The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondents violated subsections 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes by neglecting to inform the agent of a seller that a deposit was not cash; and whether Respondents violated subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, Section 475.22, Florida Statutes and Rule 21V- 10.022, by failing to maintain an office while licensed as an active broker
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, John A. Sirianni was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0132568 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Sirianni Investments, Inc., with a home address of 300 Valley Drive, Longwood, Florida, 32779. Respondent, Sirianni Investments, Inc. was at all times pertinent to the charges a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0207206 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. For some undetermined period the corporation license was inactive. At various times, the addresses for the corporation on file at the Division of Real Estate were: 213 West Park Avenue, Winter Park, Florida; 301 Montgomery Road, Suite 301, Altamonte Springs, Florida; and most recently, 147 W. Lyman Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent John A. Sirianni was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Sirianni Investments, Inc. In October, 1986, Ruth Pelegatto, a real estate broker salesman employed by W. W. and Company, had a listing to sell a parcel owned by Xebec, Inc. and located in Apopka, Florida. On October 12, 1986, Respondents submitted to Ruth Pelegatto a written offer to buy from U.S. EquiGrowth Corporation. The offer, reflected on a form contract for sale and purchase, stated a purchase price of $100,000.00; a $1,000.00 deposit to be held in escrow by Sirianni Investments, Inc. "on acceptance"; a $75,000.00 purchase money mortgage; and $24,000.00 balance to close. The offer also included a contingency clause, giving the buyer 60 days from final acceptance to determine the feasibility of developing the site. If the buyer claimed the site conditions were unacceptable, the contract would be null and void. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) The time for acceptance was October 15, 1986, reflected in paragraph III of the contract. The seller signed the contract on September 22, 1986, after making several changes in its terms. The purchase money mortgage figure was struck through and initialled and the balance to close was changed from $24,000.00 to $99,000.00, and was initialled. The seller, according to Ms. Pelegatto, did not want to "hold any paper." By the time the contract came back, Sirianni had learned that the property was not appropriate for the development. He claims that Ms. Pelegatto knew that, as he had spoken with her prior to her trying to reach him about the counteroffer. Ms. Pelegatto claims that the refusal of the counteroffer was never communicated to her. She does not claim that acceptance was made, and no evidence of such is apparent on the face of the two copies of the contract in the record, one photocopy and one carbon copy. There are initials by the changes, and a date, 9/24/8- (the second digit does not appear on either copy). The initials and date were not explained. The sale to EquiGrowth was not made. Ms. Pelegatto tried unsuccessfully to reach Sirianni on several occasions. He felt she was trying to salvage the deal and did not respond. Sometime in April, 1987, Xebec asked Ruth Pelegatto for the $1,000.00 deposit. She was still unable to reach Sirianni. The deposit, either a check or promissory note according to Sirianni, had previously been returned by him to the prospective buyer. John Sirianni admitted at the hearing and to DPR investigator, Chris Olsen, that the deposit was never placed in trust as the contract was never accepted. Chris Olsen interviewed Sirianni on June 22, 1987, when Sirianni voluntarily responded to his call and came in to the agency office. Sirianni told him he had closed his brokerage office and was working out of his home. The office closed approximately 30 days before Sirianni talked with Olsen.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the administrative complaint against both Respondents be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Darlene F. Keller DPR, Division of Real Estate Executive Director Post Office Box 1900 DPR, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 John A. Sirianni 1740 Carlton Street Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Longwood, Florida 32779 Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now and was at all times material to this action a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0064475. Respondent operated his own real estate brokerage firm under his license. The firm was located in Niceville, Florida. In addition to his real estate brokerage business Respondent maintained and managed his personal real estate investments. Several of these personal investments included rental property which Respondent would later sell. One such piece of property was located at 104 Perdido Circle, Niceville, Florida, and is the property involved in this action. Prior to July 6, 1985, the Respondent, as seller and not as a broker, advertised for sale the Perdido property. Sometime around July 6, 1985, Robert L. Mitchell and June F. Mitchell looked at the Perdido