Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Richard E. Ebner was registered as a real estate salesman on March 8, 1974 and has been so registered since that date having been issued license No. 0126254, that said license was applied for by Ebner, who prepared the application, which was jointly stipulated to be received into evidence as Exhibit 1. The parties further stipulated to the fact that Exhibit 1 contains question 9, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 2, and question 19, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 6, and that Ebner had answered question 9, "Yes. . . Midsdemeanor - Marijuana possession 1971," and question 19, "No." The parties further stipulated to the admission into evidence of Exhibit 2, Court Records of Arrest dated September 25, 1970; Exhibit 3, Court Records of Information dated September 29, 1970; and Exhibit 6, Court Records, Order of Incompetency. It was stipulated that an Order of Nolle Prosequi had been entered regarding the charges upon which the arrest, Exhibit 3, were based. The Commission offered Exhibit 4, a letter of Sheriff Collier dated January 12, 1974; and Exhibit 5, a judgment in Case No. 676 dated August 17, 1971, which were received into evidence. Thereafter on the basis of the stipulation and admission of Exhibits 5 and 6, the Commission rested its case. The Respondent then moved for dismissal of the charges because the charges were insufficient because the Commission failed to show if these matters had been disclosed the license would have been denied. The Hearing Officer denied the motion. The Respondent called his father and mother to testify. Richard Ebner had had in 1970 a drug problem and had been addicted to heroin. His parents searched the state for a hospital to treat their son. Having found a hospital, they went to the County Judge and explained their fears that their son might not stay in the hospital. Without a hearing, the Judge entered the Order of Incompetency, Exhibit 6. Thereafter, their son had gone to the hospital and remained there voluntarily. They both testified that their son, Richard Ebner, had no knowledge of the Judge's Order, and that they themselves were unaware of the nature of the order beyond the fact that they had been told it was sufficient to require their son to remain in the hospital if he tried to leave. The Board subsequently presented rebuttal testimony on the issue of incompetency that Richard Ebner's counsel had interposed an insanity plea to the 1971 arrest based upon the Order of Incompetency, see Exhibit 9. The Court refused this defense. Richard Ebner testified that he had known about the insanity defense his attorney had presented to his 1971 arrest, but that he had had no knowledge in 1971 that he had been declared incompetent by any Court or when he filled out the application. The Commission's investigator indicated that the Court's record indicated only the Order of Incompetency and no further pleadings. The Hearing Officer finds that Richard Ebner had no knowledge of the Order, Exhibit 6, adjudging him incompetent. Regarding question 9, the Commission's Exhibits 2 and 3 revealed that Ebner had been arrested in 1970 for obtaining or attempting to obtain a barbiturate or central nervous system stimulant by fraud, misrepresentation, deceit or subterfuge, or by forgery or alteration of a prescription, and uttering any false or forged prescription. As stated above, it was stipulated that these charges were dropped. The Commission's Exhibits 4 and 5 reveal that Ebner was arrested on March 30, 1971 for (1) possession if marijuana and (2) possession of marijuana paraphernalia. The charge relating to possession of paraphernalia was dropped, and Ebner was tried on possession of marijuana on June 28, 1971, found guilty and sentenced to six (6) months in the county jail. He served his sentence and was released January 12, 1972. Regarding the offense, the Respondent, Ebner, had stated on his application in response to question 9, "Misdemeanor - Marijuana possession in 1971." Richard Ebner is currently working for his father and brother in their family business and actively engaged in underwater salvage and repair as a hard hat (deep sea) diver. He works as long as 3 - 10 hours under water, and has performed such responsible work as maintenance of underwater cameras at a nuclear power plant. He testified that he no longer uses narcotic drugs and that to do so would jeopardize his life in his occupation as a diver. The Respondent appeared relaxed and confident on the witness stand and answered questions put to him by the attorneys and Hearing Officer forthrightly and without hesitation. He admitted his addiction to drugs, stated that he had overcome this, that he had not tried to conceal his 1970 arrest but thought that because the charges had been dropped by this state that there was no need to report it. He similarly stated that he had responded to question 9 regarding the 1971 arrest, conviction and sentencing.
