Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Ernest Page and Page Realty, Inc. are licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers 0187380 and 0223391, respectively. From approximately July 28, 1983, to approximately August 11, 1983, the Respondent, Ernest Page, knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, certain personal property, including typewriters, copy machines, a television receiver, and a stereo receiver, each of which was valued at $100.00 or more, which was the property of Stewart Hudson or Michael Bethea, with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the owners thereof, and to appropriate this property to their own use. The Respondent, Ernest Page, had received and was in possession of property that he knew or had reason to know was stolen. The Administrative Complaint tracked the charging language of the information filed against the Respondent, Ernest Page, in the Circuit Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The Respondent, Ernest Page, was found guilty of six counts of grand theft second degree by a jury on January 31, 1984. He was adjudicated guilty by judgment dated March 28, 1984, of six counts of grand theft second degree, which crimes are punishable as third degree felonies. The Respondent, Ernest Page, was sentenced on March 28, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that real estate broker's license numbered 0187380 and 0223391, held by the Respondents, Ernest Page and Page Realty, Inc., respectively, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 31st day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 31st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Edward R. Kirkland, Esquire 126 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Shirley A. Cramer, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. Her license number is 0460613. On or about June 9, 1990, the Respondent entered into a six-month residential lease in Clearwater, Florida. She entered into the lease on her own account. She was not acting as a real estate broker. The Respondent breached the lease, and the landlord sued in civil court for damages and recovered a judgment in the amount of $9,740.29. The Respondent has not paid the judgment, or any part of it. (The Respondent made an offer to settle the judgment for less than the full amount, but the landlord rejected the settlement offer.) The landlord has not been able to collect any money on the judgment. A deposition in aid of execution has been taken, but the landlord has not levied on the judgment. Not long after entering into the lease, the Respondent advertised it for sublease. The advertisement was answered on or about June 29, 1990, by Thomas E. Maloney. In response to the ad, Maloney went to see the Respondent at her office. (The evidence was not clear whether it was a real estate office.) There, she asked for a partial rental deposit in the amount of $1,000, with another $500 due at a later date. The Respondent told Maloney that she was a Florida licensed real estate broker and assured him that his deposit would be safe with her. The Respondent later contacted Maloney and told him that his credit references did not check out and that she was not going further with the sublease arrangement. When Maloney asked for his deposit back, she told him that she would return it to him as soon as she could raise the money. The Respondent never returned any of the deposit to Maloney, and he sued her in civil court to recover the $1,000. The case was tried, and a judgment was entered in Maloney's favor but only in the amount of $500. The evidence was not clear why Maloney was not awarded the full $1,000. He testified that, when he responded to the ad for the sublease, he learned that there already was a woman living there who was supposed to have moved out but did not. The Respondent suggested to Maloney that the woman could sleep on the couch. It is not clear from the evidence whether Maloney agreed to this arrangement. He testified only: "I says, you know --- It was just a stupid move on my part so -- and she is not going to pay me." It may be that the circumstances of the existence of the other tenant, and the possibility that Maloney initially agreed to the arrangement, had something to do with the amount of the judgment Maloney was able to recover. The Respondent has not paid Maloney any money on the judgment he recovered against her. Maloney has decided not to spend any more of his own money trying to recover on the judgment. On or about September 28, 1991, the Treasurer of the State of Florida, acting in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner, entered a Final Order suspending, for one year, all insurance licenses and eligibility for licensure held by the Respondent. The Final Order was based on findings that the Respondent had failed either to secure insurance after receipt of insurance premiums from two customers, or to account and deliver the insurance premiums she had collected from them. In one case, the evidence proved that the Respondent was "professionally responsible" for the misconduct of someone acting as her employee, and was personally responsible only for having a refund check dishonored for insufficient funds. In the other case, the Respondent was personally responsible for the entirety of the transaction, and it was found: "If not outright fraud and misrepresentation, Respondent's conduct constitutes, at best, gross negligence and incompetence " On or about August 9, 1991, the Treasurer of the State of Florida, acting in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner, filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent alleging that she engaged in insurance activities which required a license while her licenses were suspended and that she misappropriated, unlawfully withheld, or converted fiduciary funds. On or about August 20, 1992, the Treasurer of the State of Florida, acting in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner, entered another Final Order requiring that the Respondent