The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Ann Croasdell is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesperson. More specifically, since her license was previously disciplined, the question is whether,"... because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient... " it appears the interest of the public and investors will not be endangered by the granting of registration.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 29, 1987, Ann Croasdell filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. She revealed in response to question #14 that her Florida broker's license had been revoked in March, 1984. Ms. Croasdell's broker's license was disciplined in two cases, heard on the same day, before the Florida Real Estate Commission. In case no. 0021233, DOAH no. 82-1673, she was charged with, and found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and suspended Ms. Croasdell's broker's license for three years. In case no. 0020990, DOAH no. 82-1672, Ms. Croasdell was charged with and found guilty of dishonesty, breach of trust and conspiring with another person engaged in such conduct, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, except as to penalty, and revoked her real estate broker's license. In both cases the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the orders Per Curiam, and issued its mandates on March 9, 1984. Ms. Croasdell's disciplinary actions arose out of dealings with William Young, later known as the "multi-lock burglar." In DOAH case #82-1672, it was found that Ms. Croasdell was a willing accomplice with Young in a series of burglaries in which access was gained through use of the multi-lock boxes used by realtors to show homes for sale. Golf clubs and towels were stolen. Ms. Croasdell assisted in the investigation leading to young's conviction and she was never arrested nor charged with a criminal violation. In DOAH case #82-1673, the Hearing Officer found Ms. Croasdell made application, and obtained a second mortgage loan in her own name on property that she had previously conveyed to William Young. She misrepresented to the mortgage company the true owner of the property. Ms. Croasdell is a reformed alcoholic. She characterizes herself as an alcoholic drinker between 1974 and March 1984. She now participates actively in Alcoholics Anonymous, attends meetings several days a week and sponsors other women alcoholics. She works with the AA Hot Line and a halfway house for women alcoholics. She is employed part-time teaching real-estate related courses at a technical school. She is also attending college, with some support in the form of tuition and books from the Florida Division of vocational Rehabilitation. Respondent presented no evidence to controvert Ms. Croasdell's credible testimony of her complete rehabilitation. She freely admits her wrongdoing in the referenced disciplinary cases. She attributes the wrongs to a fear of William Young and to her alcoholism. During the proceedings before the Commission in 1982 and 1983, she did not admit her alcoholism as she was still in the throes of the disease. Ms. Croasdell's evidence is corroborated in approximately seventeen letters of reference and commendation from her counsellors, former students, employers and business associates. Ann Croasdell held her real estate license between 1978 and 1984. Prior to that, she was employed by various state agencies, including five years with the Florida Real Estate Commission as an administrative assistant and acting and assistant director. With her license she opened a real estate school and built an active business. Her real love is teaching real estate students. She believes she has a gift for this vocation and can make a contribution to the profession. Ms. Croasdell is 47 years old, divorced, with three children. Her account of her life before and after the activities leading to the loss of her license lends credence to the theory that her behavior was an aberration peculiar to her relationship with Young and to the final stages of her alcoholism. The Commission's letter of intended denial is not in evidence; however, at the brief proceeding before the Commission in May, 1987, the unanimous vote of the members was based upon the expressed concern that insufficient time had passed. While the discipline in one case (#82-1673) was a three-year suspension, the Board rejected the Hearing Officer's recommendation for a five year suspension in case #82-1672, in favor of revocation. According to the findings in the disciplinary cases, the wrongful conduct took place primarily in 1979 and 1980. The Appellate Court mandates were issued in 1984, and Ms. Croasdell has been un-licensed for almost four years. Additional time would serve no purpose other than further assurance that a relapse will not occur.
Recommendation It is, hereby Recommended: That the Commission enter its Final Order granting the application of Ann Croasdell for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's real estate sales- person's license for alleged conduct evidencing fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. In particular, Petitioner carries out its duties in compliance with Chapters 20, 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated under authority set forth in those statutes. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent was, and is now, a licensed Florida Real Estate salesperson. Her license number is 0591902. That license was issued in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent worked as a licensed real estate salesperson for Ideal Real Estate Central Florida, Inc., t/a Coldwell Banker Ideal Real Estate in Orange City, Florida (Ideal). The broker for that firm was John S. Chinelli. On April 13, 1993, Respondent listed an exclusive right of sale for property owned by Jason and Kelly Foster at 2853 Sweet Springs Avenue, Deltona, Florida. That listing contemplated that Ideal would earn a real estate commission of 7 percent of the gross purchase price. The listing price in the exclusive right of sale was $69,900. In arriving at the sales price, Mr. Foster relied upon Respondent's advice. That advice included a consideration of the price received for the sale of comparable homes. The establishment of comparable prices as a means to arrive at the listing price for the Foster property involved the use of the Coldwell Banker buyer/seller presentation booklet, as well as a marketing analysis. The price $69,900 was chosen to attract those buyers who were looking for homes that cost less than $70,000. That choice was designed to garner more interest in the home. While the Foster home was being advertised, it was available through the multiple listing pool. Respondent showed the house two times between April 13, 1993, and May 14, 1993. This did not involve a showing to any prospective buyers. Other brokers or salespersons showed the house twice to prospective buyers, but no offers were generated from those showings. Subsequently, Respondent suggested to Mr. Foster that the Foster residence might be appropriate for her use. Respondent offered to buy the Foster property for $65,000. On May 14, 1993, Respondent and Mr. Foster entered into a contract for sale and purchase of the Foster residence. The purchase price was $65,000. Respondent deposited $500 into the escrow account managed by Ideal in furtherance of her interest in the property. The earnest money deposit was placed with Mr. Chinelli pending the closing of the sale. The contract called for Respondent to assume an existing mortgage of $63,556. The contract identified that the Respondent was a licensed real estate agent in Florida, but the purchase was not being made through Ideal. Under this contract, the real estate commission that had been contemplated initially would not be paid to Ideal and Respondent. When Respondent entered into a contract to buy the Foster property, she did not tell Mr. Foster that she would no longer be representing him as a real estate salesperson. The contract between Respondent and Mr. Foster called for a closing date on or before June 30, 1993. In entering into the agreement for Respondent to purchase the home, Respondent told Mr. Foster that she intended to personally occupy that property. Respondent never told Mr. Foster that she entered into the contract to purchase his home with the intent to sell the home to another person. Originally that was not her intention. Respondent held to the view that in the event that her purchase of the home was not concluded, Respondent would still represent Mr. Foster in his desire to sell the home. This is taken to mean that she would be representing Mr. Foster as a real estate salesperson. Sometime around June 20, 1993, Kai and Denise M. Hansen, husband and wife, contacted Ideal to show the Hansens property in the Deltona area. Respondent assisted the Hansens in this pursuit, acting as a real estate salesperson. There was no written agreement between Respondent or her firm signed with the Hansens to represent them in their attempt to purchase a home. Respondent showed the Hansens 8 to 12 homes in the Deltona area. The Hansens were not interested in purchasing those homes. At that point, Respondent suggested that the Hansens look at the home that she was purchasing from Mr. Foster. Respondent told the Hansens that Respondent was buying the Foster house from the Fosters who were moving out of town and that Respondent was helping the Fosters "out of a bind." Respondent told the Hansens that the home might be "too big for her anyway." Respondent told the Hansens that if she could help the Hansens out she would sell the Foster home to the Hansens if the Hansens liked that property. If a suitable home had been found through a real estate listing, other than the Foster residence, a commission would have been paid from the seller of the hypothetical house to the broker for Ideal. In that circumstance, the Hansens would not be responsible for paying a commission to the Respondent or Ideal. The properties other than the Foster property which Respondent was showing the Hansens were shown by Respondent as a sub-agent for the sellers. Respondent showed the Hansens the Foster residence during the week of June 20, 1993. On June 24, 1993, Respondent entered into a contract with the Hansens for sale and purchase of the Foster property. An addendum to that contract indicated that "this contract is contingent upon seller obtaining clear Title on 2853 Sweet Springs, Deltona, FL." The Hansens paid a $1,000 earnest money deposit toward the purchase of the Foster property. That deposit was placed in the escrow account for Ideal. That deposit was to be held until the closing date scheduled for July 16, 1993. Again, it was not contemplated that a real estate commission would be paid to Respondent and Ideal. The price arrived at between Respondent and the Hansens to purchase the Foster property was $72,500. Initially, Respondent had offered to sell the property for $73,000. The Hansens counter-offered to pay $72,000 leading to the final purchase price of $72,500. The contract between the Respondent and the Hansens called for an assumption of a mortgage in the amount of 63,500. Although Respondent had advised the Hansens that the property was being purchased from the current occupants, the Fosters, Respondent did not advise the Hansens of the price the Respondent was paying the Fosters to purchase that property. Respondent