The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent alleging a violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, through the entry of a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of vehicular homicide, a felony, as described in Section 782.071, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as a governmental agency in the State of Florida, licenses and regulates those persons who are engaged in real estate sales within Florida. The authority for this regulatory function may be found in Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and associated rules. Respondent has held a real estate salesman's license issued by the Petitioner during all relevant periods. On September 13, 1986, that license held by the Respondent was inactive. On October 13, 1986, Respondent activated his real estate salesman's license and it remained active at the point of final hearing. In October 1986, Respondent placed his real estate sales license with a real estate broker in Gainesville, Florida, Richard Fort Rogers. Richard Fort Rogers is the father of the Respondent. Respondent continues in his affiliation with his father's real estate brokerage operation. On September 13, 1987, Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. He was operating the motor vehicle in question and through that operation caused the death of Harold E. Thompson. Out of these circumstances, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of vehicular homicide. Section 782.071, Florida Statutes. This disposition is set forth in Petitioner's composite exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. The plea was by negotiation in the case The State of Florida vs. Richard Fort Rogers in the Circuit Court, for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Alachua County, Court, #86-3203-CF-A. The amended information to which the Petitioner pled dates from December 10, 1986. The negotiated plea was entered on February 2, 1987. On that same date the Court entered an order accepting the plea. For this offense, adjudication of guilt was withheld, the Respondent was given three years' probation, required to pay court costs and was screened for alcohol counseling. Following the disposition of his case, by correspondence of February 13, 1987, as received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on February 17, 1987, Respondent advised the Commission of his plea of nolo contendere to the charge of vehicular homicide.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Phillip S. Wong is a convicted felon. On December 6, 1982, after entering a plea of guilty, he was adjudicated guilty of one count of each of the following crimes: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill, in violation of Section 784.021(1)(a), Florida Statutes; false imprisonment, in violation of Section 787.02, Florida Statutes; burglary of a dwelling during which an assault was made, in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes; conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Sections 777.04 and 893.135, Florida Statutes; trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Section 893.135, Florida Statutes; and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statues. For these offenses, all of which were committed in August of 1982, Wong received five 1/ separate three-year sentences of imprisonment that ran concurrently with one another. As a prisoner, Wong's conduct was exemplary. Accordingly, in May, 1984, he was placed in a work release program. He completed serving his sentence in September, 1985. Since his return to the community, Wong has married and become a father. To help support his family, he works as a chef in a French restaurant, a position he has held for the past four and a half years. Wong is now a dedicated family man concerned about the welfare of his wife and their two and a half year old child. This concern has prompted him to seek a career in real estate so that he will be better able to provide for his family.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure to practice as a real estate salesman, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application when he is able to show that his rehabilitation is sufficiently complete to entitle him to such licensure. See Karl v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 229 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(Commission may not preclude an applicant whose application has been denied because of a prior felony conviction from reapplying for licensure and showing subsequent rehabilitation). DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of April, 1989.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 2, 1987, in Pinellas County, Florida, the Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to a charge of exposure of sexual organs, a violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes. On or about August 17, 1987, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In response to a question involving prior criminal violations, the Petitioner informed the Respondent of the past violation and his nolo contendere plea. On January 5, 1988, through its legal advisor, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that his application for a real estate license was denied because of the nolo contendere plea to the indecent exposure charge. The Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. During the administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified that on the date of the alleged criminal violation, he stopped on his way to shopping mall to relieve himself in a public restroom located in Freedom Lake Park. While in the restroom, he was approached by a man who strongly implied he wanted to see the Petitioner's sexual organs. At first, the Petitioner did not respond to the request. He then told the man "no" and went to use the urinal. The other man identified himself as a police officer and placed the Petitioner under arrest for exposure of sexual organs. Once charged with the offense, the Petitioner had to decide whether to contest the charge by requesting a trial or to enter into a plea bargain agreement. The Petitioner was a high school guidance counselor at the time of the arrest. Because of his employment, he was concerned about the notoriety a trial involving sexual misconduct would bring and its damage to his career. He was also concerned about the effects of a trial upon him and his family. The terms of the plea agreement were that if he were to enter a nolo contendere plea, adjudication of guilt would be withheld by the court. He would be fined $150.00, required to seek counseling, and be placed on six months of supervised probation. Upon advice of counsel, the Petitioner chose to enter the plea, and accept the plea bargain agreement.