The Issue Whether the license of Respondents should be revoked or suspended or other discipline imposed.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence received, the testimony elicited at the hearing, argument of counsel and memoranda submitted by the parties, I find: Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc., was issued License Number 0168325 as a registered real estate broker corporation. Respondent Steven R. Myer, holds license number 0110787 as a registered real estate broker. Respondent Myer is an Active Firm Member for Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc. In general, the contention of the Petitioner Commission is that the Respondents failed to pay an employee, Sam Blumner, a real estate commission due him on two occasions contrary to certain provisions in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The contentions of the Respondents are that the dispute was contractual and not within the jurisdiction of the Petitioner, that they tried to avoid an information being filed against them, and that the alleged offense's are insufficient to justify suspension or revocation. On November 1, 1976, Florida Coast Realty, Inc., by Steven R. Myer, entered into a contract agreement with Sam Blumner whereby Mr. Blumner was to receive a fee earned as a result of service performed by Mr. Blumner as a real estate salesman with Florida Coast Realty, Inc. Subsequently, on January 13, 1977, Sam Blumner was terminated as a salesman with Florida Coast Realty, Inc., and a notice of registrant change was nailed by the corporation to the Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach Board of Realtors and received by the Board on January 18, 1977. A transaction pertinent to subject hearing was entered into on or about November 11, 1976 in which Walter Ross and Sam Blumner were the "listing" salesmen for property owned by Frank S. Holsclaw and Florence Holsclaw. It was ultimately purchased by Dennis F. and Dione Dicataldo, but subsequent to the termination of the employment of Blumner by Respondents. Mr. Blumner made a claim for $297.00 which represented one-half the listing, or twelve and one-half percent of the office profit. He testified that he was listed on the office "log" as co-lister. Nothing was paid to Mr. Blumner although Mr. Walter Ross, a broker formerly associated with Respondent Florida Coast Realty, Inc. and the co-lister was paid twelve and one-half percent of the office profit. Mr. Ross estimated that he received between $250.00 and $260.00 as "half" listing commission. Mr. Blumner's name did not appear on the listing contract in the transaction because he had not yet been listed as a member of the Board, and only the name of Walter Ross was listed as "salesperson". Mr. Ross testified that he and Sam Blumner were listed together on the transaction and that he himself received half of the listing commission. A registered realtor associate who worked for Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc. at the time, Dorothy E. Reagan, testified that Walter Ross and Sam Blumner were the listing salesmen on the Holsclaw-Dicataldo transaction. The Respondents did not dispute the fact that Walter Ross was paid but one-half the listing commission although they pointed out his was the only name on the written contract. No evidence was entered by the Respondent showing that the remaining one-half of the listing commission was paid by Respondents to anyone. A second transaction pertinent to this hearing was entered into on December 31, 1977 with Mr. and Mrs. Haarar as sellers, and Mr. and Mrs. Grimes as buyers. The closing was several months later and after Mr. Blumner had left the employment of Florida Coast Realty, Inc. Mr. Blumner was the salesman who first showed the purchaser the home later purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Grimes, and was the "procuring cause" of the sale. He made an offer to the seller and counter offer of the seller to the buyer. He related to the Grimes the offer of $27,000, which was the final purchase price of the home and showed these purchasers other property for sale. Mr. Blumner was not paid a commission for the sale of the home. Both Mr. Ross and Mrs. Reagan testified that Mr. Blumner was the salesman on the transaction. Mr. Jerome T. Myer of the Respondent Florida Coast Realty, Inc., stated that Mr. Blumner should have been paid, but not the full commission inasmuch as he had not done the follow-up work involved after the initial procurement of a purchaser for the property. The Respondent, Steven R. Myer and his brother Jerome T. Myer did the follow-up work on the sale of the property in the Haarar-Grimes transaction. Mr. Blumner contends that he made demands for his money both as a co- lister and a salesman, but that no money was paid him. He testified that he would have foregone his commission as a co-lister in the amount of some $260.00 had he received a commission as salesman in the Haarar-Grimes transaction, a sum of some $567.00. Mr. Blumner testified that he endeavored to talk to the Respondent Steven R. Myer about the commission but was interrupted by Jerome Myer, and that he told the Respondents he would have to seek redress through the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, if he did not receive a commission. A letter was sent to the Petitioner by Respondent Myer on April 7, 1977 requesting information as to the jurisdiction of Petitioner relative to "a dispute with one of my former associates regarding commission money". The Commission acknowledged the correspondence and Respondent Myer was informed that the Commission had received a complaint against him alleging he had failed to account or deliver a commission to a salesman, and that it was being assigned for investigation. The Respondents made little or no effort to settle the dispute prior to the hearing.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the Respondents until the commission has been paid to Sam Blumner as co-lister in the Holsclaw-Dicataldo transaction and a settlement has been made in regard to the Haarar-Grimes transaction. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven L. Josias, Esquire P. 0. Box 23536 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, an agency of the State of Florida, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-812 Progress Docket No. 3321 FLORIDA COAST REALTY, INC., and Broward County STEVEN R. MYER, Respondents. /
The Issue Whether Respondent Garrison's license as a real estate broker and Respondent Arbree's license as a broker-salesman should be suspended or revoked, or the licensees otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 475, F.S., as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated December 22, 1980. This proceeding commenced with the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Department of Professional Regulation on December 22, 1980 alleging that Respondents Gary D. Garrison and Joseph M. Arbree had violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes in connection with a 1977 real estate transaction wherein Respondents allegedly failed to disclose to the seller that purchaser Respondent Arbree was a licensed broker-salesman and that Respondent Garrison had, or would have a financial interest in the property upon its purchase. The Respondents requested an administrative hearing on the charge and filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that Petitioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed in the cause in that there had been no lawful compliance with the provisions of Section establishment of any fiduciary relationship between the Respondents and the seller of the property in question, and that Petitioner had not complied with the motion was reserved until argument was presented at the final hearing. At that time, the motion was denied for reasons which will be set forth in the Petitioner forwarded the Request for Hearings to this Division on July 1, 1981 and hearing was set for September 17, 1981. On August 27, 1981, Petitioner Oklahoma on September 9, 1981. Respondent filed objections to the said notice, together with a Motion For Protective Order, claiming that the notice period was depositions outside the State for use at trial. Respondent sought either to have the notice "stricken" or that a protective order be entered to require deposition or, alternatively, that the deposition testimony not be allowed in evidence at final hearing. The motion was denied by the Hearing Officer on At final hearing on September 17, 1981, Petitioner announced that the deposition of McNickle, an indispensable witness, had not yet been received. deposition as a late-filed exhibit, a continuance was granted until November 23, 1981, to permit receipt of the deposition and to afford Respondents an its taking in Oklahoma. Although the parties were afforded the opportunity to file Proposed herein, no post-hearing submissions have been filed.