pay a $500 administrative fine and placing the Respondent's insurance licenses on probation for two years. This Final Order was based on findings: (1) that, on November 28, 1990, less than two months after her insurance licenses were suspended for a year, but while she was "under the impression" that she could continue to sell insurance while the suspension was on appeal (although the suspension never was stayed pending appeal), the Respondent was selling worker compensation insurance; and (2) that she collected a $3,000 premium from a customer, did not put the money into a trust account, failed to place the coverage, withdrew the money from the account and used it for her own benefit on two occasions (replacing it after the first time), and failed to return the premium to the customer until March 8, 1991. The Respondent, through counsel, asserted that the Respondent has paid the fine referred to in the preceding Finding, but there was no evidence in the record to support that claim.
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: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and (d)1., Fla. Stat. (1991); (2) requiring her to immediately (in any event, not more that 30 days after entry of the Final Order) return to Thomas E. Maloney his $500 and to provide the Commission with evidence of payment; (3) requiring her to pay a $1,000 administrative fine within 30 days after entry of the Final Order; (4) requiring her to successfully complete 60 hours of post-licensure education for brokers, including a 30-hour broker management course, and to provide evidence of completion to the Commission; and (5) suspending her real estate broker license for five years, subject to being reduced to a one-year suspension upon evidence of compliance with (2), (3), and (4), above. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3322 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the Department's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 5. Rejected in part as not proven. (Maloney did not testify that he was not told about the woman, and indicated that he asked for his deposit back after the Respondent told him that his credit references did not "check out.") 6.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 11. The date of the Final Order was August 20, 1992, not 1991. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Legal Section - Suite N 308 Hurston Building North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1772 Peter C. Clement, Esquire 35084 U.S. 19 North Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent, Stephen P. McCrady, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered real estate broker. Prior to the month of August 1983, Abraham L. Starr and John W. Dowler had listed their real property located at 1425 East Lake Drive, in Ft. Lauderdale, for sale with Sophist Realty, a Ft. Lauderdale real estate brokerage firm in which the two principal brokers were John J. Makos, III and W. Thomas Pospeshil. The asking price for the residential property was approximately $925,000.00. Prior to the time in issue here, no offers to purchase the property had been made as long as it was listed with Sophist Realty. In late July or early August 1983, Respondent was approached by LaVern McDonald and a woman identified as Georgia Rhea, his fiancee, who indicated they were interested in buying residential property in the Ft. Lauderdale area. Respondent showed these individuals several pieces of property including that in issue here. During the course of the relationship with Respondent, McDonald had advised him that he was a wealthy man who was expecting considerable sums of money from his mother's estate in Germany. Respondent believed this story considering it credible. After Respondent had taken the prospects to the Starr property three times, McDonald finally indicated he was interested in making an offer to purchase it. Thereafter, Respondent drew up a rough contract containing the basic terms for an original offer of approximately $775,000.00, typing the draft of the contract himself in his office on the evening of August 8, 1983. When he asked McDonald how much he was willing to put down as a binder, McDonald indicated $20,000.00 and Respondent entered that amount on the sales contract as the deposit. When he asked McDonald for a check to cover this sum, McDonald advised him that the money had to come through a bank in Atlanta and that he would have it there in less than 24 hours. At that point, Respondent called Makes and told him that he had an individual who wanted to make an offer on the property but that the deposit money was not in hand yet. As a result, he did not take the contract to Mr. Makos then or, for that matter, on the next morning because the money had still not arrived. In the interim, Mr. Makos' secretary called Mr. Starr on the evening of August 8, and advised him that an offer would be presented at 1 p.m. the next day. Mr. Starr and his partner were somewhat concerned as to why the offer was not presented immediately when the contract was signed by the prospective purchaser. When they checked with Makes office on the morning of August 9, they were told by Makos that he was waiting for a $20,000.00 check, which was to be the deposit, to be forwarded from Atlanta. Mr. Makos confirms most of this indicating that prior to August 8, after being advised of the pending contract, he had several conversations with Respondent about the money which was expected but not yet received. He indicates, however, that after several notifications that the money was not in and that the contract would not be presented until it was, on August 8, Respondent called and requested an appointment with the sellers to present the offer contained in he proposed contract. Makos cannot be sure if Respondent made a positive representation at that time that he had the money in hand. When the contract was presented the next morning, however, it showed in paragraph 2, "Method of Payment," the words, "Deposit herewith," and the figure $20,000.00. The contract