The Issue Whether Respondent timely filed a quarterly report as required under chapter 560, Florida Statutes (2015), or related rules.
Findings Of Fact OFR is the state agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of chapter 560, related to licensing of money services businesses, a term that includes money transmitter services, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Respondent is a money services business and has license number FT30800590. Respondent operates as a check casher, and is located at 3220 Sydney Dover Road, Dover, Florida. Every Florida licensed check casher is required to submit quarterly reports to OFR in a format which includes information specified by rule. See § 560.118(2), Fla. Stat. The due date for a check casher to have filed its money services business quarterly report for the quarter ending December 31, 2014, was February 16, 2015. OFR sent a reminder to Respondent within ten days following December 31, 2014, to file the quarterly report. OFR sent seven additional e-mails before the deadline advising Respondent to file the quarterly report within the deadline. On March 6, 2015, Respondent filed the quarterly report in the proper format; however, it was 18 days after the applicable filing deadline. OFR determined that Respondent’s late filing of the quarterly report is a “Class A” violation pursuant to rule 69V- 560.1000(39) and (150). OFR determined the appropriate penalty to be a $1,000 fine. Mr. Grosmaire’s testimony on the basis of OFR’s imposition of the $1,000 fine is credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Amjad J. Hijaz Mexican American Grocery 1105 Spurwood Court Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) William Michael Oglo, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Fletcher Building, Suite 550 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0376 (eServed) Eric O. Husby, Esquire 2001 West Cleveland Street Tampa, Florida 33606 (eServed) Drew J. Breakspear, Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 (eServed) Colin M. Roopnarine, General Counsel Office of Financial Regulation The Fletcher Building, Suite 118 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0370 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent Claude DuVoisin holds a current, active certified building contractor's license. He has been in the construction business since 1958, when he began in New Jersey. In 1970, respondent moved to Florida, where he has been principally engaged in building "luxury, custom" single family homes. He has built approximately 100 such homes in Florida and, until recently, ordinarily had five to seven under construction at any one time. On January 23, 1976, respondent, as president of Claude, L. D., Inc., borrowed from the Landmark Bank of Plantation the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) at 9 percent interest, and signed a promissory note in that amount by which he committed the corporation to repay principal in ten equal monthly installments, unless demand should earlier be made for repayment of the entire indebtedness. The note provided for payment of interest monthly as it accrued. Claude, L. D., Inc., was a Florida contracting corporation controlled by respondent, until its involuntary dissolution on December 11, 1976. Respondent caused the corporation to make installment payments in accordance with the terms of the note on February 23, 1976, on March 31, 1976 (approximately a week late), and on April 23, 1976, but the corporation made no payment in May of 1976. The payment due May 23, 1976, was made on June 8, 1976. On May 31, 1976, Al and Bessie Seamon entered into a written contract with Claude L. D., Inc., under which the corporation agreed to erect a single family residence on a Broward County site owned by the Seamons, in exchange for one hundred forty-seven thousand dollars ($147,000.00), Even before the agreement was executed, the Seamons paid Claude L. D, Inc., one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). The day after the contract was signed, one of the Seamons called from New York, requesting certain changes in the plans, which resulted in two months' delay in starting work under the contract. As work progressed, the Seamons requested more than 100 additional changes. One of these changes, involving the texture of the plaster on certain inside walls, was reduced to writing and signed by the parties to the original contract. From time to time, the Seamons made installment payments under the contract. By January 18, 1977, those payments aggregated eighty-eight thousand four hundred twenty-one and seventy-four hundredths dollars ($88,421.74). Respondent caused these moneys to be deposited in accounts belonging to Claude L. D., Inc., the same accounts from which the loan to Landmark Bank of Plantation was repaid, and from which were made disbursements for labor and materials for the half dozen houses Claude L. D., Inc., had under construction, including the Seamons'. No money from corporate accounts was diverted to respondent's personal use. When Mr. Seamon received a notice of lien from a roofing contractor with whom respondent had subcontracted, he inquired of respondent why the roofer had not been paid. Respondent said there was a crack in the roof he wanted the roofer to repair before being paid. Later the Seamons received a notice of lien from the contractor who installed the intercom system in the house. The Seamons had dealt directly with the intercom contractor, but the notices of lien raised questions in their minds and a meeting was scheduled with respondent. In January or February of 1977, respondent and his wife met the Seamons in a model home respondent had built. When the Seamons asked for an accounting of all moneys paid pursuant to the contract, respondent indicated that part of the money had gone to repay the loan from Landmark Bank of Plantation. Ms. Jeanne Klinger accompanied the Seamons to a second meeting, at a lawyer's office, where respondent again indicated that some of the money paid by the Seamons had been used to pay back a bank loan. On April 18, 1977, Respondent filed a petition in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Respondent did not complete construction of the Seamons' home. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stucky's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which appears as an appendix to the order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's certified building contractor's license be suspended until and unless respondent is discharged in bankruptcy. That respondent be on probation for a period of one year following restoration of his certified building con tractor's license, and that respondent be required to keep separate accounts for each project or operation with which he becomes involved while on probation. