The Issue Whether J.C. Hoffman violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact J. C. Hoffman also known as Jean Hoffman was a registered real estate salesman whose certificate expired September 30, 1974. On March 31, 1975, Hoffman reapplied and was recertified by the Florida Real Estate Commission. During the intervening period, Hoffman continued to be registered by the Commission. In late 1974, Jean Hoffman showed David W. Jarrett two lots which Jarrett subsequently offered to purchase. Jarrett gave Hoffman $1,500 as a deposit receipt on this transaction in two checks, one for $300 and the other for $1,200. These checks were received into evidence as Exhibit 2. The contract entered into by Jarrett was received into evidence as Exhibit 1. Because Hoffman was not present at the hearing, Jarrett identified a picture of Hoffman taken from the files of the Florida Real Estate Commission as the individual who he had known as Hoffman. This picture was received into evidence as Exhibit 4. After entering into this transaction, Jarrett waited some time and when a closing did not take place, attempted to contact Hoffman. He was unable to contact Hoffman and unable to obtain the return of his $1,500. Jarrett also identified a letter from Barbara E. Green, the owner of the property, which he had received in reply to a letter to her concerning this transaction. This letter was received as Exhibit 3, and indicates that Green had rejected the offer. All Jarrett's efforts to obtain return of his money from Hoffman failed and the money and Hoffman have disappeared.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of J. C. Hoffman also known as Jean Hoffman. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 J. C. Hoffman % Patrick N. O'Keef Dist. Road 5-7837 and N. Hwy 452 Lake Yale Village Leesburg, Florida 32748
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard C. Lightner, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0408120. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker, with a home address of 1221 Duval Street, Key West, Florida 32040. Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Real Estate brokers license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Raymond O. Bodiford, Esquire 515 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE Petitioner vs. Case No. 0154510 DOAH No. 87-3668 RICHARD C. LIGHTNER III Respondent /
The Issue Whether respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on the grounds: (1) that he operated as a real estate broker without holding a valid and current license, and (2) that he is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction. Background By administrative complaint dated October 30, 1981, petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission 1/ ("Department"), charged respondent William A. Canty ("respondent") with six violations of the Florida Real Estate Law, Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1979). Respondent disputed the charges and requested a Section 120.57(1) proceeding. On November 30, 1981, the Department forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Hearing was thereafter set for April 23, 1982. At hearing, the Department voluntarily dismissed Count Nos. Three through Six, inclusive, leaving only Count Nos. One and Two. Count One alleges that respondent's broker's license expired; that he then negotiated a real estate transaction in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Count Two alleges that in connection with this real estate transaction, respondent signed a sales contract incorrectly acknowledging receipt of a $5,000 earnest money deposit, when, in fact, he had received a demand note; that the seller was led to believe that he held a $5,000 earnest money deposit in escrow; that such actions constituted misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The Department called Robert S. Harrell and Alfred C. Harvey as its witnesses, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 into evidence, each of which was received. Respondent testified in his own behalf and Respondent's Exhibit 2/ No. 1 was received in evidence. The transcript of hearing was received on April 27, 1982. Neither party has filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact As to Count One Respondent is a licensed Florida real estate broker. He holds license No. 0012715 and his business address is 988 Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) Since obtaining his broker's license in the early 1970s, respondent has earned a livelihood as a real estate broker. He has been a sole practitioner, having never employed any other person in connection with his practice. (Testimony of Canty.) A real estate broker's license must be renewed every two years. Effective April 1, 1978, respondent paid the requisite fee and renewed his then existing broker's license the new expiration date was March 31, 1980. (P-1.) On March 31, 1980, respondent's broker's license expired for failure to renew. His failure to timely renew was due to simple inadvertence; he admits that it was an oversight on his part. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) As soon as he realized his omission, he filed a renewal application and paid the requisite $40 fee in addition to a $15 late fee. His license renewal became effective on July 25, 1980. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) In May, 1980, respondent negotiated, prepared, and assisted in the execution of a written contract for the sale and purchase of 1.6 acres, including a 21,000 square-foot warehouse, located at 315 West Grant Street, Orlando, Florida. The seller was Alfred Harvey, the buyer was Preferred Services, Inc., and the purchase price was $208,000. The contract called for the buyer to pay the sales commission under separate agreement with respondent. The commission agreement never materialized since the sales transaction failed to close. But, the buyer understood that he had an obligation to pay a real estate commission, and respondent fully expected to receive one. (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) As to Count Two Prior to the parties' execution of the sales agreement mentioned above, respondent and the buyer, Robert Harrell, of Preferred Services, Inc., discussed with Alfred Harvey, the seller, the acceptability of using a demand note as the $5,000 earnest money deposit required by the agreement. (The buyer wished to avoid tying up his funds in escrow during the extensive time required to obtain Small Business Administration approval for assuming the existing mortgage loan.) The seller agreed to the depositing of a $5,000 demand note. 3/ (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) When the sales contract was executed by the parties, respondent acknowledged on page 2 that he held the specified earnest money deposit in escrow. The deposit was a $5,000 demand note. He did not indicate on the face of the contract that the deposit was in the form of a demand note. But, neither did he indicate that the deposit was in cash or check form. Respondent acknowledges that he was "sloppy" in failing to indicate on the contract that the deposit was a demand note. (Testimony of Canty.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 475.42(1) and 475.25(1)(a), F.S., and reprimanded. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Florida Development and Sales Corporation (FDS) at all times here involved was a registered real estate corporate broker. Lawrence F. Taylor, at all times here involved, was a registered real estate broker and an Active Firm Member for FDS and Universal Realmark, Inc. Michael W. Levine, at all times here involved, was a registered real estate salesman for Universal Realmark, Inc., corporate broker. Florida Development and Sales was a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Realmark, Inc. The two corporations occupied the same offices, had the same corporate officers, and used the same telephone numbers. Correspondence went out from either corporation on FDS stationery, and all employees of both corporations were paid by check drawn on FDS account. FDS entered into a non-exclusive brokerage agreement on August 2, 1971 (Exhibit 5) with Lake Lucie Estates, Inc., the owner of unimproved land it desired to sell in 1 1/4 acre tracts. Pursuant to said agreement the broker advertised and sold, generally by agreement or contract for deed and generally to out-of-state buyers, these 1 1/4 acre tracts. In 1973 Universal Realmark, Inc. acquired all of the stock of FDS and accepted the obligations of FDS under supplemental agreement dated May 23, 1973 (Exhibit 6). The brokerage agreement above referred to was undisturbed. By order dated May 6, 1974 the Commissioner of Securities, State of Missouri ordered St. Lucie Estates, Inc., and FDS, their representatives, inter alia, to cease and desist the offer and/or sale in Missouri of any agreement for deed securities. Chapter 409, Laws of Missouri, contain the Missouri Uniform Securities Act. Therein security, in 409.401(1), is defined to mean any contract or bond for the sale of any interest in real estate on deferred payments or on installment plans when such real estate is not situated in this state Section 409.201 makes it unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale securities in Missouri without being registered to do so and Section 409.301 makes it unlawful for any person to offer or sell any security in Missouri unless: (1) The security is registered, or (2) The security or transaction is exempted under Section 409.402. Pursuant to these and other provisions of the securities law the cease and desist order was issued and served by certified mail on Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. and FDS. Section 409.410 of the Missouri Statutes provides that any person who has been personally served with a cease and desist order and thereafter willfully violates same shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three year, or both. The Act further provides for personal service upon an out-of-state violator of the act by serving the commissioner who sends notice of the service to the out-of-state violator. Here the Respondents acknowledged receipt of the cease and desist order. Subsequent to the receipt of the Missouri cease and desist order Levine negotiated agreement for deeds with three purchasers in Missouri of Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. property. On one of these the purchaser's check was made payable to Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. and the checks for the other two were made payable to FDS. During his interrogation by the investigator, Levine acknowledged that he was aware of the cease and desist order at the time he negotiated the three agreements for deed. He obtained his list of people to call from the office, i.e. FDS/Universal Realmark. At the hearing Levine did not remember whether or not he was aware of the cease and desist order at the time he negotiated the Missouri contracts. He did remember receiving a commission on each sale by check drawn by FDS although he was registered as a salesman under Universal Realmark, Inc. As noted above Lake Lucie Estates had a brokerage agreement with FDS and no such agreement was ever negotiated with Universal Realmark. Lake Lucie Estates would have no objection to Universal Realmark selling its property. Respondent Taylor was the Active Firm Member of FDS and Universal Realmark. He was serving in that capacity