The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of failing to account for and deliver a share of a real estate commission, as required by Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, and, if, so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0314643. Petitioner does business under the name, Blue Ribbon Realty. Petitioner employs several real estate salesmen in her brokerage business. Virginia M. Poole is a licensed real estate salesman. During 1988, she was looking for a house to buy. At the time, she was working in a hotel as a cashier. While working at the hotel, Ms. Poole met Mary Asian, who was also working at the hotel. At the same time, Ms. Asian was and remains a real estate salesman working at Blue Ribbon Realty. In a period of several weeks, Ms. Asian showed Ms. Poole several houses and presented at least one offer with a small deposit. One day while driving on her own, Ms. Poole came across a house that appealed to her. At or prior to this time, Ms. Poole had placed her salesman's license with Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole negotiated a sales contract with the seller. The contract was signed by Ms. Poole and the seller on November 10, 1988. By a separate commission agreement signed the same date, the seller agreed to pay Respondent a commission equal to 3% of the sales price. The closing took place on December 14, 1988. The closing agent duly paid Respondent the sum of $2172, which represents 3% of the purchase price. Respondent cashed the check and received the proceeds thereof. Under the agreement between Ms. Poole and Respondent, Ms. Poole was to be paid one-half of all commissions that she earned for Blue Ribbon Realty. At the closing, Ms. Poole asked about her share of the commission. Refusing to pay anything to Ms. Poole, Respondent told her, "You get it any way you can." Respondent believed that Ms. Asian, not Ms. Poole, was due the salesman's share of the commission, which by agreement was one-half of the sum paid to Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole, who never listed or sold any properties for the two or three months that her license was placed with Respondent, had placed her license with another broker over ten days in advance of the December 14 closing. Under the agreement between Respondent and her salesmen, no commission was due any salesman who left Blue Ribbon Realty more than ten days prior to a closing. The reason for this policy was that much work had to be done in the ten days preceding a closing, and it was unfair to require others to perform the work while paying the salesman's share of the commission to a departed salesman. After repeated attempts to obtain payment of the $1086 due her, Ms. Poole filed a legal action against Respondent in Orange County Court. The defenses raised by Respondent apparently proved unavailing. On April 12, 1989, Ms. Poole received a final judgment in the total amount of $1197.44, including interest and costs. Although the filing date does not appear from the face of the exhibit, a Notice of Appeal was served on Ms. Poole on June 30, 1989. Subsequent attempts to recover on the judgment were unsuccessful. At this point, Ms. Poole filed a complaint with Petitioner. Respondent never requested the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order determining who was entitled to the disputed half of the commission, never sought an adjudication of the dispute by court through interpleader or other procedure, and never submitted the matter to arbitration with the consent of the parties. The only thing that Respondent has done in this regard is to deposit the contested sum in the trust account of her attorney, apparently pending the resolution of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to account or deliver a share of a commission to one of her salesmen, issuing a written reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000. ENTERED this 23 day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Attorney Raymond O. Bodiford P.O. Box 1748 Orlando, FL 32802 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes (1993), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant hereto. Respondent, Richard G. Cash (Cash), has been a licensed Florida real estate broker since 1993. His broker's license number is BK-0267856. Prior to becoming a broker, Cash had been a licensed real estate salesperson since approximately 1973. On or about July 22, 1994, Michael J. Provost, Assistant State Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, charged Cash, by information, with aggravated battery. The charge arose from a domestic dispute involving Cash and his former wife, when she appeared uninvited at his home late one night under the influence of drugs and demanded to take their four year-old daughter. His former wife was considerably taller and heavier than Cash, and a struggle ensued in which Cash hit her with a stun gun. Both Cash and his former wife received injuries as a result of the altercation. On or about December 15, 1994, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit for Collier County, Florida, Cash entered a plea of nolo contendere to Count I of the information, which was aggravated battery, a second degree felony. Adjudication was withheld, and Cash was placed on probation for five years. As a condition of probation, Cash was to pay his former wife $4,000 within 30 days of the sentencing and another $4,000 within 12 months of sentencing. In exchange, the former wife agreed to release Cash from any civil liability arising from the incident. Cash paid the $8,000 to his former wife. Cash did not notify the Florida Real Estate Commission that he had pled nolo contendere to a second degree felony. His explanation for failure to do so was that he understood from his attorney that because adjudication had been withheld, he had not been convicted of a crime. On or about January 16, 1998, a warrant was issued for Cash for violation of probation for having shotguns and handguns at his home without first obtaining consent from his probation officer. On April 17, 1998, Cash pled guilty to violation of probation. He was adjudicated guilty of violating probation and aggravated battery, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to three years, seven months, and fifteen days with credit for fifteen days already served.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Richard G. Cash violated Sections 475.25(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes (1993), and that his broker's license be suspended for one year or until he is released from the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, whichever occurs first. