Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Bobbie G. Scheffer, who holds license No. 0073955, was a real estate broker for Rivard Realty, Inc. in Fort Walton Beach, Florida; and Ralph S. Ecoff was a licensed real estate salesman, employed by Rivard Realty, Inc. He holds license No. 0454969. In the spring of 1988, another salesman in the employ of Rivard Realty, Inc., Wayne Thompson, obtained the listing for the three-bedroom, one-story house at 28 East Casa Loma Drive in Mary Esther, Florida, from its then corporate owner, Roman Acts, Inc. He received information about the property from a representative of the corporation. Without verifying the information, Mr. Thompson entered it into a computer. Misled by the owner's representative, he reported the house's age as eight years. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. In fact, the house had been built in 1974. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. A public water supply serves the house, but a septic tank, not a public sewer, receives wastewater from the house. Aware of these matters, Mr. Thompson, when confronted with a blank on a form labelled "WATR/SEW", filled in "Pub. Wat." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. No more than another letter or two could have been squeezed into the blank on the form displayed on a computer video terminal. Respondent Ralph S. Ecoff saw the house in the course of showing it to prospective buyers, and decided to buy it himself. After a representative of Roman Acts, Inc. accepted his offer (but before the closing), Mr. Ecoff and a partner set about refurbishing the house. Mr. Ecoff, a septuagenarian who bought the house with the intention of reselling it, finds computers intimidating. Still another real estate salesman in the employ of Rivard Realty, Inc., Steve Kehran, volunteered to enter a revised listing in the multiple listing service computer, to let it be known that the property was again for sale. As instructed by Mr. Ecoff, Mr. Kehran raised the price and "changed the blurbage" (to read "EVERYTHING NEW AGAIN. COMPARES WITH NEW HOME. LOW INTEREST RATE," etc.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. In keeping with Mr. Ecoff's instructions, Kehran relied on the superseded listing for other information about the house. That is why the age of the house was again inaccurately reported as eight years. Extrapolating innocently but inaccurately from the earlier listing's "Pub. Wat.," Mr. Kehran assumed public sewers accompanied the public water supply and filled in the "WATER/SEW" blank with the abbreviation "Comm Sew." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. Mr. Ecoff had read the listing from which Mr. Kehran took the information but, he testified, he did not read it carefully. Whether he read over what Mr. Kehran wrote at any time before the Stacys complained of the inaccuracies is not clear. Mr. Ecoff has said all along that he was aware the property had a septic tank. He testified to this effect at hearing and also testified that he was aware the house was more than eight years old when the Stacys agreed to buy it. If he had read the listing Mr. Kehran entered in the computer for him with proper care and due regard for the importance of its accuracy, he would have discovered the misinformation it contained. Although Mr. Stacy had physical possession of a multiple listing sheet bearing the information Mr. Kehran introduced into the computer data bank at Mr. Ecoff's behest, while he and his wife drove around with Ms. Scheffer, looking at houses, and may well have read it at that time, the evidence did not show that either Ms. Scheffer or Mr. Ecoff reiterated the information verbally. (It was not clear whether Mr. Stacy retained the sheet Ms. Scheffer furnished him after seeing the house.) Engaged by a mortgage company, an appraiser who was familiar with the neighborhood reported the true age of the house, but put its "effective age" at ten years, after two visits to the property. The appraiser's report, which recited inaccurately, as the listing had, that a public sewer served the property, was furnished to the mortgage company that financed the Stacys' purchase. Once the report reached the mortgage company, it was available to the Stacys, although they did not in fact see it, as far as the evidence showed, before the closing, which took place on August 24, 1988. On or before January 1, 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Stacy will be required to cause pipe to be installed to connect the house to a public sewer main, itself yet to be laid. Mr. Stacy has been told the hook-up will cost $1,600.00 over and above the $600.00 it will cost to install the connector. Even so, the evidence did not establish that the house's dependence on a septic tank affected its market value in 1988. The evidence also failed to show that the house's age materially affected its value. Ms. Scheffer encourages salespersons in her employ to take advantage of courses the local Board of Realtors offers, and scheduled Mr. Ecoff for every such course available. She has not personally instructed salespeople to verify information sellers give them by independent inspection. Perhaps because the practice of relying on sellers' representations is widespread, the multiple listing sheets all bear the disclaimer, "INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT NOT GUARANTEED." The evidence did not show how carefully Ms. Scheffer read the inaccurate listing that salesmen in her employ generated, or that she would have been or should have been aware of the inaccuracies, however carefully she had examined the listing. Although Mr. Ecoff said he knew there was a septic tank on the property because the grass was so green in part of the backyard, Mr. Stacy testified that the septic tank is buried in front of the house. It was not proven that even an experienced real estate broker like Ms. Scheffer should necessarily infer an actual age of more than eight from an effective age of ten years. In short, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that respondent Scheffer actually knew or had reason to know the listing was inaccurate.
