.W. 103rd Street, Miami, Florida. The property was listed with the Multiple Listing Service. On or about February 27 or 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received a telephone call from Willie J. Thompkins of T & S saying he wanted to show the Miller property to a prospective buyer. On or about February 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received through the mail slot at his office a written offer from George R. Howell of Dorchester, Massachusetts, to buy the Miller property, with a business card of Jerry Saunders of T & S. On or about March 6, 1991, Guillermo Castillo met with Horace Miller to review the Howell offer. At Miller's request, Castillo made some changes to the contract to reflect that Miller was selling the duplex in "as is" condition. Miller signed the contract and initialed the changes, and Mr. Castillo signed the contract on behalf of Emerald Enterprises, and called Willie J. Thompkins to tell him the contract had been signed. The next day, Mr. Castillo went to the office of T & S and dropped off the contract for the buyer to consider the seller's changes. A day or two later, a representative of T & S telephoned Guillermo Castillo and told Mr. Castillo that the buyer had accepted the seller's changes to the contract; Mr. Castillo then notified Miller. Mr. Castillo later received from T & S the signed contract with Mr. Miller's changes initialed by Mr. Howell. The contract was also signed by Mr. Thompkins of T & S. The contract called for a $1,000 deposit to be held in escrow by T & S (Exhibit 5, Paragraph IIa). Guillermo Castillo contacted T & S to check on the progress of the sale. He learned that J.P. Mortgage was handling the buyer's mortgage loan application. Castillo contacted J.P. Mortgage and was told that the loan was proceeding normally. After the contractual closing date of April 29, 1991, had passed without the closing taking place, Castillo contracted J.P. Mortgage again, but was told that they were no longer processing the loan. Castillo requested that J.P. Mortgage send him a letter to that effect, and he received a letter dated May 2, 1991, stating that J.P. Mortgage was withdrawing as the lender because the buyer failed to return the mortgage loan application. Castillo informed Horace Miller of the situation and Miller instructed Castillo to write to T & S making a claim to the buyer's deposit under the contract of sale. On May 4, 1991, Castillo sent a letter to T & S claiming the deposit for the seller. Paragraph Q of the contract provided for the seller to retain the buyer's deposit as liquidated damages if the buyer failed to perform the contract. On or about May 9, 1991, Guillermo Castillo received from Mr. Thompkins, the manger of T & S, a letter dated May 1, 1991, but postmarked May 6, 1991, ". . . requesting that the . . . file be cancelled" due to ". . . communication problems with . . . Mr. Howell," and citing unsuccessful attempts to contact Howell by telephone and by mail. When Castillo received that letter he contacted T & S to point out the seriousness of the matter and to press for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit. On May 9, 1991, Castillo received a telefax from Mr. Thompkins of T & S stating that the Howell deposit check had been returned for insufficient funds and attaching a copy of the returned check. Prior to his receipt of this telefax, Castillo had not taken any independent steps to verify whether T & S had actually received the Howell deposit. He had relied on the contract, which had been executed by a licensed salesman and believed he did not require further verification that the escrow deposit had been made. Neither Mr. Castillo nor Mr. Miller dealt with the Respondent, Mr. Powell, at any time concerning the sale of the Miller property. T & S received George Howell's $1,000 deposit in the form of a check on March 4, 1991, drawn on a Massachusetts bank and deposited it in its account with First Union National Bank which was used as the escrow account, account number 15462242336, on March 5, 1991. The check was charged back to the account twice, on March 11, 1991, and on March 26, 1991. Mr. Powell was a signatory on that escrow account. After Guillermo Castillo received the May 9, 1991, telefax, he notified Horace Miller. Mr. Miller had not taken any steps on his own to verify whether T & S had received the deposit because he had confidence in his broker to let him know right away if there were any problems with the sale. By May 9, 1991, Horace Miller had already incurred expenses preparing the property for closing, and had lost rent by terminating a tenancy in the property. Because the transaction never closed, Mr. Miller sustained financial damage, some of which he might have avoided if he had been notified earlier of the buyer's dishonored escrow deposit check. On or about May 28, 1991, Miller filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, which Sidney Miller investigated. He found that the person introduced to him during his investigation at T & S as Willie Powell was not actually the Respondent. In March 1991, Mr. Powell had not seen the bank statements for the T & S escrow account for several months, and had not signed the written monthly escrow account reconciliation statement for the month of October 1990 or for any subsequent month. Mr. Powell was serving as the qualifying broker