with Universal Realmark when FDS was acquired. At the same time he operated his own real estate broker's office on Miami Beach, spending part of his time supervising the activities of each office. Taylor's initial statements to the investigator that he learned of the Missouri cease and desist order in June 1974 upon his return to the office from a stay in the hospital was repudiated at the hearing when he stated he learned of the Missouri order only a few hours before he talked to the investigator in October, 1974. Taylor also testified that he never authorized Levine to sell under his brokerage even though Taylor was the Active Firm Member of Universal Realmark and Levine was registered under the corporate broker, Universal Realmark. Taylor's main concern appeared to be to insure that the salesmen for these out-of-state land sales adhered to the script that had been prepared for them and from time to time he monitored their conversations. When he realized that the alleged violations of the real estate license law were being investigated he resigned from FDS and Universal Realmark because "they were violating my trust". When the requests for renewal of the FDS corporate broker's registration was submitted in September, 1974, Taylor signed same a Vice President of FDS and the Active Broker of the corporation.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman should be revoked for violation of Section 475.25(2), F.S. The Hearing Officer explained to the Respondent the nature of the hearing and his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, including the right to be represented by counsel at his own expense if he so desired. It was also explained to the Respondent that he could testify in his own behalf, that he is not required to do so, and that if he did so testify, he could be cross-examined by counsel for Petitioner. Respondent acknowledged understanding of these rights and elected not to testify in his own behalf.
Findings Of Fact 1. Counsel for Petitioner introduced into evidence Respondent's application for registration as a real estate salesman (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) and rested his case. No evidence was introduced in support of the allegation against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Wallace Adams was a registered real estate salesman with Continental Marketing Services from November, 1975, until May, 1976. The depositions of Robert Cline, Donald Brawdy and Jean Sue Brawdy were received into the record without objection. The depositions of the Brawdys reflect that they received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as Wallace or Wally Adams. The deposition of Robert Cline reflects that he received a call from an individual whom Cline identified only as Mr. Adams. The deponents indicated that the caller stated he represented Continental Marketing Services, a real estate sales organization. The caller represented that Continental Marketing Services desired to list property which they owned in Florida and Arizona for sale. The caller represented that their property would be advertised nationally and internationally, and that foreign buyers were interested in purchasing such property. Cline indicated that he was called in approximately November of 1975, and the Brawdys indicated that they were first contacted in February of 1976. The caller suggested the potential sales prices of the property to be listed, and the deponents eventually entered into a listing contract with Continental Marketing Services, paying advance listing fees ranging from $350 to $1,125. None of the deponents indicated that they ever met the Respondent, Wallace E. Adams.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Wallace E. Adams as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Grimes, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Wallace E. Adams c/o Dory Auerbach 456 NE 29th Street Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc. Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing. Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart. Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart. Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here. The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Fred J. Will was a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0142418, t/a Will Realty, 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32014. At all times material to this proceeding, Richard P. Pollock was a licensed real estate salesman in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0139861, c/o Fred J. Will, t/a Will Realty, 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida, with a last listed home address of Post Office Box 2085, Flagler Beach, Florida 32036. Either in late December 1987 or early January 1988, Pollock approached Will with the idea of opening a real estate office using Will's real estate broker's license wherein Pollock would run the office since Will was currently employed managing the self storage facility of Regency Health Care Centers, Inc. In late January 1988, Will filed a Request For License or Change of Status Form using license number 0142418 wherein he advised the Petitioner that he would be operating under Will Realty located at 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. Upon opening the offices at 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Will opened an operating or business bank account and an escrow bank account for the Will Realty at the Commercial National Bank (Commercial) Only Will was authorized to write checks on the excrow account. There was insufficient evidence to show whether any funds were ever deposited in the business or escrow account at Commercial. Once the office and bank accounts were