Findings Of Fact times material to the complaint was registered as a real estate salesman with Investment Equity Corporation, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Respondent Joseph he was associated with Investment Equity Corporation during the times material to the allegations in the Complaint. (Testimony of Respondents) acre unimproved lots in a development called Palm Beach Country Estates located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The purchase price of each lot was telephoned Respondent Garrison and they thereafter had several telephone conversations which led to the sale of the three lots to Respondent Arbree. The found that Respondent Garrison's version is more credible. In the initial conversation, McNickle advised Garrison of his ownership of the three lots and to inspect the lots and advise him as to the distance to electrical power, the type of roads adjacent to the lots, and whether the lots were corner lots. and that he was interested in trying to get his money back from the company. There was no mention of the value of the lots or of listing the property for sale. Garrison inspected the lots and, in a subsequent telephone conversation with McNickle, informed him that the nearest electrical power was approximately 1-3/4 miles from the lot locations, that they were on a dirt road, and that none were corner lots. He also informed him that the lots were approximately fifty percent under water during the rainy season. During this conversation, Garrison told McNickle that he had an "associate" with Investment Equity who sometimes purchased such lots. McNickle asked him to see if he could obtain an offer on the lots. Garrison then asked Respondent Arbree if he desired to purchase the lots, and the latter agreed if he could obtain financing for the purchase. Arbree asked Garrison if there was a listing on the property and Garrison told him that there was not. The reason for this inquiry was that Arbree had in the past frequently made personal purchases of real estate and had disclosed his status as a real estate salesman on such contracts when the property was listed with a broker. A question had arisen in his office as to when licensed real estate personnel should disclose their status to sellers when buying on their own account. Arbree had resolved this question in his mind some time previously by telephoning the legal office of the Florida Real Estate Commission and receiving information from someone there that it was not necessary to make such disclosure if the property was not listed with a real estate office. (Testimony of Respondents, McNickle (Deposition-Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Petitioner's Exhibit 4-1, Respondents' Exhibits 1-4) On February 28, 1977, Respondent Arbree executed a deposit receipt contract whereby he agreed to pay McNickle $15,000.00 for the three lots. The contract originally provided for a $500.00 deposit evidenced by Arbree's promissory note to be held in trust by the Investment Equity Corporation, but this was later deleted by the parties at the request of McNickle, and a $500.00 check as deposit was placed in the Investment Equity Corporation Trust Account on March 10, 1977. The check was drawn on the account of J. V. Company and signed by both Respondents. J. V. Company was simply a bank account established by Arbree and Garrison sometime prior to the McNickle transaction to serve as a depository for funds which were generated through sales for their private account. Both signatures were required for issuance of checks. Originally, the funds in the account were exclusively those of Arbree and these were the funds used for the deposit and subsequent mortgage payments to McNickle. (Testimony of Respondents, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4-5, 4-9, 5) The deposit receipt contract was executed by Melvin F. McNickle and his wife on March 10, 1977. The contract provided that "The buyer hereby recognizes Investment Equity Corporation by separate agreement as the broker in this transaction". This provision made reference to the fact that in cases where associates of Investment Equity Corporation purchased property in their own name which was not listed with the firm, the firm broker did not require payment of any commission. On the other hand, if an associate sold his own property, whether or not listed with Investment Equity Corporation, office policy required that he pay the firm a three percent commission for overhead, escrow maintenance, and the like. The commission was payable directly to the company and not shared with any of the associates. McNickle did not enter into a listing contract with the firm nor did he pay a real estate commission on the sale. The real estate transaction closed on August 1, 1977. Warranty deeds, dated July 26, 1977, for each of the three lots were issued by McNickle to Arbree. (Testimony of Respondents, Brown, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4-3, 4-4, 4- 5) Garden lots and is familiar with the selling price places the top value on choice lots of $8,000.00 in 1977, and $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 if fill was Shortly after Arbree had contracted with McNickle for the sale of the lots, Arbree told Garrison that if the lots could be resold at a profit, he McNickle contract had been entered into, another associate at Investment Equity Corporation told Garrison that he had a prospect looking for vacant land, and prospect, Carl Doty, was contacted by Garrison and, on March 17, 1977, a contract for sale and purchase was entered into between Arbree and Doty for the Investment Equity Corporation as the broker and agreed to pay a commission of three percent of the gross sales price to the firm. This was in accordance with minimum commission for processing a sale of property owned by the associate. Garrison did not receive a commission on the sale, but did receive one half of Arbree. Warranty deeds were issued to Doty by Arbree on August 24, 1977. The proceeds of the sale were placed in the J. V. Company bank account. (Testimony This case was originally docketed in the Florida Real Estate Commission in September, 1978, but was not investigated until December, 1979. A prior to comply with the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Stephens) Petitioner's proposed disciplinary action against both Respondents is predicated upon their alleged failure to disclose to the seller of the lots in Petitioner, and that Respondent Garrison had or would have a financial interest in the said property upon its purchase. The said nondisclosure is alleged to trick or device, breach