never advised the Fosters that the Hansens had sought to purchase the Foster home and that Respondent had entered into a contract with the Hansens for the Hansens to purchase that property. On June 29, 1993, the closing occurred between Respondent and the Fosters and a warranty deed was prepared noting the change in ownership. At the closing Respondent told the Fosters that she still intended to occupy the home. On July 16, 1993, the closing occurred between the Respondent and the Hansens and a warranty deed was drawn conveying the property from the Respondent to the Hansens. As established by Mark A. Carper, a real estate appraiser, the value of the Foster property on April 13, 1993 was between $65,000 and $72,500. In anticipation of moving into the Foster home, Respondent had made arrangements to move out of the residence where she had been living by giving notice that she intended to move.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered which dismisses the administrative complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 William A. Parsons, Esquire Woerner & Parsons 2001 South Ridgewood Avenue South Daytona, Florida 32119 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure by examination as a real estate salesman sometime prior to July 14, 1987 but her application was denied because she had been convicted of the possession of cocaine. On July 15, 1986, the Petitioner, Kristin M. Yanick, was arrested in Martin County, Florida, and charged with possession of cocaine, resisting an officer without violence, and possession of narcotics equipment. Thereafter, the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the possession of cocaine charge and dismissed the others, and, in November, 1986, placed her on probation for five years, assigning her to Mr. Martin T. Zientz, a Probation Officer. Petitioner successfully carried out the terms of her probation until sometime in May, 1987 when one of her periodic drug analysis reports requested by the Probation Officer came back positive for cocaine. Petitioner immediately and voluntarily entered a detoxification unit and Mr. Ziantz considers this an isolated incident. Since her release from the detoxification unit he considers her conduct to have been exemplary. Petitioner has taken a job and, according to interviews conducted with her supervisors is doing well. Mr. Zientz is convinced that Petitioner will stay clean of drugs because of her strong goal of getting a real estate license. He is willing to work with the Real Estate Commission to ensure she remains free of drugs if such could be made a condition imposed by the Commission. Mr. Zientz does not feel Petitioner is manipulating the system. She works closely with him and he would consider her to be in the top 15 percent of his probationers. She will be eligible for termination of probation when she has completed one-half her sentence. He considers her to be a responsible individual and he believes she could serve effectively as a real estate salesman. These sentiments are shared by Deputy Johnson who has known Petitioner for about two years including the period of her difficulty with drugs. Subsequent to her treatment, he has seen a considerable difference in her attitude and outlook. She is working and has taken over the care of her own children who previously were with her parents and she appears to have improved physically. Johnson, too, feels that she is not a manipulative person and is sincere in her efforts to be a responsible individual. Petitioner is quite active in her church and its Sunday School. According to Jacqueline Esker, Petitioner has filled in as a substitute Sunday School teacher and Mrs. Esker feels that Petitioner is making a sincere effort to get on with her life and her children. She is active in other church activities as well. Mrs. Esker is aware of Petitioner's problems with drugs and would nonetheless, have no hesitancy in allowing Petitioner to teach her children in Sunday School. She feels safe with her children in Petitioner's care. Petitioner worked for Mr. Edward Bessemer several years ago. He is aware of her drug problem and can see a night and day difference in her since her rehabilitation. While she was working for him, she had the keys to his office and his home and had access to petty cash. Even when she was involved with drugs, she never violated his trust and he would trust her with his life. He considers her to be responsible, conscientious, and an honest person. If it were possible for him to do so, he would hire her on a full time basis. Sherry Ketchum, a former member of the Ethics and Standards Committee of the Martin County Board of Realtors, worked with Petitioner in the same real estate office during the period Petitioner was having trouble with drugs. Since her rehabilitation , Petitioner has become a conscientious employee with a good attitude. She is punctual and responsible and Ms. Ketchum has no reservations about Petitioner sitting for the real estate examination. When they were working together for a developer, Petitioner showed homes for Ms. Ketchum and had access to private property. There was never any indication of Petitioner's dishonesty and were she able to do so, Ms. Ketchum would hire Petitioner. Frances J. Yanick, mother of Petitioner's estranged husband, has known her for approximately 5 to 6 years and is aware of Petitioner's drug problem. Mrs. Yanick has seen a tremendous change in Petitioner's behavior. She has taken hold of her life and is going to work every day; her children are well taken care of; she is active in the church; and has made a responsible effort to manage her time and set a goal for herself. Mrs. Yanick, does not feel that Petitioner