property. Frank Ray, a salesman for John Brooks Realty, an unrelated real estate firm showed the property to the Mitchells. They liked the property and wanted to buy it. Frank Ray made arrangements for himself and the Mitchells to meet with Respondent in order to discuss the terms of the potential purchase contract. They met on July 6, 1985. The meeting lasted approximately an hour to an hour and a half. During the lengthy meeting Respondent went over the purchase terms contained in the contract of sale. The Mitchells main concern was to have immediate occupancy of the house. Special terms were developed for renting the property. At some point during the meeting the down payment came under discussion. Originally, the Mitchells had planned on a $1500 down payment which was acceptable to Respondent. However, as the meeting progressed the Mitchells decided they would like to reduce the amount of the down payment. Respondent informed the Mitchells that the only way he could decrease the $1500 down payment was to make the money a non-refundable option payment. Respondent then marked out the $1500 down payment figure contained in the purchase contract and inserted a $1200 figure. Respondent concurrently added the language "option payment" next to the $1200 figure. The remainder of the contract was discussed and the Mitchells signed the amended document. The Mitchells then wrote a check to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $1200. The note section of the check the Mitchells wrote contained the language "house down payment." The exact discussion on the down payment/option is not clear. What is clear from the evidence is that neither party had a meeting of the minds over what the $1200 check was. The Mitchells being very inexperienced in real estate thought it was a down payment. Although it is doubtful the Mitchells understood the legal meaning of the term "down payment." Respondent thought it was a non- refundable option payment. Absolutely no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Respondent was demonstrated. Likewise, there was no evidence that Respondent in any way used his knowledge or expertise in the real estate market improperly. The final result of the negotiations was that the Mitchells had entered into what on its face purports to be a rental contract with an option to buy. However, since there was no meeting of the minds over the option, the option was eventually unenforceable. Since there was no meeting of the minds regarding the $1200 the money was not properly escrowable property. In essence the $1200 was neither a down payment nor an option payment. This lack of escrowability is borne out by the sales contract which calls for another escrow agent. 1/ The Mitchells took possession of the property for approximately three months. The Mitchells failed to obtain financing. The contract was conditioned upon the Mitchells obtaining financing, and the transaction failed to close. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the down payment/option money. When the dispute could not be resolved by the parties, the Mitchells filed a lawsuit against Nevin H. Nordal demanding a refund of the $1200 "house down payment." As a result of the Mitchell's lawsuit the County Court, in Okaloosa County, Florida, Summary Claims Division, by Amended Final Judgment dated January 20, 1987, awarded the sum of $1,028,87. The judgment figure is the balance of the $1200 after deduction of a counterclaim of $171.13 for cleaning the house after the Mitchells evacuated the property. Additionally, the Respondent was required to pay costs in the sum of $57 for a total of $1,087.87 due the Mitchells. The judgment amount is bearing interest at a rate of 12 percent per annum. The County Court judgment contains no findings of fact as to the Judge's reasoning on the judgment award. The Mitchells have repeatedly demanded of the Respondent that he pay the judgment. He has repeatedly refused to pay the judgment. Respondent did account to the Mitchells for the money when he told them he had deposited the check and had spent the funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint failed against Respondent, Nevin H. Nordal, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1989, 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 4th day of March, 1989.
Findings Of Fact In February of 1988, Petitioner took the real estate broker's examination compiled by Respondent, and otherwise complied with all applicable licensure requirements. The Petitioner received a grade of 74 on the written examination. A grade of 75 or higher is required to pass the test. Had Petitioner answered question number 62 with the answer deemed by Respondent to be correct, Petitioner's score would have been 75 and, as such, would have entitled him to licensure. Question number 62 reads as follows: The Department of Professional Regulation may withhold notification to a licensee that the licensee is being investigated IF: NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INVESTIGATION. NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE LICENSEE. THE ACT UNDER INVESTIGATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Possible answers to question number 62 were as follows: I only. II only. I and III only. I, II and III. The answer to question number 62 chosen by Petitioner was D. The Respondent determined the correct answer should have