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this proceeding was provided Compton by registered mail return receipt requested at the last address provided the Florida Real Estate Commission by Compton and also at the forwarding address obtained by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Compton was arrested for failure to appear in court to answer a traffic citation, in the City of Hollywood, Florida. Compton was also arrested for possession of cannabis and found to be not guilty in the City Court of Pompano Beach. Compton was also named in an information charging him with burglary in California. He was placed on 5 years probation and proceedings were suspended by the Superior Court, Los Angelos County, California. These records were provided the Florida Real Estate Commission from the clerks of the courts named above. Investigator Freeman testified that because of Compton's vigorous denials, a second check of Compton's arrest records based upon fingerprint identification was made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which confirmed by fingerprint comparison that the records of arrests were those of the individual who applied for registration to the Florida Real Estate Commission as Ray F. Compton. Ray F. Compton concealed on his application for registration the fact that he had been arrested in Florida for failure to appear in Court, possession of cannabis and in California for burglary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the registration of Ray F. Compton be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Ray F. Compton 9134 Boyer Lane Mentor, Ohio 44060
The Issue This cause arose upon a denial of an application for licensure by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Denial was based upon the applicant's answer to question six of the licensing application regarding his prior criminal record under authority of Section 475.17(1), as well as 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). Specifically, the Florida Real Estate Commission notified the Petitioner that the denial of the application was based upon the following: 1963 conviction of armed robbery 1965 conviction of false police report 1967 conviction of worthless check 1968 and 1971 convictions for public intoxication 1971 conviction for assault and battery 1976 and 1980 convictions for public intoxication 1982 indecent exposure charge The Petitioner requested a formal hearing to be permitted the opportunity to present testimony and evidence in support of his petition for application for licensure, and the cause ultimately came on for hearing on the above date after completion of discovery. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses, including himself, as well as the testimony of a witness from out of state who was unable to attend, whose testimony was admitted in the form of an affidavit stipulated into evidence by the parties. The Respondent presented one witness. The Petitioner presented six exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented four exhibits which were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties requested the benefit of a transcript and the right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by the Respondent. All proposed findings of fact and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein, they have been accepted, and to the extent that such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant or as not necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a native of Ohio, having lived in that state until coming to the Ft. Myers area to live and enter business in 1980. Some twenty- one years ago, when he resided in Ohio at the age of thirteen years, he was charged with armed robbery, according to his arrest record in evidence. On that occasion, he was placed in the custody of the Ohio Youth Commission and placed in an industrial school for boys. Again, on September 9, 1965, he was arrested for making a false police report and was returned to the custody of the Ohio Youth Commission as a juvenile offender once again. While originally in the industrial school for boys in Ohio pursuant to the first arrest, he was not permitted to attend high school classes because of a severe vision problem (nearly legally blind) and the school had no facilities for education of those with his visual handicap. He was tutored instead by a priest, apparently at the school. Prior to that, he had been formally educated up to and including approximately three months of high school. In Ohio, at that time, these acts were considered to be "juvenile acts of delinquency" and not classed as criminal convictions. Between May 24, 1968, and June 24, 1980, the Petitioner had seven arrests for public intoxication. Those arrests culminated in the payment of $25 fines, and in one instance, a $40 fine with no court appearance. In effect, the bond was estreated. On July 20, 1971, he was arrested for assault and battery and paid a $100 fine, again with no court appearance. All of these arrests, with the exception of the original armed robbery juvenile delinquency instance, were misdemeanors. All occurred in Dayton, Ohio. On November 23, 1982, by Order of the Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division - the records of David Fugate were expunged. According to that Order, the court found that rehabilitation of the applicant, David Fugate, had been attained to a satisfactory degree and, accordingly, ordered that all records pertaining to David Fugate be sealed; that the proceedings in the case be deemed to have never occurred and that all index references to said applicant be deleted. This Order is somewhat ambiguous in that it mentions "case" in the singular, but then mentions all records pertaining to David Fugate and all "index