Recommendation It is, in accordance with Rule 21V-18.008, Florida Administrative Code, recommended: That petitioner suspend respondent Ecoff's license for thirty (30) days. That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint, insofar as it alleges that respondent Scheffer violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in this case, Respondent was a Florida licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license numbered 0376339. Respondent had been employed by American Specialty Properties (ASP) for several years as an expediter prior to being assigned to Tampa, Florida. As an expediter, his duties were to take over stagnated operations of his employer and take whatever action was necessary to clear blockages and bring the operation to a successful conclusion. Respondent came to Tampa to resolve difficulties his employer, ASP, was encountering in regard to certain properties it had contracted to purchase at the Mission Bell Square shopping center being developed in Tampa by K-Mart Corporation. ASP wanted to build on the out-lots and lease the properties to various selected tenants. However, numerous legal and technical problems had come up that delayed the projects, and Respondent was to resolve those problems and get the structures erected and leased. It very soon became apparent to Respondent that his duties for ASP would not occupy all his time, so he secured the permission of Mark M. Mayers, president of ASP and Respondent's employer, to apply for a Florida real estate license and, once having secured it, to engage in outside employment to earn extra income. In furtherance of that plan, after becoming licensed as a real estate salesman, Respondent entered into an arrangement with Timothy Kerwin, president of Max Properties, Inc., in November, 1980, whereby Respondent's license would be registered with that firm, but no actual work would be done within that relationship by Respondent until some further date when Respondent was finished with his Mission Bell Square duties and room was available for him within the Max Properties organization. Kerwin says he does not recall knowing of Respondent's other employment with ASP until February, 1982, when he discovered that Respondent had been instrumental in the sale of the four out-lots at Mission Bell Square, which sale had not gone through Max Properties. He does admit, however, that Respondent may have discussed his work with ASP earlier than February, 1982, and in fact may have advised him that he, Respondent, still had work to do for ASP before he could do work for Kerwin. Kerwin did not, however, check with ASP to determine Respondent's status when he became aware of the possible conflict. When Kerwin found out about the closing of the sales on the Mission Bell Square out-lots, he questioned Respondent about them, and Respondent readily advised him that two lots had been closed and the remaining two were about to be closed. Respondent did bring about the sale of the four out-lots in question. At the time he did this, he was an employee of ASP and paid a regular salary of $2,000 per month plus expenses. A memorandum purportedly from Mr. Mayers dated March 25, 1982, to James W. Roberts, Jr., an independent real estate broker who-had done work on this property for ASP, indicates Respondent was to receive $1,250 commission for the sale of each of the four lots. However, Mr. Mayers indicated that he did not prepare the memorandum, did not sign it, and renounced it. In fact, Mr. Mayers' assistant, Tom Ferguson, in discussions with Mr. Roberts, indicated that notwithstanding the commissions mentioned in the memorandum, Respondent was paid only salary and expenses, and no commissions. I find, therefore, that Respondent did not receive any commission for these transactions nor, for that matter, at any time while he was an employee of ASP. The sale of the four lots was dictated by Respondent's employers at ASP, who, because of changed economic factors, made a business decision to dispose of the four properties rather than follow the prior plan of developing and leasing them. Respondent, in arranging the sales, was following the directions of his employers--not serving as a broker or salesman for commission. The sales were arranged through the offices of Mr. Roberts, and Respondent did not receive any commission out of these sales. He did, however, receive a bonus to his regular salary from ASP, his employer, as a reward for extricating his employer from a potentially unprofitable business arrangement. The negotiations for the sale, however, were conducted during the time Respondent's real estate license was registered with Max Properties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this action be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen M. Crawford, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165, chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Petitioner seeks to obtain a real estate broker license to practice real estate in Florida. Petitioner is a resident of the State of Utah and has held an active real estate broker license in Utah for at least 24 months during the