been C. The Respondent's examining board followed a standard procedure for conducting and grading the examination. Statistically, 58 per cent of candidates taking the examination and placing in percentile rankings 50 through 99, answered the question correctly. Of those candidates taking the examination and placing in the lower half (0-50 percentile), 33 per cent answered the question correctly. The results obtained to question number 62 from all applicants taking the examination revealed the question exceeded effective testing standards. Question number 62 and the appropriate answer to that question are taken directly from section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the question is to determine if an applicant is knowledgeable of the law governing real estate broker licensees. The Respondent adopts the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, mandates that Respondent shall notify a licensee of any investigation of which the licensee is the subject and authorizes withholding notification to that licensee only where such notification would be detrimental to the investigation, or where the act under investigation is a criminal offense. The Petitioner takes the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, does not prohibit withholding notification of an investigation from a licensee when such notification would be detrimental to the licensee. The Petitioner bases this contention on the broad power provided the Real Estate Commission by section 475.05, Florida Statutes. The Commission has not, however, adopted any rule, regulation or bylaw supportive of Petitioner's position and the statutory mandate is clear. Further, the statute referenced by Petitioner specifically does not support an exercise of this power of the Commission if the result is a conflict with another law of the State of Florida. Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, states Respondent "shall" notify "any person" of an investigation of that person. Under that section, discretionary authority to refrain from such notification is allowed only where there is a potential for harm to the investigation, or the matter under investigation is a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming the grade of the Petitioner as previously determined. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2442 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings The Petitioner submitted a document entitled summary of hearing and consisting of seven numbered paragraphs. They are treated as follows: Rejected as unnecessary. Included in findings 5, and 7. Rejected, contrary to the weight of the evidence. 4.- 6. Rejected, contrary to evidence adduced. 7. Rejected as argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Respondent submitted a three page document entitled "argument" and consisting of eight unnumbered paragraphs. Numbers 1-8 have been applied to those paragraphs. They are treated as follows: 1.-5. Rejected as conclusions of law. 6. Included in findings 8, 9, and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip I. Salerno 11812 Timbers Way Boca Raton, Florida 33428 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of mishandling an escrow deposit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Vu is and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license number 0394778. He is and was at all material times the qualifying broker for Respondent American Homes and Investment Realty, Inc., which holds Florida license number 0250718. Respondent Vu owns Respondent American Homes. In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Serge Delisfort contacted Respondents about purchasing a residence. The Delisforts eventually signed a contract to purchase a home and paid the $500 earnest money deposit to Respondents. Later learning that they would be liable to pay an annual homeowners' fee of $72, the Delisforts told Respondent Vu that they did not want to complete the purchase. The listing broker, which was not either Respondent, omitted mention of the homeowners' fee from the listing information supplied Respondents and the Delisforts. The sellers refused to release the deposit. Confronted with the dispute, Respondent Vu promptly requested an escrow disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 29, 1991. Due to the presence of a factual or legal dispute, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents, in a 47-word letter dated October 16, 1991, that it could not issue an escrow disbursement order. The October 16 letter warns Respondents to "immediately choose one of the other two alternatives available to you under ss. 