Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert R. Hambley, is now and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in Florida having been issued license number 0200892. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Real Pro Associates, Inc., 10863 74th Avenue, North, Seminole, Florida 35542. During times material, Respondent was an officer of and qualifying broker for Real Pro Associates, Inc. (Real Pro). During 1987, it came to Petitioner's attention that Respondent was paying commissions to unlicensed salesmen through Real Pro Associates; that Respondent was not placing escrow and trust monies into escrow or other satisfactory depository accounts and that Respondent was failing to disclose to the purchasers, the Federal Housing Authority and the title and trust companies that escrow deposits were not made as set forth in sales contracts as required. Based on that information, Petitioner's Investigator, Edward J. P. Shea served a subpoena upon Stewart Fidelity Title Company and obtained the documentation of the last five sales transactions by Paul George (George), the owner of Real Pro. Stewart Fidelity Title Company also provided Investigator Shea with the sales contracts consummated by Paul George and the following sellers: William G. Summer, Harold G. Johnson, Windy J. Domke, Charles Stephens, Jr., and Ernest G. Sanchez. George is not licensed by Petitioner as a real estate salesman. Each of the subpoenaed contracts represented that a $500 escrow deposit had been received and that the deposits were being held in Real Pro's escrow account. Real Pro's bank records revealed that no such deposits had either been received or placed in Real Pro's escrow account. At the closing of each transaction, Respondent did not inform or otherwise disclose to Stewart Fidelity Title Company, which handled the closing for each transaction, that the stated $500 escrow deposits were never placed into an escrow account as stated in the purchase and sales contracts. Likewise, Respondent did not advise the Federal Housing Authority or Stewart Fidelity Company that Paul George was receiving more than 100% financing for each of the properties involved in the above-referred transactions. This information is significant because it alerts the lender that the purchaser has no equity position in the purchase in the form of a downpayment. Of five transactions involving Paul George as buyer and seller, William G. Sumner, Harold G. Johnson, Charles and Helen Stephens, Ernest and Jane Sanchez, George received commissions in the amounts of $9,900, $7,900, $8,804 and $1,900.38.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order: Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000 payable to Petitioner within thirty days of entry of the Final Order herein, and Placing Respondent's license number 0200892 on probation for a period of one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 5th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Arthur R. Shell, Jr. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation -- Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert R. Hambley, Pro Se 8404 Annwood Road Largo, Florida 34647 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be resolved herein concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this proceeding. Embodied in that general issue are questions concerning whether the Petitioners are the prevailing parties; whether they meet the definition of "small business" parties, including the net worth amounts, enumerated in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as well as whether the disciplinary proceeding against both Petitioners was "substantially justified". See Section 57.111(3)(e) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practices of real estate salesmen and brokers by the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Included within those duties is the duty to investigate conduct by realtors allegedly in violation of Chapter 475 and related rules and to prosecute administrative penal proceedings for which probable cause is found as a result of such investigations. At times pertinent hereto, both Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Cosyns, (then Pauline Sealey) were licensed realtors working as independent contractors for Mariner Properties, Inc. and V.I.P. Realty Inc. The complete file of the underlying proceeding DOAH Case No. 86-0140, was stipulated into evidence. That file included the Administrative Complaint filed against these Respondents and the Recommended and Final Order, which Final Order adopted the Recommended Order. The findings of fact in that Recommended Order are incorporated by reference and adopted herein. During the Petitioner's case, counsel for Petitioner voluntarily reduced the attorney's fees bills for both Petitioners such that Ms. Maxwell's bill is the total amount of $2,695.50 and Ms. Cosyns' bill is $17,200, rather than the original amounts submitted in the affidavit. Respondent acknowledged in its proposed Final Order that the fees and costs submitted by the Respondent were thus reasonable. The testimony the Petitioners presented through depositions, transcripts of which were admitted into evidence into this proceeding, was unrefuted. That testimony demonstrates that both Ms. Cosyns and Ms. Maxwell were prevailing parties in the administrative proceeding referenced herein brought by the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation. They were individually named as Respondents in the Administrative Complaint whereby their professional licenses were subjected to possible suspension or revocation for alleged wrong doing on their part. There is no dispute that they were exonerated in that proceeding and are thus prevailing parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners are also "small business parties". In that connection, they both were independently licensed Real Estate