of trust", and that thereby each Respondent "has aided, assisted or conspired with another in furtherance thereof, all in violation of subsequently reenacted and renumbered (Subsection 475.25(1)(b), F.S. (1981)), the provisions of the cited ground for disciplinary action have remained the penalties. The evidence in this case falls short of the standard required under (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), i.e., that in a proceeding which "may result in the loss of a valuable business or professional license, the critical matters at issue must Here, the fact that the real property in question was not the subject of a listing contract with Respondents' firm, Investment Equity Corporation, raises commission was paid to Respondent Garrison or to the firm by the seller, nor was any expected. Respondents and their broker treated the transaction as a private Respondents misled McNickle in any respect. Garrison made it clear at the outset that Arbree was his associate in the firm and was acting in his own behalf. The circumstances demonstrate that Garrison was acting as a gratuitous "middle man" for the benefit of both parties. The offer of Arbree, which was accepted by McNickle, was not unreasonable in the light of the location of the lots and other relevant considerations bearing on market value. The evidence shows that the McNickle lots were purchased solely with Arbree's funds, even though the checks issued for the deposit and several mortgage payments were drawn on the "J. V. Company" account which had been used in a limited fashion in the past by both Respondents in real estate ventures. No competent evidence was presented to show that Respondent Garrison had acquired a financial interest in the Arbree-McNickle transaction. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that subsequent purchaser Doty was made known to Garrison as a prospective purchaser of the lots only after the purchase contract between Arbree and McNickle had been executed, and that Respondents had not agreed to split any profits in a resale until that time. It is undoubtedly true that if Investment Equity Corporation had had a broker-principal fiduciary relationship with McNickle, the duties resulting therefrom would have also been imposed upon Garrison as a salesman, and he would have been obliged to disclose to McNickle the circumstances concerning his subsequent interest in the resale to Doty. This was not the case, however, and no such duty can be found in the light of the existing circumstances. Although it is recognized that a registrant can violate Subsection 475.25(1)(a), F.S. (1977) for dishonest conduct in a business transaction for his own account, as well as for such conduct in which his only interest is as a broker (or salesman) Sellars v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 380 So.2d, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the evidence here is insufficient to so characterize Respondents' conduct. It is therefore concluded that Petitioner has failed to establish that Respondents violated Section 475.25(1)(a), F.S. as alleged. Although the foregoing conclusion renders it unnecessary to deal with Respondents' various claims concerning Petitioner's failure to accord them procedural rights in the prehearing process, it is considered that the amendment to Section 120.60(6), F.S. by Chapter 81-180, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1981, renders any defense based on the prior Section 120.60(6)(1979) no longer available. Additionally, Respondents' contentions that this proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to criminal prosecutions or by statutory laches are not well founded. Finally, Respondents did not establish any failure of Petitioner to comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, in processing this case.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Real Estate dismiss the allegations against Respondents Gary D. Garrison and Joseph M. Arbree. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1982. Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 611 North Pine Hills Road Orlando, Florida 32808 Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Executive Director Florida Board of Real Estate Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Petitioner has standing to bring this action and, if so, whether Respondent Stuart Yacht Corporation is entitled to the General Permit which the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) intends to issue.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns Lot 4 in St. Lucie Settlement, a subdivision in Stuart, Florida. The subdivision has one border along the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. The subdivision has a finger fill that extends to the South Fork with canals on both sides. There are four lots on the finger fill, Lots 1 through 4 of the subdivision. Lot 4 is farthest from the river. On the north side of Petitioner’s property he has a dock where he keeps a boat. The dispute in this case involves the canal on the south side of Petitioner’s property. All references to “the canal” hereafter, unless otherwise noted, will be to the canal on the south side of Lot 4. Between Lots 2, 3, and 4 and the canal is a road which provides access to the lots on the finger fill. Between the road and the canal is a narrow strip of land. Petitioner owns this narrow strip of land where it corresponds with his lot lines. In other words, the southern boundary of his Lot 4 abuts the canal. However, because the canal is artificial, having been created by dredging, Petitioner has no riparian rights associated with the canal. That was the holding of the circuit court for Martin County in the litigation between Stuart Yacht Corporation and Petitioner. It was also established in the circuit court litigation that St. Lucie Settlement, Inc., which is the homeowner's association for the subdivision, owns the northern half of the canal and Stuart Yacht Corporation owns the southern half of the canal. No subdivision documents were presented to show the extent of rights granted to homeowners within St. Lucie Settlement related to the construction of docks or other uses of water bottoms that are included within the subdivision. Petitioner testified that he terminated his membership in the homeowners association three-and-a-half years ago. Stuart Yacht Corporation owns and operates a marina on the south side of the canal which includes docks over the water. At some point in the past, but before Petitioner purchased Lot 4 in 1995, Stuart Yacht Corporation constructed a dock along the north side of the canal, over the water bottom owned by St. Lucie Settlement, Inc. The dock along the north side of the canal has been used for mooring large yachts. The portion of the dock that ran along the boundary of Lot 4 was recently removed by Stuart Yacht Corporation following the rulings in the circuit court. The balance of the dock along the north side of the canal would be removed as a part of the proposed permit that Petitioner has challenged. In addition to removing the dock along the north side of the canal, the proposed permit authorizes Stuart Yacht Corporation to construct a new dock that is four feet wide and runs 150 feet along the property boundary in the center of the canal. No part of the proposed new dock would be on the property of St. Lucie Settlement, Inc. St. Lucie Settlement, Inc., did not challenge the proposed permit. In his petition for hearing, Petitioner alleged that the proposed new dock would cause the following injuries to his interests: interference with ingress and egress to Petitioner’s shoreline; interference with Petitioner’s desire to obtain a permit in the future to construct a dock or to “harden” the southern shoreline; and interference with Petitioner’s riparian rights. Petitioner’s testimony about his past use of the canal was inconsistent. He said he moored his boat in the canal once in 1995. He said he boated into the canal to fish on several occasions. He said that (at least twice) when he attempted to enter the canal by boat, he was denied access by representatives of Stuart Yacht Corporation. However, in a deposition taken before the hearing, Petitioner said he had never attempted to use the canal. The only testimony presented by Petitioner to support his claim that the proposed permit would interfere with his navigation, fishing, and desire to obtain a dock permit in the canal was the following: I couldn’t get a boat in there with that proposed dock in the center line of the canal right on their side of the canal. It would be 150 feet long. It would be a huge Wall of China. My neighbor and I couldn’t get to our shoreline. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove that Petitioner would be unable to navigate into the canal in a small boat or to fish in the canal if the proposed dock is constructed. The evidence was also insufficient to prove that Petitioner would be unable to construct any kind of dock for any kind of watercraft if the proposed dock is constructed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department dismiss the petition for hearing based on Petitioner's failure to prove standing, and issue the proposed permit to Stuart Yacht Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 20th day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paul B. Erickson, Esquire Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A. 340 Royal Poinciana Way, Suite 321 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Amanda Gayle Bush, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Office of the General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Guy Bennett Rubin, Esquire Rubin & Rubin Post Office Box 395 Stuart, Florida 34995
Findings Of Fact Talbott and Drake, Inc. is and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker corporation. William F. Talbott is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. Paul P. Drake is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. Helen C. Drake is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. On or about January 18, 1977, William F. Talbott, on behalf of Talbott and Drake, Inc., negotiated a contract for sale and purchase between the High Ridge Water Company -- John H. McGeary, Jr., sellers, and William Montaltos and Genevieve L. Montaltos, his wife, buyers, for the purchase of lot in a new housing area known as River Forest in the Boca Raton area, Palm Beach County. A copy of said contract, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, is received into the record pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Said contract, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, was subject to the declarations of restrictions filed by High Ridge Water Company as seller on June 28, 1976, wherein, in Paragraph 7, the developer retained the right to approve or disapprove the plans and specifications for the construction of any structure, building, fence, wall or sign in the River Forest area. A copy of said declarations of restrictions is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 2, pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. As a part of the restrictions and provisions of the contract, the purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos, were required to use a builder selected from a list of designated builders, approved and designated by Talbott and Drake, Inc. and the High Ridge Water Company. Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos decided to build on the subject property and contacted numerous builders designated by Talbott and Drake, Inc. to submit the bids for the construction of a home on the property. On or about June 9, 1976, the McGeary partnership, as developer of the River Forest area, entered into a joint venture agreement with Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc., whereby Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. purchased lots in the River Forest area and agreed to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a five-percent commission on all homes constructed on said lots by Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. in the River Forest area. A copy of said joint venture agreement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 recites on the first page of said agreement as follows: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, by that certain Purchase Agreement intended to be executed this date, BUILDER (Group Six Collaborative, Inc.) is agreeing to purchase certain real property as set forth herein, a copy of which Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; . . . (emphasis added) WHEREAS, the parties hereto are desirous of forming a joint venture for the purpose of finan- cing, constructing and selling single family residences upon the property described in Exhibit 1; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the pro- mises and of the mutual covenants of the parties hereto, and for other good and valuable considera- tion, the parties agree as follows: 9. BROKER. The parties agree that TALBOTT AND DRAKE, INC., a Florida real estate brokerage corporation, shall have an exclusive listing agree- ment with BUILDER, as owner and joint venturer, for the sale of residences to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement, a copy of which Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. As a commission for their services, which shall include but not be limited to, advertising, manning model houses, showing receiving of deposits, qualifying prospects, assisting in obtaining financing for purchasers, they shall receive five percent (5 percent) of the pur- chase price, according to the provisions contained in Exhibit 2. The joint venture agreement, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, is clearly limited to houses to be constructed on the lots purchased from the McGeary partnership. The agreement does not constitute an agreement to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a fee of five percent of the construction cost of any custom home built by one of the designated builders on a lot purchased by an individual. When Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos received the bid statement from Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. there was noted thereon: "Add Real Estate Commission as per Talbott and Drake contract." A copy of said bid statement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Although Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos were informed that Talbott and Drake, Inc. was to be paid a ten-percent commission by the seller on the sale of the property to Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos, they were at no time informed directly by the Respondents that the builders on the "approved list" were required to pay a five-percent commission to Talbott and Drake, Inc., nor that the said five- percent commission would be passed on to Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos when they contracted with an "approved" builder to construct a home on the subject property. On or about February 4, 1977, William F. Talbott, on behalf of Talbott and Drake, Inc., negotiated the contract for sale and purchase between High Ridge Water Company, as seller, and Donald James Kostuch and Mary Louise Kostuch, his wife, buyers, for purchase of a lot in the River Forest area of Palm Beach County. A copy of said contract is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 5 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Mr. and Mrs. Kostuch were required by the contract to select a builder from an approved list of designated builders approved and supplied by Talbott and Drake, Inc. and seller, High Ridge Water Company. Mr. and Mrs. Kostuch selected Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. from the list supplied by Talbott and Drake, Inc. Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. had an agreement with the McGeary partnership and Talbott and Drake, Inc. similar to that outlined in the joint venture agreement between the McGeary partnership in Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc., Petitioner's Exhibit 3, whereby Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. agreed to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a five-percent commission on any residence that Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. built in the River Forest area. The bid supplied by Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. on March 7, 1977, to Talbott and Drake, Inc. contained a listing of real estate commission to Talbott and Drake, Inc. in the amount of $3,652. A copy of said bid statement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 6 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. The Kostuchs were advised of a five-percent fee to be paid by the builder by a salesman working for another broker who first introduced the Kostuchs to the real property in River Forest. The salesman advised the Kostuchs prior to their entry into the contract for the purchase of the lot in River Forest in which they agreed to limit their choice of builder to one approved by the McGeary partnership and Talbott and Drake, Inc. This disclosure would be sufficient to comply with the provisions of Rule 21V-10.13, Florida Administrative Code, because the fee was revealed by a salesperson involved in the transaction prior to the execution of the contract under which the favor, if any, was granted. Talbott and Drake, Inc., in addition to performing services as listing agent for the sale of homes in River Forest, also functioned as the prime developer in this project pursuant to an agreement with High Ridge Water Company and the McGeary partnership. Regarding the Montaltos' transaction, the limitation of the owners to the use of one of the approved builders constitutes the granting or placement of favor, because it narrows the competition to one of five builders out of all the builders available in the Fort Lauderdale area. The affidavits introduced indicate that, notwithstanding the absence of a written agreement, the designated builders had agreed to pay to Talbott and Drake, Inc. a fee of five percent of the cost of construction of any custom home as compensation for the efforts of Talbott and Drake, Inc. in developing the property. While compensation for these services is reasonable, it still constitutes a fee to be paid Talbott and Drake, Inc. from one of the five designated builders who would benefit from the contract. The potential adverse effect of this arrangement was to transfer a cost generally allocated to the cost of the lot to the cost of the house. Therefore, people shopping for a lot could be misled in the comparison of similar lots in different subdivisions in the absence of being advised of the fee to be paid by the builders to Talbott and Drake, Inc. However, the evidence shows no attempt to keep this fee a secret and thereby mislead buyers. The existence of such a fee is referred to in sales literature prepared by Talbott and Drake, Inc. The Kostuchs were advised of the fee by a participating salesman for another real estate company. The builders set out the fee as a separate cost item as opposed to absorbing it in general costs within their bids. While the Respondents could not produce evidence that the Montaltos' had been advised of the existence of the fee, and the Montaltos' testified that they had not been advised, this appears to be an isolated incident as opposed to a course of conduct. Notwithstanding proof of the above, no evidence is presented that the Montaltos' contracted with a designated builder to build their house, and that a designated builder paid a fee to Talbott and Drake, Inc. To the contrary, the testimony of William Talbott was that the Montaltos' had breached the terms of their contract regarding the use of a designated builder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a letter of reprimand to Talbott and Drake, Inc. which, in fairness to the Respondents, should set out the specifics of the violation and to further apprise other registrants of the potential dangers of such fee arrangement. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Charles M. Holcomb, Esquire 653 Brevard Avenue Post Office Box 1657 Cocoa, Florida 32922
The Issue Whether either Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes,1/ regulating real estate sales associates, as alleged in the administrative complaints, and if so, what sanctions are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission, created within the Department, is the entity charged with regulating real estate brokers, schools, and sales associates in the State of Florida. The Division of Real Estate is charged with providing all services to the commission under chapters 475 and 455, Florida Statutes, including recordkeeping services, examination services, investigative services, and legal services. In 2006, Ms. Linda Fiorello and Ms. Catherine Lichtman, associates at another brokerage, decided to open up their own real estate business, with each owning a fifty-percent share. They created Luxury Realty Partners, Inc. (“the corporation”), a licensed real estate corporation in the State of Florida. While Ms. Lichtman was initially the qualifying broker, she soon stepped down from that position and a series of other individuals served as brokers for the corporation. Neither Ms. Fiorello nor Ms. Lichtman was licensed as a real estate broker at any time relevant to the Administrative Complaints. The corporation sold, exchanged, or leased real property other than property which it owned and it was not an owner-developer. On April 23, 2010, Mr. Brian Davis was added as the sole officer and director of the corporation, and he became the qualifying broker. At all times material to the complaints, Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman were licensed as real estate sales associates in the State of Florida, Ms. Fiorello having been issued license number 659087 and Ms. Lichtman having been issued license number 3170761. They worked together at the corporation, nominally under the direction, control, and management of Mr. Davis. The corporation did not maintain an escrow account. Mr. Davis did not manage any of the corporation’s bank accounts. He was not a signatory on the operating account. He did not collect brokerage commissions or distribute them to sales associates. He testified he went into the office “maybe once, once or twice a month.” When he agreed to become the qualifying broker for the corporation, he did not even know all of the names of the agents he was supposed to be responsible for. Mr. Davis stated: Well, basically, I was just doing a favor and I was – I put my license there until one of the other two could get their Broker’s license. I was just really stepping in for a short term to – to fill the time frame until one of them could get their Brokerage license, and I didn’t go on any management or any other books or anything of that nature. As Ms. Patty Ashford, one of the sales associates testified, Mr. Davis was seldom in the office. Ms. Ashford would turn in her contracts to Ms. Fiorello or Ms. Lichtman, who would review them. Ms. Ashford testified that her commission checks were then paid by checks signed by Ms. Lichtman. In short, Mr. Davis effectively provided no