The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail, unlawfully withdrew and transferred monies from an escrow account and is therefore guilty of fraud, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, or breach of trust and conversion within the purview of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979) At the final hearing, Petitioner called Donald Lloyd, Respondent, Donald Reda and Kenneth Viviano as its witnesses. Petitioner offered Exhibits 1 through 7 which were received into evidence. Respondent called no witnesses and offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 4 which were received into evidenced.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing memoranda and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its administrative complaint filed herein on July 29, 1981, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent as licensee and against his license as a real estate salesman. During times material herein, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman and has been issued license No. 0188032. During times material herein, Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc., was a Florida licensed real estate corporate broker with its offices located at 3300 NE 33rd Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida corporate entity was licensed under that name on October 12, 1979. The predecessor entity was known as Lloyds' of Lauderdale, Inc., and had its escrow account at Gulfstream Bank H.A., formerly known as Gulfstream American Bank and Trust Company H.A., formerly known as American National Bank and Trust Company of Fort Lauderdale, which account number was 005-1-00160-3. Upon obtaining the change of name, i.e. Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc., the successor entity maintained the same escrow account number at the same bank and continued using the checks on that account bearing its former name, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc. During times material herein, Respondent was a salesman associated with Century 21 and was an authorized signatory on the above-referred escrow account. Respondent was also a stockholder, officer and director of Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc. Respondent was also the owner of an unrelated business known as Brewer's Care Center, which in turn operated a motel located in Georgia. During times material, Respondent owned a one-third (1/3) interest in Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc. On February 3, 1981, Respondent issued a check, No. 79-228, drawn on the Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc., escrow account, payable to Brewer's Care Center in the amount of $11,903.12. Approximately fifteen days later, on February 18, 1981, Respondent issued another check, No. 79-223, drawn on the above-referenced escrow account payable to Brewer's Care Center in the amount of $2,500. On March 3, 1981 Respondent verbally authorized the Gulfstream Bank to withdraw $399.66 from the referenced escrow account to pay interest on loan No. 59-004-00-058-3866-4. Also, on March 18, 1981 Respondent verbally authorized the withdrawal of $799.32 to be applied against the same loan. Neither of the above-referenced checks or verbal loan authorizations were, in any wise, connected with any real estate transactions from which monies were held in escrow by the Respondent. The verbal withdrawals and checks, either authorized or drawn by the Respondent, reduced the escrow account by a sum of approximately $15,602.10 and depleted the account to such an extent that Century 21, Lloyds of Lauderdale, Inc. was unable to meet demands for the return of the escrow funds held in trust (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1). Respondent took the position that the monies represented by the payments of the two checks made payable to Brewer's Care Center were repayments of loans and that he was unaware that the accounts which the checks were drawn against were, in fact, escrow accounts. In this regard, evidence reveals that the Respondent suffered a heart attack during November of 1980 and his health regressed to the degree that he was placed in the intensive care unit at a hospital in Cleveland, Ohio for an extended period of time. At the conclusion of the Petitioner's case in chief, Respondent's counsel filed an ore tenus motion to continue the subject hearing until the following day. The undersigned afforded Respondent's counsel an opportunity to submit, for the record, his basis for the continuance. However, that motion was denied based on the numerous continuances which had been previously granted by the undersigned to Respondent's counsel (See Order dated November 16, 1982 - Copy attached).
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint? him? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Florida-licensed real estate salesperson. He holds license number 0186760. From October 1, 1991, through September 30, 1993, Respondent's license was inactive. His address of record during this period was 290 174th Street L11, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160. On October 1, 1993, Respondent's license became involuntarily inactive due to non-renewal, and it remained in involuntary inactive status through August 11, 1996. Respondent's address of record during this period remained 290 174th Street L11, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160. On June 1, 1995, after having successfully completed a license reactivation course at the Gold Coast School of Real Estate,1 Respondent went to The Keyes Company to apply for a position as a sales associate. The Keyes Company is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, a corporation registered in Florida as a real estate broker. During his visit to The Keyes Company, Respondent completed (with the assistance of a Keyes Company secretary) and signed various forms, including a Department-issued "Request for License or Change of Status" form (400.5 Form). The 400.5 Form contained three sections: Section A, the "action requested" section; Section B, which was to be "completed by [the] licensee applying for [the] change"; and Section C, which was to be "completed by [the] broker/employer if the applicant [was] requesting active salesperson or broker-salesperson status." On the reverse side of the 400.5 Form were instructions, which indicated, among other things, that if the licensee was seeking to renew his or her license, the 400.5 Form had to "be accompanied by the required fee." In Sections A and B of the 400.5 Form, Respondent indicated, among other things, that he was seeking to renew his license and gain active status and that his "residence address" was 2182 Northeast 186th Terrace, North Miami Beach, Florida 33179. Although there was a box on the top of the form that he could have checked to reflect that this was a "change [of] residence address," he failed to do so. After completing Sections A and B, Respondent signed and dated the partially completed 400.5 Form. The secretary who assisted Respondent in filling out the 400.5 Form (Secretary) told Respondent that The Keyes Company would complete Section C of the form and then mail it to the Department for processing. She further advised Respondent that she would let him know in a few days "exactly how much [he] would have to pay" the Department to obtain the "[c]hange of [s]tatus" he was requesting. Three or four days later, the Secretary contacted Respondent and informed him that he had to pay a $90.00 fee to the Department. Respondent relied upon the information that the Secretary had given him regarding the amount of the fee he had to pay. He made no effort to contact the Department to verify the accuracy of the information. On June 5, 1995, Respondent wrote a $90.00 check, payable to the Department, and left it with the Secretary for her to mail, along with the completed 400.5 Form, to the Department. The Keyes Company's payroll clerk, Rosa Miguelena, thereafter contacted the Department by telephone to confirm that $90.00 was the amount that Respondent had to pay. The person with whom she spoke told her that the total fee for late renewing a license was $90.00 ($65.00 for the renewal and a $25.00 late fee). The completed 400.5 Form (Section C of which had been filled in and signed on June 9, 1995, by Ray Shaw, a Vice President of The Keyes Company) and the $90.00 check, as well a copy of Respondent's reactivation course completion certificate, were subsequently sent to the Department. The check was deposited by the Department on June 19, 1995. The $90.00 was insufficient to cover the amount necessary to renew and activate Respondent's license for the upcoming two-year renewal cycle commencing October 1, 1995.2 Accordingly, on or about June 23, 1995, the Department sent, by United States Mail, a letter to Respondent, which read as follows: We are returning the attached for the following reasons: (X) Request not accompanied by the total fee of $153.00. You need to send additional $63.00 in order for us to process your renewal. (X) To be credited for the fee accepted, THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE. PLEASE RETURN ALL OF THE ATTACHED, ALONG WITH A COPY OF THIS LETTER. The letter was mailed to the address (2182 Northeast 186th Terrace, North Miami Beach, Florida 33179) that Respondent had indicated, on the 400.5 Form, was his "residence address." At the time the letter was mailed, Respondent still resided at this address. Nonetheless, Respondent never received the letter in the mail. This is not the only time that mail addressed to Respondent at 2182 Northeast 186th Terrace, North Miami Beach, Florida 33179 has not been delivered to him by the United States Postal Service. It has been a recurring problem. Had Respondent received the letter, he would have taken the additional steps needed to renew and activate his license. Not having heard anything from either the Department or The Keyes Company regarding the matter, he erroneously assumed that his license had been renewed and activated, and he acted accordingly. On or about January 18, 1996, Respondent, acting in his capacity as a Keyes Company sales associate, procured Vito Verzura as a buyer for real property located in Dade County, Florida that was owned by Jack Poulas (Property). On or about February 1, 1996, The Keyes Company issued to Respondent a check in the amount of $676.00 as commission for his role in the Vito Verzura/Jack Pulos transaction. On or about June 25, 1996, Respondent, acting in his capacity as a Keyes Company sales associate, procured listing agreements with Vito Verzura regarding the Property. The listing agreements provided that the listing agent(s) would be paid 10% of the sales price. In late June or early July of 1996, after speaking with a Keyes Company secretary who questioned whether he was associated with the company, Respondent telephoned the Department to inquire whether his license was active. The Department representative with whom he spoke advised him that the Department's records revealed that his license had never been activated. Respondent then contacted The Keyes Company to discuss the matter. He expressed his desire to have his license activated as soon as