opened, Will left the daily operation of the office to Pollock and was at the office only a couple of times between the time it was opened in late January 1988 and when it was closed around April 23, 1988. The "agreement", as such, between Will and Pollock was a 50/50 "split" once the business "got going". Will did not receive any compensation from Pollock for the "use of his license". Will did not receive any money from Pollock in regard to Will Realty, personally or for deposit in either bank account at Commercial. The "agreement" was that Will would allow Pollock to "work under" his real estate broker's license. Will did not have any knowledge of the advertising being used by Pollock for Will Realty such as newspaper ads or business cards until just before the office closed in April 1988. Will did not have any knowledge of the forms being used by Pollock for Will Realty such as contracts or agreements for advance fee arrangements or receipts evidencing payment of such fee until just before the office closed in April 1988. Additionally, Will did not have any knowledge of the advance fee arrangement which Pollock may have had with prospective tenants as payment for securing rentals until just before the office closed in April 1988. Will did not have any knowledge of Pollock opening the bank accounts at Coast Federal Savings and Loan Association (Coast) in the name of Will Realty until just before the office closed in April 1988. None of the funds received by Pollock from prospective tenants while with Will Realty were deposited in the accounts at Commercial. Nor did any of the funds collected by Pollock from prospective tenants while he was with Will Realty go to Will personally. During the latter part of March 1988, Donna Elliott approached Pollock through Will Realty for the purpose of finding a home to rent. Pollock arranged for Edward R. Brown to show Elliott a home he had for rent. Elliott eventually rented this home and gave Pollock a check in the amount of $100.00 dated March 26, 1988 as a deposit on the home. On March 31, 1988 Elliott mailed Pollock another check in the amount of $1,000.00 as rent for the Brown home. The funds from these two checks were deposited in the account at Coast. Brown experienced some difficulty in getting Pollock to pay the deposit and rent collected from Elliott. However, once Will became aware of the situation he demanded that Pollock pay over the deposit and rent and, as a result of Will's effort Brown received $575.00 from Pollock. After paying Brown the $575.00 Pollock disappeared and Brown demanded the balance from Will since Pollock was working under Will's real estate broker's license. At first, Will agreed but later on advice of counsel declined to pay on the basis that it was not his responsibility. Brown filed suit and was awarded a judgment for the balance which Will paid. Around the middle of April 1988 Diane Smith approached Pollock for the purposes of renting a home. Smith paid Pollock an advance fee of $75.00 for service to be rendered by Pollock in securing her a rental home. However, before Pollock found a rental home for Smith he disappeared without returning Smith's fee. Within a short period after Smith paid the advance fee she went to the office of Will Realty only to find it closed and Pollock gone. There was no evidence that Smith made a demand on Will for the return of the advance fee paid to Pollock. After Will became aware of the situation he called Petitioner's Orlando office and was informed by Judy Smith that he should close the office immediately. Will followed this advice and closed the office sometime around April 23, 1988. As soon as Will began to receive complaints from Pollock's clients he got involved with Pollock and attempted to correct the problems but Pollock disappeared before Will could correct the situation. There was insufficient evidence to show that while Pollock was at Will Realty, any of his prospective tenants, other than Smith, specifically Catherine Vick, failed to receive reimbursement for any advance fee paid to Pollock where rentals were not obtained for the prospective tenant. Will was not directly involved with any of the transactions between Pollock and the prospective tenants and did not have any knowledge of these transactions until shortly before Pollock disappeared and Will Realty was closed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the mitigating circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Fred J. Will guilty of violating Section 475.25(1) (d) and (e), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $500.00 and issue a reprimand. In recommending the reprimand I have taken into consideration the harshness of a suspension or revocation and feel that under the circumstances of this case that a reprimand and a fine is more appropriate. See: Webb v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 351 So.2d 71 (2 DCA Fla. 1977). It is further RECOMMENDED that Counts VI, IX and XIV of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 22nd day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert W. Elton, Esquire 648 S. Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32014 Fred J. Will 2281 Carmen Daytona Beach, Florida 32119