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 APPENDIX Paragraph one of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, but much of the paragraph consists of proposed conclusions of law, which have not been adopted. Paragraph two of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, but much of the paragraph consists of proposed conclusions of law, which have not been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Keith L. Rinehart, Esquire Suite 202 5353 North Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for self-insurance for workers' compensation should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses' testimony and the documentary evidence received into evidence, the following relevant and material facts that follow are determined. The Florida Self-Insurers Guaranty Association, Inc. (Association), is established by Section 440.385, Florida Statutes (2003), and is an organization that provides a guarantee for workers' compensation benefits for companies that are self-insured. The Association pays injured workers their benefits, if the self-insurer becomes insolvent. An insolvency fund is established and managed by the Association, which funds the workers' compensation benefits for insolvent members. The insolvency fund is funded by assessments from members of the Association. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.102 (formerly Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-5.102), in order for an employer to qualify for self-insurance under the relevant provisions of law, the applicant must meet the following requirements: (1) have and maintain a minimum net worth of $1,000,000; (2) have at least three years of financial statements or summaries; (3) if the name of the business has changed in the last three years, provide a copy of the Amended Articles of Incorporation; and (4) have the financial strength to ensure the payment of current and estimated future compensation claims when due, as determined through review of their financial statement or summary by the Department. Of the general requirements noted in paragraph 3, above, the only issue in this proceeding regards N.C.M.'s financial strength. An applicant for self-insurance is required to submit in its application audited financial statements for its three most recent years. All financial statements, audits, and other financial information must be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Association is required to review each application and the financial documents which are submitted as part of that application to determine if the applicant has the financial strength to ensure the timely payment of all current and future workers' compensation claims. After the Association reviews the application, it makes a recommendation to the Department as to whether the application for self-insurance should be approved or denied. The Department is required by law to accept the Association's recommendations unless it finds that the recommendations are clearly and convincingly erroneous. N.C.M. submitted its application for self-insurance on or about May 6, 2003, and included in its application audited financial statements for its three most recent fiscal years. The statement contained an unqualified opinion from N.C.M.'s accountant. N.C.M. provided information in its application regarding the number of employees, the worker classifications of these employees, and a payroll classification rating that has been established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance. The application made it clear that the Department could use this information to calculate a manual annual rate premium for each worker classification to determine an overall workers' compensation premium based on statewide manual rates. The Association calculated a standard premium of $507,088.75 for N.C.M., after giving credit for its experience modification of .71. N.C.M. confirmed in its application that it was a corporation duly organized and existing in the State of Florida. N.C.M. also supplied information on its corporate officers and copies of its Articles of Incorporation confirming its corporate existence. In its application and at the hearing, N.C.M. agreed that, if accepted for membership, it will maintain security deposits and excess insurance as required by the Department's administrative rules. Upon receipt of N.C.M.'s application, the Association thoroughly reviewed the application and financial statements for the three most recent years. The Association examined the balance sheets to analyze the Company's assets, liabilities, working capital, and equity structure. Additionally, the Association examined N.C.M.'s income statements to analyze the Company's revenues, profits and/or losses, and expenses. The Company's cash flows were examined. The Association calculated various financial ratios for N.C.M. in order to examine, among other things, the company's asset structure, liquidity, total debt to equity structure, and net income or loss as it relates to the company's equity. The analysis and review performed by the Association, as described in paragraph 12, is the same type of analysis the Association performs on every applicant for self-insurance. Because applicants for self-insurance come from various types of industries, it is not useful to establish specific threshold values for various financial ratios in determining financial strength. However, the Association reviews and analyzes the financial statements of each applicant to determine the financial condition of that applicant. The Association's review of N.C.M.'s audited financial statements revealed that the Company had a net loss of $60,937 in the year ending December 31, 2002. The Company also had a loss from operations in its most recent year in the amount of $74,897, or negative .62 of its revenues. This was a significant factor to the Association because it revealed N.C.M.'s lack of profitability for its most recent year. Petitioner's tax return of 2002 showed a profit for the Company. However, the tax returns are not meant to reflect the economic profit of a business and are not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Rather, the audited financial statements provide more accurate information about the Company’s financial health. N.C.M.'s 2002 net worth was $1,218,895, which exceeded the $1,000,000 minimum net worth requirement established in the applicable rule cited in paragraph 3 above. However, the Association was concerned about N.C.M.'s net worth when taken as a percentage of its workers' compensation premiums, calculated by using the payroll classification information in N.C.M.'s application. The analysis of N.C.M.'s net worth as a percentage of workers' compensation premiums is important because workers' compensation claims can accrue each year and be paid out over a long period of time by the self-insurer. A company with equity that is relatively low in comparison to its workers' compensation exposure might, over time, owe its injured workers as much as, or more than, the equity in the company. This would increase the risk for the injured worker. Upon completing its financial analysis, the Association recommended that N.C.M.'s application for self- insurance be denied. Brian Gee, the executive director of the Association, conveyed the recommendation of denial to the Department in two letters, one dated May 12, 2003, and the other one dated June 19, 2003. The letters were virtually identical, except that the June 19, 2003, letter referred to the specific statute at issue and statutory language that N.C.M. did not have the financial strength necessary to ensure timely payment of all current and future claims. Attached to both