possible. The Keyes Company told Respondent that he needed to pay the Department an additional $125.00. On or about July 9, 1996, Respondent wrote a check in the amount of $125.00, payable to the Department, which he gave to The Keyes Company to deliver to the Department. On that same date, he also signed (but did not date) another Department-issued "Request for License or Change of Status Form." The check, along with the signed form (Section C of which was left blank), were subsequently sent to the Department. The Department received these items on or about August 12, 1996. It deposited the check on August 14, 1996. Because Section C of the "Request for License or Change of Status Form" was left blank, the Department changed the status of Respondent's licensure, effective August 12, 1996, to voluntary inactive rather than to active. The Department sent Respondent a letter informing him of the change. The letter contained the following "explanation": The Division of Real Estate computer records do not reflect you to be in the employ of a licensed real estate broker, a registered broker corporation or broker partnership, or an unlicensed owner developer at this time. Please have the attached form 400.5 completed by both you and your employer and returned in the enclosed envelope if your license status should be shown as active. On February 27, 1997, the Department received from Respondent a completed "Request for License or Change of Status Form," which reflected that he was employed by Gerard International Realty, a duly registered broker. After receiving this form, the Department activated Respondent's license. At no time prior to February 27, 1997, did Respondent hold a valid and current active real estate salesperson license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by reprimanding him and fining him $750.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Florida Real Estate Commission may deny Petitioner’s application for a license as a real estate sales associate, and, if so, whether it is appropriate to do so based on the underlying facts.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is the state agency charged with licensing real estate sales associates in Florida. See § 475.161, Fla. Stat. On January 21, 2016, Petitioner applied to the Commission for a license as a real estate sales associate. In her application, Petitioner dutifully divulged that on December 12, 2002, the Commission revoked her real estate broker’s license. On August 16, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Deny notifying Petitioner that it denied her application for a sales associate license. The Commission denied Petitioner’s application based on its finding that Petitioner’s broker’s license was previously revoked by the Commission in 2002. At the final hearing, Petitioner explained the circumstances that led to her broker’s license revocation. In 2000, a Commission investigator audited her real estate trust account. The audit uncovered information that Petitioner failed to timely transfer a $1,000 deposit and properly reconcile her escrow account. Petitioner disclosed that a sales contract she was handling required the buyers to deposit $1,000 with her as the broker. The sale fell through, and the buyers did not close on the house. In May, 2000, the buyers demanded Petitioner transfer the deposit within 15 business days. Petitioner, however, did not forward the deposit out of her escrow account until four months later in September 2000. Based on this incident, the Commission alleged that Petitioner failed to account for delivered funds; failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions; failed to take corrective action to balance her escrow account; and filed a false report in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)e, 475.25(1)(l), 475.25(1)(b) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.012(2). Based on the charges, the Commission ordered Petitioner’s real estate broker’s license permanently revoked. Petitioner stressed that she did not steal the buyers’ money. Her mistake was in not timely transferring the deposit from her trust account. Petitioner asserted that she simply lost track of the funds. At the final hearing, Petitioner accepted full responsibility for her mismanagement. At the final hearing, Petitioner expressed that she first entered the Florida real estate industry in 1982 when she became a licensed real estate sales associate. In 1987, she obtained her broker's license. She subsequently purchased a Century 21 franchise. She conducted her real estate business until 2002 when her broker’s license was revoked. Petitioner explained that she is not seeking another broker’s license from the Commission. Instead, she is just applying for another sales associate license. Petitioner described the difference between a sales associate and a broker.5/ Petitioner stated that a sales associate works directly under, and is supervised by, a broker. The sales associate interacts with prospective buyers and sellers, negotiates sales prices, and accompanies clients to closings. Regarding financial transactions, however, the broker, not the sales associate, processes all funds related to a real estate sale. The broker, not the sales associate, transfers funds into and out of escrow accounts. In other words, the error Petitioner committed as a broker in 2000 could not happen again if she was granted a sales associate license. Petitioner further testified that during the time she worked as a sales associate, she was involved in the sale of approximately 100 houses. Petitioner represented that she never received any complaints or criticisms from any of her clients. Petitioner relayed that she became motivated to return to the real estate business following her husband’s death in 2015. Petitioner expressed that she was very good at selling houses. Real estate is her passion. She voiced that she eats, sleeps, walks, and talks real estate. Despite her misstep in 2000, Petitioner declared that she is a very honest and hardworking person. She just wants another chance to work in the profession that she loves. Currently, Petitioner works for a charitable organization. She helps administer and manage the charity’s finances. Petitioner represented that she has never failed to meet her financial responsibilities. She has always accounted for all of the funds for which she is entrusted (approximately $8 million since she began working for the charity over 20 years ago). No evidence indicates that Petitioner has committed any crimes or violated any laws since her broker’s license was revoked in 2002. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented three witnesses who testified in favor of her receiving a sales associate license. All three witnesses proclaimed that Petitioner is trustworthy, of good character, maintains high moral values, and is spiritually strong. The witnesses, who know Petitioner both personally and professionally, opined that she is honest, truthful, and has an excellent reputation for fair dealing. All three witnesses declared that the public would not be endangered if the Commission granted Petitioner’s application for licensure. Petitioner also produced six letters of support. These letters assert that Petitioner is an honorable and trustworthy person. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence provides the Commission sufficient legal grounds to deny Petitioner’s application. Consequently, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing that she is entitled to a license as a real estate sales associate. However, as discussed below, Petitioner demonstrated that she is rehabilitated from the incident which led to the revocation of her broker’s license in 2002. Therefore, the Commission may, in its discretion, grant Petitioner’s application (with restrictions) pursuant to sections 475.25(1) and 455.227(2)(f).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Florida Real Estate Commission has the legal authority to deny Petitioner’s application for licensure. However, based on the underlying facts in this matter, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for a license as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 10th day of May, 2017.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate salesman license in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that his real estate broker's license in another state was revoked in April 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Janikula was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0488507 through the Division of Real Estate. Evidence presented at hearing revealed that the license was active on or before March 6, 1987. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, by real estate salesmen licensed in Florida. The Minnesota Department of Commerce is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 82, Minnesota Statutes, by real estate brokers licensed in Minnesota. On April 21, 1988, a final order of license revocation was entered by the Commissioner of Commerce, Department of Commerce, State of Minnesota, against the real estate broker's license of the Respondent Janikula which had previously been issued by that state. The license was revoked as a result of the following: On or about May 13, 1987, Respondent Janikula received $15,000.00 from Mr. Ben Hackman as earnest money in connection with Mr. Hackman's purchase of an apartment building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which was listed for sale through the Respondent. The Respondent was the real estate broker at the time he received the earnest money, and the funds were trust funds under Minnesota law. When the transaction could not be completed, the Respondent delivered a check to Mr. Hackman for $15,000.00 on a closed checking account. The disciplinary hearing on this matter was held on March 1, 1988. On the date of hearing in Minnesota, the Respondent had not returned the $15,000.00 to Mr. Hackman. The Respondent's broker's license was revoked upon the determination that Respondent failed, within a reasonable time, to account for and remit money coming into his possession as a real estate broker to the person entitled to it. In addition, it was determined that, while licensed as a real estate broker, the Respondent converted trust funds belonging to another person that he obtained in connection with a real estate transaction. In mitigation, the Respondent presented evidence which demonstrated that between April 19, 1988, and July 8, 1988, three checks totalling $15,000.00 plus $1,350.00 in interest were received by Mr. Hackman for restitution purposes. In addition, it was called to the attention of the Hearing Officer that Respondent does not handle trust funds in his capacity as a real estate salesman in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Janikula guilty of the charge filed in Case No. 88-5774. That the Respondent's Florida real estate salesman's license be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Department of Professional Regulation - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Neil F. Garfield, P.A. Envirwood Executive Plaza, Suite 200 5950 West Oakland Park Boulevard Lauderhill, Florida 33133 