Findings Of Fact By an application received by the Board on March 21, 1979, Petitioner Carole Leigh McGraw applied for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate. Question number 6 of the application form inquired about past arrests or charges for violation of law. Ms. McGraw indicated that she had been arrested and as an explanation attached a separate sheet of paper on which she disclosed that she was arrested in July, 1973 for various criminal charges pending before the Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati, Ohio. She referred the Board for further details to her attorney, James N. Perry, Esquire of Cincinnati, Ohio. No attempt was made by the applicant to conceal any of the facts relating to her outstanding charges. Subsequent to the receipt of her application the Board requested on April 10, 1979, that Ms. McGraw furnish a copy of the indictment and advise the Board of the present status of the indictment. That information was provided by James N. Perry, Esquire who indicated in his letter of April 23, 1979, that counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the twenty count indictment had been dismissed. The dismissal was on appeal and probably would be decided eventually by the Ohio Supreme Court as the issue on appeal is the constitutionality of the organized crime status of Ohio. On July 7, 1978, in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, State of Ohio, the applicant, Carole Leigh McGraw, was indicted by Grand Jury on four counts of engaging in organized crime, six counts of forgery, one count of theft in office and one count of felony theft. None of these charges has been brought to trial. Except for the foregoing indictment the applicant has never been charged with any violation of law or with being dishonest or immoral in any way.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Carole Leigh McGraw for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 13th 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 13th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carole Leigh McGraw 4180 South West 52nd Court Apartment #1 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
Findings Of Fact By Application for Licensure as a Real Estate Salesman dated September 10, 1985 (Exhibit 5) Respondent applied for and was approved to take the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman. As a result of passing this examination, he was duly licensed. In response to questions 7a and 7b inquiring whether the applicant had ever been charged with fraudulent or dishonest dealing, he answered "No -- but see add. disclosure info attached." Attached thereto was a long typewritten statement disclosing monetary judgments entered against him in Colorado based on non real estate related debt and a pending personal bankruptcy. Before submitting this application, Respondent telephoned the Real Estate Commission to inquire about the answer to question 7 and was referred to an attorney from the Attorney General's Office assigned to the Commission. That attorney advised Respondent that the Commission was primarily interested in criminal charges filed against an applicant and not civil charges. He was further told to include a supplement to his application with information concerning the civil charges, including the name of his attorney, so the Commission could obtain additional information if desired. Respondent complied with this advice by listing the name of his attorney and accountant at the time these civil actions were brought against him. After reviewing Respondent's application with the attached explanation of the civil actions brought against him in Colorado, his application to sit for the salesman's examination was approved. On September 24, 1987, Respondent applied for licensure as a Real Estate Broker and answered questions 7(a) and 7(b) simply "No" on the assumption that his qualified no on the salesman application had been approved and it was unnecessary to again explain the civil actions. The deposition of Respondent's attorney in the Colorado civil actions was admitted as Exhibit 7. Exhibit 1, which includes a judgment of the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, found Respondent (a corporate defendant in that case) effected a fraud upon the plaintiffs. This finding was entered in a default judgment against Respondent when his attorney negligently failed to timely file an answer to the complaint. Respondent's substitute attorney's motion to set aside the default judgment was denied. Respondent is in the process of filing personal bankruptcy and therein will challenge the default judgment's conclusion that Respondent's actions leading to that judgment were fraudulent. Since no evidence was ever presented regarding the allegations in the Colorado complaint, that judgment is not res judicata in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order finding Rene A. Remund not guilty of obtaining his licenses as a real estate salesman and broker by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, 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 23rd day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-34698 Wayne J. Boyer, Esquire 1968 Bayshore Boulevard Dunedin, Florida
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jerry R. Erickson, who is now thirty years old, made application on May 29, 1986 for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld". Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: February 10, 1984 incurred several felonies, all drug and alcohol related, there were several incidents in my past that were drug and alcohol related. (See attached letters). A subsequent background check by respondent revealed the following arrests and/or convictions: 1980 - Arrest for driving while under the influence. 1982 - Arrest for trespassing after warning and assault and battery. 1982 - Arrest and conviction for driving while under the influence. 1983 - Disorderly intoxication ar- rest. 1984 - Arrest and conviction for armed burglary, kidnap, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, and burglary to a business. Although arrested on the above five occasions, he was convicted only twice. For the most recent conviction in 1984, Erickson was allowed to enter into a negotiated plea whereby he received 455 days incarceration, two years community control, and ten years probation, each to run consecutively. 