also called for an "additional" deposit of $30,000.00 to be paid upon acceptance of the contract by both parties. Both the original contract form and the re-typed copy executed somewhat later indicate a place for the escrow agent to show where the deposit has been received. On neither copy of the contract here is that particular clause filled in. Neither Mr. Starr, his partner, his broker nor his lawyer noticed this omission at the time the contract was signed or shortly afterwards. After the contract was signed by both parties, Mr. Makes partner, Mr. Pospeshil, in placing into motion those steps necessary to bring about the closing, first noticed it on or about August 10. He attempted to contact Respondent several times but was unable to reach him. Messages he left were unreturned until August 14, when he was finally able to reach McCrady to ask him for an escrow letter to cover not only the $20,000.00 but the $30,000.00 as well. At this point Respondent advised that no deposit money had been received and that both Makos and the seller knew this, a contention which Makos denies. Respondent also disputes Pospeshil's statement that he failed to return messages indicating he was either at home or available through his pager the entire time and got no calls on this matter until August 14. Nonetheless, Respondent advised Mr. Pospeshil that he would get the deposit money that evening and call back when he had it. He did not call back and Pospeshil called Respondent's counsel to advise him of the situation. When the deposit money was not delivered even the next day, Pospeshil called the sellers and told them that there was no deposit. When advised that Respondent had indicated that they knew the money had not been in hand at the time the contract was signed, both denied this. Considering the evidence, it is obvious than neither did know. The property was subsequently sold by Starr and Dowler for approximately $625,000.00. Respondent urges that Makos concealed his knowledge that at the time the contract was signed the deposit money was not in hand because the listing on the property was about to expire and Makos wanted to present a contract so that he could get a renewal of the listing. There is no evidence to support this theory and it is rejected. Respondent presented a series of contracts for the purchase and sale of real estate executed in other transactions in the Ft. Lauderdale area. Of these, however, the most recent is approximately three years before the instant situation and the oldest goes back to 1969. They were presented for the purpose of establishing the practice in the area of filling in the receipt portion of the contract form. This was supported by the testimony of Mr. LeGault, who had no participation in the instant case. He has presented contracts without the deposit being received but only upon full disclosure to the seller and then only when the seller requests that the contract be presented without the deposit. In his opinion, when the receipt portion of a contract is left blank, like here, it is more a letter of intent to open negotiations rather than a firm offer. The attorney, Mr. Parker, testifying for Respondent also related that the failure to show either a deposit received or a promissory note for the amount constitutes a failure of consideration and results in an invalid contract. Both Respondent and Makos agree that the receipt portion on a sales contract is normally filled in. However, Makos was quite adamant as to the fact that when it is not, he always asks the presenting broker for an escrow letter establishing that receipt. Whether the contract here is valid or not is immaterial to the issue in this case which is whether or not Respondent made a false representation when he presented the contract to the broker for the seller which indicated that a substantial down payment had been tendered. On the basis of the evidence outlined above, the inescapable finding is that Respondent, by either word or deed, communicated to Mr. Makos when he brought the offer, that the money had been received and was in his trust account as reflected in the upper portion of the contract form. Under the circumstances of this case where, among other things, nobody even noticed that the lower portion of the contract was not filled in, it is clear that Respondent intended to impart that idea. It must also be noted that in September 1983, Respondent, without either admitting or denying the allegations against him, signed a stipulation with Petitioner which disposed of other allegations in a different Administrative Complaint resulting in his being reprimanded, paying a $500.00 administrative fine, and agreeing not to violate the statutes and rules governing the practice of real estate in Florida in the future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, STEPHEN P. McCRADY'S license as a registered real estate broker in Florida be suspended for one year; that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00; that he be reprimanded; and that upon the completion of the period of suspension, he be placed on probation for two years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 8th day of March, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 8th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald R. Rogowski, Esquire 208 Southeast Sixth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent John Politis has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0069773. The last license issued to him was as a broker for Florida Mortgage & Realty Co., 1001 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At the time of the events which are the subject of this dispute, Respondent Center Associates, Inc., was a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0259310. The last license issued was at the same street address and suite number as Florida Mortgage & Realty Co. At all times, Respondent Politis has been licensed and operating as the qualifying broker, the sole officer, the sole director, and the 100 percent stockholder of Respondent Center