the May 12, 2003, and June 19, 2003, letters was a copy of the Association's summary of N.C.M.'s audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000. Based on the review of the financial data, the Association made the following four findings, which it listed in both letters: The Company received unqualified audit opinions on its December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000 financial statements from Rust & Christopher, P.A. Liquidity - The current ratio has decreased from 1.34 at December 31, 2000 to 1.13 at December 31, 2002. Capital Structure - The total liabilities to book equity ratio has increased since December 31, 2000 from 1.39 to 1.99 at December 31, 2002. Results of Operations - The Company's gross profit margin has negative 0.62 for the year ended December 31, 2002. The Company reported a net loss of $60,937 for the year ended December 31, 2002. Although the above-referenced letters listed findings relative to the Company's liquidity and capital structure, Mr. Gee did not believe that those findings were of "major significance." The Association's letters and accompanying financial data were submitted to the Department for a final decision to be made by the Department. The Department received and reviewed the Association's letters of recommendation and the accompanying documentation. Based on its review of the letter, the Department noted that the Association appeared to have concerns about the Company's liquidity, liabilities, and profitability. However, there was nothing in the letters which indicated that the Association did not consider the findings related to the Company's liquidity and liabilities (capital structure) to be of major significance. The Department sent N.C.M.'s application, which included the financial statements, to an outside CPA firm for review. The outside CPA performed a financial analysis, calculated various financial ratios on N.C.M., and provided a report to the Department. The outside CPA correctly noted in her report that N.C.M.'s gross profit margin for the year ended December 31, 2002, was 15.4 percent. In Finding No. 4 of its letters of recommendation to the Department, the Association had mistakenly mislabeled the Company's net profit margin as the gross profit margin. As a result of that mislabeling in the letters, the finding incorrectly stated that N.C.M.'s gross profit margin was a negative 0.62 percent for the year ending December 31, 2002. In fact, it was the Company's net profit margin for the year ending December 31, 2001, that was negative 0.62 percent. Notwithstanding the incorrect mislabeling of this item in the letters, the financial summary attached to the letters accurately reflected the Company's gross profits and revenue. The financial statement of N.C.M. also reflected that for the year ending 2002, the Company had a gross profit of $1,877,076, and for that same period had a loss from operations of $74,897, or negative .62 percent. The outside CPA also compared various financial information on N.C.M. to an industry average and concluded that "some of the Company's ratios are below the industry ratios." In making these comparisons, the outside CPA researched two companies she believed were in a business similar to N.C.M. The research on these companies provided an industry average for various financial information on companies in the same industry as the two reference companies. In this case, the two reference companies were primarily producers or sellers of concrete products, as opposed to construction companies like N.C.M. Accordingly, the industry ratios contained in the outside CPA's report may be different than the construction industry and not an appropriate basis with which to compare N.C.M. The report of the outside CPA stated that N.C.M. pays approximately $1,000,000 a year in workers' compensation insurance. That figure is higher than the premiums calculated by the Association using statewide manual rates. Instead of using those rates, the outside CPA based her figure on a newspaper article, which stated that Mr. DelDuca, president of N.C.M., pays $1,000,000 for workers' compensation insurance. In her report, the outside CPA cited N.C.M.'s lack of profitability for the year ending 2002 and correctly noted that for that year, the Company reported a net loss of $60,937. The outside CPA notified the Department that she concurred with the Association's recommendation to deny N.C.M.'s application to become self-insured because the Company had not demonstrated it has the financial strength to ensure timely payment of workers' compensation claims. The Department reviewed the outside CPA's report and noted the concerns about the company's debt equity and lack of profitability. Based on the outside CPA's report, the Department correctly determined that the report contained no information that the Association's recommendation was clearly and convincingly erroneous. As a result of its determination that the Association's recommendation to deny N.C.M.'s application for self-insurance was not clearly or convincingly erroneous, the Department denied the application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying N.C.M. of Collier County, Inc.'s application for self-insurance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Alford, Esquire 542 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Mark B. Cohn, Esquire McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., L.P.A. 1800 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1088 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with responsibility for prosecuting administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate salesman in the state, holding license number 0189734. The license was last issued as a salesperson %Say Realty & Investments, Inc., 6306 Pembroke Road, Hollywood, Florida 33023. Respondent was employed as a salesperson with Sales Alvin, Inc. from June 28, 1990, to March 10, 1991. Respondent's license was placed with Say Realty and Investments, Inc. effective March 11, 1991. During the time Respondent was employed by Sales Alvin, Inc., she carried out a series of acts in connection with the listing for rent of a condominium without the knowledge and consent of her employing broker. While Respondent was a salesperson for Sales Alvin, Inc., on or about February 19, 1991, Respondent listed an unfurnished condominium for rent at a monthly rental price of $700. The condominium was owned by Mr. Roy Barrett. Respondent listed the rental unit, and Alon Granovsky, another salesperson employed by Sales Alvin, Inc., procured a tenant for the condominium. Respondent drafted a lease between the tenant and the owner of the condominium on or about February 21, 1991. Respondent collected a check from the tenant in the amount of $2,100 for payment of the initial rent and security deposit. Respondent then delivered the check to the owner of the condominium, and the owner gave Respondent a receipt for $2,100. Respondent gave Mr. Granovsky a personal check for $210 on or about February 21, 1991, as a commission for procuring the tenant for the condominium. Respondent did not inform her employing broker of the rental transaction or that she had given a commission check to Mr. Granovsky. Mr. Granovsky disclosed the