is manipulating the system. She believes that Petitioner should be allowed to sit for the examination since she has proven she is capable, honest, and trustworthy and would be no threat to the public. If Petitioner is allowed to earn her license, Mrs. Yanick intends to hire her. Petitioner admits she is guilty of possessing cocaine. However, she contends, prior to her arrest, she enrolled in the Palm Beach Institute, a drug rehabilitation facility, on her own because she knew she needed help. She has learned a lot about her addiction. Petitioner has wanted to be a real estate agent even prior to her arrest but at that time, did nothing about it. After her arrest, she decided she had to do something positive or she would never get her life in shape. She stopped using drugs, voluntarily entered a drug rehabilitation program, and enrolled in real estate school. Petitioner admits that in April, 1987, she again used cocaine. For the most part, however, she has continued with mental health counseling , has entered Alcoholics Anonymous , and has enlisted the support of her pastor and her mother-in-law. She believes this is a very strong support system and will be instrumental in keeping her drug-free. She now has hope instead of despair and courage instead of depression. She got rid of all her old friends and has new ones; she has developed a routine to live by; and, most important, she has grown up. She has self-discipline and has opened a new relationship with her children , and , hopefully, with her husband. Understanding the legitimate concern of the Real Estate Commission and recognizing that licensing is a privilege with responsibilities attendant thereto and not a right, she feels confident she can handle these responsibilities. She believes her dependency is sufficiently under control that she can handle the responsibilities that would go with licensing as a real estate salesman . Her support system is sufficient to bolster her when things do not go as she would hope. She is willing to work under any conditions imposed by the Commission. Petitioner submitted a package of letters from numerous individuals testifying to her rehabilitation and recovery. These include her addiction counselor at the Indian River Mental Health Center; her sister; her pastor; Mr. Johnson; Mr. Lucien Roy, a former employer in the investment business; her mother-in-law; her husband; the church secretary; neighbors; other real estate professionals; co-workers; and acquaintances; all of whom support her in her effort toward licensure. In their opinion, she is honest, sincere, dependable, enthusiastic, and conscientious and should not be continually penalized because of her one mistake with drugs. Petitioner's sister, Ms. Silva, who was herself an addict, is now a rehabilitation professional in Palm Beach County. She concludes that Petitioner has all the right things going for her. The biggest thing in Petitioner's favor at the moment is her participation in Alcoholics Anonymous. She believes that Petitioner, honestly recognizing that she has and will continue to have a drug addiction, can nonetheless manage it with continuing success.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Kristin Yanick be permitted to sit for the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 2nd day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3020 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. 4 and 5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 3-5. For the Respondent 1 and 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 3 and 15. Rejected as a restatement of the evidence and cumulative. Rejected as a restatement of the evidence or comment thereon. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce M. Wilkinson, Esquire 55 East Osceola Street Suite 100 Stuart, Florida 34994 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, John J. Piccione, is an instructor at Gold Coast School of Real Estate, Inc., holding instructor's permit number ZH 31158. He has been a licensed instructor for approximately fifteen years. Piccione used to be the permit holder for Gold Coast School of Realty, Inc., but as of January 3, 1984, the school permit was issued to Mary Piccione. Additionally, Mary Piccione is the chief administrator of Gold Coast School of Realty, Inc. John J. Piccione's license as a real estate broker was suspended for one year, from November 3, 1983 to November 2, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John J. Piccione 1515 E. Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 105-WG Ocala, Florida 32670 Harold R. Huff, Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Donald L. Stuart is a real estate broker registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. He holds license number 215732 with expiration date of 3/3/77. In the renewal application received April 3, 1975 by FREC, Stuart reported his business address to be 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida. In early August, 1976 an investigator for FREC visited the address on South Old Dixie Highway and found a vacant house with no real estate broker's sign displayed. Inquiry in the neighborhood revealed the house had been unoccupied for a considerable period of time. By Election of Rights form submitted November 26, 1976, Stuart acknowledged receipt of the Administrative Complaint by checking Block 1 in which he acknowledged having read the explanation of rights, did not dispute the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint, and requested a hearing. Notice of Hearing was forwarded by Certified Mail, to the same address, viz. 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida to which the Administrative Complaint had been forwarded.