1/ Because of his record, petitioner's application for licensure was denied by respondent on September 15, 1986. Erickson's problems are directly related to alcohol and drug addiction. Its origin began at age thirteen when he was given valium by his parents for hyperactivity. Following this exposure to drugs, Erickson freely admits that he abused alcohol and drugs until early February, 1984. Having taken a large dose of valiums over a 48 hour period, and still not being able to sleep, Erickson entered a drug store on February 9, 1984 and demanded, at gunpoint, an ampule of morphine to help him calm down. For that episode, he was arrested and charged with a number of serious crimes. Apparently recognizing that Erickson's underlying problem of drug and alcohol addiction was the reason for his actions, the State allowed Erickson to enter a negotiated plea if he could master his addiction problem. He has successfully done so and is now under community control until November, 1986. After that, he must serve 10 years probation. In addition, he must receive an annual psychological review during the term of his probation. In addition to his own testimony, a psychiatrist, executive vice- president of a bank, and the chief of the public defender's criminal trial division testified on Erickson's behalf. All were aware of Erickson's background and prior legal problems. Erickson was described as being responsible, mature, reliable and honest. The banker stated he would have no hesitation in using Erickson in a real estate transaction and that Erickson has met all obligations on several loans with the bank. The public defender described Erickson's conduct as "exceptional", and that he is one out of perhaps five hundred clients who has been assigned to community control. All felt Erickson had rehabilitated himself. Erickson desires to become a real estate salesman, and eventually to obtain a broker's license. He is married, has a child, and is employed at a West Palm Beach newspaper. He was most candid and forthright in his testimony and appeared to the undersigned to have rehabilitated himself by reason of good conduct and lapse of time since his 1984 conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application for licensure as by examination as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 31st day of October, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction for which his real estate license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints filed pursuant to, inter alia, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, John Wilson Claffey, is now and was at times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in Florida, having been issued licensed number 0419730. The last license issued was as a salesperson, c/o Venice Properties and Investments, Inc., 628 Cypress Avenue, Venice, Florida. During 1985, Respondent and Mary Lou Retty (Retty), while Respondent was acting as the licensed general contractor in the employ of Venice Construction Management, Inc., entered into a verbal agreement to build five commercial structures (for Retty) in Venice, Florida. The agreement provided that Respondent would charge Retty actual costs plus a supervisory fee for each building. Respondent built the first two buildings as agreed in keeping with the projections he provided Retty. However, a dispute later arose between Respondent and Retty during construction of the third building about some of the billings and other accounting practices with the end result that Retty suspected that Respondent was overcharging by falsifying invoices and purchasing materials which were used for other projects, but were charged to the building he was erecting for Retty. During 1986, Retty filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for Sarasota County, Florida. Retty's object was to recover monies that she suspected Respondent had misappropriated and wrongfully charged to her project. On April 25, 1990 and June 28, 1990, Retty obtained two final judgments. The first judgment ordered Respondent to pay Retty $40,263.47 and the second final judgment ordered him to pay her the sum of $10,263.47 for civil theft, attorney fees and court costs. The interest rate for both judgments was 12% per annum. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4.) During counsel's preparation and discovery for trial, it became evident that Respondent altered several billing invoices which he sought to collect from Retty. Respondent submitted falsified invoices and charged Retty for materials that he used on other projects. Respondent unsuccessfully appealed the final judgments. To date, Respondent has not paid any of the monies he was ordered to pay in the final judgments referenced herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Respondent engaged in proscribed conduct as alleged and that his real estate license be suspended for seven (7) years. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Claffey pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1993, 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 29th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR- Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Wilson Claffey 312 Venice Avenue East #126 Venice, Florida 34292 Darlene F. Keller/Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Hurston Building-North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 1772 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(e) and (1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is 58 years old. He is employed full-time as a real estate sales associate. Respondent holds an active real estate sales associate license. His license number is SL706350. The license was issued to Respondent based upon his sworn application for licensure submitted on or about March 14, 2001. Question No. 9 on the license application asked whether Respondent had “ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if [he] received a withhold of adjudication.” The following explanation is provided as part of the question: This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer “NO” because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering “NO.” (Emphasis supplied) Immediately following Question No. 9 is the following statement in all capital letters: YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE OR THE DENIAL OF A REAL ESTATE LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR THE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE. Respondent checked the box marked “NO” for Question No. 9 on the application that he submitted. Respondent’s negative answer to Question No. 9 was a material misstatement of his criminal record. On March 27, 1972, Respondent pled guilty to attempted robbery in the third degree in the Erie County Court in New