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, to settle this dispute, i.e., arbitration or a civil court." Instead, Respondents did nothing. The Delisforts periodically contacted Respondent Vu and asked if he could release their deposit. The sellers sold their house to another party and moved to Puerto Rico. The Delisforts contacted another broker and purchased a different house through the new broker. Eventually, the Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission and asked its help in obtaining the deposit. An investigator for the Division of Real Estate interviewed Respondent Vu on March 1, 1994. Explaining the reason for the delay, Respondent Vu, possibly confused, stated that the buyers had left Orlando for awhile. In fact, the buyers had remained in Orlando. At the suggestion of the investigator, Respondent Vu contacted both parties, and they agreed to split the deposit equally. Respondent Vu prepared the paperwork, which the parties signed on March 11, 1994. At that time, Respondents paid each party $250. The Delisforts have since listed their home for sale by Respondents. While improperly holding the $500 deposit, Respondent Vu was preoccupied by the illnesses and deaths of his parents, who remained in Vietnam. Despite the possibility of trouble upon his return to Vietnam, Respondent Vu traveled to Vietnam at least once during this time to care for one or both of his parents. Respondents failed to implement timely the remedies established by law and identified by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its letter of October 26, 1991. Respondent Vu acted two and one-half years later, only after one of Petitioner's investigators contacted him. It is no excuse that the costs of arbitration or court would have consumed a large part of the amount in dispute. Confronted with that prospect, the sellers or the Delisforts would probably have settled the matter. If not, that would have been their problem, not Respondents'. The fact is that Respondents failed to discharge their obligations by presenting the dispute for resolution in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, the amount involved is modest. Neither party had a clear claim to the funds, nor was either party exceptionally troubled by Respondents' casual handling of the matter. The Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission, but did not realize that they were in effect filing a complaint against Respondents, in whom they entrusted the sale of their current home. A final order issued July 18, 1988, involves Respondents' mishandling of a salesperson's commission. The husband of the salesperson owed Respondent Vu some money, and both men agreed that the debtor's wife would work off the debt by selling real estate at Respondent American Homes. However, the debtor's wife was of a different mind. After earning her first commission, she refused to allow Respondents to credit it against her husband's debt. When Respondent Vu ignored her demand for payment, she filed a complaint, which resulted in the final order and Respondents' proper payment of the commission.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding both Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25((1)(d)1, reprimanding both Respondents, and requiring Respondent Vu to take a thirty-hour broker management course. ENTERED on February 22, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 22, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section--Suite N-308 Hurston Bldg., North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802-1772 Dau Viet Vu 1048 Pine Hills Rd. Orlando, FL 32808
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During times material herein, Respondent, George May, was a licensed real estate broker (License No. 00056693) whose principal business address is 2300 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 202, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311. On April 24, 1980, George Aro, a licensed real estate salesman, was employed by Respondent and entered into an employment agreement whereby salesman Aro, while acting in his capacity as a real estate salesman, would receive a sixty percent (60 percent) share of commission fees paid when salesman Aro was the procuring cause of a realty transaction which resulted in the payment of a commission. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On August 29, 1980, salesman Aro discussed, negotiated, and obtained a contract for purchase whereby Peter Licato agreed to purchase a vacant lot in Palm Beach County, Florida. The transaction closed during September, 1980, with Respondent receiving a commission of approximately $300.00 on the Licato transaction. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Pursuant to the employment agreement entered between Respondent and salesman Aro, Messr. Aro demanded his pro-rata share of the commission paid, which was received by Respondent. Respondent refuses to account for, or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro any portion of the commission received from the Licato transaction. On August 9, 1980, salesman Aro, while acting in his capacity as salesman with Respondent, negotiated and obtained a contract of the sale of a vacant lot in Palm Beach County, Florida from seller, Mrs. Nicholas Deickmann to purchaser, Hooshang Abid. The transaction closed sometime during September of 1980, and Respondent received a commission of approximately $330.00. Pursuant to the party's employment agreement, salesman Aro demanded his pro-rata share of the commission received, and Respondent refuses to remit or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro his portion of the commission received. In this regard the Respondent does not dispute and stipulated that salesman Aro was the procuring cause of the above-referred-to transactions, and admits that the commissions were received. Respondent's Defense Respondent defended his failure to account for or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro commissions received from the above transactions on the theory that salesman Aro failed to attend the closings of the above