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times referred to in these findings of fact, Carlson was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued License Number 0187184. The last license issued was as a salesman, c/o Pauls Real Estate and Investments, Inc., 441 East Shore Drive, Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515. From October 13, 1982, to June 28, 1983, Carlson was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of corporate real estate broker Alliance Real Estate, Inc. of which Nicholas G. Mastro was a qualifying broker and officer. During her employment, Carlson was employed to solicit and obtain landlords and tenants in connection with the rental property management brokerage business of Alliance Real Estate, Inc. Carlson worked out of Alliance's Clearwater Beach office, ten miles from the main office on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater. Generally, Alliance's official policy was that the originals of property listings, property management agreements and rental agreements were to be maintained at the main office, with work copies filed at the Beach office. Correspondence and miscellaneous property management papers, such as invoices, frequently are maintained exclusively at the Beach office. Funds were to be deposited into, and checks were to be written out of, Alliance's operating account by Alliance's staff at the main office. However, due to the distance between the main office and the Beach office, it was inefficient and inconvenient for Carlson to follow the official policies and procedures. Instead, Carlson began using her own personal bank account as a conduit for funds flowing to and from Alliance (including brokerage fees to Alliance). She also ceased following the procedure for maintaining certain original papers at the main office and even began maintaining files at her home. Alliance knew or should have known that Carlson was using her personal bank account as a conduit for Alliance funds. Alliance's ledgers showed these transactions, and Alliance's bookkeeper wrote reimbursement checks to Carlson for some of them. Since Ronald Lohr, Alliance's qualifying broker with supervisory responsibility over the Beach office, did not testify, the evidence did not preclude the possibility that he had actual or constructive knowledge of this deviation from official policy. Regarding Carlson's maintenance of files (including original papers normally kept at the main office) at her house, Alliance did not have actual or constructive knowledge of this deviation from official policy. Rather, Alliance's minimal supervision of the Beach office gave Carlson the opportunity to deviate from that official policy without detection. Through the combined effect of these circumstances, Carlson was able to operate as a salesman for Alliance in connection with the following transactions while concealing the transactions from her employer and wrongfully retaining brokerage commissions which properly should have been paid over to Alliance. At the conclusion of these transactions (except one), Carlson "pitched" her file on it. In February, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $1,000.00 as rental payments from William Russ, as a tenant, for the rental of Unite 908, Clearwater Point Condominium, 830 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater Beach, Florida owned by Bernhardt Elsen. In March, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $680 from Carl Dotterman, as a tenant, for the rental of Elsen's condominium. Notwithstanding that Carlson had received $1,680, Carlson advised Bernhardt Elsen that she had only received $1,600. Carlson disbursed $1,513.30 to Bernhardt Elsen, calculated as $1,600, minus $160 being a 10 percent management fee, plus $73.39 as reimbursement for payment of an electric bill. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Russ and Dotterman rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Elsen rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In February and March, 1983, Carlson negotiated for her son Martin Carlson, as tenant, and Dr. Rolando Perez, as owner, for the rental of Unit 207, Commodore Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Dr. Rolando Perez. Rent was to be $800. Carlson, for her son, paid Dr. Rolando Perez $720 calculated as $800 minus $80 being a 10 percent management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Carlson rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Perez rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In April, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $500 as rental payment from a Mr. and Mrs. Scalise, as tenants, for the period April 9, 1983, to April 15, 1983, for the rental of Unit 701, Sailmaster Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Anthony and Jeanette Eman. On or about April 14, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained a $100 rental deposit from Mr. and Mrs. Scalise for the rental of Eman's condominium for a period in 1984. On or about April 15, 1983, Carlson disbursed to Mr. and Mrs. Eman the $100 deposit and $200 of the $500 rental payment with $300 thereof being retained by Carlson as a management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Scalise rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Eman rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In January and February, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $2,400 as rental payments from Ernest Pfau, as a tenant, for the rental of Unit 605, Shipmaster Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Joseph Seta. Carlson disbursed to Joseph Seta $2,160 calculated as $2,400 minus $240 being a 10 percent management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Pfau rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Eifert rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. On or about June 7, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained a $100 rental deposit from Lawrence Augostino, as a tenant, for the rental of Unit 706, 450 Gulf Blvd., South Building, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Dr. Donald F. Eifert. Carlson was to hold the deposit until she was able to obtain a listing on the rental property. While waiting for a listing on the Eifert property, Alliance, through Mr. Mastro, became aware of one of Carlson's "secret clients," Mr. Elsen, and confronted Carlson about it. In response to Mastro's demand, she retrieved the entire Elsen file from her home. When Mastro learned about a second "secret client," Dr. Perez, a short time later, Mastro immediately terminated Carlson from her employment on June 15, 1983. Carlson did not advise Alliance of the Augostino deposit and was not able to get a good address for Augostino to return the deposit before she left the Clearwater area to go to Michigan for a month. Carlson collected and received the Augostino deposit in her own name. She engaged in the Eifert rental property management activities without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. As previously alluded to, Carlson produced evidence of having used her personal checking account as a conduit for funds flowing between Alliance and its customers (including brokerage fees payable to Alliance) with the actual or constructive knowledge of Lohr and Alliance's bookkeeper. But Carlson was unable to produce any similar evidence (such as Alliance's ledgers or her cancelled checks) in response to the absence of any Alliance corporate records indicating that Carlson paid any of the brokerage fees generated in the foregoing transactions over to Alliance. Carlson's self-serving and vague testimony that she did not owe Alliance any money was insufficient in this respect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order suspending respondent's license for two (2) years for violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32002 Bruce M. Harlan, Esquire 110 Turner Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven Hall, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate salesman and broker. Upon February 15, 1984, he became licensed as a broker. The Respondent was registered with and employed by J. Arnold Ausley Realty from March 31, 1983 to February 15, 1984. J. Arnold Ausley was a licensed real estate broker and operated as Ausley Properties during times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and practice of realtors in the State of Florida and enforcing the practice standards for realtors embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On February 4, 1984, the Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed salesman for Ausley Properties, arranged a contract between Champak Bhoja and Kishor Patel, as purchasers of a certain piece of real estate owned by one John D. Gilbert. In connection with that contract the Respondent obtained a $2,000 check as a deposit from Mr. Patel. At Mr. Patel's request the Respondent held this check without negotiating it awaiting Patel's instruction that sufficient funds were on deposit to honor the check. The Respondent waited four weeks and received no such instructions from Mr. Patel. The Respondent therefore contacted Patel, who was in Nebraska at the time, to tell him that he felt legally obligated to deposit the check. The check was deposited and was returned for insufficient funds. On March 19, 1984, Mr. Patel gave the Respondent a replacement check in the amount of $2,000. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Patel to make the check out to him since he had in the meantime become a broker and wanted credit for this transaction in his own business. He also informed Mr. Patel that he would need to use the money for his own personal expenses, in the nature of a "loan." Mr. Patel, however, made the check out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." The Respondent and Mr. Patel had been involved in other business ventures together during the course of which Mr. Patel had already lent the Respondent, on different occasions, a total of approximately $4,000. This course of dealing was continued in the present instance, from the Respondent's viewpoint, when the Respondent informed Mr. Patel that he needed the $2,000 for personal expense purposes and would pay it back as a loan. He believed Mr. Patel assented to that arrangement at the time. The sales contract at issue ultimately failed to be consummated due to Mr. Pate1 and Mr. Bhoja not meeting the required contingency regarding debt financing. Approximately fifteen days after the contract's closing date passed, Mr. Patel made a demand upon the Respondent for the return of the $2,000 deposit. The Respondent failed to return it at that time but assured Mr. Patel that he would repay the money and needed more time to obtain the necessary funds. The Respondent had not deposited the check in the Ausley Properties Escrow Account because such an account did not exist, although the Respondent had urged Mr. Ausley on a number of occasions to set up such an account. The Respondent rather cashed the $2,000 check and used the proceeds for his own benefit, as he had informed Patel he would do. He used the money to meet certain operating expenses and personal expenses, being in severe financial straits at the time. Pate1 knew he was experiencing financial difficulties and had lent him the previously mentioned $4,000 to help him with operating expenses and personal expenses during the pendency of the closing of their various other real estate ventures. The Respondent informed Patel he would use the subject $2,000 for similar purposes, however, the record does not clearly reflect that Patel consented to this, as opposed to his intent that the money be placed in an account as his deposit of consideration for the contract. His testimony to this latter effect is borne out by the fact that in spite of the Respondent's request that the check be made out to him personally, instead Patel made it out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." That account did not exist but the method of drafting the check reveals his intent that the money was to be used as a deposit. In any event the Respondent made no misrepresentation to Mr. Patel as to what he intended to do with the money, but at the same time he did not deposit it in an appropriate account to be held as a deposit toward the purchase of the property involved in the sales contract. Patel made numerous demands for the money and each time Respondent acknowledged this and the other debt to Patel and promised to pay. He ultimately began paying back a small portion of the indebtedness to each of his creditors starting out at a rate of $10 per month. Ultimately, the Respondent paid the entire $2,000 predicated on receipt of his 1985 income tax return.