York. The offense was a felony. On May 5, 1972, Respondent was sentenced to five years of probation for that offense. Respondent’s probation was revoked on January 14, 1974, and he was sentenced to “the care and custody of the NY State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission for an indefinite period of 60 months.” The latter sentence ran concurrently with a sentence imposed for another offense, the substance of which is not reflected in the record. On August 3, 1992, the Erie County Court issued a Certificate of Relief From Disabilities to Respondent, which relieved him of “all disabilities and bars to employment, excluding the right to be eligible for public office.” The certificate expressly states that it “shall NOT be deemed nor construed to be a pardon,” and it is limited to the “crime or offense specified [t]herein.” The Certificate of Relief From Disabilities makes no mention of expungement or sealing of the records related to the enumerated offense. The only offense enumerated in the Certificate of Relief From Disabilities is the third degree attempted robbery conviction with a sentence date of May 5, 1972. No other offenses are mentioned. On February 18, 1993, the New York Executive Department, Board of Parole, issued a Certificate of Good Conduct to Respondent. The certificate referenced three offenses: the third degree attempted robbery conviction discussed above; a second degree robbery conviction with a sentence date of May 8, 1975; and a federal distribution of heroine conviction with a sentence date of May 1, 1978. The purpose of the Certificate of Good Conduct was to “remove all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license and privilege except those pertaining to firearms . . . and except the right to be eligible for public office.” The certificate states that it “shall be considered permanent.” The Certificate of Good Conduct makes no mention of expungement or sealing of the records related to the enumerated offenses. Respondent testified that his negative answer to Question No. 9 was based upon his understanding of the legal effect of the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and the Certificate of Good Conduct. Specifically, Respondent testified that although he understood that the certificates did not “remove” his criminal history or expunge his records, it was his understanding that the certificates provided him a “safe harbor” to answer “no” to Question No. 9 because all legal bars to employment had been removed by the certificates. Respondent’s understanding regarding the legal effect of the certificates and his obligation to disclose his prior offenses based upon the certificates was based, in part, on advice he received from an attorney in New York. Respondent knew that the Department would learn of his criminal history through the background check based upon the fingerprint card that he submitted with his license application, and he credibly testified that he did not intend to mislead the Department regarding his criminal history through his negative answer to Question No. 9. Respondent was unaware at the time he submitted his license application that the Department and/or the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) processed applications in which no criminal history was disclosed differently than applications in which a criminal history is disclosed.2 Respondent’s understanding regarding the legal effect of the certificates was erroneous. Respondent acknowledged as much in his testimony at the final hearing (Tr. 54) and in his PRO (at ¶29). The record does not establish precise legal effect of the certificates,3 but it is inferred that the certificates restore the civil rights that Respondent lost due to his felony convictions. It is also inferred that the reason that the Certificate of Good Conduct does not mention Respondent’s misdemeanor offenses (See Endnote 5) even though it was issued after those offenses is because misdemeanor convictions typically do not result is the loss of civil rights as is the case with felony convictions.4 Neither of the certificates expunge or seal any of Respondent’s criminal records and, contrary to his understanding at the time, the certificates did not excuse Respondent from disclosing his criminal offenses in response to Question No. 9 on the license application. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent was convicted of third degree attempted robbery, a felony, in 1972; that the offense was not sealed or expunged; and that Respondent failed to disclose that conviction on his license application when he answered “no” to Question No. 9.5 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent intentionally misrepresented or fraudulently concealed his criminal history from the Department by answering “no” to Question No. 9.6 To contrary, the evidence establishes that Respondent’s negative answer to Question No. 9 was based upon his good faith, albeit erroneous belief, that he was not required to disclose his prior criminal offenses in light of the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and/or the Certificate of Good Conduct. It has been 34 years since Respondent’s third degree attempted robbery conviction, which is the basis of the Administrative Complaint. It has been more than 18 years since Respondent’s last criminal offense, which was a misdemeanor petit larceny offense. All of Respondent’s criminal offenses occurred in the state of New York. He has remained out of trouble with the law since he came to Florida in 2000. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action, other than this proceeding, since receiving his license. Respondent did not present the testimony of any character witnesses, but he credibly testified that he has completely turned his life around since the time of his criminal offenses in New York. Respondent served in the U.S. Air Force Security Service in Viet Nam. He was honorably discharged. Respondent was licensed as a mental health counselor in New York and Virginia prior to coming to Florida and obtaining his real estate sales associate license. Respondent testified that he was required to disclose his criminal background and undergo a background check in order to obtain those licenses; that he did not disclose his criminal background on the license applications based upon his understanding of the certificates described above; that his criminal background was not an issue to the licensing agencies in New York and Virginia, even though it was not disclosed on his license applications; and that this experience (along with the advice