transactions, or that salesman Aro obligated his firm to pay certain expenses which were connected with the closing, which were not authorized. Respondent's defense was considered by the undersigned and rejected for lack of proof. Moreover, the undersigned advised Respondent during the hearing herein that the proper procedure to seek redress from salesman Aro for those claims asserted herein, which were not a part of the subject administrative complaint, is through the filing of a written complaint properly executed, with the Board of Real Estate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's real estate broker's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 25th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Huskins, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George May 2300 West Oakland Park Blvd. Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Petitioner is presently sixty-eight years of age. She first became licensed as a real estate sales associate in the State of Florida in 1982, and in December of 1988 she passed the examination for a broker's license. Shortly after she passed the examination for a broker's license, the Petitioner began setting up her own real estate brokerage firm. At that time the Petitioner had her sales associate license placed with a broker named Robert F. Armand & Associates. Her arrangement with Mr. Armand was that she would pay him a flat monthly fee of $250.00 in exchange for the services brokers usually provide for sales associates. The agreement provided that Mr. Armand would not receive any share of any commissions earned by the Petitioner. While the Petitioner was in the process of making arrangements to terminate her relationship with Mr. Armand and start her own brokerage firm, the Petitioner was successful in obtaining a contract for the sale of a residence ("the Molina transaction"). At that time the Petitioner still had her license placed with Mr. Armand's brokerage firm and had not yet begun operation of her own brokerage firm. Because Mr. Armand had become very upset when the Petitioner told him she would soon be leaving, the Petitioner did not want to have any further dealings with Mr. Armand that were not absolutely necessary, so she did not tell Mr. Armand about the Molina transaction. Rather, she held the Molina transaction and processed it through her own brokerage firm shortly thereafter. The Molina transaction closed in due course and there was no financial harm to either the buyer or the seller. There was no financial harm to Mr. Armand, because he was not entitled to share in any commission related to the Molina transaction. By some means not revealed in the record of this proceeding, the Respondent became aware of the manner in which the Petitioner had handled the Molina transaction and initiated disciplinary action against the Petitioner.1 The Petitioner decided to resolve the disciplinary proceedings by agreeing to surrender her licenses for revocation. Towards that end, on April 10, 1989, the Petitioner signed a document titled Affidavit for the Voluntary Surrender of License, Registration, Certificate/Permit for Revocation. That document included the following statements by the Petitioner: That my name is Addy Miller. That I am currently the holder of a real estate license/registration/certificate or permit issued pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes and the Rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. That in lieu of further investigation and prosecution of the pending complaint(s) and case(s) received and filed with the Department of Professional Regulation, I do hereby consent to and authorize the Florida Real Estate Commission of the Department of Professional Regulation to issue a Final Order revoking any and all of the licenses, registrations, certificates and permits issued to or held by the undersigned. That the effective date of the revocation shall be April 10, 1989. All licenses, registrations, certificates and permits are hereby deemed surrendered and the undersigned hereby requests that the same be placed in and remain in inactive status pending final disposition by the Florida Real Estate Commission. That I will not apply for nor otherwise seek any real estate license, registration, certificate or permit in the State of Florida for a period of not less than ten (10) years from the effective date of the revocation. That I will not perform any act or service without first being the holder of a valid and current license, registration, certificate or permit thereof [sic] at the time the act or service is performed. That I waive any right to be noticed of any further administrative proceedings in this matter. That I waive any right to appeal or otherwise seek judicial review of the Final Order of revocation to be rendered in accordance with the provisions of this affidavit. [Emphasis added.] The above-quoted affidavit was considered at a meeting of the Florida Real Estate Commission on April 18, 1989. At that meeting the Commission issued a Final Order, the material parts of which read as follows: On April 18, 1989, the Florida Real Estate Commission heard this case to issue a Final Order. On April 10, 1989, the Respondent voluntarily surrendered her license and entered a written agreement that her license would be revoked. A copy of this agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. Based