direction, control, or management of the activities of the corporation or its sales associates. In December of 2009, Ms. Jennie Pollio was living at 10861 Royal Palm Boulevard in Coral Springs, Florida (the property), a Section 8 property that she had been renting from Mr. Jimmy Laventure for about nine years. The property was in foreclosure. Ms. Pollio thought that she might be able to buy the property. She consulted Ms. Victoria Guante, a real estate sales associate with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc. Ms. Pollio knew Ms. Guante because they both had sons who played baseball on the same team. Ms. Guante told Ms. Pollio to get $40,000.00 in cashier’s checks and put it in escrow with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., so that she could make a strong offer and show that she really had the money. Although they were not produced as exhibits at hearing, Ms. Pollio testified that she signed a couple of different contracts for the property in early 2010. On or about April 29, 2010, Ms. Guante accompanied Ms. Pollio to the bank to get cashier’s checks. Ms. Pollio received five Bank of America cashier’s checks made out to “Luxury Partner Realty,” four in the amount of $9000.00, and one in the amount of $4000.00. Ms. Pollio understood that the property could be purchased for a total of $40,000.00, which included $37,000.00 for the property, and the balance in closing costs. The cashier’s checks were not given to a broker. Ms. Pollio gave the $40,000.00 to Ms. Fiorello as a deposit on the property when she met with her in the corporation office on State Road 7. Ms. Pollio made a copy of the cashier’s checks and Ms. Fiorello wrote a note on the bottom of the copy, “Received by Linda A. Fiorello for Luxury Escrow deposit on contract 10861 Royal Palm Blvd Coral Springs FL 33065” and gave it back to Ms. Pollio.2/ Although the payee name on the cashier’s checks was transposed, Ms. Pollio gave the checks to Ms. Fiorello as agent of the corporation as a deposit on the property, and Ms. Fiorello accepted the checks on behalf of the corporation for the same purpose. Ms. Fiorello did not advise Mr. Davis that the checks had been received. Instead, she deposited the checks in an account formerly belonging to Luxury Property Management, an entity unaffiliated with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc.3/ Luxury Property Management had never been a licensed real estate brokerage corporation, and was no longer in existence, as it had been dissolved. The account had never been properly closed. The account usually had a low balance. Just prior to the deposit of Ms. Pollio’s money, the balance was $10,415.15. Ms. Lichtman had no ownership or interest in Luxury Property Management, but she was aware of the account. The corporation did not have an escrow account, and the Luxury Property Management account was sometimes used to hold money “in escrow,” as Ms. Lichtman was aware. As he testified, Mr. Davis knew nothing about this account and did not authorize Ms. Fiorello to place Ms. Pollio’s deposit there. Ms. Fiorello’s contrary testimony that she told Mr. Davis of the transaction and had his authorization was not credible and is rejected. Ms. Guante was negotiating for the property on Ms. Pollio’s behalf. She testified: At that point the guy was asking (unintelligible) I think was sixty-five, and then we made the offer for $40,000.00. The guy came back and say “no,” and then we went back and make another offer for $50,000.00, and then by that time the guy still say “no.” And then her and I get into an argue because baseball game that don’t have nothing to do with the real estate and then she decided she don’t want me no more as her agent. Ms. Guante called Ms. Fiorello and told her that Ms. Pollio didn’t want to work with Ms. Guante anymore. Ms. Fiorello told Ms. Guante not to worry about it, that the corporation would handle the transaction for Ms. Pollio. On September 23, 2010, a check in the amount of $40,000.00 was written from the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account to Luxury Realty Partners. It is undisputed that the hand writing on the “amount” and “pay to the order of” lines on the check was that of Ms. Lichtman, while the signature on the check was that of Ms. Fiorello. This check, posted into the corporation’s operating account the same day, along with a check for $6000.00, left a balance of only $684.15 in the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account. The two sales associates gave completely different explanations for the check. Ms. Fiorello testified that she always left one or two signed checks locked in the office when she was out of town. She testified that only she and Ms. Lichtman had keys to the lock. Ms. Fiorello testified that without her knowledge, Ms. Lichtman had removed a signed check and filled in the top portion. She testified that although it was her account, she did not realize that the money had been removed until around May 2011, some eight months later.4/ On the other hand, Ms. Lichtman testified that on numerous occasions, the two associates would write out checks together, and that in this instance they discussed the transfer in connection with the opening of a Rapid Realty real estate office in New York which involved Ms. Fiorello’s son. Ms. Lichtman testified that she filled out the top portions of the check, and Ms. Fiorello then signed it. Ms. Lichtman testified that the $40,000.00 “represented monies coming back into Luxury Realty Partners from Rapid Realty.” Ms. Lichtman did not explain why funds from Rapid Realty to repay a loan from Luxury Realty Partners would have been deposited into the Luxury Property Management account, and records for the Luxury Property Management account do not reflect such deposits. On November 4, 2010, a little over a month later, Ms. Lichtman transferred $40,000.00 from the corporation operating account into an account for Chatty Cathy Enterprises, an account controlled by her, and inaccessible to Ms. Fiorello. Ms. Lichtman’s explanation for these transfers, that the $40,000.00 came from the New York real estate venture in repayment of a loan made from the corporation, was unpersuasive, and is rejected. First, the only documentary evidence of a loan made to the “start-up” was an unsigned half-page note dated April 30, 2010. That document indicated that an interest-free business loan in the amount of 25,000 would be made from the corporation to “Rapid Realty RVC and its owners” and that re- payment of the loan would be made in monthly payments to the corporation. No amount was specified for these payments. Similarly, there was no evidence of any repayment checks from Rapid Realty to Ms. Fiorello, Ms. Lichtman, or the corporation. A document dated November 5, 2010, purports to be a “formal release” of that loan. It states in part: The above stated note lists a dollar amount of $25,000 dollars which is inaccurate. The total balance of the loan was approximately $48,000 dollars that was loaned by Luxury Partners Realty (sic), Catherine A. Lichtman and Linda A. Fiorello. This is the formal dollar amount of the loan that is considered paid and satisfied in full. This release appears to be signed by Ms. Lichtman and Ms. Fiorello. Even assuming that the loan had been repaid in full by the New York venture (although no corporation account deposits indicate this), it is not credible that Ms. Lichtman believed she was personally entitled to a payment of $40,000.00 for repayment of a $48,000.00 loan made by the corporation. The spreadsheet of itemized expenses of the New York office and offered by Ms. Lichtman as proof of amounts loaned has no apparent correlation to a spreadsheet prepared by Ms. Lichtman purporting to show checks and cash amounts transferred to New York.5/ In January 2011, Ms. Teresa Ebech, the listing agent for the property with First United Realty, took another contract for the Royal Palm property to Ms. Pollio. This contract referenced a $40,000.00 deposit and listed “Luxury Property Mgt. Escrow” as the escrow. This contract indicated a total purchase price of $55,000.00, and called for a February 21, 2011, closing date. Ms. Pollio signed the contact. The closing did not occur. Ms. Pollio decided to stop trying to buy the property and get her money back. No other party ever acquired an interest or equity in the deposit. Ms. Pollio had difficulty getting in touch with Ms. Fiorello about getting her money back. When Ms. Pollio finally was able to ask Ms. Fiorello for a return of her deposit, Ms. Fiorello did not return it, but told Ms. Pollio that she should get it from Ms. Lichtman. On or about April 28, 2011, Ms. Pollio, with help from her friend, Ms. Joyce Watson, prepared a letter to cancel the contract. The letter noted that the $40,000.00 had been in escrow for over a year and stated that due to the inability of Luxury Realty Partners to close on the property, Ms. Pollio requested immediate return of the deposit. The letter was sent to Catherine Lichtman at the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., address. Ms. Lichtman’s testimony that she never received the letter is discredited. Ms. Ashford, another real estate sales associate at the corporation, had never met Ms. Pollio, but was in the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., office one day in May of 2011 when Ms. Pollio came in with her husband. Ms. Ashford testified: She came in with her husband pretty much screaming and yelling from the minute she stepped foot in the door. She was very angry, very upset. I looked at her and said, you know, Ma’am please calm down. She said I’m not calming down. She pointed at Cathy, she said she knows exactly why I’m f’in here. This has nothing to do with you. Ms. Lichtman asked Ms. Ashford to call her husband, which Ms. Ashford did, thinking this was unusual because he never had anything to do with what went on at the office. Ms. Pollio yelled at Ms. Lichtman, and Ms. Lichtman yelled back, each becoming more and more agitated. Ms. Lichtman then left the room and locked the door. The police were called, though Ms. Ashford was not sure if it was Ms. Pollio or her husband, or perhaps Ms. Lichtman’s husband, who called them. Ms. Ashford testified that when the police officer arrived, Ms. Lichtman lied and told him that her name was Victoria. The officer tried to calm both parties, and told them it was a civil matter. The police officer finally persuaded Ms. Pollio and her husband to leave. Ms. Ashford testified as follows about the conversation that took place between Ms. Lichtman and Ms. Ashford after Ms. Pollio left: Q What did you say? A I asked her point blank what the hell was going on and she responded. Q What did she respond? A That yes, she had her money. The money was-– Q When you said her money. What-–what are talking about? A She had Jennie’s money. Q She-- A It was a deal, a transaction. “She came into our office with cash coming out of her boobs and I don’t have to give it back.” Were her words. Q Did you tell Cathy that she had to return the money? A Yes, I did. I said “Cathy, its escrow money, it doesn’t matter where she got it from,” and Cathy went on about “it’s illegal she’s a dancer, she’s on Section 8. I’m going to report it to the IRS. She thinks she buying a f’in house.” Ms. Lichtman’s admission to Ms. Ashford after Ms. Pollio left showed that Ms. Lichtman knew that she had money in her possession that had been given by Ms. Pollio to buy a house. Ms. Ashford testified that she was upset, as an agent with the corporation, about what appeared to be going on. She and Ms. Fiorello met with Mr. Davis in April of 2011. Ms. Fiorello told Mr. Davis that Ms. Lichtman had stolen funds. Mr. Davis reviewed the January contract that Ms. Fiorello gave him, and concluded that it didn’t make much sense. He had not given any authorization to place escrow funds into the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account. He did not have access to that account or to any of the corporation’s operating accounts to determine if money was missing. After the meeting, Mr. Davis asked Ms. Lichtman what she knew about the accusation. Ms. Lichtman denied that she took any money from an escrow account. Mr. Davis called the Florida Real Estate Commission and reported the incident. At some point, Ms. Lichtman advised Ms. Pollio that the cancellation letter was not sufficient, and provided Ms. Pollio with a “Release and Cancellation of Contract for Sale and Purchase” form. Mr. Laventura signed the form in June 2011, and Ms. Pollio signed the form when she returned it to Ms. Lichtman at the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., office. The form released Luxury Partner Realty from liability and indicated that the escrow agent should disburse all of the $40,000.00 deposit to Ms. Pollio. At the time of the final hearing, Ms. Pollio had yet to receive her $40,000.00 deposit back. The testimony and documentary evidence in this case clearly demonstrates a recurring and systematic disregard of the legal entities and procedures intended to provide structure and accountability to business and real estate transactions by both Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman. Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman employed a qualifying “broker” for the corporation, but intentionally assumed the responsibilities of that position themselves during the time relevant to the Administrative Complaints. In doing so, they each operated as a broker without being the holder of a valid and current active brokers’ license. No evidence was introduced at hearing to indicate that the professional license of either Ms. Fiorello or Ms. Lichtman has ever been previously subjected to discipline.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that final orders be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Finding Linda Fiorello in violation of sections 475.25(1)(k), 475.25(1)(d), 475.42(1)(d), 475.42(1)(a), 475.25(1)(b), and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00, reasonable costs, and revocation of her license to practice real estate; and Finding Catherine A. Lichtman in violation of section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $1000.00, reasonable costs, and revocation of her license to practice real estate. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 11th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, H.A.P. Partnership, has demonstrated that development rights in certain real property it owns have vested against the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property at Issue. The Petitioner, H.A.P. is a general partnership. The partners of the Petitioner are Billy G. and Jeanette Smith, Earl and Marie Womble, Mr. W. H. Sharp, Larry and Hilda Strom and Charles and Margaret Fulton. The Petitioner's address is 5174 Maddox Road, Tallahassee, Florida. In May, 1985, the Petitioner purchased approximately 3.1 acres of land, Tax Identification No. 21-04-20-409 (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel 1"). Parcel 1 is located at 4015 North Monroe Street, Leon County, Florida. At the time of purchase by the Petitioner, Parcel 1 was zoned R-3, single and two-family residential. Under R-3 zoning, a maximum of 7.2 units per acre of land could be constructed. Parcel 1 was purchased by the Petitioner from Billy Hatcher. In December, 1986, the Petitioner purchased an adjoining parcel of property consisting of approximately 3.5 acres, Tax Identification No. 21-04-20- 408 (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel 2"). Parcel 