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner finding that the Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(b),(d,)(e) and (k) only to the extent delineated in the above conclusions of law and that his real estate broker's license be subjected to a six months suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven R. Hall 8880 Old Kings Hwy., Apt. 30-W Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Michael Sheahan, Esquire Two South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Rea1 Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected, although the evidence establishes that Patel intended the funds to be escrowed. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected as not comporting with the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:* Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted, but irrelevant to the charges. Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the first sentence only. The second sentence concerning Patel's response is not clearly supported by record evidence. Accepted Accepted Accepted * Although Respondent is proposed findings are accepted, some are inculpatory, some are not material and some support the conclusion that no fraudulent conduct was committed.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been a licensed real estate sales associate since 2000. His license number is 693538. Most of Petitioner’s work in the real estate industry has involved business transactions, but he has also handled transactions involving residential properties. On August 23, 2004, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate broker. Petitioner disclosed in the application that, in July 2003, his sales associate license was suspended by the Commission for 30 days and that he was placed on probation for a period of six months. That disciplinary action was based upon a single incident that occurred on or about November 7, 2001. Petitioner agreed to the disciplinary action as part of a “Stipulation” to resolve an Administrative Complaint charging him with fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), and with having operated as a broker without a license in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2001). The Administrative Complaint contained the following “essential allegations of material fact,” which were admitted by Petitioner as part of the Stipulation: On or about November 7, 2001, Respondent, a seller’s agent, facilitated a purchase and sale transaction between Buyer and Seller. On or about November 7, 2001, [Petitioner] was not registered with a broker.[1] The transaction referenced above failed to close. Buyer released a $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] submitted the $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] instructed [Seller] to execute a check in the amount of $500.00 payable to “Cash.”[2] [Petitioner] accepted the $500.00 payment as his own payment for services. The Final Order adopting the Stipulation was filed with the agency clerk on June 25, 2003. Petitioner’s suspension commenced on July 25, 2003, which is “thirty days from the date of filing of the Final Order.” The suspension ended 30 days later, on August 24, 2003. Petitioner’s probation ran “for a period of six (6) months from the Effective Date [of the Stipulation],” which was defined as the date that the Final Order was filed with the agency clerk. As a result, the probation period ran from June 25, 2003, to December 25, 2003. Petitioner was required to complete a three-hour ethics course and a four-hour escrow management course during the probation period, which he did. Petitioner has not been subject to any other disciplinary action. Petitioner has taken several continuing education courses in addition to those required as part of his probation. He is working towards certification by the Graduate Realtor Institute. Petitioner has taken the classes necessary to become a real estate broker, and he passed the broker examination. Petitioner has worked for broker Phillip Wetter since March 2005. Petitioner manages the day-to-day operation of Mr. Wetter’s brokerage firm. His responsibilities include preparing listings, negotiating contracts, and handling escrow funds. He has been involved in over 50 successful real estate transactions under Mr. Wetter’s supervision. According to Mr. Wetter, Petitioner is meticulous in his work, including his handling of escrow funds, and he always makes sure that he “dots all his ‘I’s’ and crosses all his ‘T’s’.” Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing that what he did in November 2001 was wrong. He credibly testified that he has learned from his mistake. In his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing, Mr. Wetter attested to Petitioner’s honesty, ethics, good moral character, as well as his qualifications to be a broker. That testimony was unrebutted and is corroborated by the letters of support from Petitioner’s former clients that are contained in his application file, Exhibit R1. Mr. Wetter’s opinions regarding Petitioner’s fitness for licensure as a real estate broker are given great weight. Those opinions are based not only on his personal observations as Petitioner’s current qualifying broker, but also on his personal experience with Petitioner representing him in several business transactions while Petitioner was working for other brokers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order approving Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2005, 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 22nd day of November, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereafter Department), is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute complaints concerning violations of the real estate licensure laws of the State of Florida. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker in Florida holding license number 0052222. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Faye F. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0052101. The Respondent F. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Larry B. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0052189. The Respondent L. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Registered Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Cindy L. Morales is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0123347. The Respondent Morales' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., is now and was at all material times a corporation registered as a real estate broker in Florida holding license number 0243694. The Respondent corporation last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all material times, the Respondent M. Lewis was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for the corporate broker, Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc. The Respondents M. Lewis, F. Lewis, L. Lewis and Morales, from May 4, 1977 to September 9, 1979, as sellers individually and/or in concert as owners, officers and directors of various corporations, including South Florida Property, Inc., and West Dade Acres, Inc., solicited and obtained through telephone and mail, 58 purchasers who entered into agreements for deed for one and one-fourth acre lots located within a sixty-acre parcel of land in Section 21, Range 37, Township 54, Dade County, Florida. On September 24, 1979, the Respondent Melvin M. Lewis, acting on behalf of South Florida Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, entered into a deposit receipt contract, as purchasers with InterAmerican Services, Inc., by Lester Gottlieb, as sellers, for the purchase of 60 acres, more or less, more particularly described as: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 Section 21, Township 54, Range 37E, Dade County, Florida. The total purchase price of the parcel of land was $120,000.00. The purchase price was to be paid by a down payment of $1,520.00 and a first priority purchase money mortgage and note of $118,479.80. From May 4, 1977, to September 24, 1979, the Respondents had no ownership interest in the above described 60- acre parcel of land. The purchase and sale closed on April 22, 1982, as evidenced by a warranty deed wherein title to the 60-acre parcel more particularly described as: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 Section 21, Township 54, S., Range 37 E. lying and being in Dade County, Florida. was transferred to South Florida Properties, Inc., by Lester Gottlieb, President. The subject land lies in the East Everglades moratorium area and is subject to Dade County Ordinance 81-121 which is highly restrictive to owners of parcels or lots of land less than 40 acres. It is approximately ten miles west of Krome Avenue and is underwater on the average of nine months a year. As a result of its isolated location, it is accessible only by airboat. A building moratorium was enacted for the subject land in September, 1981, and is still in effect with no significant change planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. Upon discovering the increased restrictions on the 60-acre parcel, the Respondents demanded of InterAmerican Services, Inc., a refund of their purchase price. As a result, Respondents delivered a Quit Claim Deed dated October, 1982, from South Florida Properties, Inc., executed by Melvin Lewis, President. InterAmerican Services, Inc., delivered a satisfaction of mortgage to South Florida Properties, Inc. on December 7, 1982, which was executed by Lester Gottlieb, President. Although Respondents had on December 7, 1982, no ownership interest in the real property described in Paragraph 12 supra, they continued to collect payments from purchasers