references" referring to the applicant being deleted from his record and, further, that all copies of fingerprints or pictures taken of the applicant "in this cases" should be destroyed. It is not clear whether an expungement of all record of offenses committed in Ohio through 1980 was ordered, or merely of those matters involving the juvenile division of the court; that is, the three offenses occurring in 1963, 1965 and 1967. In any event, the Court's expungement of the applicant's "record in this court" is found to mean all three juvenile court offenses, especially in view of the applicant's and his corroborating witness' testimony. Further, with regard to the issue raised by the public intoxication charges (to the extent they may not have been expunged by the Order represented by Respondent's Exhibit 1), the Petitioner acknowledges that he had a drinking problem, related to marital difficulties, during his ten years of marriage. All those cases were misdemeanors and generally the subject of fines, not involving court appearances. Petitioner has since overcome his drinking problem, as evidenced in his unrefuted testimony, and that of witness Lawrence who has worked with him for approximately ten years and knows his personal habits quite well. It was thus established that the Petitioner has never had a problem with alcohol which interfered with his business and his relationship with the public and, indeed, his employer, witness Lawrence, was never aware that he had a drinking problem at all. Mr. Lawrence has employed the Petitioner over a period of approximately ten years in a finance company, loan and collection business. The Petitioner often was required to handle and transport large sums of money and never committed any dishonest act or irregularity concerning his handling of his employer's money. He has loaned several thousand dollars to the Petitioner and has been timely paid when any amounts came due and would not hesitate to enter into business dealings with the Petitioner in the future. Donald Jansen, a former professor in the areas of communication and criminal justice at Ohio State University, has known the Petitioner for approximately eighteen years. He first became acquainted with the Petitioner when the Petitioner was made a ward of the State of Ohio and placed in the Ohio Youth Commission Boys' Industrial School, where Mr. Jansen was employed at the time. One of his duties was to orient and counsel boys with regard to life at the school. He felt that David, the Petitioner, had a potential that most of the boys under his care did not have and he has maintained regular contact with him ever since. Petitioner worked with him as a volunteer in Dayton, 0hio, in the area of community contact work with youth in a salaried position and exhibited great concern for others, and in assisting young men who were in trouble, to better their lives. Mr. Jansen has observed Petitioner over the years and has observed the change in his attitude toward himself and others. He is more reliable than most people Mr. Jansen has dealt with and they have had financial dealings together in which the Petitioner has been honest and ethical in every way. He has never betrayed a trust and Mr. Jansen has placed thousands of dollars in the Petitioner's care in these financial dealings without regret. In the near future, he plans to engage in business with the Petitioner with proceeds of a large wheat farm which he plans to liquidate in the State of Nebraska. The Petitioner's conduct and attitude over the years shows that the Petitioner is determined to overcome his visual handicap and become a productive member of society, rather than seek public assistance and that he has genuinely rehabilitated himself in the long years since his more serious juvenile offenses. In that connection, this witness corroborated the testimony of the Petitioner in establishing that, indeed, the expungement order went to all three juvenile offenses, and, in the words of the court in that order, "the proceedings in such case be deemed never to have occurred." It is noted that the Petitioner, himself, established that his problem with alcohol was related to his domestic difficulties over a period of years and that with the resolution of those difficulties (his divorce) he has concomitantly overcome his alcohol problem. It has been clearly established that any problem with alcohol in the past has not interfered with his business and financial dealings. Indeed, his reputation for responsible conduct of his business affairs since arriving in Florida is demonstrated by the fact that he has recently been approved for a real estate mortgage loan in the amount of fifty-five thousand ($55,000) dollars together with an unsecured signature loan in excess of one thousand ($1,000) dollars. The Petitioner has achieved some financial success by his work in real estate investments, owning several parcels of real estate himself and serving as President of Florida Credit and Investment Corporation. The Petitioner's arrest in March, 1982, on a charge of indecent exposure, as freely admitted by the Petitioner, involved urination in a public place. The charge was nol prossed and the court informed the Petitioner that that event rendered the matter to be "as if it never occurred." Because of this belief, the Petitioner failed to list it on his application in answer to question number six. The Petitioner listed all other past charges or arrests, some of which were more serious, and failed to list the March, 1982, charge because he did not feel it relevant since the court informed him that he could conduct himself as if had not occurred. There was no showing of any facts surrounding that arrest which would demonstrate that the Petitioner is clothed with a character which might pose a danger to the interests of the public and investors if his registration and