of T & S for a salary of $75 per month and no commissions. He was not active in the management of the firm. He would come to the office of T & S approximately three days per week to check files and sign listing agreements, and he would call in to see if there were any problems, messages or documents to sign. He essentially loaned his brokers' license to those who operated T & S as an accommodation because he had known the Thompkins family for 25 years. Mr. Powell argues in his proposed order that "the adequacy of [Mr. Powell's] monthly reconciliations were impeded by frauds perpetrated upon him by persons at [T & S]" (PRO at page 9, paragraph 5). It is obvious that there were problems at T & S, since a person there misrepresented himself to the Department's investigator as Mr. Powell. The full extent of the misconduct there is unclear. There is no proof in this record that salespersons at T & S had fabricated escrow account statements for Mr. Powell. Had Mr. Powell proven that he performed monthly reconciliations with what turned out to be falsified records of T & S, his argument might be well taken. The record, unfortunately, shows that no reconciliations were done. Had Mr. Powell done them, the problem here should have been uncovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Willie Powell guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, finding him not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and taking the following disciplinary action against him: Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 to be paid within 30 days of the date of the final order adopting the recommended order. Placement of the license of Mr. Powell on probation for a period of one year beginning on the date of the final order and providing that during that period he shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Florida Department of 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 completion a 30-hour postlicensure education course in real estate brokerage management, in addition to any other education required of him to remain current and active as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, and that he be required to submit to the Commission during that year his monthly trust account reconciliations. Cf. Rule 21V-24.002(3)(i), Florida Administrative Code, on penalties for violation of Rule 21V-14.012(2), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of July 1992. 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 day of July 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-0192 Rulings on Findings proposed by the Commission: Adopted in Findings 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 15. Rulings on Findings proposed by Mr. Powell: Adopted in Finding 1 with the exception of the license number. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Generally adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as subordinate to Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary, the reconciliation was not one done shortly following the month of March reconciling the account for March 1991. It was done during the investigation conducted by Mr. Miller and took place between approximately June 20 and July 10, 1991. Adopted in Finding 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as unnecessary, or subordinate to Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite N-607 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent Charles Randolph Lee was the holder of a Florida real estate license number 0455641 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The license issued was as a broker, c/o Show-N-Save of West Palm Beach, Inc., 1800 Forest Hill Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33406. Christopher and Lee Ann Germano made a written offer to purchase Lot 41, Block 72, Sugar Pond Manor, Palm Beach County, Florida (the "construction site") from Charles and Ruby Collins (the "owners") by executing a Contract for Sale and Purchase of the construction site on April 14, 1987, and submitting a check for $500 payable to and held in escrow by Hank Keene Real Estate Escrow Account. 1/ On April 15, 1987, the Germanos executed an Agreement for Construction of a house that was to be constructed on the construction site by J. Long Construction, Inc. A check payable to J. Long Construction, Inc., in the amount of $3,755, was submitted by the Germanos with the Agreement for Construction, which was expressly contingent upon the Germanos' purchase of the construction site. The check to J. Long Construction, Inc., was an escrow check to be held in escrow for the Germanos until contingencies in the Agreement for Construction, including the purchase of the construction site, either failed to occur or were satisfied. Carol Pearson and Terry Gallagher, the sales agent for Hank Keene Real Estate, were present with the Germanos in a model home of J. Long Construction, Inc., when the Germanos wrote the check, and it was their collectively stated intent that the check was to be held in escrow pending the completion of the purchase of the construction site. The check for $3,755 was labeled by the maker as an escrow down payment for construction of the house. 2/ J. Long Realty, Inc., and Hank Keene Real Estate were acknowledged in the Agreement for Construction as the exclusive brokers in the transaction with commissions to be paid respectively in the amounts of 3.5 and 1.5 percent. 