The Issue Whether Weston Professional Title Group, Inc. (Respondent) committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, V, VI, and VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times, Petitioner has been the entity of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to regulate title insurance agencies. At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a title insurance agent in the State of Florida. As of the formal hearing, Respondent had ceased its operations due to the lack of business. Petitioner's investigation of Respondent was initiated by a complaint from a man named Robert Anderson. Mr. Anderson represented to Petitioner that he discovered that his name and address had been used as the buyer of the two residences discussed above. Respondent was the title and settlement agent for both transactions. The Collonade Drive transaction settled on November 14, 2006, with disbursement of the funds on November 16, 2006. The Vignon Place transaction settled and the funds were disbursed on December 15, 2006. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner his belief that his identity had been stolen by a person named Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner that he had not participated in either transaction, and asserted that he did not sign any of the documents that purport to contain his signature as the buyer. Respondent was required to comply with the provisions of RESPA in completing the HUD-1 for the Collonade Drive closing and the Vignon Place closing. RESPA required that disbursements at closing be consistent with the HUD-1 as approved by the parties to the transaction and by the lender. COLLONADE DRIVE CLOSING On September 15, 2006, Robert Anderson (or someone impersonating Mr. Anderson) signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" (Collonade contract), agreeing to buy the Collonade Drive property from Mark Mariani and Kathy Mariani, for the purchase price of $1,375,000.00. The Collonade contract reflected that a deposit had been made to "FLORIDA TITLE & ESC." in the amount of $5,000 with an additional deposit of $5,000 to be made within ten days. Two loans with separate mortgages constituted the financing for the purchase of the Collonade Drive property. The first mortgage was $962,500.00. The second mortgage, as reflected on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement with the disbursement date of November 14, 2006, was $263,430.08.3/ First Magnus Financial Corporation, an Arizona corporation, was the lender for both loans. Agents of America Mortgage Corp. served as the mortgage broker for the transaction. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, an employee of Agents of America Mortgages, signed Mr. Anderson's loan application as the "interviewer." The following was a special clause of the Collonade contract: "BUYER AGREES TO PAY FOR TITLE INSUANCE [sic] FEE ONLY (LINE 1108 OF SELLERS' SETTLEMENT STATEMENT), ONLY [SIC] IF SELLERS AGREE TO USE BUYER'S TITLE COMPANY OF CHOICE. BUYER IS A LICENSED FLORIDA REAL ESTATE AGENT." Petitioner established that Robert Anderson was not a licensed Florida real estate agent. The Collonade contract represented that there were no real estate brokers representing either party. On or about November 1, 2006, Respondent received a "Request for Title Commitment" from Claudit Casanova, a mortgage broker with Agents of America Mortgage Corp., for the Collonade Drive transaction. This was a revised request. The first request had been sent to Respondent on or about October 3, 2006. A copy of the Collonade contract had been forwarded to Respondent with the first request. In connection with the Collonade Drive transaction, Respondent prepared two HUD-1s,4/ each of which was approved by the parties and the lender.5/ The first HUD-1 had an anticipated closing date of November 14, 2006. That HUD-1 was revised in response to the lender's instruction to move the disbursement date from November 14, 2006, to November 16, 2006. The revision of the HUD-1 slightly reduced the amount of cash the buyer needed to close as a result of interest beginning to run on the loans as of November 16 instead of November 14. This was a mail-away closing, in that a packet of the documents the buyer was to sign was sent to someone named Laurie Martin at a title agency in Glendale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified she mailed the packet pursuant to instructions without specifying who gave her those instructions. The packet of documents was returned to Respondent, with signatures purporting to be Mr. Anderson's. Laurie Martin appears to have served as the notary public when the documents were signed. The transaction closed pursuant to the revised HUD-1 with the disbursement date of November 16, 2006, which, as approved by the parties and the lender, reflected that the sellers were to receive $477,884.93 upon closing. Upon closing, Respondent drafted a check in the amount of $477,884.93 made payable to the sellers. The sellers voided the check and based on instructions from the sellers, Ms. Marrero redistributed the sellers' proceeds by wire transfer as follows: $116,112.85 to sellers; $170,250.00 to Pamela Higgins; and $191,508.08 to Unlimited Advertising USA. Fourteen dollars were spent on wire transfer charges. The actual disbursement of the seller's proceeds was inconsistent with the HUD-1 and unknown to the buyer and the lender. Respondent violated the provisions of RESPA by disbursing the proceeds of the sale in a manner that was inconsistent with the HUD-1. $195,000 DEPOSIT The Collonade contract reflected that a $5,000 deposit had been made to "Fla. Title & Esc." required for the buyer to pay an additional deposit of $5,000 within ten days. There was no evidence establishing any relationship between Respondent and "Fla. Title & Esc." Both HUD-1s for the Collonade Drive transaction reflected that the buyer had provided to the sellers a deposit in the amount of $195,000. These HUD-1s, reflecting that the sellers were holding a deposit in the amount of $195,000, were approved by the parties and the lender. Ms. Marrero testified that she was instructed to include the $195,000 deposit on the HUD-1s without specifying who gave her those instructions. Ms. Marrero did not attempt