professionals during times pertinent to the underlying proceeding and were acting in the capacity of independent contractors for all the activities with which the administrative complaint was concerned. Each established that her net worth is below the limit provided by Section 57.111 as an element of the definition of "small business party". The reasonableness of the fees having been established in the manner found-above and the Petitioners having established that they meet the definitional requirements of prevailing small business parties, there remains to be determined the issue of whether the proceedings against the two Petitioners were "substantially justified", that is, whether the proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a State agency." See Section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The facts concerning each Petitioner's case regarding the three counts of the Administrative Complaint relating to them are as found in the Recommended Order incorporated by reference herein. Respondent Maxwell was charged in the complaint with having worked in conjunction with an office manager, Mr. Hurbanis of V.I.P. Realty, in conspiring with him to submit a fraudulent real estate sales contract to a lending institution for purposes of financing. This allegedly involved submitting a contract to the lending institution with an inflated purchase price in order to secure one hundred percent financing, the scheme being more particularly described in that portion of the findings of fact in the Recommended Order related to Jean Maxwell. In fact, Ms. Maxwell did not work in the realty office as charged in the Administrative Complaint, but rather was employed by Mariner Properties, which may have been a related company. The contract in question, although alleged to be fraudulent was, in fact, a bona fide contract which was a legitimate part of the Real Estate transaction submitted to the bank for financing purposes, about which the bank was kept fully advised. All details of the transaction were disclosed to the lender. Maxwell was specifically charged with concealing the true contract from the lender in order to enhance the percentage of the purchase price that the bank would finance, done by allegedly inflating the purchase price in a second contract submitted to the bank. It was established in the disciplinary proceeding that no such concealment ever took place. In fact, Ms. Maxwell was purchasing a lot from her own employer, Mariner Properties. Two contracts were indeed prepared for the purchase of Lot 69, a single family lot on Sanibel Island. In fact, however, the difference of $42,875 and $49,500 in the stated purchase price, as depicted on the two contracts, was the result of continuing negotiations between Ms. Maxwell and the seller, who was also her employer. The difference in the two prices depicted on the contracts was the result of, in effect, a set-off to the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, representing certain employee discounts and real estate commission due from the employer and seller to Ms. Maxwell, the purchaser. As Petitioners' composite Exhibit 5 reflects, the lender involved, North First Bank of Ft. Myers, Florida, was fully apprised of all the details concerning this transaction at the time it was entered into and the loan commitment extended and closed. Mr. Allan Barnes, the Assistant Vice President of North First Bank revealed, in the letter contained in this exhibit in evidence, that there was no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts to his institution by Ms. Maxwell. This letter is dated April 18, 1984. The other related letter in that exhibit, of May 2, 1984 from attorney Oertel to attorney Frederick H. Wilson of the Respondent agency, thus constitutes notice to the agency well before the complaint was filed, that no concealment or misrepresentation to the lender involved had occurred and the charges were requested to be dismissed. In spite of the fact that the agency was on notice of this turn of events well before the filing of the Administrative Complaint, it proceeded to file the complaint and to prosecute it all the way up to the date of hearing, requiring Ms. Maxwell's attorney to attend the hearing to defend her interests. At the hearing, counsel for the Department acknowledged that there was no basis for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell and voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to her. The Respondent's witness, Investigator Harris, in his deposition taken September 11, 1984, acknowledged that he did not discuss any details concerning the investigation, with attorney Frederick Wilson, who prepared the complaint, nor did he confer with him by telephone or correspondence before the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was prepared solely on the basis of the investigative report. The investigative report came into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. It reveals that Mr. A. J. Davis the president of Mariner Group and Mariner Properties, who was Jean Maxwell's employer and the owner of the lot in question, signed one contract and his Executive Vice President signed the other. In spite of this, the investigative report does not reveal that the investigator conferred with either Ms. Maxwell, or the sellers concerning this transaction. He conducted a general interview of A.J. Davis concerning the alleged "problem" in his office of "double contracting," but asked him no questions and received no comment about the Jean Maxwell transaction whatever. Nor did the investigator confer with Mr. Allen Barnes or any other representative of North First Bank. If the investigation had been more complete and thorough, he would have learned from Mr. Barnes, if from no one else, that the bank had knowledge of both contracts and all details of the transaction underlying them and there had been