3/ The Agreement for Construction was executed by J. Long Construction, Inc., on April 15, 1987. The Agreement for Construction was null and void if not executed by both parties on or before April 19, 1987. The Germanos executed the Agreement on April 15, 1987. Their copy of the Agreement is not executed by J. Long Construction, Inc. However, the original Agreement, bearing a date of April 15, 1987, shows the signature of the president of J. Long Construction. The original Agreement was admitted by stipulation as Respondent's Exhibit 2. Insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the original was executed at any other time or by any one other than the purported signatory. 4/ Respondent began functioning as the broker for J. Long Realty, Inc., on or about April 16, 1987, 5/ at the request of the previous broker who resigned due to illness on April 15, 1987. The Contract for Sale and Purchase of the construction site was rejected by the owners on April 16, 1989. 6/ The rejection was communicated to the Germanos telephonically by Terry Gallagher on the same day. 7/ The fact that the purchase of the construction site had failed to occur was communicated to Respondent on April 20, 1987, and return of the check to J. Long Construction, Inc., in the amount of $3,755, was requested at that time. Mr. Germano telephoned Mr. Pearson on April 20, 1989, advised him that the offer to purchase the construction site had been rejected by the owners, and requested return of the check. Mr. Pearson testified that upon receiving a telephone call from Mr. Germano, Mr. Pearson communicated those facts to Respondent. Mr. Pearson further testified that Respondent stated there would be no problem but required the request for refund and reasons to be stated in writing. Respondent first knew of the transaction when he received a telephone call from Mr. Germano asking for a return of the check. Respondent further testified that he opened the file, saw the check, and deposited it. The check was deposited on April 21, 1987, to the account of J. Long Construction, Inc. 8/ Respondent testified that the check was not deposited to any account of J. Long Realty, Inc. 9/ J. Long Construction, Inc., had no escrow account at the time of the deposit. Testimony by Ms. Fischer, and Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 9 established that J. Long Construction, Inc., had no escrow account at the time of the deposit. There was no evidence that Respondent was an officer or director of J. Long Construction, Inc., or that Respondent was authorized to sign on the account to which the check was deposited. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 established that Respondent was authorized to sign on the account of J. Long Realty, Inc., and on the account of J. Long Companies, Inc. Neither the name or account number of either of those accounts corresponded to the name or account number of the account to which the check was deposited. 10/ Respondent functioned in the capacity of accountant, bookkeeper, and employee of J. Long Construction, Inc., prior to functioning as the broker of J. Long Realty, Inc. Respondent and Mr. Long reviewed each contract submitted by sales agents. Respondent received written notice on April 27, 1987, and on May 1, 1987, that the Germanos' offer to purchase the construction site had been rejected by the owners. Jean Keene, Broker, Hank Keene Real Estate, advised J. Long Construction, Inc., by letter dated April 24, 1989, that the Germanos' offer had been rejected and that the $500 in escrow had been returned to the Germanos. 11/ The Germanos also wrote a letter to J. Long Construction (sic) on April 24, 1987, asking for return of the deposit because their offer to purchase the construction site had not been accepted by the owners. The Germanos' letter was by return receipt which was dated May 1, 1987. A letter dated May 11, 1987, from Robert E. Zensen, President, Zensen Homes, Inc., formerly J. Long Construction, Inc., 12/ advised the Germanos that they were in default under the Agreement for Construction. The letter stated the "default has been established by the contingency not being met," but in the next paragraph required documentation that the contingency had not been met. 13/ On May 8, 1987, Carol Pearson removed his license from J. Long Realty, Inc. 14/ Evidence suggests some acrimony between Mr. Pearson and Respondent concerning the conduct of business transactions at J. Long Realty, Inc. 15/ Mr. Pearson testified that deposits were not being returned to customers who were entitled to return of their deposits. On May 16, 1987, Mary E. Bartek, citing ill health, resigned from J. Long Realty, Inc., as Broker-Salesman and as shareholder, and resigned her position as Vice-President, director, shareholder, officer, or agent from J. Long Companies. 16/ On June 15, 1987, Respondent resigned as "Broker of Record" for J. Long Realty, Inc. 17/ The Germanos made numerous requests to Respondent to return their check in the amount of $3,755. Mr. Pearson received at least 3 or 4 calls from the Germanos. Each time Respondent and Mr. Long agreed that the Germanos were entitled to have their check; except the last time when Mr. Long told Mr. Pearson to "forget about it." Mr. Pearson testified that it was his impression that Mr. Long prevented Respondent from returning the check. The Germanos made numerous requests to Mr. Pearson for return of their check. Each time Mr. Pearson stated that Respondent had said he would return the check. On one occasion, Lee Germano met with Respondent to request that the money be returned, but the money was not returned.