upon this information and upon the information provided to the Florida Real Estate Commission at its meeting of April 18, 1989, the Commission ORDERS that the license of the Respondent be revoked, effective April 10, 1989. Prior to the incident that led to the 1989 order described immediately above, the Petitioner had never before had a complaint filed against her. Consistent with paragraph 8 of the affidavit quoted above, the Petitioner did not appeal the Final Order issued on April 18, 1989. The Petitioner has complied with all of the terms of the Final Order issued on April 18, 1989. The loss of the Petitioner's real estate license has adversely affected her ability to make a living and support herself. In recent years she has been working in sales and marketing with several different companies. She appears to be highly regarded by some of her employers. During the fifteen years since the revocation of her license, the Petitioner has lived a moral and honorable life and has not been involved in any matters that would cast doubt upon her good character and her reputation for fair dealing. During the fifteen years since the revocation of her license, the Petitioner has not been the subject of any criminal charges. The Petitioner acknowledges that her conduct related to the Molina transaction so many years ago was improper and is committed to avoiding any improper conduct in the future. Further, the Petitioner is sincerely embarrassed about her conduct in that matter and is remorseful regarding her actions in that regard. In view of the long lapse of time (more than fifteen years) since her misconduct related to the Molina transaction, and in view of her good conduct and reputation during that fifteen-year period, it is unlikely that the interests of the public and investors will be endangered by the granting of her application for relicensure. On or about March 19, 2004, the Petitioner filed an application to be relicensed as a sales associate. At a meeting on May 19, 2004, the Florida Real Estate Commission considered the Petitioner's application to be relicensed. Following such consideration the Commission voted to deny the application. The Commission's order denying the application gave the following reason for the denial: "After completely reviewing the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Board ORDERS that the application be DENIED based on the applicant's answer to the question regarding a professional license disciplined." Apparently, at the May 19, 2004, meeting the Commission was somewhat less than "fully advised," because at a Commission meeting on June 16, 2004, there was staff discussion of the fact that at the prior meeting "we did not have the information that you have today," and that at the prior meeting "we could not locate the old information." At the June 16, 2004, meeting staff confirmed that "[s]ince the May meeting we have found the old file. That's in your packet today." At the June 16, 2004, meeting, the Commission tabled further consideration of the Petitioner's application because the Petitioner was sick and could not attend that meeting. The Petitioner's application for relicensure was reconsidered at a Commission meeting on July 21, 2004. During that meeting there was some discussion of the Petitioner's background. During the course of that discussion the Petitioner agreed with the observation of one of the Commissioners that during the past fifteen years she had "been absolutely squeaky clean." During the course of the meeting, without any statement of the reason for doing so, one of the Commissioners moved to deny the application, another seconded the motion, and without any further discussion the Petitioner's application was denied by a vote of five to one. Following the July 21, 2004, Commission meeting, the Commission issued a written order again denying the Petitioner's application to be relicensed. The written order contained the following reason for the denial: "After completely reviewing the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Board ORDERS that the application be DENIED based on the applicant's answer to the question regarding the discipline of a professional license." The question on the application regarding any prior discipline of a license called for a "yes" or "no" answer. The Petitioner truthfully checked the "yes" box. Instructions on the application form asked those who checked the "yes" box to also: . . . please provide the full details of any . . . administrative action including the nature of any charges, dates, outcomes, sentences, and/or conditions imposed; the dates, name and location of the court and/or jurisdiction in which any proceedings were held . . . and the designation and/or license number for any actions against a license or licensure application. The Petitioner complied with this request by including as part of her application a typed statement and a handwritten statement which, respectively, read as follows, in pertinent part: THE TYPED STATEMENT I held real estate licenses from 1982-1989. I voluntarily surrendered my license to the Department in 1989. I was not involved in any litigation, with the DPR or the courts, and there was no payment made from the Recovery Fund. However, my license was suspended for ten years that was fulfilled in April, 1999. The Department informed me that once I had served my suspension term, I would