he received from the attorney in New York) led him to believe that his criminal records were sealed and need not be disclosed. Respondent offered no evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony, and it is given very little weight because it is unknown how, if at all, the disclosure requirements and licensure regimes for mental health counselors in New York and Virginia compare with the disclosure requirements and licensure regime for real estate sales associates in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order that: finds Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count I of the Administrative Complaint); finds Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2) and, hence, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Count II of the Administrative Complaint); imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; suspends Respondent’s license for 30 days; places Respondent on probation for one year after the end of the suspension period; and imposes the costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is now and has been since about September 9, 1988, a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida. She was issued license number 0523257. The last license issued was as a salesman, in care of Hammocks Properties, Inc., 9290 Hammocks Boulevard, #404, Miami, Florida 33196, with a home address of 7390 Northwest 48th Street, Lauderhill, Florida 33319-3401, listed with the Florida Real Estate Commission as of April 10, 1990. Prior to obtaining her initial real estate salesman's license, the Respondent filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In that application the Respondent represented that all the answers and statements in the application were true and correct, and as complete as her knowledge, information, and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever. Question 6 on the application form read 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?" The Respondent's answer was, "Yes." The second part of Question 6 read as follows: "If you answered "Yes," please state the details including dates and outcome in full. (Use separate sheet if necessary.)" The Respondent's answer to this part of Question 6 was as follows: "I pleaded guilty to a third degree conspiracy, in 1982 in New Jersey involving an insurance claim." By letter dated February 3, 1988, Ms. Ruth Clayton, Supervisor of Application Certification, wrote to the Respondent seeking more details regarding the Respondent's answer to Question 6. By means of an undated letter, which was received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on February 17, 1988, the Respondent replied to Ms. Clayton's further inquiry about her answer to Question 6 on the application. The letter requesting clarification asked the following specific questions: "What was involved? Was it monies, etc? If a monetary value was involved advise us of the value. What was the court's disposition of the matter? Are you on any type of probation or parole?" The Respondent's letter of reply read as follows, in material part: I am replying to your letter of February 3, 1988 with regards to question #6. I was a part owner of a property in New Jersey in 1982 that was damaged. I did not commit any crime, did not make an insurance claim, and received no monetary gain. I was advised by the police without an attorney present to plead guilty to a third degree crime as part of a plea-bargain. This was to save my family from the strain, embarrassment, and expense of a lengthy trial. There was to be no trial and no punishment. I was placed in an Intensive Supervision Program for one year in which my only restriction was not to leave the state of New Jersey without permission. I am not currently, nor was I ever on any type of probation or parole. This is a matter which happened in 1982 in which I signed a document against my interest without knowing the consequences. I was never involved in a criminal matter before, nor after till this date. I am a moral, ethical, law abiding person and have raised five beautiful children. I have been in my own business for the past fifteen years and have never been involved in any litigation. On March 14, 1983, the Grand Jury in Monmouth County, New Jersey, issued a fourteen-count indictment against Frida Koren and others. The indictment alleged that the defendants had committed various crimes in the course of a criminal scheme to set fire to a house owned by the Respondent and her husband. Four of the fourteen courts alleged criminal conduct by the Respondent. On May 12, 1983, the Respondent retracted a plea of not guilty to all counts and entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment. The essence of Count 2 was an allegation that the Respondent and the other defendants "... did commit the crime of conspiracy in that they unlawfully agreed with each other to commit the crime of arson, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission...." The caption to Count 2 describes it as a "third degree crime." On October 28, 1983, the Respondent was sentenced to a prison term of 5 years with a minimum parole ineligibility of 2.5 years. By order dated April 17, 1984, the sentence was modified to delete the parole ineligibility clause and to add a fine of $7,500.00. On June 25, 1984, the Respondent was released into the Intensive Supervision Program for a trial period. On January 11, 1985, the Respondent was resentenced into the Intensive Supervision Program for 5 years. By subsequent order, the Respondent was discharged from supervision of the Intensive Supervision Program as of August 9, 1985.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order in this case concluding that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the charge against the Respondent and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of September 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0448 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. (It is an accurate conclusion of law.) Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6 and 7: Rejected as irrelevant, because there is no issue in this case regarding the Respondent's citizenship. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Accepted, with some additional facts in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 10: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: The first eight unnumbered paragraphs of findings proposed by the Respondent are accepted. The remaining unnumbered paragraphs of findings proposed by the Respondent are all rejected as constituting argument or proposed conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Dean J. Trantalis, Esquire Arvida Parkway Center 7900 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33434 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Brian Rothschild, Respondent, was registered with the Florida Board of Real Estate as a real estate salesman and was employed by Mascar Realty, Inc. Thomas Palumbo was the active broker for Mascar Realty, Inc. On 15 January 1981 Respondent obtained a listing contract on a residence from Annette Seidman. This exclusive right of sale was for a six- month period and provided for a commission of ten percent (10 percent) upon sale. The contract was accepted by Palumbo as broker and active firm member. Shortly after executing the listing contract Mrs. Seidman became dissatisfied with the services of Respondent, her husband became ill and also faced a jail sentence for contempt of court, and she wanted to take the house off the market. She communicated the desire to take the house off the market to Respondent. Respondent communicated this information to Palumbo, who sent Mrs. Seidman a letter largely drafted by Respondent (Exhibit 2). Subsequently, Mrs. Seidman talked with Palumbo, told him of her personal problems, advised that she would reimburse Mascar Realty for the costs incurred in servicing the listing agreement, and that she was not satisfied with Respondent. Two incidents which disturbed Mrs. Seidman occurred when she returned home following an open house held by Respondent at her residence. One of these incidents was the presence of several young girls outside the house talking to Respondent, and another was seeing Respondent remove a pistol from the waistband of his trousers and place it in his briefcase as he prepared to leave. Upon receipt of this information and the agreement by Mrs. Seidman to reimburse the realty firm, coupled with his belief that the house would not sell at the asking price, Palumbo released Mrs. Seidman from the listing agreement. After executing the release Palumbc called Respondent into his office and told him he had released the listing. Respondent testified that Palumbo fired him; Palumbo testified Respondent resigned and he (Palumbo) was happy to have Respondent go. Whichever version is true is not material. Shortly after his employment was terminated with Mascar Realty, Respondent filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Broward County against Annette Seidman for the commission he would have earned had he sold the house, and for other damages allegedly resulting from the termination of the listing agreement. He also filed a notice of lis pendens in the property records of Broward County which was not authorized by the owner of the property against which it was filed. The complaint was dismissed by the Circuit Court and Respondent has appealed this decision to the District Court of Appeal. As the result of the complaint and appeal filed by Respondent, Mrs. Seidman has incurred expenses for attorney's fees which she would not have incurred had the complaint and lis pendens not been filed.
Findings Of Fact Evidence reveals that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. Said application revealed that Defendant, Frank Viruet, was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice president of the Company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; and that Lee Klien was to become president and Director of the company. The application also revealed that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket #2357); that Lee Klien is the sister of Carol Bauman; and that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman (Progress Docket #2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing the above corporate application For registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that at each such change, new application For corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Further, the stated offices and Active Firm Member Broker remained the same. Thus, For all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. As to Count One of the complaint, according to the certificate of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, 1976, (which was offered and received into evidence without objections), during the period November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate, no registration was issued to or held by either of the three corporations above referred to. This was confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, evidence reveals that Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., entered a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation). The unrebutted testimony by Plaintiff Reagan was that he observed during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 (2nd Floor). A similar display on the building directory appeared on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness, Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company, testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in said room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., and that from January 1 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 phone calls were made from such phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman and Bernard Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but did not recall nor introduce records as to how many calls were in fact made. Jeffrey Bauman testified that Frank Viruet had also made phone calls from the stated phones but did not state whether they were solicitations. On this point, Frank Viruet denied making solicitation calls although he admitted using the phone For other purposes. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing received. He further testified that upon being advised, by the investigator with the Commission, that the operation was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company, and that all who were engaged in real estate activities For said company were in violation of the licensing law, the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was confirmed by nominal Plaintiff Reagan. Frank Viruet denied having knowledge of real estate activities being conducted by the Baumans. He further denied knowledge that office space in Room 212 of the Nankin Building was occupied by Land Re- Sale Service, Inc. and used by the Bauman's. He admitted to signing the application For registration which was submitted to the Commission as the corporate Active Firm Member Broker to be. As to Count Two, evidence established as stated above, that defendants Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, the Baumans, admitted by their own testimony that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers either intrastate or nationwide. Bernard Bauman testified that no money was ever returned to senders. There was no evidence received to show that Defendant Frank Viruet knew that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation; nor that Viruet was aware that solicitations were being made. As to Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the acts and doings set out in Counts One and Two establish a course of conduct by defendants upon which revocation of their registration should issue.