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of: culpable negligence and breach of trust in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b); failure to account and deliver nonescrowed property upon demand of the person entitled to such property in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d); and failure to place a check in escrow in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(k). Since this was apparently Respondent's first offense, involving a single act, it is recommended that Respondent be reprimanded. Since the offense involved the misuse of funds, disregard of the entitlement to funds, and Respondent offered no evidence of restitution, it is recommended that Respondent be fined $1,000 for each violation. In order to enhance Respondent's regard for the entitlement to funds in business transactions and in order to facilitate due care in his future transactions, it is recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period not to exceed one year. The conditions of probation may include any of those prescribed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21V-24.001(2)(a) except those that would require the Respondent to submit to reexamination and to be placed on broker-salesman status. In the event that Respondent fails to pay any fines imposed or to complete the terms of any probation imposed, it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for two years. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL 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 19th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Lee H. Davis, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued against him on August 16, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, regulating the practice of persons holding real estate brokers' and real estate salespersons' licenses in Florida. Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Lee H. Davis, is and was at all times relevant to this matter licensed as a real estate broker in Florida, issued License Number 0186063. The last license issued was as an involuntary inactive broker, c/o 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204, Naples, Florida 34104. On or about August 24, 1995, Respondent executed a form 400.5 and submitted it to the Division to register as a salesperson with Sentry Realty and Property Management, Inc. ("Sentry"). At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was registered with the Division as employed by Sentry. On or about September 7, 1995, Respondent facilitated a contract for sale and purchase (the "contract") between Robert Trindle as buyer and John Petracelli as seller/builder for property described as Hallandale Park, Plat Book 12, Page 37, Block 37, Lots 6,7,8, a/k/a approximately 2801 North East 214 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. Mr. Trindle testified that he intended to purchase a townhouse to be built by Mr. Petracelli as part of a project to include 40 to 50 townhouses. The contract provided that a $3,900 deposit was to be held by "Lee H. Davis Escrow Agent." Mr. Trindle gave Respondent two checks totaling $3,900, as the earnest money deposit on the purchase price of $130,000. The first check, dated October 9, 1995, was for $1,000. The second check, dated November 3, 1995, was for $2,900. The checks were made out to "Lee H. Davis-- Escrow." Also noted on the checks was "Davena Group Inc.," which Mr. Trindle understood to be Respondent's real estate company. Each check was negotiated by Respondent within a week of its receipt. At the time of this transaction, Respondent's registered broker was John Brouillette of Sentry. Respondent did not place the escrow deposit with Mr. Brouillette, who testified that he knew nothing of the transaction at the time it occurred and never saw the contract. Respondent represented to Mr. Trindle that he would maintain the escrow deposit as broker during this transaction. Mr. Trindle did not give Respondent permission to transfer the escrow deposit to the builder/seller, Mr. Petracelli. Correspondence from Respondent indicated that he did turn the escrow deposit over to Mr. Petracelli, without informing Mr. Trindle. Mr. Petracelli never built the promised townhouses. Rather, he left the country, absconding with Mr. Trindle's escrow deposit along with monies provided by other purchasers and/or investors in the project. Mr. Trindle attempted to contact Respondent regarding the status of his escrow deposit, but was unable to reach him prior to the filing of his complaint with the Division. As of the date of the hearing, the earnest money deposit had not been returned to Mr. Trindle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner finding that Respondent has violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent, and that Respondent's real estate license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 13th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Lee H. Davis 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204 Naples, Florida 34104 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
