The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been a licensed real estate sales associate since 2000. His license number is 693538. Most of Petitioner’s work in the real estate industry has involved business transactions, but he has also handled transactions involving residential properties. On August 23, 2004, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate broker. Petitioner disclosed in the application that, in July 2003, his sales associate license was suspended by the Commission for 30 days and that he was placed on probation for a period of six months. That disciplinary action was based upon a single incident that occurred on or about November 7, 2001. Petitioner agreed to the disciplinary action as part of a “Stipulation” to resolve an Administrative Complaint charging him with fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), and with having operated as a broker without a license in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2001). The Administrative Complaint contained the following “essential allegations of material fact,” which were admitted by Petitioner as part of the Stipulation: On or about November 7, 2001, Respondent, a seller’s agent, facilitated a purchase and sale transaction between Buyer and Seller. On or about November 7, 2001, [Petitioner] was not registered with a broker.[1] The transaction referenced above failed to close. Buyer released a $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] submitted the $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] instructed [Seller] to execute a check in the amount of $500.00 payable to “Cash.”[2] [Petitioner] accepted the $500.00 payment as his own payment for services. The Final Order adopting the Stipulation was filed with the agency clerk on June 25, 2003. Petitioner’s suspension commenced on July 25, 2003, which is “thirty days from the date of filing of the Final Order.” The suspension ended 30 days later, on August 24, 2003. Petitioner’s probation ran “for a period of six (6) months from the Effective Date [of the Stipulation],” which was defined as the date that the Final Order was filed with the agency clerk. As a result, the probation period ran from June 25, 2003, to December 25, 2003. Petitioner was required to complete a three-hour ethics course and a four-hour escrow management course during the probation period, which he did. Petitioner has not been subject to any other disciplinary action. Petitioner has taken several continuing education courses in addition to those required as part of his probation. He is working towards certification by the Graduate Realtor Institute. Petitioner has taken the classes necessary to become a real estate broker, and he passed the broker examination. Petitioner has worked for broker Phillip Wetter since March 2005. Petitioner manages the day-to-day operation of Mr. Wetter’s brokerage firm. His responsibilities include preparing listings, negotiating contracts, and handling escrow funds. He has been involved in over 50 successful real estate transactions under Mr. Wetter’s supervision. According to Mr. Wetter, Petitioner is meticulous in his work, including his handling of escrow funds, and he always makes sure that he “dots all his ‘I’s’ and crosses all his ‘T’s’.” Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing that what he did in November 2001 was wrong. He credibly testified that he has learned from his mistake. In his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing, Mr. Wetter attested to Petitioner’s honesty, ethics, good moral character, as well as his qualifications to be a broker. That testimony was unrebutted and is corroborated by the letters of support from Petitioner’s former clients that are contained in his application file, Exhibit R1. Mr. Wetter’s opinions regarding Petitioner’s fitness for licensure as a real estate broker are given great weight. Those opinions are based not only on his personal observations as Petitioner’s current qualifying broker, but also on his personal experience with Petitioner representing him in several business transactions while Petitioner was working for other brokers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order approving Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 22nd day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Florida Real Estate Commission may deny Petitioner’s application for a license as a real estate sales associate, and, if so, whether it is appropriate to do so based on the underlying facts.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is the state agency charged with licensing real estate sales associates in Florida. See § 475.161, Fla. Stat. On January 21, 2016, Petitioner applied to the Commission for a license as a real estate sales associate. In her application, Petitioner dutifully divulged that on December 12, 2002, the Commission revoked her real estate broker’s license. On August 16, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Deny notifying Petitioner that it denied her application for a sales associate license. The Commission denied Petitioner’s application based on its finding that Petitioner’s broker’s license was previously revoked by the Commission in 2002. At the final hearing, Petitioner explained the circumstances that led to her broker’s license revocation. In 2000, a Commission investigator audited her real estate trust account. The audit uncovered information that