to verify that the $195,000 deposit was actually being held by the sellers. FRAUD Petitioner alleged that the Collonade Drive transaction was fraudulent. Mr. Wenger's testimony, based in part on reports of mortgage fraud prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, supported that allegation. Other evidence supporting that allegation included the following facts The first mortgage quickly went into foreclosure; A mailing address given for Robert Anderson did not (as of April 19, 2011) exist. The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Claudia Rodriguez, a former Florida title agent whose license had been suspended by Petitioner for failing to disburse in accordance with HUD statements and disbursing on uncollected funds; The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Juan Carlos Rodriguez (the person who supposedly took the credit application from Robert Anderson); The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Agents of America Mortgage Corporation (the mortgage broker for the Collonade closing. Juan Carlos Rodriguez supposedly notarized the document authorizing disbursement of part of the sellers' proceeds to Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson's purported signatures on different documents are inconsistent. The address for Mr. Anderson as it appears on the HUD- 1 Settlement Statements is 14233 W. Jenan Drive, Surprise, Arizona. Prior to the closing Ms. Marrero sent by Federal Express a copy of the unexecuted closing documents to "Pam Higgins c/o Robert S. Anderson" 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Following the closing, Ms. Marrero sent a copy of the closing documents by Federal Express to Robert S. Anderson, at the address 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified that she acted on instructions in sending the two packages, without identifying who gave her those instructions. There was no evidence that anyone employed by Respondent knew anyone connected to this transaction prior to being asked to provide a title commitment. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had anything to do with the buy-sell agreement between the buyer and the sellers or the efforts by Mr. Anderson (or the person or persons impersonating Mr. Anderson) to obtain financing for the purchase. While there was significant evidence that the Colonnade Closing was a fraudulent transaction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was complicit in that fraud. VIGNON COURT CLOSING On a date prior to November 6, 2006, Maribel and Timothy Graves signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" offering to sell their Vignon Court residence to Robert Anderson for the purchase price of $1,975,000.00. Mr. and Mrs. Graves were represented by counsel during this transaction. The copy of the contract admitted into evidence had not been signed by Mr. Anderson and did not bear a legible date. The contract provided an acceptance date of November 6, 2006. The fully executed contract was not admitted into evidence. On October 4, 2006, Claudit Casanova of Agents of America Mortgage requested Respondent to provide a title commitment for the Vignon Court transaction. In that request, the sales price was stated as being $1,975,000; the loan amount was $1,481,250 and the mortgagee was American Brokers Conduit. Preferred Properties, Int., Inc., was listed as being the real estate broker for the transaction. Respondent prepared a HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction that reflected a closing and disbursement date of December 15, 2006. DEPOSIT The unexecuted (by the buyer) and undated copy Purchase Agreement required a deposit of $100,000 at the time of acceptance with an additional $50,000 being due within ten days thereafter. There was no evidence as to the terms of the completely executed Purchase Agreement. Line 201 of the HUD-1 reflected a deposit of $250,000 paid on behalf of the buyer. Respondent did not verify that deposit had been made. The HUD-1 specified that the deposit was being held by the sellers. The buyer, sellers, and lender approved the HUD-1, which reflected the existence of a deposit of $250,000, prior to closing. GASPARE VALENTINO On December 6, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Graves entered into a "Joint Venture and Property Resale Agreement" (Resale Agreement) pertaining to the sale of the Vignon Court residence with Gaspare Valentino. On February 5, 2002, Gaspare Rino Valentino was issued a license by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of the type "Real Estate Broker or Sales" and of the rank "Sales Associate." That license was valid at the times relevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 2 of the Resale Agreement provides as follows: (2) SALE EFFORTS: CONTRACT PROCEEDS. Valentino agrees to use reasonable efforts to obtain a third party purchaser (a "Purchaser") for the Property. Valentino is not required to advertise the Property or list the Property for sale, but shall have such right to do so. Valentino does not guaranty [sic] the procurement of a Purchaser. The parties agree that the intention is for Valentino to secure a Purchaser who will pay a purchase price sufficient in order to (i) satisfy the existing debt upon the Property, (ii) pay ordinary and reasonable closing costs of the transaction, (iii) generate a net proceeds [illegible] to Owner not less than ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000); and (iv) generate such further sums beyond the foregoing in order to pay Valentino a fee for services rendered as set forth in this Agreement. In accordance with such understanding, Owner agrees to enter into and fully execute a Contract for Purchase and Sale with a Purchaser procured