no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts regarding the transaction by Ms. Maxwell. This information was learned by attorney Oertel as early as April 18, 1984 by Mr. Barnes' letter, referenced above, and it was communicated to the agency by Mr. Oertel on May 2, 1984. Nevertheless, the complaint was filed and prosecuted through to hearing. Therefore, the prosecution and filing of the Administrative Complaint were clearly not substantially justified. If the Department had properly investigated the matter it would have discovered the true nature of the transaction as being a completely bona fide real estate arrangement. Former Respondent, Pauline Sealy Cosyns was charged with two counts, III and V, in the Administrative Complaint at issue. One count alleged, in essence, that Ms. Sealey had engaged in a similar fraudulent contract situation regarding the sale of her residence to a Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Floyd. The evidence in that proceedings revealed no concealment of any sales contract occurred whatever with regard to the lending institution or anyone else. The facts as revealed at hearing showed Ms. Cosyns and the Floyds, through continuing negotiations after the original sales contract was entered into, amended that contract and executed a second one, in order to allow Ms. Cosyns to take back a second mortgage from the Floyds. This was necessary because Mr. Floyd, an author, was short of the necessary down payment pursuant to the terms of the original contract, because his annual royalty payment from his publishers had not been received as the time approached for closing. The second contract was executed to allow for a second mortgage in favor of the seller, Ms. Cosyns, in order to make up the amount owed by the Floyds on the purchase price agreed upon, above the first mortgage amount. The testimony and evidence in the disciplinary proceeding revealed unequivocally that the lending institution, Amerifirst Mortgage Company, was fully apprised of the situation and of the reason for the two contractual agreements. The $24,000 second mortgage in question is even depicted on the closing statement issued by that bank. There was simply no concealment and no effort to conceal any facts concerning this transaction from the lender or from anyone else. The investigation conducted was deficient because the investigator failed to discuss this transaction with the lender or with the purchasers. He discussed the matter with Ms. Sealy-Cosyns and his own deposition testimony reveals, as does his investigative report, that he did not feel that he got a complete account of the transaction from her. She testified in her deposition, taken prior to the instant proceeding, that she indeed did not disclose all facts of the transaction to him because she was concerned that he was attempting to apprehend her in some "legal impropriety". Therefore, she was reluctant to be entirely candid. The fact remains, however, that had he conducted a complete investigation by conferring with the lender and the purchasers, he would have known immediately, long before the Administrative Complaint was filed and the matter prosecuted, that there was absolutely no basis for any probable cause finding that wrong-doing had occurred in terms of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Thus, the facts concerning the prosecution as to Count III against Pauline Sealy-Cosyns, as more particularly delineated in the findings of fact in the previous Recommended Order, reveal not only that Ms. Cosyns was totally exonerated in the referenced proceeding, but that there was no substantial basis for prosecuting her as to this count at all. Concerning Count V against Ms. Cosyns, it was established through the evidence at the hearing in the disciplinary case that she was merely the listing agent and did not have any part to play in the drafting of the contract nor the presenting of it to the lender. Because there was no evidence adduced to show that she had any complicity or direct involvement in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction involved in Count V of the Administrative Complaint at issue she was exonerated as to that count as well. It is noteworthy here that a statement was made by counsel for the agency, appearing at pages 20 and 21 of the transcript of the proceeding involving the Administrative Complaint, which indicates that the agency, based upon its review of certain documents regarding Counts III and V, before hearing, felt that indeed there might not be a disputed issue of material fact as to Mrs. Cosyns. The agency, although acknowledging that a review of the documents caused it to have reason to believe that it was unnecessary to proceed further against Ms. Cosyns nevertheless did not voluntarily dismiss those counts and proceeded through hearing. Be that as it may, the investigation revealed that Ms. Cosyns acknowledged that she knew that there were two contractual documents involved, but the investigation also revealed that Ms. Cosyns was only the listing agent. The selling agent was Mr. Parks. The investigation revealed through interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Parks and Mr. Hurbanis, the office Manager of V.I.P. Realty, that Ms. Cosyns, as listing agent, was merely present when the offer from the buyers was communicated to the office manager, Mr. Hurbanis, and ultimately to the sellers, the Cottrells. There was no reason for the investigator to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the drafting of the contracts nor with the communication of them to the lending institution involved. That was done by either Mr. Parks or Mr. Hurbanis or by the buyers. The investigation (as revealed in the investigative report) does not show who communicated the contract in question to the lender. The investigation was simply incomplete. If the investigator had conferred with the buyers, the sellers and