Petitioner failed to timely transfer a $1,000 deposit and properly reconcile her escrow account. Petitioner disclosed that a sales contract she was handling required the buyers to deposit $1,000 with her as the broker. The sale fell through, and the buyers did not close on the house. In May, 2000, the buyers demanded Petitioner transfer the deposit within 15 business days. Petitioner, however, did not forward the deposit out of her escrow account until four months later in September 2000. Based on this incident, the Commission alleged that Petitioner failed to account for delivered funds; failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions; failed to take corrective action to balance her escrow account; and filed a false report in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)e, 475.25(1)(l), 475.25(1)(b) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.012(2). Based on the charges, the Commission ordered Petitioner’s real estate broker’s license permanently revoked. Petitioner stressed that she did not steal the buyers’ money. Her mistake was in not timely transferring the deposit from her trust account. Petitioner asserted that she simply lost track of the funds. At the final hearing, Petitioner accepted full responsibility for her mismanagement. At the final hearing, Petitioner expressed that she first entered the Florida real estate industry in 1982 when she became a licensed real estate sales associate. In 1987, she obtained her broker's license. She subsequently purchased a Century 21 franchise. She conducted her real estate business until 2002 when her broker’s license was revoked. Petitioner explained that she is not seeking another broker’s license from the Commission. Instead, she is just applying for another sales associate license. Petitioner described the difference between a sales associate and a broker.5/ Petitioner stated that a sales associate works directly under, and is supervised by, a broker. The sales associate interacts with prospective buyers and sellers, negotiates sales prices, and accompanies clients to closings. Regarding financial transactions, however, the broker, not the sales associate, processes all funds related to a real estate sale. The broker, not the sales associate, transfers funds into and out of escrow accounts. In other words, the error Petitioner committed as a broker in 2000 could not happen again if she was granted a sales associate license. Petitioner further testified that during the time she worked as a sales associate, she was involved in the sale of approximately 100 houses. Petitioner represented that she never received any complaints or criticisms from any of her clients. Petitioner relayed that she became motivated to return to the real estate business following her husband’s death in 2015. Petitioner expressed that she was very good at selling houses. Real estate is her passion. She voiced that she eats, sleeps, walks, and talks real estate. Despite her misstep in 2000, Petitioner declared that she is a very honest and hardworking person. She just wants another chance to work in the profession that she loves. Currently, Petitioner works for a charitable organization. She helps administer and manage the charity’s finances. Petitioner represented that she has never failed to meet her financial responsibilities. She has always accounted for all of the funds for which she is entrusted (approximately $8 million since she began working for the charity over 20 years ago). No evidence indicates that Petitioner has committed any crimes or violated any laws since her broker’s license was revoked in 2002. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented three witnesses who testified in favor of her receiving a sales associate license. All three witnesses proclaimed that Petitioner is trustworthy, of good character, maintains high moral values, and is spiritually strong. The witnesses, who know Petitioner both personally and professionally, opined that she is honest, truthful, and has an excellent reputation for fair dealing. All three witnesses declared that the public would not be endangered if the Commission granted Petitioner’s application for licensure. Petitioner also produced six letters of support. These letters assert that Petitioner is an honorable and trustworthy person. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence provides the Commission sufficient legal grounds to deny Petitioner’s application. Consequently, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing that she is entitled to a license as a real estate sales associate. However, as discussed below, Petitioner demonstrated that she is rehabilitated from the incident which led to the revocation of her broker’s license in 2002. Therefore, the Commission may, in its discretion, grant Petitioner’s application (with restrictions) pursuant to sections 475.25(1) and 455.227(2)(f).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Florida Real Estate Commission has the legal authority to deny Petitioner’s application for licensure. However, based on the underlying facts in this matter, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for a license as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2017.