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 29th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard G. Cash Fort Pierce CCC 1203 Bell Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent operated as a real estate broker or sales associate without a license, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has not been licensed as a real estate broker, broker sales-associate, or sales person in the state of Florida. Respondent entered into an arrangement with Tina Mathews, who holds a valid broker or sales person's license, to find buyers in return for which she would split the commission with him. Although Respondent never showed the properties to prospective buyers, after finding them, he performed other, unspecified tasks to ensure that the deals closed and he would be paid. Respondent's defense is that he did not know that what he was doing was illegal. In fact, this case arose by a complaint filed by Respondent against Ms. Mathews, who had paid him several times in the past for similar work in connection with other transactions. When Ms. Mathews declined to pay Respondent in connection with three other transactions described in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent contacted Petitioner, which, after an investigation, brought these charges against Respondent for two transactions, as identified in the Administrative Complaint, for which Ms. Mathews paid him. In one letter (received June 12, 2007) from Mr. Haque to Petitioner, he acknowledges that he has "done 10 more deals with [Ms. Mathews] in the past for which she compensated me 1/3 of her commission. Enclosed are the HUDS for Ronald Nicolas and Beryl George . . .." These are the two transactions that are the subject of the Administrative Complaint, so there is no doubt that Respondent received compensation for his work on these two transactions. It is difficult to determine exactly what Respondent did to "earn" his share of the commission, although clearly he found the buyers. Although Respondent claims to have substantial work on each of these transactions, he is vague about what he did, and the weight to be accorded this admission is limited due to Respondent's persistent misunderstanding of this case as some sort of vehicle by which he can obtain payment for his share of the commission for the three subsequent transactions about which he filed a complaint against Ms. Mathews. The only remaining element of Petitioner's case against Respondent involves any ownership interest that Respondent may have had in the two properties identified in the Administrative Complaint. A summary of the investigator's interview with Ms. Mathews, who did not testify, states that she told the investigator that the deals that she did with Respondent were with properties that he owned. However, Respondent supplies the needed evidence as to this critical point when, in his post- hearing statement, he refers to this statement from the investigator and disputes it by stating: "The fact is, this is the only property in my complain [sic] I own with Ms. Mathews as agent of record." It is impossible to determine whether this admission applies to one of the two transactions that are the subject of the Administrative Complaint or one of the transactions for which he is, even now, seeking payment. At minimum, though, even if the statement applies to one of the two subject transactions, it applies to only one of them, and, by negative implication, Respondent concedes that he was not an owner of the other property. On the basis of this record, Petitioner has proved all of the above-cited allegations of the Administrative Complaint in connection with both transactions that underlie Count I.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of operating as a broker or sales person without a license and imposing an administrative fine against him of $5000. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Syed Haque 10100 Country Brook Road Boca Raton, Florida 33428
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven Hall, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate salesman and broker. Upon February 15, 1984, he became licensed as a broker. The Respondent was registered with and employed by J. Arnold Ausley Realty from March 31, 1983 to February 15, 1984. J. Arnold Ausley was a licensed real estate broker and operated as Ausley Properties during times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and practice of realtors in the State of Florida and enforcing the practice standards for realtors embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On February 4, 1984, the Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed salesman for Ausley Properties, arranged a contract between Champak Bhoja and Kishor Patel, as purchasers of a certain piece of real estate owned by one John D. Gilbert. In connection with that contract the Respondent obtained a $2,000 check as a deposit from Mr. Patel. At Mr. Patel's request the Respondent held this check without negotiating it awaiting Patel's instruction that sufficient funds were on deposit to honor the check. The Respondent waited four weeks and received no such instructions from Mr. Patel. The Respondent therefore contacted Patel, who was in Nebraska at the time, to tell him that he felt legally obligated to deposit the check. The check was deposited and was returned for insufficient funds. On March 19, 1984, Mr. Patel gave the Respondent a replacement check in the amount of $2,000. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Patel to make the check out to him since he had in the meantime become a broker and wanted credit for this transaction in his own business. He also informed Mr. Patel that he would need to use the money for his own personal expenses, in the nature of a "loan." Mr. Patel, however, made the check out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." The Respondent and Mr. Patel had been involved in other business ventures together during the course of which Mr. Patel had already lent the Respondent, on different occasions, a total of approximately $4,000. This course of dealing was continued in the present instance, from the Respondent's viewpoint, when the Respondent informed Mr. Patel that he needed the $2,000 for personal expense purposes and would pay it back as a loan. He believed Mr. Patel assented to that arrangement at the time. The sales contract at issue ultimately failed to be consummated due to Mr. Pate1 and Mr. Bhoja not meeting the required contingency regarding debt financing. Approximately fifteen days after the contract's closing date passed, Mr. Patel made a demand upon the Respondent for the return of the $2,000 deposit. The Respondent failed to return it at that time but assured Mr. Patel that he would repay the money and needed more time to obtain the necessary funds. The Respondent had not deposited the check in the Ausley Properties Escrow Account because such an account did not exist, although the Respondent had urged Mr. Ausley on a number