especially the lender, he could have ascertained-whether the lender was aware of all the facts concerning this transaction and whether there was any reason to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the arrangement and the details of the transaction. It was ultimately established, by unrefuted evidence at hearing, that indeed Ms. Cosyns did not have anything to do with the transaction, nor the manner in which it was disclosed to the lender. The fact that she was aware that two contracts had been prepared did not give a reasonable basis for the investigator to conclude that she had engaged in any wrong-doing. The report of his interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Hurbanis and Mr. Parks, as well as Donna Ross, does not indicate that he had a reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Cosyns had engaged in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction, including the conveyance of a bogus contract to the lending institution involved, nor for that matter, that Mr. Hurbanis or Mr. Parks engaged in such conduct. In order to ascertain a reasonable basis for concluding whether Ms. Cosyns was involved in any wrongful conduct, he would have had to obtain more information than he did from these people or confer with the lender, the buyer or the seller, or all of these approaches, before he could have a reasonable basis to recommend to the prosecuting agency that an Administrative Complaint be filed against her concerning this transaction. In fact, he did not do so, but the Administrative Complaint was filed and prosecuted through hearing anyway, causing her to incur the above-referenced attorney's fees. It thus has not been demonstrated that there was any substantial basis for the filing and prosecution of Count V of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cosyn. Thus she is entitled to the attorneys fees referenced above with regard to the prosecution of the Administrative Complaint in question.
The Issue Whether Respondent obtained his real estate license by means of misrepresentation or concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Title 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is and, at all times material hereto, was a duly licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material herein actively engaged in major real estate developments and has also operated on behalf of family owned corporations. During the relevant time period, Respondent has not engaged in the general real estate brokerage business. On August 16, 1984, Respondent was found guilty in federal court of one count of knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully participating in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894. Respondent was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $2,000. The incident which gave rise to the conviction occurred in and while the Respondent was a resident of Illinois, and prior to the Respondent's being issued his Florida real estate license. Respondent testified that in 1983 he owned a Chicago nightclub. According to Respondent, during that time period someone owed Respondent a gambling debt in the amount of $36,000. The person who owed the money to Respondent said he would pay the debt. Because the Respondent was leaving town, he asked his wife's uncle to pick up the money. The Respondent indicated, that unknown to him, the uncle used unlawful means in an attempt to collect the funds. It was this collection effort which eventually lead to the Respondent's arrest, not guilty plea, and guilty verdict in 1984. The Respondent moved to Florida and, subsequently, on or about January 19, 1994, he applied to become licensed as a Florida real estate salesperson. The application contained an affidavit which provided in part that "such responses are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever." Petitioner's application form contained Question 9 which requested information concerning an applicant's criminal history. In pertinent part the question is as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled or pardoned. * * * Your answer to this will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. In response to this question, Respondent answered in the negative by marking the "no" box. On April 18, 1994, the State of Florida issued Respondent license #0611142 as a real estate salesperson. On January 10, 1994, Respondent signed the application. By his duly notarized signature, the Respondent swore that all answers and information provided on his application were true, correct, and complete. On or about January 16, 1995, Respondent applied to become licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Respondent, again, checked "no" to Question 9 on his broker's application as to whether or not he had ever been convicted or found guilty of any crime. Also, Respondent again swore that all answers and information contained in his application to become a real estate broker in the State of Florida were true, correct, and complete. Again, the Respondent's signature was duly notarized. The broker's application was approved for the Petitioner. However, a broker's license was not issued because Respondent failed to pass the state examination required to be licensed as a broker. Respondent testified at the formal hearing that the reason he did not disclose his prior conviction on his real estate applications was that he had spoken to his brother who advised him that matters over 10 years old did not have to be disclosed. Respondent did not consult with an attorney, the Division of Real Estate or anyone else other than his brother about how to answer Question 9 on his real estate application. Respondent's stated justification for checking "no" on his license applications lacked credibility given the clear wording of Question 9 on the application form. The Respondent has had no other incidents of criminal problems. Similarly, there