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the "formal hearing," and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October of 2000, a licensed real estate sales associate in the State of Florida, holding license number 695252. He is currently associated with AAA Realty, Inc., a broker corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida. From March 1, 2001, through June 26, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Allen Real Estate, Inc. (Allen), a broker corporation doing business in St. Lucie County, Florida. From June 27, 2001, through August 13, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Realty Unlimited, Inc. (Unlimited), a broker corporation (affiliated with GMAC Real Estate) with offices in Port St. Lucie and Stuart, Florida. Unlimited is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, owned by Kevin Schevers, a Florida-licensed real estate broker. Gary Sprauer is a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate. He is currently associated with Unlimited. Like Respondent, Mr. Sprauer began his association with Unlimited on June 27, 2001, immediately after having worked for Allen. Respondent and Mr. Sprauer worked as "partners" at both Allen and Unlimited. They had an understanding that the commissions they each earned would be "split 50-50" between them. On February 7, 2001, Allen, through the efforts of Respondent and Mr. Sprauer, obtained an exclusive listing contract (Listing Contract) giving it, for the period of a year, the "exclusive right to sell," in a representative capacity, commercial property located at 3800 South Federal Highway that was owned by Vincent and Renee Piazza (Piazza Property). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Listing Contract addressed the subjects of "compensation," "cooperation with other brokers," and "dispute resolution," respectively, and provided, in pertinent part as follows as follows: COMPENSATION: Seller will compensate Broker as specified below for procuring a buyer who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property or any interest in the Property on the terms of this Agreement or on any other terms acceptable to Seller. Seller will pay Broker as follows (plus applicable sales tax): 8% of the total purchase price or $15,000 maximum, no later than the date of closing specified in the sales contract. However closing is not a prerequisite for Broker's fee being earned. * * * (d) Broker's fee is due in the following circumstances: (1) If any interest in the Property is transferred . . . , regardless of whether the buyer is secured by Broker, Seller or any other person. * * * COOPERATION WITH OTHER BROKERS: Broker's office policy is to cooperate with all other brokers except when not in the Seller's best interest, and to offer compensation to: Buyer's agents, who represent the interest of the buyer and not the interest of Seller in a transaction, even if compensated by Seller or Broker Nonrepresentatives Transaction brokers. None of the above (if this box is checked, the Property cannot be placed in the MLS). * * * 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: This Agreement will be construed under Florida law. All controversies, claim and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be settled by first attempting mediation under the rules of the American Arbitration Association or other mediator agreed upon by the parties. . . . Shortly after they left the employ of Allen and began working for Unlimited, Respondent and Mr. Sprauer showed Nicholas Damiano the Piazza Property. Mr. Damiano thereafter made a written offer to purchase the Piazza Property, which the Piazzas accepted, in writing, on July 4, 2001. The sales price was $165,000.00. Mr. Damiano put down a $10,000.00 deposit, which, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the contract between Mr. Damiano and the Piazzas (Sales Contract), was "held in escrow by [Unlimited]." The obligations of Unlimited, as escrow agent, were described in paragraph 6 of the Sales Contract, which provided as follows: ESCROW. Buyer and Seller authorize GMAC, Realty Unlimited Telephone: . . . Facsimile: . . . Address: . . . to receive funds and other items and, subject to clearance, disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Escrow Agent will deposit all funds received in a non- interest bearing account. If Escrow Agent receives conflicting demands or has a good faith doubt as to Escrow Agent's duties or liabilities under this Contract, he/she may hold the subject matter of the escrow until the parties mutually agree to its disbursement or until issuance of a court order or decision of arbitrator determining the parties' rights regarding the escrow or deposit the subject matter of the escrow with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the dispute. Upon notifying the parties of such action, Escrow Agent will be released from all liability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow. If a licensed real estate broker, Escrow Agent will comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In any suit or arbitration in which Escrow Agent is made a party because of acting as agent hereunder or interpleads the subject matter of the escrow, Escrow Agent will recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at all levels, with such fees and costs to be paid from the escrowed funds or equivalent and charged and awarded as court or other costs in favor of the prevailing party. The parties agree that Escrow Agent will not be liable to any person for misdelivery to Buyer or Seller of escrowed items, unless the misdelivery is due to Escrow Agent's