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Marcus J. Brown f11ed an application for the issuance of a Class "C" license on Apr11 8, 1982 with Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing. That license authorizes a licensee to Perform private investigative work. After reviewing the application, Respondent denied the same on June 26, 1982 on the ground Petitioner did not possess the requisite experience required by Subsection 493.306(4), Florida Statutes, The denial Precipitated the instant proceeding. Petitioner is a licensed real estate salesman, He supports himself through his activities as a real estate salesman and "Personal business activities." Between 1979 and Apr11, 1982, Petitioner performed investigative work on three cases involving real estate transactions. The work wad performed on a Part-time basis on behalf of two attorneys and a real estate broker in the Miami area. One of the cases is st11l pending. The work involved, inter alia, interviewing witnesses, researching corporate records, and securing documents for use at trial. Petitioner had a personal interest in the outcome of all three cases, and at least one involved an effort by him to secure an unpaid real estate commission due him. He has received no compensation for his services as an investigator to date. Petitioner has no college course work related to private investigation nor has he worked as a licensed intern.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it RECOMMENDED that the application of Marcus J., Brown for licensure as a private investigator be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Bu11ding 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 F11ed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December,1982.
Findings Of Fact According to petitioner's uncontroverted testimony, he signed the notarized application for licensure as a real estate salesman, dated March 30, 1983, and gave the otherwise blank form, along with a separate piece of paper on which he had written answers to questions appearing on the form, to an employee of a real estate school he attended. The form was to be completed and mailed without his seeing it again; this was customary, he explained. On the separate piece of paper, he wrote answers to every question but number six, which asks: 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? Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. An anonymous typist supplied the word "no," and typed "NA" in the blank following the instructions, "If yes, state details including the outcome in full." Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. In fact, petitioner was arrested on January 29, 1971, and subsequently convicted for failure to appear in court on traffic charges in Pensacola. On October 28, 1976, petitioner was arrested on bad check charges. He pleaded guilty and was convicted on two counts on November 12, 1976. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. On January 10, 1977, petitioner was convicted of seven additional counts of "worthless checks." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Later the same month, also in Pensacola, he was adjudicated guilty of another such offense. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Petitioner's next brush with the law was his apprehension and, in Pensacola, on May 11, 1978, conviction for indecent exposure. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. On October 10, 1978, petitioner failed to appear for a trial scheduled on still another bad check charge. As a result, he was adjudicated guilty of contempt of the County Court of Escambia County. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. At the hearing in the present proceedings, he first testified that he had not been adjudicated guilty of this charge, then said that this conviction was reversed on appeal. In giving this second version of events, petitioner recounted a highly improbable appellate hearing. He described in detail being present at oral argument on the appeal before a panel of three circuit judges, whom he named, and reported that his lawyer argued for reversal against the county judge who appeared in person to argue for affirmance of the contempt conviction. On April 9, 1979, petitioner was convicted of five counts of making and utilizing forged instruments. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. These instruments purported to be checks drawn on his grandmother's account. Probation imposed on account of earlier charges was revoked at the same time. In addition, he was adjudicated guilty of writing numerous bad checks. Respondent's Exhibit 9. On this as on other occasions, he spent time in jail. He never spent more than four months in jail at one stretch, however. He was convicted in Pensacola on May 20, 1981, of writing two more checks against insufficient funds, each for $500. Petitioner claimed to be current on his child support payments and testified that he thinks he is honest and honorable. Before counsel for respondent produced the court records at hearing, petitioner, while under oath, misrepresented his criminal record in various respects. Petitioner's civil rights, except for the right to bear arms, were restored administratively on September 23, 1982. The second time he applied for licensure as a real estate salesman, petitioner answered question six more candidly. Both parties made posthearing submissions. Proposed findings of fact have been considered and adopted, in substance, for the most part. Proposed fact findings have been rejected where unsupported by the evidence, immaterial, subordinate or cumulative.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 8th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room 212, 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Douglas Michael Burleson Post Office Box 18045 Pensacola, Florida 32523 Randy Schwartz 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 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