preceding five years from the date of his application. In 2003, Petitioner was first licensed in Utah as a real estate sales agent. On February 12, 2007, Petitioner was issued a real estate broker license, and his limited-liability company, Ultimate Homes of Utah, LLC, was licensed as a real estate company in Utah. On July 28, 2016, Petitioner submitted an on-line application for a Florida real estate broker license. The application included a section which requested background information. Question No. 1, one of the four questions on the application, requested information about Petitioner’s criminal history. Specifically, Question No. 1 requested in pertinent part the following: “Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction, or are you currently under criminal investigation?” The application also directed applicants, who responded “yes” to Question No. 1, to provide details regarding any criminal offense, including description of the offense, offense type, penalty or disposition, and whether sanctions have been satisfied for each offense. In his application, Petitioner answered Question No. 1 affirmatively. He disclosed that he plead guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony, on July 5, 1995. The criminal offense occurred in Utah. Further details of the criminal offense will be discussed below. Petitioner appeared, pro se, at the December 14, 2016, Commission meeting where his application was considered. On January 12, 2017, Respondent entered a NOID, which stated a number of grounds for the intent to deny Petitioner’s application. Respondent’s NOID recited key findings of fact 1 and 4, and key conclusions of law D, G, and M, as grounds for its proposed denial of Petitioner’s application. Those key findings and conclusions, as set forth on the Key for License Denials, attached to Respondent’s NOID, are as follows: Crimes in Application. Applicant’s criminal record is as revealed in application. * * * 4. Unpersuasive Testimony. Applicant’s testimony or evidence in explanation/mitigation was unpersuasive. * * * D. Having been denied licensure or having a license to practice any regulated business, profession or vocation, for conduct which would constitute a violation of this Chapter. 475.1791)[sic], 475.181 F.S. * * * G. Convicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. 475.25(1)(f), 475.181 F.S. * * * M. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. 455.201, F.S. Regarding the circumstances of Petitioner’s criminal offense, on December 13, 1994, an Information was filed by the County Attorney for Circuit Court of Davis County, State of Utah, which charged Petitioner with three counts as follows: Count One: rape of a child, a first degree felony: On or about July 30, 1993, Petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with a child under 14 years of age. Count Two: Sodomy Upon a Child, a first degree felony: On or about July 30, 1993, Petitioner engaged in a sexual act involving the genitals of the actor and the child under the age of 14 and the mouth or anus of either person. Count Three: Rape of a Child, a first degree felony: On or about August 13, 1993, Petitioner had sexual intercourse with a child who is under the age of 14. The victim involved in the criminal offense was a 13-year-old female, while Petitioner was 21 years old. Petitioner ultimately pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. On July 5, 1995, Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of three years to life, fined $2,000, and ordered to pay restitution for costs of the victim’s counseling. The court also recommended that Petitioner participate in a specialized sex offender treatment program. Petitioner served four years’ imprisonment, followed by five years of parole. Petitioner was released from prison in 1999. Following Petitioner’s release from prison, he was required to register as a sex offender and remained on the registry until October 10, 2015. At hearing, Petitioner expressed remorse for his actions, and acknowledged that the facts of the offense were accurately described in the filed Information. According to Petitioner, the events giving rise to the criminal offense began with his childhood. Petitioner described his childhood as one where he did not have a close relationship with his parents and did not receive affection from them. That lack of affection affected him to the extent that he was “love-starved.” Petitioner explained that “when he was 21 years old, a 13-year- old girl expressed interest in him and he made the mistake of pursing her as a love interest.” After his release from prison, Petitioner worked in the food service industry until he lost his job in 2002. Thereafter, he pursued a career working in real estate. During the time Petitioner has held a real estate license in Utah, he has earned various certifications related to real estate including, e-Pro Certification (2004), Distressed Property Expert (2011-2012), Short Sales and Foreclosure Resource Certification, and Residential Specialist Certification. Petitioner was given the opportunity to submit letters of recommendation to show evidence of his reputation, honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and good character. Petitioner offered several letters from past customers and business partners to attest to his work ethic, responsibility, and trustworthiness in real estate dealings. Those letters are of limited value as it relates to moral turpitude and rehabilitation because the authors of the letters had no knowledge of Petitioner’s criminal history. Petitioner’s testimony regarding his otherwise blemish-free criminal history since the incident, employment history, and achievements since the criminal offense is found to be credible. Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony at the final hearing that what he did in 1993 was wrong. He has not attempted to hide the incident from Respondent as he disclosed the details of the incident on his application. It is undisputed that he completed a sex offender treatment program, completed his probation, and was released from the requirement to register on the Utah sex offender registry in 2015. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Petitioner has been involved in any criminal activity since the criminal offense in 1993, nearly 25 years ago. In his testimony, Petitioner also highlighted his qualifications as a broker, which were corroborated by the letters of support from Petitioner’s former clients that were offered at the hearing. Petitioner is a father of three children, has been married for more than 20 years, has been a licensed real estate broker in the state of Utah for 14 years, and has not exhibited a pattern or practice of violations before or after the incident in 1993. Rather, the incident in 1993 stands alone as the only blemish on Petitioner’s record. No evidence was presented at hearing of any prior discipline against Respondent’s license in any jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Real Estate issue a final order approving Victor Rothaar’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 26th day of July, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(e) and (1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is 58 years old. He is employed full-time as a real estate sales associate. Respondent holds an active real estate sales associate license. His license number is SL706350. The license was issued to Respondent based upon his sworn application for licensure submitted on or about March 14, 2001. Question No. 9 on the license application asked whether Respondent had “ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if [he] received a withhold of adjudication.” The following explanation is provided as part of the question: This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer “NO” because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering “NO.” (Emphasis supplied) Immediately following Question No. 9 is the following statement in all capital letters: YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE OR THE DENIAL OF A REAL ESTATE LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR THE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE. Respondent checked the box marked “NO” for Question No. 9 on the application that he submitted. Respondent’s negative answer to Question No. 9 was a material misstatement of his criminal record. On March 27, 1972, Respondent pled guilty to attempted robbery in the third degree in the Erie County Court in New York. The offense was a felony. On May 5, 1972, Respondent was sentenced to five years of probation for that offense. Respondent’s probation was revoked on January 14, 1974, and he was sentenced to “the care and custody of the NY State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission for an indefinite period of 60 months.” The latter sentence ran concurrently with a sentence imposed for another offense, the substance of which is not reflected in the record. On August 3, 1992, the Erie County Court issued a Certificate of Relief From Disabilities to Respondent, which relieved him of “all disabilities and bars to employment, excluding the right to be eligible for public office.” The certificate expressly states that it “shall NOT be deemed nor construed to be a pardon,” and it is limited to the “crime or offense specified [t]herein.” The Certificate of Relief From Disabilities makes no mention of expungement or sealing of the records related to the enumerated offense. The only offense enumerated in the Certificate of Relief From Disabilities is the third degree attempted robbery conviction with a sentence date of May 5, 1972. No other offenses are mentioned. On February 18, 1993, the New York Executive Department, Board of Parole, issued a Certificate of Good Conduct to Respondent. The certificate referenced three offenses: the third degree attempted robbery conviction discussed above; a second degree robbery conviction with a sentence date of May 8, 1975; and a federal distribution of heroine conviction with a sentence date of May 1, 1978. The purpose of the Certificate of Good Conduct was to “remove all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license and privilege except those pertaining to firearms . . . and except the right to be eligible for public office.” The certificate states that it “shall be considered permanent.” The Certificate of Good Conduct makes no mention of expungement or sealing of the records related to the enumerated offenses. Respondent testified that his negative answer to Question No. 9 was based upon his understanding of the legal effect of the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and the Certificate of Good Conduct. Specifically, Respondent testified that although he understood that the certificates did not “remove” his criminal history or expunge his records, it was his understanding that the certificates provided him a “safe harbor” to answer “no” to Question No. 9 because all legal bars to employment had been removed by the certificates. Respondent’s understanding regarding the legal effect of the certificates and his obligation to disclose his prior offenses based upon the certificates was based, in part, on advice he received from an attorney in New York. Respondent knew