willful breach of this Contract or gross negligence. Paragraph 12 of the Sales Contract addressed the subject of "brokers" and provided as follows: BROKERS. Neither Buyer nor Seller has utilized the services of, or for any other reason owes compensation to, a licensed real estate broker other than: Listing Broker: Allen Real Estate, Inc. who is a transaction broker and who will be compensated by x Seller _ Buyer _ both parties pursuant to x a listing agreement _ other (specify) Cooperating Broker: GMAC Realty Unlimited who is a transaction broker who will compensated by _ Buyer x Seller _ both parties pursuant to _ an MLS or other offer of compensation to a cooperating broker _ other (specify) (collectively referred to as "Broker") in connection with any act relating to the Property, included but not limited to, inquiries, introductions, consultations and negotiations resulting in this transaction. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify and hold Broker harmless from and against losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees at all levels, and from liability to any person, arising from (1) compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this Paragraph, (2) enforcement action to collect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10, (3) any duty accepted by Broker at the request of Buyer or Seller, which duty is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475, F.S., as amended, or (4) recommendations of or services provided and expenses incurred by any third party whom Broker refers, recommends or retains for or on behalf of Buyer or Seller. The Damiano/Piazza transaction was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2001. At the request of the Piazzas, the closing was rescheduled for August 7, 2001. A few days before August 7, 2001, Mr. Sprauer asked Respondent "where the closing was going to take place" and "what title company" would be handling the matter. Respondent replied that the closing was "going to be delayed again because Mr. Damiano . . . was going to have to have some type of cancer surgery." It turned out that the closing was not "delayed again." It took place on August 7, 2001. At the closing were Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, Respondent, and the closing agent from the title company, First American Title Insurance Company (First American).3 Neither Mr. Schevers, nor Mr. Sprauer, was in attendance. Mr. Sprauer did not even know that the closing was taking place. He was under the impression, based on what Respondent had told him, that the closing had been postponed. Had he not been misinformed, he would have attended the closing. Respondent did not contact Mr. Sprauer following the closing to let him know that, in fact, the closing had occurred. Mr. Schevers, on the other hand, was made aware that closing would be held on August 7, 2001. He was unable to attend because he had "prior commitments." It was Respondent who informed Mr. Schevers of the August 7, 2001, closing date. The morning of August 7, 2001, Respondent went to Unlimited's Stuart office and asked Mr. Schevers for the $10,000.00 Unlimited was holding in escrow in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction, explaining that he needed it for the closing that was going to be held later that day. Before complying with Respondent's request, Mr. Schevers contacted First American and asked that he be faxed a copy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement (HUD Statement) that First American had prepared for the closing. As requested, First American faxed a copy of the HUD Statement to Mr. Schevers. Upon reviewing the document, Mr. Schevers "immediately noticed that [it indicated that] the entire commission [of $7,000.00] was going to Allen." Mr. Schevers "then proceeded to call First American" and asked why Unlimited was not "reflected on this settlement statement." Mr. Schevers was told that a First American representative "would get right on it and get back to [him]." Mr. Schevers did not wait to hear back from First American before handing an "escrow check" in the amount of $10,000.00 to Respondent. He instructed Respondent, however, to "not give anybody this check unless that statement [the HUD Statement] [was] changed and reflect[ed] [Unlimited's]" share of the commission earned from the sale of the Piazza Property. He further directed Respondent to telephone him if this change was not made. Respondent did not follow the instructions Mr. Schevers had given him. He delivered the $10,000.00 "escrow check" to the closing agent at the closing, even though the HUD Statement had not been changed to reflect Unlimited's sharing of the commission. At no time during the closing did Mr. Schevers receive a telephone call from Respondent. According to the HUD Statement that Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, and the closing agent signed at the closing, Allen received a commission of $7,000.00 "from seller's funds at settlement." The document makes no mention of any other commission having been paid as part of the closing. On or about August 9, 2001, Respondent received a "commission check" from Allen. The check was made payable to Respondent and was in the amount of $3,000.00. Under the "DOLLARS" line on the check, the following was typed: 4200 Total Comm[4] 1200 ADVANCE[5] Typed next to "MEMO" on the bottom left hand corner of the check was "DAMIANO-PIAZZA 165,000 