transaction to his employing broker and delivered his commission check to his broker. Respondent's broker gained additional knowledge of the transaction when he received a money order from the tenant in the amount of $700 for the rent due for the month of March. Respondent's employing broker confronted Respondent regarding the transaction. Respondent provided her employing broker with a personal check for $350 as a portion of the commission due the employing broker and subsequently delivered the balance of the commission due. The entire commission was disbursed by the employing broker. While employed by Sales Alvin, Inc., on or about March 3, 1991, Respondent solicited and obtained a listing for the sale of a house. Respondent provided the owners of the house with a Sellers Net Sheet on the letter head and form used by Sales Alvin, Inc. The Sellers Net Sheet approximated the cash to seller at closing if the house sold at the listed price. Respondent became employed by Say Realty and Investment, Inc., on or about March 11, 1991. Respondent listed the house while she was employed by Sales Alvin, Inc. When Respondent placed the house in the multiple listing service ("MLS"), she showed Say Realty and Investment, Inc., as the listing broker. When the brokers at Sales Alvin, Inc. questioned the listing with Say Realty and Investment, Inc., the listing was transferred to Sales Alvin, Inc. Respondent has no history of prior disciplinary action against her license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's license for 90 days, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000, and placing Respondent on probation for one year subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 January, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the statutes and rules alleged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed against Respondents.
Findings Of Fact OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing chapter 560, Florida Statutes, including part II related to money services businesses. At all times material hereto, Payservices has been a foreign corporation and part II licensee pursuant to chapter 560, specifically a "money services business," as defined in section 560.102(22), and "money transmitter," as defined in section 560.102(23).4/ At all times material hereto, Mr. Danenberg has been the chief executive officer, compliance officer, and an owner of Payservices. As such, Mr. Danenberg is an "affiliated party" and a "responsible person" as defined in sections 560.103(1) and 560.103(33). Count I Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to annually file a financial audit report within 120 days after the end of the licensee's fiscal year. The financial audit report is prepared by a certified public accountant and is used to demonstrate to OFR that the licensee has the financial health to conduct its business and transmit funds within the State of Florida. Payservices' fiscal year ends December 31st. Respondents were required to provide Payservices' 2016 financial audit report to OFR by no later than May 1, 2017. On December 20, 2017, William C. Morin, Jr., OFR's Chief of the Bureau of Registration, contacted Payservices by email with regard to Payservices' failure to timely file a financial audit report within 120 days after the 2016 fiscal year ended. Mr. Danenberg responded by email that same day, telling Mr. Morin that Payservices' accountant had prepared a financial audit report "many months ago," and that it was his "impression" that it had been uploaded to the REAL system "at some point when we filed the quarterly reports." Mr. Danenberg attached to his December 20, 2017, email what OFR accepted as the financial audit report that same day. Notably, the document indicated it was prepared by a certified public accountant on June 15, 2017, after the May 1, 2017, deadline. In any event, Mr. Morin reviewed the REAL system regarding Payservices and determined there were no problems with the REAL system's ability to accept uploaded documents. Mr. Morin testified that he could see on the REAL system that Payservices successfully uploaded a quarterly report and Security Device Calculation Form on January 26, 2017, which created a transaction number. Mr. Morin also observed that Payservices started to upload its financial audit report, which would create a transaction number, but no financial audit report was actually attached and uploaded to the REAL system on January 26, 2017, under that transaction number. According to Mr. Morin, Payservices may have attempted to start to file a financial audit report on January 26, 2017, but it did not complete the transaction because no financial audit report was attached. At hearing, Mr. Morin acknowledged that: "When I looked at the Financial Audit Report transaction, nothing was attached. And I also know that the functionality of the REAL system will kind of allow for the transaction to be completed and nothing attached." Tr. p. 100. Mr. Morin testified that Mr. Danenberg was cooperative when he was contacted on Decemeber 20, 2017, and submitted the financial audit report. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not submit their financial audit report to OFR until December 20, 2017, almost eight months after the May 1, 2017, deadline. Count II Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to annually file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, by January 31st of each calendar year for the preceding calendar year. The Security Device Calculation Form requires licensees to report to OFR the dollar amount of transactions with Florida consumers. The dollar amount of transactions identified in the form is then utilized by OFR to determine if additional collateral is necessary to protect Florida consumers in the event a claim is made against the collateral for monies that were not properly transmitted by the licensee. Andrew Grosmaire, OFR's Chief of Enforcement in the Division of Consumer Finance, acknowledged at hearing that a licensee has 60 days to amend the face value of its surety bond, should an increase be required, and that at all times material hereto, the value of Payservices' surety bond has been correct for the minimum amount required. Nevertheless, Mr. Morin testified that Respondents did not file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, until February 10, 2018, ten days late. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, until February 10, 2018, ten days late. Count III Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to update information contained in an initial application form, or any amendment to such application, within 30 days after the change is effective. In Payservices' initial application dated September 25, 2015, Respondents identified Corporate Access, Inc., as its registered agent with an address for service of process at 236 East 6th Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. According to the Department of State, Division of Corporation's records, on January 10, 2017, Mr. Danenberg was appointed as Payservices' registered agent with a new address for service of process at 300 West Palmetto Park Road, A210, Boca Raton, Florida 33432. Respondents filed an amended license application with OFR on August 28, 2017, which still listed Corporate Access, Inc., as the registered agent for service of process. On February 26, 2018, Respondents amended their registered agent information with the Department of State listing a new address for Mr. Danenberg at 14061 Pacific Pointe Place, No. 204, Delray Beach, Florida 33484. Mr. Morin testified that at no time have Respondents updated their initial application with OFR to reflect Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for Payservices and his address as the registered agent.5/ Mr. Morin and Mr. Grosmaire testified that the reason a licensee needs to update a change in the registered agent's name and address is so that OFR may effectuate service of process against the licensee. Yet, Mr. Grosmaire acknowledged that OFR has access to the Division of Corporation's records. Nevertheless, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not update their initial application with OFR to reflect Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for Payservices and his address as the registered agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that OFR impose an administrative fine against Respondents in the amount of $6,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2019.
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by failing to reconcile his accounts, having monies stolen from him by an employee, and withdrawing money from his escrow account as commissions. Whether the Respondent violated Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain funds paid to him as deposits for rentals, sales taxes, and security deposits in his escrow account until after the date of the rental.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate broker and was so licensed at all times relevant to the events which are a part of the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent holds license number 0177110 issued as a broker, t/a Sunspot Realty, 16428 West Highway 98A, Panama City, Florida 32407. On February 10, 1989, Elaine Brantley, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent's office for the purpose of conducting a financial audit of the records of the business. The Respondent was not present; and Teresa Tuno, the Respondent's secretary and wife, stated she would prefer that Brantley not review the records in her husband's absence. On February 14, 1989, Brantley telephoned the Respondent and made arrangements to audit Respondent's books on February 15, 1989. A review of the records by Brantley on February 15, 1989 revealed that the records were in a state of disarray and the ledgers were not posted. At that time, Brantley advised the Respondent that the records had to be put in order, the ledgers posted, and accounts reconciled by February 17, 1989, when she would reinspect the records. Brantley reinspected the records on February 17, 1989, and all the ledgers had been posted and the accounts had been reconciled through January. The audit revealed that Tuno had received $47,961.45 in security deposits, sales taxes, and rental deposits which were not refundable under the lease agreement. The audit revealed that the balance of the Respondent's escrow account was $33,321.45. The difference between the balance of the escrow account and the money received by the Respondent includes $8,000 which the Respondent paid to himself with checks drawn on the account for "commissions", and $6,540 which had been stolen by an employee of the Respondent. The monies stolen included cash deposits paid by rental customers to the employee and one check on the escrow account endorsed in blank and given to the employee to pay for items purchased for one of the rental units which the employee cashed and converted to his own use. The theft was reported to the local police and their investigation revealed that the employee had disappeared under suspicious circumstances, indicating foul play. The lease agreement states that a deposit of 50% of the rental rate was required to reserve a property and the deposit was refundable only if another tenant could be found for the same period. The Respondent's agreement with the owner of the property called for a commission of 30% of the rental receipts. However, there was no mention of when the commission was earned and under what circumstances it would be paid in the original rental agreement. Upon being criticized for this practice by Brantley, the Respondent repaid the total amount of the draws. Subsequently, he had a new agreement drawn purporting to authorize early payment of management fees. The new agreement states in pertinent part: Owner agrees to compensate Agent a commission of 30% of rental receipts with the exception of long term winter rentals which will be at a rate of 20%. Agent is authorized to draw management fees upon receipt of tenant's non-refundable reservation deposit. The balance of the escrow account was sufficient to meet any potential demands against it. Had the property been leased to another renter for the same period of time, the second renter's deposit would have been deposited to the account making up the funds refunded to the first renter. The audit also revealed that the Respondent had paid monies from the escrow account to a maintenance company operated by the Respondent for work performed on various of the properties. However, the Respondent had not debited the individual property accounts at the time the check was drawn. Each of the properties had a sufficient individual balance to pay for work charged against the property. The appropriate entries were made eventually in the ledgers for the property by the Respondent. The Respondent has amended his agreement with property owners to permit him to bill for repairs on their property on a cost-plus-10% basis to eliminate this problem. None of the actions by the Respondent resulted in financial loss to any of his clients, and the Respondent was cooperative and candid with the auditor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent: Be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by distributing commissions to himself; Be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by distributing payments to a maintenance company which he owned without debiting individual property accounts; and Be required to enroll and satisfactorily complete a course on maintenance of escrow funds and accounts. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 6th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX A TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2681 The Respondent filed a letter in place of proposed findings which contained legal argument which was read and considered. It did not contain any findings. The Petitioner filed proposed findings which were read and considered as follows: Paragraphs 1-3 Adopted Paragraph 4, 1st sentence Adopted Paragraph 4, 2nd sentence Rejected as irrelevant Paragraphs 5-7 Adopted Paragraphs 8-10 Rejected. The terms of the contracts do not address when Tuno was entitled to his commission. Under the terms of the contracts the renters were not entitled to a refund of their advance deposit after a reservation was made unless a new renter could be found for the same time, in which case that renter would have to make a deposit. When Tuno was entitled to his commission was not addressed in the contracts. While findings that Tuno violated the provisions of statute relating to maintenance of funds in his escrow account; this failure was based upon the lack of clarity in the contracts and the high standard of conduct in maintaining escrow accounts which is required of licensees. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. 0. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Robert P. Tuno 16428 West Highway 98A Panama City, Florida 32407