of the 1 1/4 acre lots. Respondents attempted to, and were successful in, having some of the purchasers of the 1 1/4 acre lots in the area described in Paragraph 12, supra, agree to exchange their "lots" for lots in a parcel of land more particularly described as portions of Sections 32, 33, 34, of range 37, township 55, Dade County, Florida, that was owned by Respondent Cindy Morales' company, West Dade Acres, Inc. These lots which were sold for approximately $7,500 each, were accessible only by airboat, were near the Everglades National Park and were incapable of being actually surveyed because of their isolated location. Several purchasers, in particular, Chester Herringshaw and Edward Gruber, refused to exchange their original "lots" and continued making payments to South Florida Properties, Inc. Respondent Cindy Morales deposited into the bank account of West Dade Acres, Inc., one or more of the payments made by Chester Herringshaw and/or Edward Gruber without authority or consent by them to do so. Respondents Cindy Morales and Melvin M. Lewis have failed to refund to Edward Gruber the money he paid for the purchase of real property and have failed to provide Edward Gruber clear title to the real property sold to him. To induce purchasers to enter into one or more of the 58 agreements for deed, the Respondents orally represented the 1 1/4 acre lots as valuable property, that the value would greatly increase in the near future, that the property was suited for residential and other purposes and that the purchase of the property was a good investment. The subdivisions established by the Respondents through corporations they controlled existed only on paper and were formed as part of a telephone sales operation to sell essentially worthless land to unsophisticated out-of- state buyers who believed they were purchasing potentially valuable land for investment and/or retirement purposes. The various corporations which were formed and dissolved by the Respondents, including South Florida Properties, Inc., and West Dade Acres, Inc., were attempts by the Respondents to shield themselves from liability for their fraudulent land sales activities. The Respondents collected the initial deposits and monthly payments in accordance with the agreements for deed, but the Respondents failed and refused to deliver warranty deeds as promised upon the full payment of the purchase price. The Respondents attempted to obtain the exchange of property agreements without fully and truthfully advising the agreement for deed purchasers of the quality of any of the property they were buying or exchanging. The Respondents allowed South Florida Properties, Inc., to become defunct without furnishing good and marketable warranty deeds as promised, and without returning the money received, or otherwise accounting for the money received to the various and numerous agreement for deed purchasers, notwithstanding the purchasers' demands made upon Respondents for accounting and delivery of the money paid. At the request of Respondent Larry Lewis, Randy Landes agreed to sign a document as President of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. From that point on, Randy Landes did nothing else with or for the company and had no idea of what business Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., transacted. On November 15, 1982, Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., issued a warranty deed to Vernon Mead granting a parcel of real property to the grantee. Persons unknown executed the warranty deed by forging Randy Landes' name which forgery was witnessed by Respondents Faye Lewis and Cindy Morales and acknowledged by Respondent Melvin Lewis as a notary public. On September 24, 1982, the Respondent Larry B. Lewis unlawfully and feloniously committed an aggravated battery upon Carlos O'Toole by touching or striking Carlos O'Toole against his will by shooting him with a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver, in violation of Subsection 784.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On December 8, 1982, Respondent Larry B. Lewis was convicted of a felony and adjudication was withheld. He was on probation for a period of ten years beginning December 8, 1982, by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, Florida. Respondent Larry B. Lewis failed to inform the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty days after pleading guilty or nolo contendere to, or being convicted or found guilty of, any felony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the real estate license of all Respondents be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 11th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX Case No. 86-3941 Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-29, 31 - accepted as modified. Paragraph 30 - rejected; it was not established what felony the Respondent Lewis was convicted of. Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraph 8 - Rejected. The evidence established that the corporations which the Respondents established and controlled sold the various properties. Paragraphs 9-13 - Accepted. Paragraph 14 - Accepted. Although sales were made prior to 1981, the land in question was essentially worthless when purchased. Paragraph 15 - Rejected. The moratoriums, vested rights provision offers virtually no protection to owners of the property. Paragraphs 16-17 - Rejected. The Respondents merely traded one set of undevelopable property for another. Paragraphs 18-19 - Rejected. Irrelevant. Paragraphs 20-21 - Rejected. Neither Mr. Herringshaw nor Mr. Gruber agreed to exchange their property. Paragraph 22 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 24 - Accepted. Paragraph 25 - Rejected. The corporations were formed by the Respondents to receive monies for these fraudulent land schemes. Paragraph 26 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 - Rejected. See No. 25. Paragraphs 28-30 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 31-38 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 39-42 - Accepted. Paragraphs 43-46 - Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Herman T. Isis, Esquire ISIS & AHRENS, P.A. Post Office Box 144567 Coral Gables, Florida 33114-4567 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the "formal hearing," and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October of 2000, a licensed real estate sales associate in the State of Florida, holding license number 695252. He is currently associated with AAA Realty, Inc., a broker corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida. From March 1, 2001, through June 26, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Allen Real Estate, Inc. (Allen), a broker corporation doing business in St. Lucie County, Florida. From June 27, 2001, through August 13, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Realty Unlimited, Inc. (Unlimited), a broker corporation (affiliated with GMAC Real Estate) with offices in Port St. Lucie and Stuart, Florida. Unlimited is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, owned by Kevin Schevers, a Florida-licensed real estate broker. Gary Sprauer is a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate. He is currently associated with Unlimited. Like Respondent, Mr. Sprauer began his association with Unlimited on June 27, 2001, immediately after having worked for Allen. Respondent and Mr. Sprauer worked as "partners" at both Allen and Unlimited. They had an understanding that the commissions they each earned would be "split 50-50" between them. On February 7, 2001, Allen, through the efforts of Respondent and Mr. Sprauer, obtained an exclusive listing contract (Listing Contract) giving it, for the period of a year, the "exclusive right to sell," in a representative capacity, commercial property located at 3800 South Federal Highway that was owned by Vincent and Renee Piazza (Piazza Property). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Listing Contract addressed the subjects of "compensation," "cooperation with other brokers," and "dispute resolution," respectively, and provided, in pertinent part as follows as follows: COMPENSATION: Seller will compensate Broker as specified below for procuring a buyer who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property or any interest in the Property on the terms of this Agreement or on any other terms acceptable to Seller. Seller will pay Broker as follows (plus applicable sales tax): 8% of the total purchase price or $15,000 maximum, no later than the date of closing specified in the sales contract. However closing is not a prerequisite for Broker's fee being earned. * * * (d) Broker's fee is due in the following circumstances: (1) If any interest in the Property is transferred . . . , regardless of whether the buyer is secured by Broker, Seller or any other person. * * * COOPERATION WITH OTHER BROKERS: Broker's office policy is to cooperate with all other brokers except when not in the Seller's best interest, and to offer compensation to: Buyer's agents, who represent the interest of the buyer and not the interest of Seller in a transaction, even if compensated by Seller or Broker Nonrepresentatives Transaction brokers. None of the above (if this box is checked, the Property cannot be placed in the MLS). * * * 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: This Agreement will be construed under Florida law. All controversies, claim and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be settled by first attempting mediation under the rules of the American Arbitration Association or other mediator agreed upon by the parties. . . . Shortly after they left the employ of Allen and began working for Unlimited, Respondent and Mr. Sprauer showed Nicholas Damiano the Piazza Property. Mr. Damiano thereafter made a written offer to purchase the Piazza Property, which the Piazzas accepted, in writing, on July 4, 2001. The sales price was $165,000.00. Mr. Damiano put down a $10,000.00 deposit, which, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the contract between Mr. Damiano and the Piazzas (Sales Contract), was "held in escrow by [Unlimited]." The obligations of Unlimited, as escrow agent, were described in paragraph 6 of the Sales Contract, which provided as follows: ESCROW. Buyer and Seller authorize GMAC, Realty Unlimited Telephone: . . . Facsimile: . . . Address: . . . to receive funds and other items and, subject to clearance, disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Escrow Agent will deposit all funds received in a non- interest bearing account. If Escrow Agent receives conflicting demands or has a good faith doubt as to Escrow Agent's duties or liabilities under this Contract, he/she may hold the subject matter of the escrow until the parties mutually agree to its disbursement or until issuance of a court order or decision of arbitrator determining the parties' rights regarding the escrow or deposit the subject matter of the escrow with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the dispute. Upon notifying the parties of such action, Escrow Agent will be released from all liability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow. If a licensed real estate broker, Escrow Agent will comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In any suit or arbitration in which Escrow Agent is made a party because of acting as agent hereunder or interpleads the subject matter of the escrow, Escrow Agent will recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at all levels, with such fees and costs to be paid from the escrowed funds or equivalent and charged and awarded as court or other costs in favor of the prevailing party. The parties agree that Escrow Agent will not be liable to any person for misdelivery to Buyer or Seller of escrowed items, unless the misdelivery is due to Escrow Agent's willful breach of this Contract or gross negligence. Paragraph 12 of the Sales Contract addressed the subject of "brokers" and provided as follows: BROKERS. Neither Buyer nor Seller has utilized the services of, or for any other reason owes compensation to, a licensed real estate broker other than: Listing Broker: Allen Real Estate, Inc. who is a transaction broker and who will be compensated by x Seller _ Buyer _ both parties pursuant to x a listing agreement _ other (specify) Cooperating Broker: GMAC Realty Unlimited who is a transaction broker who will compensated by _ Buyer x Seller _ both parties pursuant to _ an MLS or other offer of compensation to a cooperating broker _ other (specify) (collectively referred to as "Broker") in connection with any act relating to the Property, included but not limited to, inquiries, introductions, consultations and negotiations resulting in this transaction. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify and hold Broker harmless from and against losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees at all levels, and from liability to any person, arising from (1) compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this Paragraph, (2) enforcement action to collect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10, (3) any duty accepted by Broker at the request of Buyer or Seller, which duty is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475, F.S., as amended, or (4) recommendations of or services provided and expenses incurred by any third party whom Broker refers, recommends or retains for or on behalf of Buyer or Seller. The Damiano/Piazza transaction was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2001. At the request of the Piazzas, the closing was rescheduled for August 7, 2001. A few days before August 7, 2001, Mr. Sprauer asked Respondent "where the closing was going to take place" and "what title company" would be handling the matter. Respondent replied that the closing was "going to be delayed again because Mr. Damiano . . . was going to have to have some type of cancer surgery." It turned out that the closing was not "delayed again." It took place on August 7, 2001. At the closing were Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, Respondent, and the closing agent from the title company, First American Title Insurance Company (First American).3 Neither Mr. Schevers, nor Mr. Sprauer, was in attendance. Mr. Sprauer did not even know that the closing was taking place. He was under the impression, based on what Respondent had told him, that the closing had been postponed. Had he not been misinformed, he would have attended the closing. Respondent did not contact Mr. Sprauer following the closing to let him know that, in fact, the closing had occurred. Mr. Schevers, on the other hand, was made aware that closing would be held on August 7, 2001. He was unable to attend because he had "prior commitments." It was Respondent who informed Mr. Schevers of the August 7, 2001, closing date. The morning of August 7, 2001, Respondent went to Unlimited's Stuart office and asked Mr. Schevers for the $10,000.00 Unlimited was holding in escrow in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction, explaining that he needed it for the closing that was going to be held later that day. Before complying with Respondent's request, Mr. Schevers contacted First American and asked that he be faxed a copy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement (HUD Statement) that First American had prepared for the closing. As requested, First American faxed a copy of the HUD Statement to Mr. Schevers. Upon reviewing the document, Mr. Schevers "immediately noticed that [it indicated that] the entire commission [of $7,000.00] was going to Allen." Mr. Schevers "then proceeded to call First American" and asked why Unlimited was not "reflected on this settlement statement." Mr. Schevers was told that a First American representative "would get right on it and get back to [him]." Mr. Schevers did not wait to hear back from First American before handing an "escrow check" in the amount of $10,000.00 to Respondent. He instructed Respondent, however, to "not give anybody this check unless that statement [the HUD Statement] [was] changed and reflect[ed] [Unlimited's]" share of the commission earned from the sale of the Piazza Property. He further directed Respondent to telephone him if this change was not made. Respondent did not follow the instructions Mr. Schevers had given him. He delivered the $10,000.00 "escrow check" to the closing agent at the closing, even though the HUD Statement had not been changed to reflect Unlimited's sharing of the commission. At no time during the closing did Mr. Schevers receive a telephone call from Respondent. According to the HUD Statement that Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, and the closing agent signed at the closing, Allen received a commission of $7,000.00 "from seller's funds at settlement." The document makes no mention of any other commission having been paid as part of the closing. On or about August 9, 2001, Respondent received a "commission check" from Allen. The check was made payable to Respondent and was in the amount of $3,000.00. Under the "DOLLARS" line on the check, the following was typed: 4200 Total Comm[4] 1200 ADVANCE[5] Typed next to "MEMO" on the bottom left hand corner of the check was "DAMIANO-PIAZZA 165,000 S&L." It has not been shown that the "commission check" Respondent received from Allen was for anything other than the commission Allen owed Respondent for services performed when Respondent was still employed by Allen. Mr. Schevers' consent to Respondent's receiving this $3,000.00 "commission check" was neither sought nor given. Less than a week after the closing, having spotted Mr. Damiano mowing grass on a vacant lot that Mr. Damiano owned, Mr. Sprauer walked up to him and asked "how his surgery [had gone]." Mr. Damiano "acted very surprised [like] he didn't know what [Mr. Sprauer] was talking about." Mr. Damiano's reaction to his inquiry led Mr. Sprauer to believe "that the closing had probably taken place." He "immediately contacted [Mr. Schevers] and asked him to check into it." Mr. Schevers subsequently learned from First American that Allen "had gotten all of the [commission] check" at the closing. Mr. Schevers then telephoned Respondent. This was the first communication he had had with Respondent since before the closing. Respondent told Mr. Schevers that "he got the check" and "he would be right over with it." Respondent, however, did not keep his promise. After his telephone conversation with Respondent, Mr. Schevers discovered that Allen "had cut [Respondent] a check and [Respondent] had gone immediately and deposited it." This discovery prompted Mr. Schevers to place another telephone call to Respondent. This telephone conversation ended with Mr. Schevers telling Respondent "he was terminated." Mr. Schevers thereafter notified Petitioner in writing that Respondent was no longer associated with Unlimited. He also filed with Petitioner a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction. Mr. Schevers had expected Unlimited to receive, for the role it played in the Damiano/Piazza transaction, "50 percent of the total commission," or $3,500.00, in accordance with the provisions of the "multiple listing service for St. Lucie County."6 He holds Respondent responsible, at least in part, for Unlimited's not receiving these monies.7 At the time of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, Unlimited had contracts with its sales associates which provided that the associates would receive "70 percent of the net" of any commission Unlimited earned as a result of the associates' efforts. Had Unlimited received a commission as a result of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, it would have "split" it with Respondent and Mr. Sprauer as required by the contracts it had with them.8
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in the instant case in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of July, 2004.
The Issue The issues in these two cases are whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints, by (1) failing to return a rental deposit to a potential tenant; (2) serving as the qualifying broker for Friendly International Realty, Inc. (“Friendly”), but failing to actively supervise Friendly’s operations and/or sales associates; failing to preserve Friendly’s transaction records and escrow account documents; and (4) acting in a manner that constitutes culpable negligence or a breach of trust. If there was a violation, an additional issue would be what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency that regulates the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. King is a licensed real estate broker registered with the Department (license numbers BK 3203595, 3261628, 3293588, 3306619, 3335771, 3354773, and 3363985). Ms. King is registered with the Department as the qualifying broker for 16 brokerages located throughout the state of Florida. At all times relevant to this case, Ms. King’s registered address with the Department was 4430 Park Boulevard North, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Friendly International Realty, LLC Friendly was a Florida licensed real estate corporation, holding license number CQ 1040825. Records reflect that James Berthelot was the registered agent for Friendly at the time of incorporation, June 2011. At all times relevant, Mr. Berthelot was a licensed Real Estate Sales Associate (license number SL 3226474) registered with Friendly. In May 2014, Respondent drafted and entered into a Limited Qualifying Broker Agreement (“Broker Agreement”) with Friendly and its owner, Ivania De La Rocha.2/ Friendly and Ms. King entered into the Broker Agreement, “in order to comply with the requirements of the Florida Department of [Business and] Professional Regulation.” Under the terms of the Broker Agreement, Respondent was not paid by Friendly per transaction. Rather, Respondent agreed to serve as the “Corporate Broker of Record” in exchange for a payment of $300 a month “as a flat fee for any and all real estate business conducted by [Friendly].” The Broker Agreement also provided for a “late fee” penalty if Friendly was delinquent in this monthly payment. Section 1.1 of the Broker Agreement outlined Respondent’s duties to Friendly, requiring her to: (1) keep her and Friendly’s licenses active and in good standing under Florida law; (2) keep her other business interests separate from those