Associates. In approximately March of 1989, Catherine P. Young, a real estate salesperson licensed in the State of Florida, was employed by the Respondents to solicit and negotiate agreements for leases of commercial shopping center space through the Respondents. For the first three or four months of that employment, Respondents paid Young an agreed salary. Thereafter, that salary agreement was cancelled, and a second agreement was entered into among Young and the Respondents. Under that new agreement any commissions resulting from Young's efforts were to be split so that Young received 80 percent of the commission and the Respondents received 20 percent of that commission. It was further agreed that Young would pay for her own travel expenses and her long distance calls, while Respondents would bear the expense of providing the office and paying for the local telephone service. During the term of that second agreement, Young negotiated several commercial lease agreements to their conclusions and received the commissions to which she was entitled. In the leasing industry, one-half of the commission is paid when the lease is signed and one-half is paid when the tenant moves into the leased premises. However, the commission is owed as of the time that the lease is executed. On or about March 2, 1990, Young terminated her employment relationship with the Respondents. On the day she left the employ of Respondents, she met with Respondent Politis and discussed with him her claim for commissions on leases already fully executed through her efforts, but which commissions had not yet been paid to Respondents. Respondent Politis agreed that she was entitled to 80 percent of the commissions which Respondents had not yet received but which had resulted from Young's efforts. Young asked Respondent Politis to put that agreement in written form, and he agreed to do so. When Young returned the following week to sign the agreement, Respondent Politis informed her that he had changed his mind and had decided that he would not pay her any more commissions since she was no longer employed by the Respondents. Young advised Respondent Politis that she was still entitled to commissions earned by her during her employment as a result of her efforts even though the commissions were not paid to Respondents until after she left their employment. In response to Young's anger that Respondents would refuse to pay her commissions which she had already earned, Respondent Politis told Young that she could sue him. Thereafter, Respondents received real estate commissions on four or five transactions where commercial leases were entered into as a result of Young's efforts. Despite Respondents being aware that Young had made a claim for her share of those commissions, Respondents failed to pay Young any portion of those commissions and failed to place the disputed commissions in escrow until their dispute was resolved. Rather, when Respondents received those commissions, Respondent Politis deposited them into the operating account of Center Associates, Inc., and used those monies to re-pay himself for loans he had made to that corporation. By letter dated February 4, 1992, Respondent Politis wrote to Petitioner advising that Respondent Center Associates was no longer in existence and would not be filing for renewal of its broker's license. Thereafter, Petitioner's records were notated to reflect that Respondent Center Associates' licensure as a real estate broker was cancelled effective March 31, 1992. Young filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent Center Associates in the Circuit Court in Broward County. Young's complaint for damages alleged that Respondent Center Associates had failed to pay her the commission to which she was entitled on one specific transaction and also alleged that Respondent Center Associates would be receiving other commissions "over the next several months" to which Young was entitled. That complaint also alleged that Respondent Center Associates had breached its contract with Young by failing to pay Young monies due to her. The non-jury trial on Young's complaint was conducted on February 24, 1993. The Final Judgment for Plaintiff entered by the Court on March 1, 1993, ordered Respondent Center Associates to pay Young the sum of $51,505.04. That Final Judgment also provided for interest on the amount of judgment at the rate of 12 percent per year. By the time the Final Judgment was entered, Respondent Politis had "dissolved" the corporation and had "cancelled" the real estate broker license of Respondent Center Associates, Inc. Neither Respondent Politis nor Respondent Center Associates has paid any monies to Young in accordance with that Final Judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Center Associates, Inc.; Finding Respondent John Politis guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint; and Suspending Respondent John Politis' license as a real estate broker in the State of Florida for a period of ten years, said suspension to be terminated and his license to be reinstated earlier upon proof that he has made restitution to Catherine P. Young. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Administrat