2 is located at 3969 North Monroe Street, Leon County, Florida. Parcel 2 was zoned R-3 at the time of its purchase by the Petitioner. Parcel 2 was purchased by the Petitioner from Marie Bannerman. Development of the Property; Prior to the Petitioner's Purchase. The previous owner of Parcel 1, Billy Hatcher, had retained Poole Engineering to develop plans for site location on Parcel 1, of multi-family dwellings. A stormwater management permit, number 4241, was issued by Leon County to Mr. Hatcher on June 25, 1984. Mr. Hatcher also obtained a permit from the State of Florida Department of Transportation for a driveway onto Parcel 1 from North Monroe Street. The permit was approved June 12, 1984. No permits were obtained from Leon County or any other entity for Parcel 2 prior to the Petitioner's purchase of Parcel 2. The Petitioner relied upon the zoning on Parcel 1 and 2 and the permits that had been issued with regard to Parcel 1 at the time that the Petitioner purchased Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 and 2 would not have been purchased otherwise. Development of the Property; Subsequent to the Petitioner's Purchase. In November, 1987, the Petitioner retained PVC Corporation to plan the development of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), and to provide project management services for the development of multi-family residences on the Property. Consistent with R-3 zoning, PVC Corporation proposed a development consisting of 42 units on the 6.6 acres of the Property. In the Summer of 1989, the Petitioner sought a change in zoning for the Property. The Petitioner's request to have the Property zoned commercial was denied by Leon County. No permits were obtained from Leon County or any other entity for the Property subsequent to the Petitioner's purchase of the Property. Except for the stormwater management permit, no other permits were obtained from Leon County by the Petitioner and no request for building permits, plots or site plans were submitted to Leon County. Development of the Property was not commenced by the Petitioner. Alleged Change in Position or Obligations and Expenses Incurred. The total purchase price for Parcel 1 was $156,000.00. The total purchase price for Parcel 2 was $110,000.00. The Petitioner paid a total of $106,572.87 in interest on the Property, $15,109.67 in real property taxes and $2,300.00 in engineering fees. Vadden Shadden, M.A.I., appraised the Property on January 18, 1988, prior to the effective date of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, at a value of $417,500.00. On November 3, 1990, Mr. Shadden appraised to value of the Property to be $41,750.00, taking into account compliance with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Development of the Property under the 2010 Plan. Under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Property is located in an area designated as Lake Protection Land Use. Property in the Lake Protection Land Use category may be developed by the construction of one dwelling unit for residential purposes per two acres, plus minor commercial uses (retail but not office uses) of up to 20,000 gross square feet. Site plan approval for all commercial property over five acres is required by the Leon County Subdivision Regulations. Procedure. On or about November 12, 1990, the Petitioner filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with Leon County. By letter dated February 26, 1991, from Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, the Petitioner was informed that the staff of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department had recommended that the Application be denied. Mr. Gumula also informed the Petitioner that a hearing before a Staff Committee could be requested. Charles Fulton, general partner of the Petitioner, informed Leon County that the Petitioner waived its right to a hearing before the Staff Committee and requested a formal hearing before a Hearing Officer. By letter dated March 19, 1991, the Division of Administrative Hearings was requested to provide a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing in this case.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 112.4143(3)(a), and (4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), by committing the acts alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact All times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent served as a member of the Mexico Beach Planning and Zoning Board (Zoning Board). Respondent began his service on the Board in mid-March, 1995. In that public position, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Respondent owns and operates a marina in Mexico Beach, Florida which he sought to expand. To accomplish the expansion, Petitioner needed to purchase certain parcels of property adjacent to his marina and have the parcels rezoned from single family residential to tourist commercial. If the Zoning Board granted the rezoning request, Respondent planned to buy the land and expand his business. The Zoning Board is empowered to make decisions relative to the zoning or rezoning of property in Mexico Beach, Florida. Thus, on June 12, 1995, Respondent presented to the Board a request to rezone certain parcels of property adjacent to his marina from single family residential to tourist commercial. Respondent participated in the Zoning Board's discussion on the matter. However, prior to his participation in the discussion, Respondent failed to formally announce his interest of the matter. Respondent failed to file a written memorandum disclosing his interest in the matter prior to the June 12, 1995, Board meeting. Respondent also failed to make an oral disclosure of his interest in the matter at the June 12, 1995 Board meeting. Respondent abstained from voting on the rezoning request on June 12, 1995, but did not file a Memorandum of Voting Conflict with respect to the rezoning request within fifteen days of that meeting. The matter was reheard by the Board on August 1, 1995. At that time, Respondent again made a presentation and requested that the Zoning Board rezone the property adjacent to his marina. Following his presentation, Respondent also participated in the Zoning Board's discussion of the matter. Respondent's objective in participating in the discussion was to persuade the Zoning Board to grant the rezoning request. However, prior to his participating in the Zoning Board's discussion, Respondent failed to formally announce his interest in the matter. Respondent did not file a written memorandum prior to the August 1, 1995, Zoning Board meeting disclosing his interest in the matter. On August 1, 1995, Respondent abstained from voting on the rezoning request, but did not file a written memorandum disclosing his interest in the rezoning request within fifteen days of the Zoning Board meeting. Respondent filed a Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict with respect to the rezoning matter, but did not do so until August 24, 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Final Order and Public Report be entered by the Florida Commission on Ethics finding that Respondent, Jim McCullough, violated Sections 112.3143(4) and 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), and imposing a civil penalty of $200.00. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Scott Assistant Attorney General Attorney's General's Office The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Kerrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Mr. Jim McCullough 105 North 36th Street Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Suite 101 2822 Remington Green Circle Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Suite 101 2822 Remington Green Circle Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