that the Department would learn of his criminal history through the background check based upon the fingerprint card that he submitted with his license application, and he credibly testified that he did not intend to mislead the Department regarding his criminal history through his negative answer to Question No. 9. Respondent was unaware at the time he submitted his license application that the Department and/or the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) processed applications in which no criminal history was disclosed differently than applications in which a criminal history is disclosed.2 Respondent’s understanding regarding the legal effect of the certificates was erroneous. Respondent acknowledged as much in his testimony at the final hearing (Tr. 54) and in his PRO (at ¶29). The record does not establish precise legal effect of the certificates,3 but it is inferred that the certificates restore the civil rights that Respondent lost due to his felony convictions. It is also inferred that the reason that the Certificate of Good Conduct does not mention Respondent’s misdemeanor offenses (See Endnote 5) even though it was issued after those offenses is because misdemeanor convictions typically do not result is the loss of civil rights as is the case with felony convictions.4 Neither of the certificates expunge or seal any of Respondent’s criminal records and, contrary to his understanding at the time, the certificates did not excuse Respondent from disclosing his criminal offenses in response to Question No. 9 on the license application. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent was convicted of third degree attempted robbery, a felony, in 1972; that the offense was not sealed or expunged; and that Respondent failed to disclose that conviction on his license application when he answered “no” to Question No. 9.5 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent intentionally misrepresented or fraudulently concealed his criminal history from the Department by answering “no” to Question No. 9.6 To contrary, the evidence establishes that Respondent’s negative answer to Question No. 9 was based upon his good faith, albeit erroneous belief, that he was not required to disclose his prior criminal offenses in light of the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and/or the Certificate of Good Conduct. It has been 34 years since Respondent’s third degree attempted robbery conviction, which is the basis of the Administrative Complaint. It has been more than 18 years since Respondent’s last criminal offense, which was a misdemeanor petit larceny offense. All of Respondent’s criminal offenses occurred in the state of New York. He has remained out of trouble with the law since he came to Florida in 2000. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action, other than this proceeding, since receiving his license. Respondent did not present the testimony of any character witnesses, but he credibly testified that he has completely turned his life around since the time of his criminal offenses in New York. Respondent served in the U.S. Air Force Security Service in Viet Nam. He was honorably discharged. Respondent was licensed as a mental health counselor in New York and Virginia prior to coming to Florida and obtaining his real estate sales associate license. Respondent testified that he was required to disclose his criminal background and undergo a background check in order to obtain those licenses; that he did not disclose his criminal background on the license applications based upon his understanding of the certificates described above; that his criminal background was not an issue to the licensing agencies in New York and Virginia, even though it was not disclosed on his license applications; and that this experience (along with the advice he received from the attorney in New York) led him to believe that his criminal records were sealed and need not be disclosed. Respondent offered no evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony, and it is given very little weight because it is unknown how, if at all, the disclosure requirements and licensure regimes for mental health counselors in New York and Virginia compare with the disclosure requirements and licensure regime for real estate sales associates in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order that: finds Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count I of the Administrative Complaint); finds Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2) and, hence, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Count II of the Administrative Complaint); imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; suspends Respondent’s license for 30 days; places Respondent on probation for one year after the end of the suspension period; and imposes the costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2006, 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 21st of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received, the testimony of Respondent and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint filed herein on September 28, 1981, Petitioner, Board of Real Estate, Department of Professional Regulation, seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent as a licensee and against his license as a real estate broker/salesman under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is a real estate broker/salesman and has been issued License No. 0315273 by Petitioner. On June 9, 1981, Respondent was charged by the State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, with violations of Florida Statutes Subsection 812.014(1)(b), and Florida Statutes subsection 812.014(2)(b), criminal theft and second degree grand theft, respectively, to wit: that the Respondent did unlawfully use, or endeavor to use the property of Rus Realty, Inc. (his former employer), an IBM typewriter, of a value in excess of one- hundred dollars ($100.00), with the intent to appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto, knowing or having reason to know said property was stolen. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1) On April 22, 1981, Respondent appeared in the Circuit Court, in and for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, and entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of grand theft and it was ordered and adjudged that the adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence would be withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1) Respondent admits to the fact that he entered a nolo contendere plea and that he was placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. However, he testified that he, while formerly employed as a salesman with Rus Realty, Inc., purchased a typewriter from a handyman who was working for Rus Realty, Inc., Tomm Marty, for which he paid one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) cash for an IBM selective typewriter. (Respondent's late-filed Exhibit No. 1) In mitigation., Respondent, while admitting to the above facts, offered that he had learned a lesson by his involvement in the above purchase of the referenced typewriter. Respondent also related the fact that he had, in addition to losing the money for the purchase of the above typewriter, expended substantial legal fees in an effort to resolve the criminal and administrative charges surrounding the above-referred incident. Respondent learned a lesson by his involvement in the above transaction and has vowed to never again be involved in any questionable acts and/or
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's broker/salesman License No. 0315273 be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the Petitioner's final order herein 2/ . RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1982.
The Issue Did Frederick Anthony III, Inc., employ persons who were not licensed? Did Benjamin Foster have knowledge that these individuals were employed? Was Benjamin Foster responsible for the employment of unlicensed individuals? Was Benjamin Foster liable for Anthony John Bascone's actions as a real estate salesman? Did Benjamin Foster violate Sections 475.42(1)(c) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Notice of the formal hearing was given to all parties as required by the statutes and rules. Benjamin C. Foster is a real estate broker holding License No. 0151634 issued by the Board of Real Estate. Frederick Anthony III, Inc. (FA III), is a Florida corporate real estate broker holding License No. 0215470 issued by the Board. Foster was the active firm member of the corporation. Donald McDonald and Delores McDonald were employed by FA III. While so employed, both of these persons engaged in the sale of real estate. Neither Delores McDonald nor Donald McDonald were licensed at the times in question. Foster agreed to be the active firm member for FA III because Anthony John Bascone and Frederick Hall, a real estate salesman, wanted to start a brokerage firm. Bascone and Hall had business connections with whom Foster wanted to affiliate, and Foster concluded that his function as active firm member with FA III would lead to business opportunities for FA III and for Foster's other real estate business. Bascone and Hall were corporate officers of FA III and managed the day-to-day activities of the office. They hired Donald and Delores McDonald as salespersons. Foster never met Delores McDonald and did not employ her. Foster met with Donald McDonald, Delores McDonald's husband, who said he was selling real estate at that time. Foster sent Donald McDonald to Bascone and Hall to be interviewed. Under Foster's agreement with Bascone and Hall, they would make the initial hiring determinations for their sales personnel and Foster would process the personnel as salespersons affiliated with the company. According to Foster's agreement with Bascone, Bascone would not engage in real estate sales until after he was license. Bascone was seeking a brokerage license, and it was their intent that Bascone would become the active firm member. The allegations involving Bascone's acting as a real estate professional were based on a transaction which was undisclosed to Hall or Foster until after the fact. This transaction involved the payment of a commission directly to Bascone by the seller which was unreported to Foster or Hall. Foster did not exercise close supervision over the activities of FA III.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Benjamin C. Foster be suspended for three months, and that the license of Frederick Anthony III, Inc., be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Xavier J. Fernandez, Esquire 2701 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 10 Post Office Box 729 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Mr. Benjamin C. Foster 5354 Emily Drive, Southwest Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Frederick Anthony III, Inc. 3920 Orange Grove Boulevard North Fort Myers, Florida 33903 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sexsmith is a licensed real estate broker, having held License Number 0079448 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Bellitto is a licensed real estate salesman, having held License No. 0204206 at all times relevant to Case No. 