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 17, 2002, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in Florida pursuant to Section 20.125, Florida Statutes (2000). At all times material to this case, Respondent is a licensed real estate broker and holds license number 0349967. In the summer of 2001, Jose Diaz (Diaz) met Saldana at a seminar. The seminar was aimed at persons seeking to participate in federally financed programs designed to assist them in financing home purchases. At the seminar, Diaz was referred to Saldana and described as a person who could assist Diaz in finding a home which could be financed with government funds. Diaz sought Saldana's help in good faith, but Saldana abused Diaz' trust and took advantage of his lack of sophistication in the field of real estate. Specifically, Saldana told Diaz that in order to be eligible for a government financed loan, it would be necessary to pay off certain of Diaz' debts. Saldana instructed Diaz to provide him with blank money orders and represented to Diaz that the money orders would be used by Saldana to pay off the debts so as to facilitate Diaz' receiving a government loan. Saldana failed to deposit the funds with his broker or in an escrow account, and failed to use them for the purposes for which they were intended, that is, to pay off Diaz' debts in order to satisfy government requirements for loaning Diaz funds toward a home purchase. Instead, Saldana converted the funds to his own use. Diaz sued Saldana for civil theft in Palm Beach County Court. On June 19, 2002, a final judgment was entered in Diaz' favor for the full amount of the funds converted, plus interest. As of the date of the final hearing, Saldana had failed to satisfy Diaz' judgment, and had no plans to do so. In early 2001, Rafael Alcocer (Alcocer) met Saldana in a social club and asked him to assist him and his wife in purchasing a home. Saldana agreed, but did little on Alcocer's behalf. Eventually, Alcocer found a home he liked and asked Saldana to present an offer to the homeowner, Diane Dorish (Dorish). Dorish accepted the offer, which included a $500 deposit. However, Saldana falsely told Alcocer that Dorish required a $2,500 deposit, and obtained funds in that amount which Alcocer thought would be used for a deposit required by the homeowner. In fact, Saldana converted those funds to his personal use, although Alcocer was eventually able to recoup $1,500. In addition, Saldana forged Alcocer's signature on a contract which provided for additional terms which had not been authorized by either Alcocer or Dorish. The Division also charged Saldana with collecting a $320 mortgage application fee, plus a $1,000 earnest money deposit from a third client. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Saldana failed to deposit these funds into a trust or escrow account, but instead converted the funds to his own use. However, no evidence was presented in connection with this transaction, and it has not been considered in the disposition of this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order revoking Respondent’s real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 24th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorenzo Level, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Enrique Saldana 7560 Gilmour Court Lake Worth, Florida 33467 Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802N Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty of investigating and prosecuting complaints against real estate professionals, including real estate brokers and real estate salesmen. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0430387. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker-salesman, in limbo, with a home address of 1127 S. Federal Highway, Lake Worth, Florida. At the times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent had placed his license with Anderson Realty, Inc., Jupiter, Florida. On June 15, 1989, Terry and Franci Evans met with Respondent to discuss their interest in building a house. Respondent told the Evans that he was a real estate broker and that he would negotiate the purchase of the lot the Evans had selected and would arrange for the construction of the house. On July 9, 1989, Terry and Franci Evans, entered into a contract to purchase a residential building lot and a contract to construct a house on the lot that the Evans had selected. The ADA Group, Inc. (ADA) was identified as the contractor and the Evans were identified as the purchaser/owner. Respondent signed the contract on behalf of ADA and was identified by the contract as being an agent of ADA. There was no explanation of Respondent's relationship with ADA. Although the contract identified the Evans as the purchaser/owner, the Evans had not purchased the subject lot. The owner of the lot was not identified by the contract, and there was no competent evidence as to who owned the lot. On June 15, 1989, the Evans gave Respondent a check in the amount of $1,000.00. On July 9, 1989, the Evans gave Respondent a check in the amount of $1,500.00. Both of these checks were given to Respondent as a deposit on the purchase of the lot and construction of the house for which the Evans contracted with ADA on July 9, 1989. The contract executed by the Evans was contingent upon their receiving financing for the project. The form of the contract Respondent used for the subject transaction had been used by Anderson Realty and had been developed by Anderson Realty's attorney. Article V of the General Conditions of the contract executed by the Evans and Respondent on July 9, 1989, contained the following pertinent provision: ... If this contract is contingent upon financing for the purchaser/owner, then the purchaser/owner understands and agrees that no work shall be commenced until the loan commitment is issued. ... The Evans gave Respondent these two checks because they were lead to believe by Respondent that the checks would be refunded to them if the transaction did not close. At the time these checks were given to Respondent, his licensure was officially placed with Anderson Realty. Anderson Realty had requested in January 1989 that Respondent's license be placed inactive. On July 13, 1989, Respondent's license was placed in an inactive status. At no time did Respondent deposit these checks into the escrow account of Anderson Realty or notify it of the subject transaction. Respondent cashed both checks given to him by the Evans. The Evans attempted to secure financing as required by the contract, but they were unable to do so. The subject transaction with ADA failed because the Evans were denied financing for the project. After they had been denied financing, the Evans asked Respondent to return the money they had given to him. Respondent told the Evans that he had made expenditures from the funds the Evans had deposited with him in anticipation of the closing of the transaction. Respondent offered to return a portion of the money to the Evans, but, as of the date of the hearing, Respondent had refunded none of the money to the Evans. Respondent did not produce any verification as to how he expended the money that the Evans had left with him. There was no competent evidence as to who owned the lot that the Evans had agreed to purchase, and there was no competent evidence as to Respondent's relationship with ADA.