have been no civil judgments involving the Respondent and dishonest dealing. Finally, there have been no prior disciplinary matters against the Respondent. The Respondent has served in the military and was honorably discharged and earned a two-year degree in electronics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes; revoking his real estate license; and imposing a fine of $1000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this * day of February, 1998. *Filed with the Clerk undated. -ac COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 July 21, 1999 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Re: Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate vs. Frank Efstathios Touloumis DOAH Case No. 97-3722 Dear Mr. Solares: Enclosed is the Amended Recommended Order issued in the referenced case. It was issued in order to correct a scrivenners error in page 8 of the original order. Please replace page 1 and page 8 enclosing for pages 1 and 8 oriignally sent to you. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this might have caused. Sincerely, CSH/scl Enclosures cc: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0200291. He was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of broker John Wesley Bridwell at all times material to these proceedings. In early 1982, Respondent came into possession of bank checks totaling $1,275 belonging to his employing broker John Bridwell and which appeared to carry the signature of Bridwell as payor. Respondent deposited these checks in various bank accounts opened and maintained by Respondent. Respondent knew the checks were stolen at the time be deposited the checks into his bank accounts. On August 11, 1982, Respondent was arrested by the Seminole County Sheriff's Department, Sanford, Florida, on the charge of depositing stolen checks with intent to defraud. Respondent confessed to this charge, and on April 15, 1983, adjudication was withheld in the Circuit Court, Seminoles County, Florida, Case No. 32-1250 CFA. Respondent was sentenced to thirty days confinement followed by ten weekends of confinement in the Seminole County Jail, ordered to make restitution of the $1,275, pay fines exceeding $1,500, and perform 200 hours of community service work.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty as charged in the three counts of the Administrative Complaint, and revoking his real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1984, 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 January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian D. Rist 3181 Harbado's Ct. Apopka, Florida 32803 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed real estate salesman in the state of Florida having been issued License No. 0341212. The last license issued to Respondent is delinquent, and Respondent's license is in an involuntary inactive status. On or about October 28, 1986, the Respondent, while holding a delinquent involuntary inactive license as a salesman in the employ of KSP Real Estate Corporation and Mortgage Services (hereinafter "KSP"), did prepare an offer to purchase (a sales contract) on behalf of Emma L. Brown, Mary L. Howard and Betty F. Howard, as purchasers, for certain real property which was listed for sale with Lucy Charles of Homes by Charles of South Florida. Respondent received in trust $500 as an earnest money deposit which was to be placed in the KSP escrow account. In connection therewith, Respondent represented in the sales contract that, as president of KSP, he was acting as an escrow agent and that the $500 was to be held in escrow pending the outcome of the transaction. KSP is not and has not been a corporation registered as a broker with the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Although the contract called for a closing within 120 days from the delivery of the abstract, the transaction did not close. At no time was the $500 placed in a KSP escrow account as was represented in the sales contract Respondent prepared. Respondent expected to be paid all or part of $2,640 as compensation for his services, calculated as 3% of the sales price of $88,000, as reflected in the sales contract. Respondent prepared and presented the sales contract offer to Lucy Charles of Homes by Charles representing himself to be a real estate broker. The purchasers had previously submitted an offer on the same property through Rickenback Associates, Inc. That offer was not contingent on FHA financing and on the purchasers refinancing their current home. When they showed that offer to their long-time friend, the Respondent, he prepared the sales contract in question in an attempt to re-negotiate the purchasers' then- outstanding offer so they could obtain the terms they wanted which had not been included by Rickenback Associates, Inc.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and suspending Respondent's real estate salesman license for a period of six (6) months. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth A. Ratliff 813 Northwest 107th Street Miami, Florida 33168 James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Exhibit 2 evidences some 13 arrests of Petitioner, most of which are for the offense of larceny. Although this document is hearsay, Petitioner readily acknowledged that in 1980 and 1984 he was a drug addict and supported his habit by stealing. Exhibit 3 consists of 6 convictions of grand theft and burglary on August 1, 1980, another count in 1984 and one count of attempted grand theft on October 26, 1990. The period between 1980 and 1984 was a period in Petitioner's life immediately following his discharge from the armed forces. On October 26, 1990, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of grand theft following a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of obtaining or using or attempting to obtain or use the property of another with intent to deprive the