be able to start again with the salesman's classroom requirements and apply for and pass the state examination as I am presently doing with the Gold Coast School of Real Estate. If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. THE HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT I voluntarily surrendered my license in April 1989. I held on to escrow money for a longer period of time than the law allows. The transaction was successfully closed and it was to be my last. My suspension was for a maximum of ten years that was satisfied in 1999. There was no other consequence other than my ability to practice real estate for ten years. The answers quoted above appear to be truthful and candid answers consistent with the requirements of the instructions on the application form. The details in the answers provide some enlightenment regarding the basis for the Commission's disciplinary action against the Petitioner in 1989, but those details, standing alone, do not provide any enlightment regarding the basis for the Commission's vote to deny the pending application for relicensure. It appears that since the revocation of her real estate license in 1989, the Petitioner has rehabilitated herself and that therefore it is not likely that her relicensure would endanger the public.2
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that the Petitioner is qualified to practice as a real estate sales associate, subject to passing the licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 23rd day of February, 2005.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the real estate license of Keith Allen. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Allan M. Parvey, Esquire Goldberg, Rubinstein & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sexsmith is a licensed real estate broker, having held License Number 0079448 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Bellitto is a licensed real estate salesman, having held License No. 0204206 at all times relevant to Case No. 81-2630. Respondent Select Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having held License No. 0157174 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Sexsmith founded Select Realty, Inc., in 1975. He was a full time realtor until his employment by the Hollywood Fire Department in 1976. Select Realty thereafter became inactive. In 1979, Respondent Sexsmith was contacted by a Mr. Jim Holmes, who was seeking to register the corporate name, Select Realty. Sexsmith agreed to permit the name Select Realty to be used by Holmes and his associates to open a real estate office at 3045 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Sexsmith also applied to Petitioner for certification as a director and active broker with this company. His application was granted in June, 1979, and he remained affiliated with Respondent Select Realty, Inc., in this capacity until about April, 1980. Respondent Sexsmith did not participate in Select Realty operations and received no compensation for the use of his name and broker's license. He was slated to open and manage a branch office in Hollywood, but this project failed to materialize. Petitioner produced Mr. Tom Ott and Ms. Terri Casson as witnesses. They had utilized the services of Select Realty, Inc., in December, 1979 (Ott) and February, 1980 (Casson). Both had responded to advertisements in which Select Realty offered to provide rental assistance for a $45 refundable fee. These witnesses understood money would be refunded if Select Realty did not succeed in referring them to rental property which met their specifications. Mr. Ott was referred to several properties which did not meet his requirements. He sought to have his fee or a portion thereof returned, but was refused. His demand for such return was made within the 30-day contract period (PX-11). Ms. Casson was similarly dissatisfied with the referrals and sought the return of her fee within the 30-day contract period (PX-7). However, she was unable to contact this company or its agents since the office had closed and no forwarding instructions were posted or otherwise made available to her.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Select Realty, Inc., and Gary Lee Sexsmith be found guilty as charged in Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 81-2630. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against these Respondents and other Respondents named in DOAH Cases 81-2630 and 81-2490 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate broker's license of Select Realty, Inc., be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that the broker's license of Gary Lee Sexsmith be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William Grossbard, Esquire Suite 6175M 6191 Southwest 45 Street 6177 North Davie, Florida 33314 Anthony S. Paetro, Esquire Bedzow and Korn, P.A. Suite C 1125 Northeast 125 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire Spiegel and Abramowitz Suite 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith 321 Southwest 70t Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Guiseppe D. Bellitto 2635 McKinley Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Select Realty, Inc. c/o Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith last acting Director and Trustee of Select Realty, Inc. 321 Southwest 70th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