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 which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which suspends all real estate licenses previously issued Respondent for a period of one year, and which imposes an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3748 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-14 and 18-20 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 15 and are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence since these proposed findings are based exclusively on hearsay. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 and 21 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Andrew J. Jalassola 1127 South Federal Highway Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction by misrepresenting that money he borrowed from a one Julie Couch would be used for the purchase of a lot but, instead, he utilized the money in connection with the purchase of a house for use by his family and for payment of other vacation and travel expenses and refuses to repay the loan, in a manner violative of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.3
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, is a licensed real estate salesman and holds license number 0329068. On or about July 13, 1984, Respondent solicited and obtained $3,500 cash from Julie S. Couch (Couch) for the stated purpose of assisting Respondent in purchasing a lot on behalf of Keith and Beverly Rayburn, friends of the Couches. In connection therewith, Respondent executed and delivered to Couch a mortgage note dated July 13, 1984, to secure the $3,500 loan via certain real property owned by Respondent.4 Pursuant to the terms of the note executed by Respondent and given to Mrs. Couch, Respondent was to repay Couch the principal of $3,500 plus $1,000 interest due on or before July 27, 1984. On July 30, 1984, Respondent attempted to repay part of the loan via check dated July 30, 1984 drawn in the amount of $1,000. Respondent's check was returned unpaid by the Drawers Bank with the notification "insufficient funds." (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4) Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. Couch that the money was used to pay for his moving, vacation and other relocation costs for his family. Keith Rayburn attempted to buy property from the Respondent which was owned by Southern Standards Corporation. At no time during the attempted purchase by Keith Rayburn did Respondent offer to loan him money to purchase a lot from Southern Standards Corporation. Respondent executed and drafted the terms of the note which was given to Julie Couch which memorialized the loan from Mrs. Couch to Respondent. In this regard, Respondent contends that Julie Couch's ex-husband suggested the terms and the rate of interest which he inserted into the note which memorialized the loan from Julie Couch. On the other hand, Julie Couch testified that it was Respondent who suggested the terms and the interest which he provided with the executed note given her. Based on all of the evidence introduced herein including the fact that Respondent misrepresented the purpose for which the money would be utilized, and his failure to call Gary Couch as a witness to substantiate his claim that it was he, Gary Couch, who suggested the terms under which the loan would be made, the testimony of Julie Couch in this regard is credited.5 Respondent has repaid approximately $1,250 of the $3,500 loan from Julie Couch. Respondent, based on advice of his counsel, refuses to repay any further amounts on this loan contending that the interest rates were usurious and, further, that the State, in the person of Petitioner, is attempting to use its "strongarm tactics" to exact money from Respondent which is a usurious transaction. Respondent also contends that because the interest rate charged by Mrs. Couch was in excess of 45 percent per annum, Mrs. Couch committed a third degree felony. As previously stated, the weight of the evidence reveals that it was Respondent who drafted the note and provided the terms for repayment. It is also clear that Respondent misrepresented to Mrs. Couch the purpose for which he would utilize the money that he borrowed from her. It is therefore concluded that by such acts Respondent engaged in acts of misrepresentation, false pretenses, trick and dishonest dealing in a business transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the license of Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, be suspended for a period of one (1) year and that he be fined $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida.6 JAMES E. BRADWELL , 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 21st day of October 1985.