owner of the use thereof of personal property of the value of $300 or more. Petitioner testified that in 1990 his 19 year old stepson, who was preparing to enter college, while driving Petitioner's pickup truck, stopped near a parked vehicle and attempted to steal personal property therefrom, but fled when someone observed him. The license number of the pickup was traced to Petitioner. The stepson confessed his actions to Petitioner and when the police arrived, Petitioner, who already had a criminal record that could hardly be blemished further, told the police that he was the driver of the pickup. He was charged with the offense of attempted grand larceny, pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty and was sentenced to 5 years in prison of which he served some 7 months. The stepson graduated from college and is now married, gainfully employed, and raising a family. When submitting his application for licensure, Petitioner further testified that he researched the definition of moral turpitude, spoke to his lawyer and other people regarding his conviction of grand larceny, and was told that the offense did not necessarily constitute an offense involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, Petitioner assumed that he had not been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude and marked item 5 on his application "No" which asked if he had ever been found guilty of a crime involving fraud, dishonest dealing, or any other act of moral turpitude. Petitioner contends that he told Respondent's employees, with whom he discussed his application for licensure, of his criminal record and was told this was not disqualifying. Accordingly, he spent the money to obtain the required mortgage broker education certificate and to take and pass the examination for mortgage broker license, only to be told after these efforts that he could not qualify for licensure.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued denying the application of Stephen J. Matala for a licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 27th day of January 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen J. Matala 32414 Marchmont Circle Dade City, Florida 33525 Lisa L. Elwell, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction by misrepresenting that money he borrowed from a one Julie Couch would be used for the purchase of a lot but, instead, he utilized the money in connection with the purchase of a house for use by his family and for payment of other vacation and travel expenses and refuses to repay the loan, in a manner violative of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.3
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, is a licensed real estate salesman and holds license number 0329068. On or about July 13, 1984, Respondent solicited and obtained $3,500 cash from Julie S. Couch (Couch) for the stated purpose of assisting Respondent in purchasing a lot on behalf of Keith and Beverly Rayburn, friends of the Couches. In connection therewith, Respondent executed and delivered to Couch a mortgage note dated July 13, 1984, to secure the $3,500 loan via certain real property owned by Respondent.4 Pursuant to the terms of the note executed by Respondent and given to Mrs. Couch, Respondent was to repay Couch the principal of $3,500 plus $1,000 interest due on or before July 27, 1984. On July 30, 1984, Respondent attempted to repay part of the loan via check dated July 30, 1984 drawn in the amount of $1,000. Respondent's check was returned unpaid by the Drawers Bank with the notification "insufficient funds." (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4) Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. Couch that the money was used to pay for his moving, vacation and other relocation costs for his family. Keith Rayburn attempted to buy property from the Respondent which was owned by Southern Standards Corporation. At no time during the attempted purchase by Keith Rayburn did Respondent offer to loan him money to purchase a lot from Southern Standards Corporation. Respondent executed and drafted the terms of the note which was given to Julie Couch which memorialized the loan from Mrs. Couch to Respondent. In this regard, Respondent contends that Julie Couch's ex-husband suggested the terms and the rate of interest which he inserted into the note which memorialized the loan from Julie Couch. On the other hand, Julie Couch testified that it was Respondent who suggested the terms and the interest which he provided with the executed note given her. Based on all of the evidence introduced herein including the fact that Respondent misrepresented the purpose for which the money would be utilized, and his failure to call Gary Couch as a witness to substantiate his claim that it was he, Gary Couch, who suggested the terms under which the loan would be made, the testimony of Julie Couch in this regard is credited.5 Respondent has repaid approximately $1,250 of the $3,500 loan from Julie Couch. Respondent, based on advice of his counsel, refuses to repay any further amounts on this loan contending that the interest rates were usurious and, further, that the State, in the person of Petitioner, is attempting to use its "strongarm tactics" to exact money from Respondent which is a usurious transaction. Respondent also contends that because the interest rate charged by Mrs. Couch was in excess of 45 percent per annum, Mrs. Couch committed a third degree felony. As previously stated, the weight of the evidence reveals that it was Respondent who drafted the note and provided the terms for repayment. It is also clear that Respondent misrepresented to Mrs. Couch the purpose for which he would utilize the money that he borrowed from her. It is therefore concluded that by such acts Respondent engaged in acts of misrepresentation, false pretenses, trick and dishonest dealing in a business transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the license of Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, be suspended for a period of one (1) year and that he be fined $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida.6 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 October 1985.