by Valentino which is consistent with the terms set forth in this Agreement, including without limitation, a designated sales price which enables Owner to receive at closing a net proceeds sum equal to ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) (the "Owner's Sale Proceeds") after payment of the Property Sale Expenses, hereinafter defined as set forth in Paragraph 3. Owner agrees that any net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner's Sale Proceeds shall be payable to Valentino (the "Excess Proceeds Fee), as Valentino's fee for the efforts of Valentino as set forth herein. Paragraph 3 (i) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" as follows: Owner shall receive the Owner Sale Proceeds consisting of exactly ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) from the net sales proceeds . . . Paragraph 3 (ii) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" and the "Owner Sale Proceeds": Valentino shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fees, constituting all remaining net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner Sale Proceeds, as a fee for services rendered by Valentino pursuant to this Agreement. Paragraph 7 of the Resale Agreement is as follows: 7. Licensed Agent: Valentino represents and discloses that Valentino is a licensed real estate agent in the State of Florida. Notwithstanding such, Valentino is individually entering into this Agreement using his own resources to assist Owner in the improvement and sale of the Property, and as such is a principal in this transaction earning the Excess Proceeds Fee. The parties acknowledge that Valentino is an investor in this transaction and as such at closing is entitled to and shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fee as set forth in Section [Paragraph] 3(ii) of this Agreement. Under RESPA, Section 700 of a HUD-1 is appropriately used for reporting the payments for commissions to real estate salesmen and/or brokers as part of the "Settlement Charges." Such payments can also be reported under Section 1300 ("Additional Settlement Charges"), if the payments are appropriately labeled. Respondent reflected the payment of $527,656.92 as "Payoff" to Gaspare Valentino at line 1307 of Section 1300." Prior to closing the buyer, sellers, and lender had approved the HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction. The lender was aware of the Resale Agreement. Mr. Marrero is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Mr. Marrero construed the payments to Mr. Valentino to be other than a real estate commission. Although it is clear that Petitioner considers that payment to Mr. Valentino to be a real estate commission, the terms of the Resale Agreement entitled Mr. Marrero to treat that payment as being to an investor. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent erroneously stated the payment to Mr. Valentino on the HUD-1. SURETY BOND As a condition of licensure, a title agency is required to provide to Petitioner a $35,000 security deposit or a $35,000 surety bond. In connection with its application for licensure on August 29, 2002, Respondent filed the required surety bond with Petitioner. The bond was issued by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland with bond number 133046577. On July 14, 2004, Petitioner received from Respondent a surety bond issued by Western Surety Company in the amount of $35,000, effective as of August 29, 2004. The bond number was 69728435. On May 28, 2010, Petitioner received a letter from his surety dated May 24, 2010, which advised that bond number 69728435 would be voided or cancelled as of August 29, 2010. That letter of cancellation showed a copy being furnished to Respondent at the address "1820 North. Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida 33326." On June 11, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent by letter sent to "1820 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite. 105, Weston, Florida 33326" that it had received the cancellation letter. The letter stated, in part, as follows: If we do not receive a replacement bond within 30 days of the dated letter, we will forward your file to the appropriate division for disciplinary action. If you do not plan to continue transacting business and wish to terminate your license, you must submit a request to us immediately. Prior to May 24, 2010, Respondent moved its offices from 1802 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida, to Suite 304 of the same building. Mr. Marrero testified that he had no recollection of receiving the letters cancelling the surety bond or the letter from Petitioner dated June 11, 2010. Respondent was without a surety bond between August 29, 2010, and November 18, 2010. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent's failure to maintain it surety bond during that period was willful within the meaning of section 626.8437(9). No prior disciplinary action has been brought against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of subsections 626.8473(2) and (4) as alleged in Count I of the Amended AC; and guilty of failing to maintain a surety bond as required by section 626.8418(2) in violation of section 626.8437(1), as alleged in Count III of the Amended AC. It is further recommended that the final order find Respondent not guilty of all other violations alleged in the Amended AC. For the violations found as to Count I, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of six months. For the violations found in Count III, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of three months. It is further recommended that the periods of suspension run concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 8th day of February, 2012