involving Friendly’s interests; and (3) provide Friendly notice of any governmental inquiry involving her serving as Friendly’s broker. There was no mention in the Broker Agreement of either Respondent’s or Friendly’s responsibilities regarding oversight of transactions, training for sales associates, or day-to-day operations. Regarding document retention, the Broker Agreement provided: Section 9.0 AUDIT & REVIEW RIGHT: Broker shall have the right to enter [Friendly’s] offices upon reasonable advance written notice to verify compliance with the real estate laws of the State of Florida. There was no evidence that Ms. King ever provided Friendly with the kind of notice described in section 9.0 of the Broker Agreement. Although the Broker Agreement did not prohibit Friendly from holding funds or assets on behalf of third parties, section 10.0 (Miscellaneous) explicitly prohibited Friendly from operating an escrow account. (g) Escrow and Ernest Money Accounts. [Friendly] shall not be permitted to hold any escrow account(s). On July 31, 2014, Ms. King was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, as “manager” of Friendly. Ms. King was the qualifying broker for Friendly (license number BK3303898) from August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2015, and November 4, 2015, through January 13, 2016.3/ During the time Ms. King served as the qualifying broker, Friendly operated from a number of addresses in Miami- Dade County, including 11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 292, Miami, Florida 33181; and 2132 Northeast 123rd Street, Miami, Florida 33181. The office door of the Friendly office located on Northeast 123rd Street was painted in large letters, “FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY” and “ALICIA KING” painted underneath. At the hearing, when asked about Friendly’s address, Ms. King could only confirm that when she became the broker the office was “on Biscayne.” The Biscayne Boulevard address is the one listed on the Broker Agreement. At the hearing, Ms. King was wrong about when the Friendly office had moved from the Biscayne Boulevard to the Northeast 123rd Street location, insisting it was over the Christmas holidays in 2015. Records establish Friendly moved from the Biscayne Boulevard location to the Northeast 123rd Street location sometime between April and July 2014. In January 2016, Ms. King believed the office was still on Biscayne Boulevard. In reality, it had been over a year since the office had relocated to that location. At the hearing, when asked by her own counsel how many transactions a month Friendly handled, Ms. King replied, “That’s hard to say. It was not many at all. Ten, maybe.” Respondent could not give the exact number of employees or sales associates affiliated with Friendly; when asked, she stated she could not remember the exact amount, but knew it was “very limited.” Respondent did not have any agreements or documentation related to how many sales associates were registered under her broker’s license. Respondent could not name any other sales associates affiliated with Friendly while she was the qualifying broker, except for Mr. Berthelot. While she was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Respondent did not perform any of the training for the sales associates at Friendly. Respondent did not have any face-to-face meetings with any Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have phone or e-mail contact with any of the Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have copies of any forms, handbooks, reports or files related to Friendly. All of these documents were in paper form and kept in the Friendly office. Respondent had no access or signatory authority for any of Friendly’s bank accounts. Natalie James was a registered real estate sales associate affiliated with Friendly for approximately five months, from November 2015 through March 2016. Ms. James worked out of the Friendly office and was physically present at the office at least three or four times a week. Ms. James was involved in several rentals and one sales transaction while at Friendly. For each transaction she assembled a file, which was kept in the Friendly office. For rental transactions, Ms. James would negotiate and facilitate lease agreements. When she represented potential tenants, she received deposit funds that she deposited with Friendly. Ms. James attended meetings at Friendly; Ms. King was not present at any of them. Ms. James never had any telephonic, electronic, personal, or other contact with Respondent. While at Friendly, neither Mr. Berthelot nor any of Ms. James’ co-workers mentioned Ms. King to Ms. James. Although Ms. King’s name was on the door of Friendly’s office, Ms. James was unaware Ms. King was Friendly’s broker. There was conflicting testimony as to how often Respondent visited the Friendly office. Ms. King’s testimony at the hearing was at odds with the Department’s evidence and testimony regarding this issue. Ms. King insisted that while she was Friendly’s broker, she would travel from Pinellas Park to the Friendly office once or twice a week. This was not believable for a number of reasons. First, had Ms. King visited Friendly’s office as often as she stated, she would have known about the change in location; she did not. Second, Ms. King could not give one concrete date or detail about her travels to the Friendly office. Third, and most compelling, was the testimony of Ms. James (who worked at Friendly for at least two months while Ms. King was its broker) that she had never seen, communicated with, or heard mention of Ms. King while at Friendly. Ms. James’ unbiased and compelling testimony alone supports a finding that Ms. King did not visit the Friendly office as frequently as she indicated. Ms. King was aware that Friendly and Mr. Berthelot provided rental or “tenant placement” services.4/ Friendly collected security deposits and other move-in funds from potential renters and held them in an escrow account. Ms. King was not aware Friendly had an escrow account until January 2016 when she was contacted by the Department in an unrelated case. On January 13, 2016, Respondent resigned with the Department as the qualifying broker for Friendly effective that same day. On January 14, 2016, Respondent filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for operating an escrow account and collecting deposit funds without her knowledge. Facts Related to the Viton Case In November 2015, during the time Ms. King was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Christian Viton signed a lease agreement to rent an apartment located in Miami at 460 Northeast 82nd Terrace, Unit 8 (“Viton transaction”). The Viton lease agreement listed Friendly as the holder of the deposit monies and required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds to the owner of the property. Pursuant to the terms of the Viton lease agreement, Mr. Viton remitted an initial deposit of $500, and received a written receipt from Friendly dated November 2, 2015. Mr. Viton gave Friendly a second deposit of $380, and received a written receipt dated November 4, 2015. Mr. Viton never moved into the apartment and demanded a refund of his deposit from Friendly. On December 8, 2015, Friendly issued a check to Mr. Viton in the amount of $530. Three days later, Friendly issued a stop-payment order on the $530 check to Mr. Viton. On February 29, 2016, Mr. Viton filed a complaint with the Department seeking a return of the $880 he had given to Friendly. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation into Mr. Viton’s complaint and contacted Respondent. Upon learning about the Viton complaint, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot who admitted Friendly had stopped payment on the $530 refund check, but had reissued the full amount of the deposit to a third-party not named on the lease. There is no evidence Mr. Viton ever received a refund of his $880 deposit. Facts Related to Dorestant Case In June 2015, during the time Ms. King served as Friendly’s qualifying broker, Cindy Dorestant entered into a lease agreement to rent a condominium located at 1540 West 191 Street, Unit 110 (“Dorestant transaction”). In the lease, Friendly was listed as the “broker” and holder of the deposit; TIR Prime Properties (“TIR”) was listed as the owner’s agent. The Dorestant lease agreement required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Pursuant to the terms of the Dorestant lease agreement, Ms. Dorestant gave Friendly $1,050 as an initial deposit, and received a written receipt dated June 24, 2015. In late July 2015, Ms. Dorestant contacted TIR’s property manager and sales agent to ask for information about the status of her move into the condominium. TIR explained to Ms. Dorestant that Friendly had not conveyed any of monies collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Both Ms. Dorestant and TIR attempted to contact Friendly, but Friendly was non-responsive. The TIR sales associate relayed this information to TIR’s broker, Mariano Saal, who in turn tried to reach Friendly to resolve the issue. Eventually, TIR was told by Mr. Berthelot that Friendly would release the move-in funds to TIR and that Mr. Berthelot would schedule the move-in. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly, nor did Mr. Berthelot facilitate Ms. Dorestant’s move into the condominium. On August 31, 2015, Mr. Saal contacted Mr. Berthelot and informed him that if TIR did not receive the move-in funds for the Dorestant transaction by 5:00 p.m. that day, it would be required to find another tenant. Ms. Dorestant did not move into the condominium and demanded a refund from Friendly and TIR. On September 14, 2015, Mr. Saal sent an e-mail to what he believed was Respondent’s address, demanding the $1,050 from Friendly because it considered Ms. Dorestant’s failure to move into the property a default of the lease agreement. Respondent, however, did not have access to Friendly’s e-mails. The e-mail was also sent to Mr. Berthelot, and Ms. De La Rocha. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly for the Dorestant transaction. After discovering she could not move into the condominium because Friendly had not transferred the deposit to TIR, Ms. Dorestant demanded a refund of her deposit monies from Friendly. She did not receive it. On February 10, 2016, Mariano Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, filed a complaint against Mr. Berthelot and Friendly with the Department regarding the Dorestant transaction. Ms. Dorestant initially did not receive a refund from Friendly and, therefore, filed a police report against Mr. Berthelot and sued him in small claims court. Eventually, Mr. Berthelot refunded Ms. Dorestant her deposit monies. Department Investigations of Friendly Upon receiving the Viton complaint, the Department assigned the case (DPBR Case No. 2016018731) to Erik Lluy, an Investigator Specialist II in the Miami field office. Similarly, on or around the same time the Department received the Dorestant complaint; it was also assigned to Mr. Lluy (DPBR Case No. 2016018069). On April 25, 2016, Mr. Lluy officially notified Ms. King of each of the complaints. On May 25, 2016, the Department transferred both the Viton and Dorestant complaints from Mr. Lluy to Percylla Kennedy. Ms. King provided a written response to both complaints via e-mail to Mr. Lluy on May 26, 2016. At that time, Mr. Lluy indicated the case had been transferred to Ms. Kennedy and copied Ms. Kennedy on the response. Ms. Kennedy was familiar with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. In January 5, 2016, she had conducted an investigation of Friendly in an unrelated complaint filed against Friendly by Borys Bilan (“Bilan complaint”). As part of the investigation into the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy arrived at the Friendly office address registered with the Department on Biscayne Boulevard to conduct an official office inspection. When she arrived, however, she found the office vacant. As a result, that same day Ms. Kennedy contacted the registered qualifying broker for Friendly–-Ms. King-–by phone. During that call, Ms. Kennedy asked Ms. King where Friendly’s office was located, but Ms. King did not know. Eventually, Ms. Kennedy determined the Friendly office had relocated to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Ms. Kennedy testified that during this call, Ms. King admitted to her that she had not been to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent testified she did not tell Ms. Kennedy this and as proof insisted that the January call was inconsequential and “a very short call.” The undersigned rejects Respondent’s version of events and finds Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and report regarding the January 2016 interview more reliable. First, although Ms. King describes the conversation as occurring on January 7, 2016, both Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and the Inspection Report establish the conversation occurred on January 5, 2016. Second, Respondent’s characterization of the call as inconsequential contradicts her own May 26, 2016, written response to the Department in which Ms. King outlines a number of substantive issues discussed during this phone conversation, including: the nature of Friendly’s practice, whether Friendly had an escrow account, the type of payment accepted by Friendly, and the address of Friendly’s office. After speaking with Ms. King about the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy conducted the inspection at Friendly’s Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent was not present when Investigator Kennedy conducted the office inspection. Ms. Kennedy then e-mailed the Office Inspection form to Respondent. As a result of the January 5, 2016, phone conversation with Ms. Kennedy, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot about the Bilan complaint. On January 13, 2016, Mr. Berthelot provided Ms. King with the transaction file related to the Bilan complaint. When Ms. King reviewed the lease agreement, she realized that Friendly was holding deposit funds in escrow. As a result, on December 13, 2016, Ms. King filed a resignation letter with the Department explaining she was no longer the qualifying broker for Friendly. Ms. King did not ask Mr. Berthelot or anyone else at Friendly for any other transaction records at this time, nor did she make any effort to review any of Friendly’s transaction files to determine whether Friendly had obtained other deposit funds or conducted other transactions similar to the one that was the subject of the Bilan complaint. After having knowledge of the Bilan complaint and transaction, and suspecting Friendly had been operating an escrow account, Ms. King made no immediate effort to access the operating or escrow bank accounts or reconcile the escrow account. After resigning as Friendly’s qualifying broker with the Department, Ms. King filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for unlicensed activity involving an escrow deposit.5/ Despite no longer being Friendly’s qualifying broker, on January 21, 2016, Ms. King executed and sent back to Ms. Kennedy the Inspection Report related to the Bilan complaint. Five months later, on or around May 25, 2016, Ms. Kennedy notified Ms. King she was taking over the investigation into the Viton and Dorestant cases. Ms. Kennedy testified that as part of her investigation into the Viton and Dorestant complaints, she interviewed Respondent again. Respondent denies she was interviewed by Ms. Kennedy regarding the Viton and Dorestant complaints, and instead insists she was only interviewed in January 2016 in connection with the Bilan complaint. Ms. King testified she believed Ms. Kennedy lied about interviewing her more than once because Ms. Kennedy was “lazy.” The undersigned rejects this assertion. Ms. Kennedy’s testimony was specific, knowledgeable, and credible, unlike Ms. King’s testimony, which was intentionally vague. Moreover, Ms. Kennedy specifically attributes her findings to specific sources such as Ms. King’s written response, her interview with Ms. King relating to the Viton and Dorestant transactions, and to her previous conversation with Ms. King during the Bilan investigation. The citations to information gleaned from the January 5, 2016, call were marked by the following sub-note. SUBJECT was previously interviewed by this Investigator in January 2016 for the unrelated complaint and was unaware that FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY LLC had moved from license location 11900 Biscayne Blvd.[,] Suite 292 Miami, FL 33181 to 2132 NE 123ST[,] Miami, FL 33181 (See Ex. 9). At that time, SUBJECT was unable to provide the transaction file. Ms. Kennedy would have no reason to fabricate the source of the conclusions she reached in her report or the number of times she contacted Ms. King. Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Viton complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Mr. Viton and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016. In this report, Ms. Kennedy determined that on February 25, 2016, Friendly issued a check in the amount of $875 to a person who was not listed on either the lease agreement, the receipts Friendly issued to Mr. Viton, or any other paperwork. Similarly, Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Dorestant complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Ms. Dorestant and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016, indicating Ms. Dorestant did eventually receive a refund. During the course of the Viton investigation, Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Viton transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. During the course of the Dorestant investigation Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Dorestant transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. Professional Standards Mr. Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, testified he had served as a broker for approximately ten years. As TIR’s qualifying broker, he kept the documentation related to the transactions handled by TIR’s six sales associates. The testimony of the TIR sales associate and property manager established that they relied on Mr. Saal for advice and to resolve issues. For example, when Ms. Dorestant began contacting TIR’s sales associate and property manager regarding the move-in and then for a refund of her deposit, the sales associate went to Mr. Saal to discuss the situation. Mr. Saal then attempted to resolve the issue by attempting to communicate with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in brokerages, reviewed the Department’s investigative files and reports relating to the Viton and Dorestant complaints, as well as applicable Florida Statutes and rules. Mr. Trafton’s testimony and report established that in Florida the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to others. Petitioner showed that Mr. Viton was entitled to a refund of his deposit from Friendly and that Respondent erred in not ensuring he received this refund. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. “Active supervision” is not defined by statute or rule, but by usual and customary practices exercised statewide. “Active supervision” requires a broker to: have regular communications with all sales associates, not just communicating when there is a complaint; be aware of problems, issues and procedures in the office and among sales associates; have access to and signatory power on all operating and escrow accounts; hold regular scheduled office/sales meetings; conduct in–person training meetings; provide guidance and advice for sales associates; be intimately involved in how transaction forms and other documents are stored and retrieved; and be available to provide advice and direction on short notice. In other words, a broker should set the tone at the brokerage by overseeing her sales associates’ conduct of transactions. Ms. King failed to manage, direct, and control her real estate sales associate, Mr. Berthelot, to the standard expected of a qualifying broker in both the Viton and Dorestant transactions, if not all of Friendly’s transactions. She did not actively supervise Mr. Berthelot as a sales associate. Mr. Trafton also testified that a broker, not the brokerage, is ultimately responsible for preserving transaction files, forms related to transactions, and other related documents. Although less certain than Mr. Trafton about whether a broker or the brokerage firm is responsible for preservation of transaction files, Mr. Saal testified “the broker is responsible for the . . . transactions. It’s [the broker’s] client at the end of the day.” Ms. King failed to preserve accounts and records relating to Friendly’s accounts, the files related to the Viton and Dorestant rental transactions, or any other documents related to Friendly. Petitioner also clearly established that Respondent was guilty of either “culpable negligence” or “breach of trust” in the Viton or Dorestant transaction. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Viton complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,625.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Dorestant complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,608.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Case No. 17-3989 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint in the Viton case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling $2,500 ($500 fine per count for Counts I, II and III; and $1,000 fine for Count IV). Imposing license suspension for a total period of nine months (one-month suspensions each for Counts I, II, and III; and a six-month suspension for Count IV). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,625.25. Case No. 17-3961 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint in the Dorestant case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling of $2,000 ($500 fine per count for Counts I and II; and $1,000 fine for Count III). Imposing license suspension for a total period of eight months to be imposed consecutive to the suspension in Case No. 17-3989 (one-month suspensions each for Counts I and II; and a six-month suspension for Count III). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,608.75. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 25th day of January, 2018.