Findings Of Fact Ronny J. Pepper became a registered real estate salesman on May 4, 1973. He has worked in this occupation since receiving his license. He worked for Lehigh Acres for approximately two years, then with others principally in land sales and development. On December 30, 1974 Ronny J. Pepper pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years and to a special parole term of three years. The purpose of the conspiracy to which he pleaded guilty to was to knowingly and intentionally distribute cocaine. Following his conviction Respondent was incarcerated at Eglin Air Force Base until a short period after the death of his father. During this period he was a model prisoner. Upon the death of his father, Ronny J. Pepper was the sole support of his mother and his younger sister. As a result he was released from the correctional institution at Eglin after serving only nine months of his sentence. He was transferred to a half-way house in Miami, Florida where he stayed for three months before being paroled. Upon his return to Miami be became employed in real estate sales and has continued in that employment until the present time. He is currently employed as a salesman for General Development Company. Two federal officers testified for Respondent. One, a correctional counsellor attached to the U. S. Bureau of Prisons, had Pepper under his supervision at the half-way house for three months. During this period of time he was a model probationee, honest and reliable, who had recognized the wrong he had committed. Pepper's probation officer also testified in his behalf. Pepper came under his supervision in December, 1975. Subsequent to that time he has shown a stable employment record, has been trustworthy and reliable, and the probation officer considers Pepper to be an excellent candidate for successfully completing his parole. Marguerite Pepper, mother of Respondent, suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure. She is unable to work and has no income other than that provided by her son. Testifying in his own behalf Pepper acknowledged that he had been guilty of the crime of conspiracy. He considers that offense to have been a foolish mistake on his part, and he has learned his lesson. Even at the time of the commission of the offense to which he pleaded guilty he did not anticipate any monetary or financial benefit from his acts. Both prior and subsequent to his sentencing and incarceration Pepper has been employed continuously in real estate sales. He originally worked in electronics for RCA in assembling computers, but thereafter went into sales, first as a jewelry salesman, and then, after obtaining his real estate license, into real estate sales. At the time of the hearing Pepper still has a probationary period of approximately four years to serve.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate salesmen and brokers. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Peebles was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license number 0396895. The last license issued was placed at 2690 52nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The home address listed with the Florida Real Estate Commission was Post Office Box 40063, St. Petersburg, Florida. On April 7, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the crime of credit card fraud in the United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Case No. 86-215 Cr- Orl-19. The crime was a felony in that the alleged acts involved the unauthorized use of access devices (credit cards) to obtain items of value aggregating $1,000 or more in a one-year period. The case was in federal court because the offense affected interstate and foreign commerce. The crime did not involve any business dealings in which the Respondent was acting as a real estate salesman or broker. However, the crime did involve fraudulent or dishonest dealings. Upon acceptance of the Respondent's plea, the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment at Maxwell Air Force Base in a minimum security federal prison. In addition, the Respondent was ordered to make restitution of $60,590.00, and pay court costs. The sentencing occurred on April 7, 1987. A timely appeal from the judgment and sentence was not taken by the Respondent. The Respondent did not notify the Department of his guilty plea and subsequent conviction within the thirty-day period required by Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes. A Motion for New Trial based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, was filed by the Respondent in the criminal case on March 1, 1990. The United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, has not ruled on the motion. Mitigation The Respondent does not currently have the financial ability to pay any fines if that penalty were to be imposed upon him in this case. The Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of his conviction because he was under extreme stress when the conviction occurred and he was incarcerated.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the mitigation presented by the Respondent, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of the allegations in Counts I through IV, which were proved at hearing. That the Respondent's real estate broker's license be revoked for seven years. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0224 The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3, #4 and #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert J. Peeples Post Office Box 40063 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
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.