S&L." It has not been shown that the "commission check" Respondent received from Allen was for anything other than the commission Allen owed Respondent for services performed when Respondent was still employed by Allen. Mr. Schevers' consent to Respondent's receiving this $3,000.00 "commission check" was neither sought nor given. Less than a week after the closing, having spotted Mr. Damiano mowing grass on a vacant lot that Mr. Damiano owned, Mr. Sprauer walked up to him and asked "how his surgery [had gone]." Mr. Damiano "acted very surprised [like] he didn't know what [Mr. Sprauer] was talking about." Mr. Damiano's reaction to his inquiry led Mr. Sprauer to believe "that the closing had probably taken place." He "immediately contacted [Mr. Schevers] and asked him to check into it." Mr. Schevers subsequently learned from First American that Allen "had gotten all of the [commission] check" at the closing. Mr. Schevers then telephoned Respondent. This was the first communication he had had with Respondent since before the closing. Respondent told Mr. Schevers that "he got the check" and "he would be right over with it." Respondent, however, did not keep his promise. After his telephone conversation with Respondent, Mr. Schevers discovered that Allen "had cut [Respondent] a check and [Respondent] had gone immediately and deposited it." This discovery prompted Mr. Schevers to place another telephone call to Respondent. This telephone conversation ended with Mr. Schevers telling Respondent "he was terminated." Mr. Schevers thereafter notified Petitioner in writing that Respondent was no longer associated with Unlimited. He also filed with Petitioner a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction. Mr. Schevers had expected Unlimited to receive, for the role it played in the Damiano/Piazza transaction, "50 percent of the total commission," or $3,500.00, in accordance with the provisions of the "multiple listing service for St. Lucie County."6 He holds Respondent responsible, at least in part, for Unlimited's not receiving these monies.7 At the time of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, Unlimited had contracts with its sales associates which provided that the associates would receive "70 percent of the net" of any commission Unlimited earned as a result of the associates' efforts. Had Unlimited received a commission as a result of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, it would have "split" it with Respondent and Mr. Sprauer as required by the contracts it had with them.8
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in the instant case in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of July, 2004.
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.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of failing to account for and deliver a share of a real estate commission, as required by Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, and, if, so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0314643. Petitioner does business under the name, Blue Ribbon Realty. Petitioner employs several real estate salesmen in her brokerage business. Virginia M. Poole is a licensed real estate salesman. During 1988, she was looking for a house to buy. At the time, she was working in a hotel as a cashier. While working at the hotel, Ms. Poole met Mary Asian, who was also working at the hotel. At the same time, Ms. Asian was and remains a real estate salesman working at Blue Ribbon Realty. In a period of several weeks, Ms. Asian showed Ms. Poole several houses and presented at least one offer with a small deposit. One day while driving on her own, Ms. Poole came across a house that appealed to her. At or prior to this time, Ms. Poole had placed her salesman's license with Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole negotiated a sales contract with the seller. The contract was signed by Ms. Poole and the seller on November 10, 1988. By a separate commission agreement signed the same date, the seller agreed to pay Respondent a commission equal to 3% of the sales price. The closing took place on December 14, 1988. The closing agent duly paid Respondent the sum of $2172, which represents 3% of the purchase price. Respondent cashed the check and received the proceeds thereof. Under the agreement between Ms. Poole and Respondent, Ms. Poole was to be paid one-half of all commissions that she earned for Blue Ribbon Realty. At the closing, Ms. Poole asked about her share of the commission. Refusing to pay anything to Ms. Poole, Respondent told her, "You get it any way you can." Respondent believed that Ms. Asian, not Ms. Poole, was due the salesman's share of the commission, which by agreement was one-half of the sum paid to Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole, who never listed or sold any properties for the two or three months that her license was placed with Respondent, had placed her license with another broker over ten days in advance of the December 14 closing. Under the agreement between Respondent and her salesmen, no commission was due any salesman who left Blue Ribbon Realty more than ten days prior to a closing. The reason for this policy was that much work had to be done in the ten days preceding a closing, and it was unfair to require others to perform the work while paying the salesman's share of the commission to a departed salesman. After repeated attempts to obtain payment