81-2630. Respondent Select Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having held License No. 0157174 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Sexsmith founded Select Realty, Inc., in 1975. He was a full time realtor until his employment by the Hollywood Fire Department in 1976. Select Realty thereafter became inactive. In 1979, Respondent Sexsmith was contacted by a Mr. Jim Holmes, who was seeking to register the corporate name, Select Realty. Sexsmith agreed to permit the name Select Realty to be used by Holmes and his associates to open a real estate office at 3045 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Sexsmith also applied to Petitioner for certification as a director and active broker with this company. His application was granted in June, 1979, and he remained affiliated with Respondent Select Realty, Inc., in this capacity until about April, 1980. Respondent Sexsmith did not participate in Select Realty operations and received no compensation for the use of his name and broker's license. He was slated to open and manage a branch office in Hollywood, but this project failed to materialize. Petitioner produced Mr. Tom Ott and Ms. Terri Casson as witnesses. They had utilized the services of Select Realty, Inc., in December, 1979 (Ott) and February, 1980 (Casson). Both had responded to advertisements in which Select Realty offered to provide rental assistance for a $45 refundable fee. These witnesses understood money would be refunded if Select Realty did not succeed in referring them to rental property which met their specifications. Mr. Ott was referred to several properties which did not meet his requirements. He sought to have his fee or a portion thereof returned, but was refused. His demand for such return was made within the 30-day contract period (PX-11). Ms. Casson was similarly dissatisfied with the referrals and sought the return of her fee within the 30-day contract period (PX-7). However, she was unable to contact this company or its agents since the office had closed and no forwarding instructions were posted or otherwise made available to her.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Select Realty, Inc., and Gary Lee Sexsmith be found guilty as charged in Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 81-2630. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against these Respondents and other Respondents named in DOAH Cases 81-2630 and 81-2490 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate broker's license of Select Realty, Inc., be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that the broker's license of Gary Lee Sexsmith be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William Grossbard, Esquire Suite 6175M 6191 Southwest 45 Street 6177 North Davie, Florida 33314 Anthony S. Paetro, Esquire Bedzow and Korn, P.A. Suite C 1125 Northeast 125 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire Spiegel and Abramowitz Suite 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith 321 Southwest 70t Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Guiseppe D. Bellitto 2635 McKinley Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Select Realty, Inc. c/o Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith last acting Director and Trustee of Select Realty, Inc. 321 Southwest 70th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mike Somogyi, filed an application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Respondent, Board of Real Estate, on or about April 16, 1980. By Order dated June 23, 1980, Respondent denied Petitioner's application because Petitioner had not made it appear to the Board that he was honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character as required by Section 475.17, Florida Statutes. Respondent based its denial on Petitioner's arrest in 1980 for possession of controlled substances, i.e., marijuana, quaaludes and narcotic equipment. A five count information was filed against Petitioner on March 4, 1980, in Martin County. Petitioner entered a not guilty plea and was subsequently approved for the Pretrial Intervention Program. Petitioner's required involvement with the program will expire on January 15 1981, and if the program is successfully completed, all charges pending against Petitioner will be dismissed. Respondent further relied upon Petitioner's arrest on September 1, 1976, in Dade County, Florida, for resisting arrest. However, that charge was dismissed in October, 1976. Petitioner has no other record of arrests or convictions.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Leonard M. Wojnar, is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0372634. The Respondent was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Michigan from approximately 1975 until his license was revoked on or about July 2, 1982. In the fall of 1980, a Complaint was filed in Michigan against the Respondent. The Respondent appeared at a hearing in Michigan, after which this case was dismissed. On or about February 3, 1981, the Department of Licensing and Regulation in Michigan contacted the Respondent by letter, notifying him of the Department's involvement with the complaint against him. This letter was received by the Respondent. By letter dated February 9, 1981, to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation, the Respondent replied to the February 3, 1981 letter. On or about May 12, 1981, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation issued a formal Complaint against the Respondent, and served it on him on approximately May 13, 1981. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent received service of this Complaint, but based upon the earlier correspondence between the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation and the Respondent, the Respondent was on notice of a proceeding pending against him. On May 22, 1981, the Respondent completed his application for licensure in Florida. Thereafter, with the assistance of counsel in Michigan, the Respondent attended hearings and proceedings in the Michigan action against his real estate license. The Respondent's Michigan license was revoked on or about July 2, 1982. When the Respondent applied for his Florida license, he failed to disclose that a proceeding was pending against his license in Michigan, and he answered Question 15a on the Florida application in the negative. This question asks if any proceeding is pending in any state affecting any license to practice a regulated profession. The Respondent contends that the revocation of his license by the Michigan authorities is invalid, and that legal proceedings are pending in Michigan to obtain restoration of his license there. He also contends that he was not aware of any proceeding pending against him when he answered Question 15a on the Florida application.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0372642 held by Leonard M. Wojnar be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this the 21st day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Steven Warm, Esquire 101 North Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Bldg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Evidence reveals that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. Said application revealed that Defendant, Frank Viruet, was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice president of the Company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; and that Lee Klien was to become president and Director of the company. The application also revealed that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket #2357); that Lee Klien is the sister of Carol Bauman; and that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman (Progress Docket #2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing the above corporate application For registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that at each such change, new application For corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Further, the stated offices and Active Firm Member Broker remained the same. Thus, For all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. As to Count One of the complaint, according to the certificate of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, 1976, (which was offered and received into evidence without objections), during the period November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate, no registration was issued to or held by either of the three corporations above referred to. This was confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, evidence reveals that Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., entered a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation). The unrebutted testimony by Plaintiff Reagan was that he observed during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 (2nd Floor). A similar display on the building directory appeared on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness, Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company, testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in said room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., and that from January 1 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 phone calls were made from such phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman and Bernard Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but did not recall nor introduce records as to how many calls were in fact made. Jeffrey Bauman testified that Frank Viruet had also made phone calls from the stated phones but did not state whether they were solicitations. On this point, Frank Viruet denied making solicitation calls although he admitted using the phone For other purposes. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing received. He further testified that upon being advised, by the investigator with the Commission, that the operation was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company, and that all who were engaged in real estate activities For said company were in violation of the licensing law, the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was confirmed by nominal Plaintiff Reagan. Frank Viruet denied having knowledge of real estate activities being conducted by the Baumans. He further denied knowledge that office space in Room 212 of the Nankin Building was occupied by Land Re- Sale Service, Inc. and used by the Bauman's. He admitted to signing the application For registration which was submitted to the Commission as the corporate Active Firm Member Broker to be. As to Count Two, evidence established as stated above, that defendants Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, the Baumans, admitted by their own testimony that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers either intrastate or nationwide. Bernard Bauman testified that no money was ever returned to senders. There was no evidence received to show that Defendant Frank Viruet knew that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation; nor that Viruet was aware that solicitations were being made. As to Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the acts and doings set out in Counts One and Two establish a course of conduct by defendants upon which revocation of their registration should issue.