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners owe the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon Petitioners’ alleged rental of their real property to a related corporation from June 2000 through August 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: In July 1997, Petitioners acquired the real property located at 640 North Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, Florida (hereafter “the Property”). The Property was acquired in Petitioners’ individual capacities, and they financed the purchase of the Property through a loan secured by a mortgage on the Property. The documents relating to the 1997 loan and mortgage were not introduced at the hearing. At the time the Property was acquired, Petitioner Paul Solano was engaged in the practice of accounting through a sole proprietorship known as P. Solano and Associates. Mr. Solano has been practicing accounting in Florida since 1969 and he is familiar with Florida's sales tax laws. The Property was treated as an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship even though he was not using it as his place of business at the time. For example, depreciation expense related to the Property was itemized on Petitioners’ tax returns as a business expense. The mortgage payments made by Petitioners were also treated as business expenses of the sole proprietorship. In October 1999, Mr. Solano incorporated his accounting practice into an entity known as Solano & Associates Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter “the Corporation”). The sole business of the Corporation is providing accounting services. At the time of its formation, the Corporation was owned in equal 20 percent shares by Mr. Solano, his wife (Petitioner Diane Solano), their two daughters, and their son-in-law. There has been no change in the ownership of the Corporation since its inception. Mr. Solano is the president of the Corporation. The other owners/family members are also officers in the Corporation. Once the Corporation was formed, the depreciation expense related to the Property was included on the Corporation's tax returns, not Petitioners' tax return. At the time the Property was purchased, it was zoned for residential use. Between 1997 and 1999, Petitioners took the necessary steps to get the Property rezoned for commercial use so that the Corporation could conduct its accounting practice from that location. In November 1999, after the property had been rezoned, the Corporation and its owners applied for a loan from First Union National Bank (First Union) to obtain the funds necessary to renovate the existing building on the Property. Although unclear from the documentation in the record, Petitioners both testified that the 1999 loan was effectively a refinancing of the 1997 loan. The Corporation was not able to obtain a loan in its own name because it had only been in existence for a short period of time. The owners of the Corporation were not able to obtain a loan at a favorable interest rate, primarily because of the lack of credit history of Petitioners’ daughters and son-in- law. As a result, the loan was obtained by Petitioners in their individual capacities. Petitioners gave a mortgage on the Property as collateral for the 1999 loan. The mortgage document, entitled “Mortgage and Absolute Assignment of Leases” (hereafter "the 1999 mortgage"), was signed by Petitioners in their individual capacities on November 18, 1999; the Corporation was not identified in the 1999 mortgage in any way. The 1999 mortgage includes boiler-plate language referring to Petitioners’ obligation to maintain and enforce any leases on the Property and requiring the assignment of rents from any such leases to First Union. That language cannot be construed to mean that a lease actually existed at the time; in fact, the Property was still undergoing renovations at the time. The Corporation began doing business from the Property in February 2000 after the renovation work was complete and a certificate of occupancy was issued. The 1999 loan was refinanced in May 2000 with First Union. The loan amount was increased from $145,000 to $200,000 and the term of the loan was extended through a document entitled “Mortgage and Loan Modification and Extension Agreement” (hereafter "the 2000 mortgage"). The 2000 mortgage refers to the Corporation as the borrower and refers to Petitioners as the guarantors. Petitioners signed the 2000 mortgage in their individual capacities (to bind themselves as guarantors) as well as their capacities as corporate officers (to bind the Corporation as borrower). The related promissory note, dated May 5, 2000, also refers to the Corporation as the borrower, and it is signed by Petitioners in their capacity as officers of the Corporation. As part of the documentation for the refinancing in 2000, Petitioners executed an “Affidavit of Business Use” in which they attested they were the owners of the Property and that the loan proceeds would be “utilized exclusively for business or commercial purposes and not for personal use.” Petitioners also executed a “Mortgagors" Affidavit” in which they attested that they were in sole possession of the Property and that no other persons have claims or rights to possession of the property “except Solano & Associates Enterprises by virtue of a written lease which does not have an option to purposes or right of first refusal.” The monthly mortgage payment for the refinanced loan was $2,044.91. That amount was due on the fifth day of each month beginning on June 5, 2000, and it was automatically deducted from the Corporation’s bank account with First Union. In addition to making the mortgage payment for the Property, the Corporation paid the ad valorem taxes, insurance, and related expenses. The amount of those payments is not quantified in the record. Petitioners formally deeded the Property to the Corporation in October 2003. Mrs. Solano testified that the failure to do so earlier was simply an “oversight.” When the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation, Petitioners did not report any income or loss on the transaction for tax purposes. Any equity that had accumulated in the Property was simply “given” to the Corporation. The First Union mortgages were satisfied in October 2003 as part of a refinancing done by the Corporation with SunTrust bank after it became the owner of the Property.1 At that point, the Corporation had been in existence long enough to establish a credit history and obtain financing in its own name. The record does not include any documentation related to the 2003 refinancing transaction. Despite the representation in the “Mortgagors’ Affidavit” quoted above, there has never been any written or oral lease between Petitioners and the Corporation with respect to the use of the