of the $1086 due her, Ms. Poole filed a legal action against Respondent in Orange County Court. The defenses raised by Respondent apparently proved unavailing. On April 12, 1989, Ms. Poole received a final judgment in the total amount of $1197.44, including interest and costs. Although the filing date does not appear from the face of the exhibit, a Notice of Appeal was served on Ms. Poole on June 30, 1989. Subsequent attempts to recover on the judgment were unsuccessful. At this point, Ms. Poole filed a complaint with Petitioner. Respondent never requested the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order determining who was entitled to the disputed half of the commission, never sought an adjudication of the dispute by court through interpleader or other procedure, and never submitted the matter to arbitration with the consent of the parties. The only thing that Respondent has done in this regard is to deposit the contested sum in the trust account of her attorney, apparently pending the resolution of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to account or deliver a share of a commission to one of her salesmen, issuing a written reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000. ENTERED this 23 day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Attorney Raymond O. Bodiford P.O. Box 1748 Orlando, FL 32802 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In responding to question 14(a) of the application, Petitioner answered that his license, as a real estate broker, had been revoked for non-payment of an administrative fine. (Respondent's exhibit 1). Petitioner attached to his application a copy of a transcript of an administrative hearing held in DOAH Case No. 84-0981. A final order was entered in that case based on a stipulation wherein Petitioner agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 within 30 days of entry of the final order. Petitioner has not paid the administrative fine as he agreed. Petitioner admitted during hearing that he had not paid the fine and made an offer during the hearing herein to pay that fine in as much as he failed to pay it earlier since he did not have the wherewithal to pay the fine. Petitioner is now employed as a sales representative with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1/ Petitioner's license as a real estate broker was revoked by Respondent based on his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed in an earlier case (DOAH Case No. 86-145, Respondent's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this of 27th day of January, 1989. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility for regulating the real estate profession in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0189734 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On July 16, 1991, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent which contained certain factual allegations and which charged Respondent with violating certain statutory provisions and rules regulating licensed real estate professionals in the State of Florida. The matter was assigned Case No. 9181335 by Petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearing (DOAH) for formal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Upon being referred to DOAH, the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-4852. On October 31, 1991, a formal hearing was conducted by a DOAH Hearing Officer. The Respondent was represented by counsel at that formal hearing. Following the formal hearing, a Recommended Order was duly entered by the Hearing Officer which contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the proceeding. The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner had proved the violations alleged against Respondent by clear and convincing evidence and recommended that Petitioner impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. On April 3, 1992, Petitioner entered a Final Order that adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended disposition submitted by the Hearing Officer in DOAH Case 91-4852. The Final Order imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. Respondent thereafter appealed the Final Order to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida where it was assigned Case No. 92-01033. On June 3, 1992, Petitioner entered an "Order Granting Stay" which stayed the Final Order pending the appeal. On September 21, 1992, Respondent's appeal was dismissed by order of the Third District Court of Appeal. The Final Order entered by Petitioner on April 3, 1992, was lawfully imposed, is final, and is binding on Respondent. At the time of the formal hearing conducted in this proceeding, Respondent had not paid the $1,000 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852) on April 3, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and of Section 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and which suspends Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson for ten years. It is further recommended that the final order provide that the suspension of Respondent's license be terminated upon her paying the $1,000.00 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852). DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gary, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Cecelia M. Smile 810 Rutland Drive, Apartment 726 Lincoln, Nebraska 68512 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