licensing were granted. In short, it has been established that the Petitioner has clearly attained rehabilitation from his earlier, aberrant behavior and that a sufficient lapse of time and subsequent good conduct reveals that the Petitioner's character is now such that he can be safely trusted with the affairs and finances of funds of members of the public who entrust their real estate and financial affairs to him in the capacity of a licensed realtor. The Petitioner has taken and passed the required real estate educational course and passed the test administered at the end of that course as a prerequisite to being admitted to the Florida real estate examination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of David Fugate for a real estate salesman's license be GRANTED. D0NE and ENTERED this 26th day of 0ctober, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 26th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Fugate 1028 South East 18th Place Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Lawrence Gendzier, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Office of Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, on March 14, 1974, filed his application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. The application was approved and he received his registration on July 8, 1974, and has been continuously registered with the Commission since that time (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In the Application for Registration, Question 9 and Respondent's answer thereto were as follows: 9. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offenses, without regard to whether sentence has been passed or served, or whether the verdict or judgment has been reversed or set aside or not, or pardon or parole granted? Yes If yes, state details in full Traffic offenses: see attached sheet, one misdemeanor, City of North Miami Beach, Case 23855. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1,2). On August 17, 1973, Respondent was arrested in Dade County, Florida, and charged with the possession and sale of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), F.S. On May 31, 1974, Respondent was acquitted in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, In and for Dade County, of the charge of sale or delivery of a controlled substance. In the same court, on July 12, 1974, he was found guilty of the charge of possession of a controlled substance, but adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years. (Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6.) Petitioner testified that he had filed a prior application for registration as a real estate salesman in 1972 which was not approved because he did not pass the written examination. In 1974, he secured a blank application form which he gave to his father, Hal Sehres, to have typed for him. When it was prepared, he scanned it without reading it thoroughly and, since it seemed to be the same as his first application, he signed it and his father thereafter dispatched it to the Commission. The father testified that he had given the blank application to his secretary, along with the 1972 application, and asked her to type it. He also provided her with minor changes in address and information concerning the misdemeanor offense which had not occurred at the time the 1972 application had been executed. Although the father testified that he was aware his son had been arrested in 1973 for the sale and possession of cocaine, and that he meant to include it as part of the answer to Question 9, he knew that at that time disposition had not yet been made of the charge, and therefore, believed it was an honest mistake that he had not included it on the application.
Recommendation That the registration of Irving Paul Sehres as a real estate salesman be revoked, pursuant to Section 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttman, III, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Seymour Silverman, Esquire 420 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a registered assistant rental estate appraiser.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a state agency in Florida responsible for regulating the practice of real estate in Florida pursuant to Sections 475.001 and 475.05, Florida Statutes. On or about May 14, 2003, Petitioner, Ralph D. Jones, Jr., submitted an application for registration as an assistant real estate appraiser. On the application, Petitioner answered "yes" to the question on the application regarding criminal history indicating Petitioner had a criminal history. Petitioner disclosed on the application that he had in Virginia two larceny charges, a concealment charge, a driving while license suspended charge, a hit and run charge, three assault charges and an obstruction of law enforcement charge: a total of six felony convictions. On or about October 7, 2004, the FREAB conducted an informal hearing regarding Petitioner's application for licensure and the aforementioned crimes. Petitioner attended the hearing and submitted letters attesting to his good character for the FREAB's consideration. The FREAB issued an order denying Petitioner's application. On or about December 2, 2003, the FREAB conducted a second informal hearing regarding Petitioner's application for registration and his criminal record. Petitioner appeared at this hearing and was questioned by the FREAB about the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's criminal history. At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified about the circumstances of his criminal history, with an emphasis on the length of time since his last criminal conviction, and the type of offenses committed by applicants that were approved by the FREAB. He pointed out that it had been over five years since he had been in trouble. It is noted that it had been an even longer time