Property. Petitioners have always considered the Property to be a business asset, initially an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship and then an asset of the Corporation. Petitioners never collected any sales tax from the Corporation on the mortgage payments made by the Corporation. Petitioners did not consider those payments to be rental payments. In late-June or early-July 2003, the Department sent a letter to Petitioners stating that the Property “appears to be subject to sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212.031, Florida Statutes.” The letter was sent as part of the Department’s “Corporation Rent Project” through which the Department compares records in various databases to identify commercial properties whose owner of record is different from the business operating at that location. Included with the letter was a questionnaire soliciting information from Petitioners regarding the Property and its use. The questionnaire was completed by Mr. Solano and returned to the Department in a timely manner. Mr. Solano marked a box on the questionnaire indicating that the Property is “[o]ccupied by a corporation in which a corporate officer is the property owner,” and he identified the Corporation as the entity occupying the Property. In response to the question as to “which of the following considerations are received by you,” Mr. Solano marked the following boxes: “The corporation remits payment for the mortgage loan”; “I do not receive rental income, but the related entity pays the mortgage payments”; and “No consideration is received from this related entity.” In response to the questions regarding the “monthly gross rental income of the property” and the “amount of real estate taxes . . . paid on the property by the lessee” for 2000 through 2003, Mr. Solano answered $0 for all periods. Terry Milligan, a tax specialist with the Department, determined based upon Mr. Solano’s responses on the questionnaire that the Corporation’s use of the Property was subject to the sales tax on rentals. Mr. Milligan advised Petitioners of that determination by letter dated July 29, 2003. The letter requested that Petitioners provide “a detailed month by month breakdown of rent (or mortgage payment) amounts, any other consideration, and property taxes that you received from the tenant (or tenant paid on your behalf) for the last thirty-six (36) months).” (Emphasis in original). Petitioners responded to Mr. Milligan’s request through a letter dated August 11, 2003. The letter explained that the reason that the title to the Property appeared under Petitioners’ name rather than the Corporation's name is “due to credit history.” More specifically, the letter stated that “[i]t was decided by the Board members, my wife and our [] children, to put it under our name since we have a long history of good credit.” Included with the letter was a bank statement showing the monthly mortgage payment of $2,044.91 and a notice of the proposed property tax assessment from Orange County for the Property, which was addressed to the Corporation. In addition to providing the requested documentation to Mr. Milligan, one of Petitioners’ daughters, Joylynn Aviles, spoke with Mr. Milligan to explain the circumstances relating to the financing and use of the Property. Ms. Aviles is the Secretary of the Corporation. Ms. Aviles also spoke with Mr. Milligan’s supervisor and an individual in the Department’s legal division. When it became apparent that the matter could not be resolved informally, Ms. Aviles requested that Mr. Milligan issue a final assessment so that Petitioners could bring a formal protest. In response, the Department issued the NOFA on September 11, 2003. The NOFA was preceded by a spreadsheet dated September 3, 2003, which showed how Mr. Milligan calculated the tax, penalties, and interest amounts set forth in the NOFA. As described in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and his testimony at the hearing, the tax was computed based upon the monthly mortgage payments of $2044.91 made by the Corporation from June 2000 to August 2003. The June 2000 start-date for the assessment corresponds to the 36-month period referred to in Mr. Milligan’s July 29, 2003, letter; it also happens to correspond to the date that Corporation began making the mortgage payments. The August 2003 end-date for the assessment was used because it was the month preceding the date of the NOFA. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include the period between August 2003 and October 2003 when the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation. The NOFA does not include any assessment for the property taxes, insurance or other expenses paid by the Corporation on the Property. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include those amounts. The sales tax rate in effect in Orange County during the assessment period was six percent from June 2000 through December 2002, and it was 6.5 percent from January 2003 through August 2003. The 0.5 percent increase resulted from the imposition of a county surtax of some kind. The NOFA calculated a total tax due of $4,784.91. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated by multiplying the monthly mortgage payment by the tax rate in effect at the time of the payment and then totaling those monthly amounts. The NOFA calculated $465.79 in interest due on the unpaid tax through September 13, 2003. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated at the applicable statutory rates. Interest continues to accrue at 53 cents per day. The NOFA calculated a penalty due of $2,233.97. That amount was calculated based upon the applicable statutory rate as shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and explained in the NOFA. In total, the NOFA imposed an assessment of $7,566.43. That amount includes the taxes, interest, and penalties described above. The NOFA informed Petitioners of the procedure by which they could protest the Department's assessment. On November 10, 2003, the Department received Petitioners' timely protest of the assessment. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order rescinding the Notice of Final Assessment issued to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, 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 17th day of March 2004.