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters involved herein; Petitioner held Florida real estate salesman's license number 0403224. Her license was listed with Century 21 ACR Equities; Inc., 4222 W. Fairfield Drive, Pensacola; on May 25; 1983. On March 4, 1985, Respondent listed her license with Century 21; Five Flags Properties; Inc., in Pensacola, without terminating her listing with ACR Equities. On March 22, 1985, Five Flags terminated her listing with that firm and on April 30; 1985, ACR Equities terminated her listing with that firm. On May 14; 1985; Respondent applied for a change of status to list her license with Old South Properties; Inc., in Pensacola. That firm terminated the association on July 9, 1985. On March 19; 1985; Emmison Lewis and his wife; Lillie Mae signed a handwritten sales agreement prepared by Respondent for the purchase of a piece of property located in Escambia County; for $33,000.00. The Lewises gave her a deposit of $500.00 by check made payable to Respondent and which bears her endorsement on the back. This check was made payable to Respondent because she asked that it be made that way. Several days later; Respondent came back to the Lewises and asked for an additional $1,500.00 deposit. This was given her, along with a rental payment of $310.00; in a $2,000.00 check on March 29, 1985. Respondent gave the Lewises the balance back in cash along with a receipt reflecting the payment of the $1,500.00. On that same date; Respondent had the Lewises sign a typed copy of the sales agreement which reflected that both the $500.00 deposit and the additional $1,500.00 were due on closing. This typed copy was backdated to March 19; 1985. Both the handwritten and typed copies of the sales agreement bear the signature of the Respondent as a witness. The sale was never closed and the Lewises have never received any of the $2;000.00 deposit back. On about four different occasions, Mr. Lewis contacted Respondent requesting that she refund their money and she promised to do so, but never did. They did, however, receive the $310.00 rent payment back in cash approximately two weeks later. On April 26, 1985, James E. Webster and his wife Pearlie signed a sales agreement as the purchasers of real estate with Respondent. This property had a purchase price of $31,900.00. At the time of signing, Mr. Webster gave Respondent $150.00 in cash and a check drawn by his wife on their joint account for $400.00. Due to Mrs. Webster's change of mind, the Websters did not close on the property. They requested a refund of their deposit and Respondent gave the Websters a check for $400.00 which was subsequently dishonored by the bank because of insufficient funds. The Websters called Respondent at home several times, but she was always out. Calls to the broker with whom her license was placed were unsuccessful. Finally, however, Respondent refunded the $400.00 to the Websters in cash. Respondent had listed her license with ACR Equities in May, 1983. At no time while Respondent had her license with Mr. Bickel's firm did she ever turn over to him as broker either the $2.000.00 she received from the Lewises or the $550.00 she received from the Websters. Mr. Bickel, the broker, was not aware of these contracts and did not question her about them. He terminated the placement of her license with his firm because he found out that in early March 1985, she had placed her license with another firm., Both sales agreements for the Lewises and that for the Websters had the firm name of ACR Equities printed on them as broker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law; it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee; Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Esquire p. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ralph Armstead; Esquire P. O. Box 2629 Orlando; Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged by the Administrative Complaint, and, if she did, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints against real estate professionals, including licensed real estate salesmen. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent, America Canizales, was licensed by Petitioner as a real estate salesman. At the time of the hearing, however, Respondent's license was on inactive status. Respondent was the real estate salesman who represented Elvira Martinez when Ms. Martinez bought her apartment in the middle of 1987. As a result of her professional dealings with Ms. Martinez, Respondent learned that Ms. Martinez was interested in investing in real estate. On December 4, 1987, Respondent persuaded Ms. Martinez to enter into a real estate transaction with her. Respondent intended to purchase a house for the sum of $34,000, but she did not have the funds necessary to close the transaction. Respondent needed an additional $5,000 to apply toward the purchase price and to pay the costs of closing. The house was to be purchased by Respondent in her individual capacity in a transaction that was independent of her status as a real estate salesman. The agreement executed by Respondent and Ms. Martinez on December 4, 1987, provided for Ms. Martinez to give to Respondent the sum of $5,000. In exchange for this money, Respondent agreed that she would convey to Ms. Martinez one-half interest in the $34,000 house after she had acquired title to the property. In the event the transaction did net close and Respondent did not obtain title to the house, Respondent was to return to Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000 without the payment of interest. Between December 4, 1987, and December 8, 1987, Ms. Martinez gave to Respondent a check made payable to America Canizales in the amount of $5,000. This check, dated December 9, 1987, was to be held in trust by Respondent until the closing on the purchase of the $34,000 house. At no time did Respondent deposit the check in a bank account. There was no evidence that Respondent took any action to safeguard Ms. Martinez's check or the funds represented by the check. Although the check was dated December 9, 1987, the check was cashed on December 8, 1987, at the bank used by Ms. Martinez. The person who cashed the check endorsed it in the name of America Canizales. On or about December 10, 1987, Respondent told Ms. Martinez that Respondent's husband had stolen all of Respondent's money and that he had also stolen Ms. Martinez's check. Respondent also told Ms. Martinez that because of the theft, she would be unable to close their contemplated transaction and promised to repay the $5,000. Respondent offered no further explanation or accounting for the funds. Respondent made repeated promises to repay Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000 on the occasions Ms. Martinez was able to contact her. Thereafter, Respondent moved from the State of Florida without letting Ms. Martinez know where she could be reached. When Ms. Martinez located Respondent in Chicago, Illinois, Respondent again promised to repay Ms. Martinez. As of the time of the formal hearing, Respondent had returned to Dade County, Florida, but she had made no effort to repay Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000. Respondent repeatedly misled Ms. Martinez as to her intentions to repay her. The factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner to "initiate this case were denied by Respondent. The request for a formal hearing was timely filed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of `Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the final order revoke the real estate salesman's license issued to Respondent, America Canizales. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Alexander, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 America Canizales 158 West 10th Street Hialeah, Florida 33010 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman was denied by the Board of Real Estate. By letter dated December 17, 1981, the Petitioner was advised that the Board's decision was based on the Petitioner's disclosure in his application that he had been arrested for a criminal offense, and his criminal record according to appropriate law enforcement agencies. The Petitioner challenged this decision of the Board by requesting an administrative hearing. The issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner meets the eligibility requirements for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Petitioner testified in his own be half and presented three other witnesses in support of his contention that he meets all eligibility requirements. These witnesses were the Petitioner's mother who is a licensed real estate broker, and two local businessmen who know the Petitioner, his work record, and his reputation in the community. The Board of Real Estate did not present any witnesses, but did offer in evidence the Petitioner's application and related papers, together with its denial letter, as a composite exhibit.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Mark Bruck, is 20 years of age. In 1980, when he was 18, he was arrested and charged with grand theft auto and robbery. The Petitioner had been drinking with another boy. They went to an abandoned area in a van belonging to a third boy, took the van, and left the owner of the van there. As a result of this single occurrence, the Petitioner and his friend were arrested, and the Petitioner was charged with grand theft auto and robbery. The robbery charge was added to cover the articles of personal property inside the van that were taken with the van. The Petitioner's friend was permitted to enlist in the Marine Corps, and was not charged. The van was returned to its owner, and the Petitioner was permitted to enter a pretrial intervention program own condition that full restitution be made for the personal property and damage to the van. The Petitioner and his friend each paid approximately $1,700 in full restitution for the van and its contents. The Petitioner remained on this pretrial intervention program for a period of 18 months. Subsequently, the Petitioner was out with some other friends who stopped at a construction site and took several pieces of two-by-four lumber. Although the Petitioner did not leave the vehicle, and was not engaged in taking the lumber, he was arrested along with his friends for petty theft. Because of the intercession of his counsellor in the pretrial intervention program, the Petitioner was not charged with anything as a result of this incident. Previously, before he was 18 years old, the Petitioner had been charged with driving while intoxicated. However, on his application and in his answers to interrogatories propounded by counsel for the Board, the Petitioner only disclosed the one arrest for grand theft auto. The Petitioner explains this by stating that he actually had no recollection of the petty theft charge when answering the interrogatories and completing the application, and that he did not feel that the DWI charge was relevant. Based upon the observed candor and demeanor of the Petitioner, and the absence of any contradictory evidence, it is found as a fact that the Petitioner made as complete a disclosure of his arrest record as his recollection permitted without the advice of counsel. The Petitioner's completion of the pretrial intervention program removed him from the jurisdiction of the court for the grand theft auto charge and for the robbery charge. In approximately the year 1983 the Petitioner may petition the court to seal the record of these offenses. Now the Petitioner seeks to become licensed to sell real estate, and work in his mothers realty office. He has lived in Florida for all of his life. He has been working as a painter, then as a painting contractor, for approximately the past two years. In this work he receives money deposits from customers on jobs that are not yet begun, or are begun and not yet finished, and there has been no difficulty or dispute with his customers concerning these deposits. The Petitioner has been extended credit for sums up to $2,000, and he has a good reputation in the community. Two local businessmen, as a sample, would not hesitate to entrust funds to the Petitioner in connection with real estate purchases. Finally, with reference to his knowledge and capability to engage in real estate sales, the Petitioner achieved a score of 97 on the licensure examination. Presently, the Petitioner has matured and has a different outlook on life than he had in the past.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Real Estate grant the application of Mark Bruck for a real estate salesman's license. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 16th day of April, 1982. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 16th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Bruck, in pro per 11101 Royal Palm Boulevard Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shornstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