between Petitioner's most recent problems, arising from the breakup of his marriage, and his prior convictions. It is noted that his most recent offenses related to his divorce five years ago. Petitioner has not had his civil rights restored. Petitioner wants to work on his "apprenticeship," so he can become a registered appraiser. Following the hearing, the FREAB issued an order denying the Petitioner's application for a second time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent permit Petitioner to take the examination, and if Petitioner passes the examination, that Respondent issue a license to Petitioner conditioned on the following: Restoration of his civil rights by the Virginia authorities; Practice under the direction of a licensee designated by Respondent with periodic reports on Petitioner's professional conduct for a period of 24 months; and Automatic revocation of Petitioner's license upon the commission of any offense constituting a misdemeanor or felony in Florida Law or any violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 28th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph D. Jones, Jr. 781 Begonia Street Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Jason W. Holtz, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Frank Gregoire, Chairman Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Did the Respondent obtain licensure by fraud or misrepresentation contrary to Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Carl D. Hill, submitted an application for licensure to become a real estate salesperson on June 22, 1981. See Exhibit "A", a true and correct copy of the Respondent's application. Respondent admits he executed the original application in the line designated for the signature of the applicant. Said application was received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on June 26, 1981, and was approved on July 24, 1981. Based upon said application, Respondent was issued license number 0372160 as a real estate salesman. In response to question number six in the referenced application, Respondent replied "no" to the question of whether he had ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled. On June 7, 1980, Respondent was arrested by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and charged with trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, delivery of cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. See Exhibit "B". On May 12, 1981, Respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of delivery of cocaine. Upon accepting such plea, the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County imposed a sentence of five years' probation and withheld adjudication.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the license of Respondent as a real estate salesperson be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 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 6th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Rankin, Esquire 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Jack W. Crooks, Esquire 4202 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Samuel R. Shorstein, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact By an application dated February 19, 1979, Petitioner, Barbara Ann Bisque, applied for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate. Question number 6 on the application asked: "Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned, or paroled?" To that question Petitioner answered "Yes." If a "Yes" answer is provided the applicant was asked to state the details including the outcome in full. She wrote, "forgery-not convicted- probation" and attached an explanation. Her explanation on a separate sheet of paper stated: "To Whom It May Concern, The actual charge was uttering a forged or false instrument. The incident occurred in August of seventy- seven. It involved my sister and I. We were shopping at Burdines and found a credit card in the cosmetic department and attempted to purchase clothes with it. We were observed by security, approached, and later arrested. I went to court and was not convicted but placed on two years probation. I served for eighteen months and was released for good behavior." (Signed) Barbara Ann Bisque Her application failed to disclose that on October 30, 1973, in Broward County Court in Case Numbers 73-33224MM and 73-17493MM she pled nolo contendere to two charges of disorderly conduct. These charges were reduced from initial charges of indecent exposure. She was adjudged guilty and sentenced to a fine and costs. As a result of her failure to disclose her two arrests for indecent exposure and conviction for disorderly conduct, the Respondent Board denied Petitioner's application for registration. Petitioner failed to disclose the two arrests for indecent exposure and her convictions for disorderly conduct due to her mistaken belief that Question number 6 was concerned only with arrests or charges for offenses committed while an adult. It is her recollection that in 1973, at the time of her arrest, she was legally a minor. For this reason, she chose not to disclose those incidents on her application. Her belief, while legally naive, is given credibility by the fact that she did freely disclose her arrest and subsequent probation for forgery.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application as submitted by Barbara Ann Bisque be denied, but without prejudice to her filing a new application to demonstrate that she meets the requisite qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman and that the Board take such further action on the new application as appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward F. O'Connor, Esquire 125 Worth Avenue, Suite 308 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Board of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