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated February 29, 2013, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of real estate licensees pursuant to chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Mardy was licensed as a Florida Real Estate Broker. Her license number is 3048239. No prior disciplinary action has been brought against Respondent. Mardy has been actively licensed as a broker in Florida since April 6, 2010. From April 8, 2010, to present, Mardy also served as the registered broker with Mardy’s Premier Properties, Inc., license number CQ1036525. The brokerage company was located at 12180 Southshore Boulevard Suite 101A, Wellington, Florida 33414. Approximately seven years ago, Mardy assisted Alix and Patricia Pasquet (“Pasquets”) with a rental transaction. In 2011, when the Pasquets decided that they wanted to lease a rental residence near their sons’ school, they decided to contact Mardy to assist them in obtaining the rental residence since they had been satisfied with her previous service. The Pasquets decided to lease the rental residence at 11188 Millpond Greens Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida 33473, (“Millpond”). The Pasquets made an offer to pay the rent a year in advance to benefit from the reduced rental amount with a full year’s payment. Mardy informed the Pasquets that the rental money needed to be in the U.S. instead of Haiti in order to execute the leasing agreement and then the Millpond owner would accept their offer to lease the property if they showed proof of funds in the U.S. prior to April 6, 2012. On or about April 5, 2012, the Pasquets wired Mardy the total rent for the year in the amount of $33,365.00 to Mardy’s Premier Properties, Inc.’s bank, PNC Bank, at Mardy’s request. Mardy received the monies in the corporation’s operating account ending in 6863. Mardy accepted the Pasquets’ rental funds with the direction to use the monies to secure Millpond as a rental residence for the Pasquets. On or about April 9, 2011, the Pasquets signed a lease addendum, which was predated to April 5, 2011. The addendum indicated the rent payment would be wired to the Millpond owner upon commencement of the lease or prior thereto. After the addendum was signed, Mrs. Pasquet tried to follow-up with Mardy to schedule the Millpond walk through that had been discussed at the previous meeting. She attempted to contact Respondent to no avail for about a week to schedule the Millpond walk through. When Mrs. Pasquet finally reached Mardy, Respondent informed her that her unavailability was because of a death in the family since her grandmother had passed. Around April 25, 2011, Mardy informed Mrs. Pasquet that she no longer had the Pasquets’ $33,365.00. Respondent provided several different reasons for use of the Pasquets’ monies. All explanations given were for both a personal and improper use, and without the Pasquets’ permission. Hence, the undersigned rejects any of Mardy’s excuses as valid or credible. Respondent never delivered the Pasquets’ rental monies to the Millpond owner nor closed the rental deal with the Millpond owner or his agent for the lease of Millpond. At hearing, Respondent admitted that she used the Pasquets’ $33,365.00 without their permission. On or about April 26, 2011, the Pasquets negotiated a lease directly with Millpond owner and leased Millpond for six months. They did the walk through on or about April 29, 2013, and moved into the Millpond property on or about May 8, 2013. After the Pasquets discovered that Mardy had taken their $33,365.00, they contacted an attorney to assist them with the matter to try to get the rental monies back. The police also became involved in the attempt of the Pasquets to get their rental monies back. When the police became involved, Respondent agreed to pay the money back to the Pasquets. On or about July 7, 2011, Respondent paid the Pasquets $10,000.00 with check number 75053315-2. On or about July 8, 2011, Respondent paid the Pasquets $3,365.00 with check number 75115202. On or about October 27, 2011, Respondent paid the Pasquets $5,000.00 with check number 0734873625. At the hearing, Mardy had not made a payment since October 2011. The Pasquets have spent thousands of dollars on legal fees trying to get their rental monies back from Respondent. Respondent owes them approximately $15,000.00. The Pasquets were forced to withdraw unbudgeted funds from their business in order to pay for the six-month lease for Millpond, which has been a financial hardship for the Pasquets. Jonathan Platt ("Investigator Platt") is employed by the Division as a Lead Investigator. Investigator Platt has worked for the Division for approximately 22 years. Investigator Platt was assigned the complaint regarding the Pasquets' missing rental funds. He interviewed Respondent and requested Respondent's corporation bank records as part of his investigation. Mardy failed to deliver the bank records to Investigator Platt. Respondent also failed to maintain an escrow account or accounting of rent deposited into the corporation’s bank account ending in 6863 with PNC Bank. Investigator Platt completed his investigation by obtaining Mardy's requested records directly from PNC Bank with an investigative subpoena duces tecum. Afterwards, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against Mardy in which it charged violations of sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.42(1)(i), 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2010); and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61J2-14.012(1) and 61J2- 14.010(1). Respondent challenged the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing. No dispute exists that the request for hearing was timely filed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order: Finding Guirlande Mardy violated Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing revocation of Guirlande Mardy's license identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Christina Ann Arzillo, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Guirlande Mardy 14541 Draft Horse Lane Wellington, Florida 33414 Juana Watkins, Director Division of Real Estate 400 W Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 W Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent James R. Azevedo is now and was at all times relevant herein a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0396545. Respondent Allen Q. Smith is now and was at all times relevant herein a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0193451. Respondent M.S.D.S., Inc. d/b/a Sherwood Commercial Brokers, Inc. is a corporation licensed as a broker having been issued license number 0220922. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Smith was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Respondent M.S.D.S., Inc. d/b/a Sherwood Commercial Brokers, Inc. The Administrative Complaint was filed as a result of a transaction whereby Mr. Larry Chase sought to sell his swimming pool maintenance business using the brokerage and sales services of Respondents. When a proposed sale fell through, Respondents returned a $2,000 earnest money deposit to the purchaser. The return of the $2,000, which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint, was entirely proper under the circumstances. Mr. Chase does not dispute either Respondents' return of the deposit or the manner in which the return was carried out. Apparently, grievances between Respondents and Chase developed as a result of a later sales transaction where Respondents were, in their view, wrongfully deprived of their commission. However, there was no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by Respondents related to the charges herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 21st of August, 1984, in Tallahassee. Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 21st day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred A. Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert W. Beaudry, Esquire LYONS and BEAUDRY, P.A. 1605 Main Street Suite 1111 Sarasota, Florida 33577 Mr. Allen Q. Smith 5036 Camus Street Sarasota, Florida 33582 Harold Huff Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