of occasions to set up such an account. The Respondent rather cashed the $2,000 check and used the proceeds for his own benefit, as he had informed Patel he would do. He used the money to meet certain operating expenses and personal expenses, being in severe financial straits at the time. Pate1 knew he was experiencing financial difficulties and had lent him the previously mentioned $4,000 to help him with operating expenses and personal expenses during the pendency of the closing of their various other real estate ventures. The Respondent informed Patel he would use the subject $2,000 for similar purposes, however, the record does not clearly reflect that Patel consented to this, as opposed to his intent that the money be placed in an account as his deposit of consideration for the contract. His testimony to this latter effect is borne out by the fact that in spite of the Respondent's request that the check be made out to him personally, instead Patel made it out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." That account did not exist but the method of drafting the check reveals his intent that the money was to be used as a deposit. In any event the Respondent made no misrepresentation to Mr. Patel as to what he intended to do with the money, but at the same time he did not deposit it in an appropriate account to be held as a deposit toward the purchase of the property involved in the sales contract. Patel made numerous demands for the money and each time Respondent acknowledged this and the other debt to Patel and promised to pay. He ultimately began paying back a small portion of the indebtedness to each of his creditors starting out at a rate of $10 per month. Ultimately, the Respondent paid the entire $2,000 predicated on receipt of his 1985 income tax return.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner finding that the Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(b),(d,)(e) and (k) only to the extent delineated in the above conclusions of law and that his real estate broker's license be subjected to a six months suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven R. Hall 8880 Old Kings Hwy., Apt. 30-W Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Michael Sheahan, Esquire Two South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Rea1 Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected, although the evidence establishes that Patel intended the funds to be escrowed. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected as not comporting with the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:* Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted, but irrelevant to the charges. Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the first sentence only. The second sentence concerning Patel's response is not clearly supported by record evidence. Accepted Accepted Accepted * Although Respondent is proposed findings are accepted, some are inculpatory, some are not material and some support the conclusion that no fraudulent conduct was committed.
Findings Of Fact In September of 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Kenney went to 8521 Madonna Place in Sarasota, Florida, in response to a newspaper advertisement. There they found respondent, who showed them through the house at that address, saying she was a friend of the owners who were offering it for sale. Respondent told the Kenneys that she was a registered real estate salesperson employed by Marjorie McCrory Real Estate, and gave them her card. But she said there would be no commission on any sale, because the owners were her friends and had helped her with babysitting. On October 2, 1976, the Kenneys entered into a written agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Tritschler, owners of the house respondent had shown them. By this con tract, which was received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit No. 3, the Kenneys agreed to buy the house in the event that they were able to sell their mobile home within thirty days' time and in the event that they were able to obtain financing for 80 percent of the agreed purchase price. The Kenneys were unable to obtain such financing and were also unable to sell their mobile home within thirty days of the signing of the contract. On October 5, 1976, the Kenneys drew a check to respondent's order in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), on which was written "Earnest Money-Escrow." The check was delivered to respondent. On October 6 1976, respondent endorsed the check arid deposited it in a savings account. Afterwards, she showed the Kenneys her newly acquired pass book, on which was written "Sherry Gayer, Escrow Account for Robert L. Kenney." After the Kenneys' efforts to meet the conditions of the contract proved unavailing, they demanded the return of the money they had given respondent. Her refusal resulted in litigation which was settled when the Kenneys agreed to accept five hundred dollars ($500.00), plus the interest that had accrued on the entire one thousand dollars ($1 000.00) while it had been on deposit in respondent`s account. The other five hundred dollars ($500.00) went to the Tritschlers, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Ms. Sherry L. Gayer 2116-59th Street Sarasota, Florida 33580
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Teresita de Jesus Rangel, who is a thirty-four year old female, made application in early 1987 for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondents Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: 6. Conviction of crimes: January 28th, 1983 - Charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Was found guilty and charged with 3 years incarcerated and 3 years Special Parole. Conviction took place in Los Angeles, Ca. March 17th, 1983 - Charges: Conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana. These were started as two different cases. Pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was sentenced five years on each case to run concurrent with the case in California. This conviction took place in Fort Lauderdale, Fl. I started my sentence on January 11th, 1984 at F.C.I., Lexington, Kentucky and was released to a Half-way House on October 2nd, 1986. These arrests stem from the same circumstances and were handled together and treated as one. The arrests occurred as a result of my involvement with my then boyfriend. Approximately a year and a half prior to my arrests I became romantically involved with this individual. This individual was Co- defendant in the case I was arrested. My involvement in the criminal case stands on my romantic involvement with him. Due to lack of judgement [sic] on my part, I became criminally involved with him eventually leading to our arrest. I have had no contact whatsoever with this individual since my incarceration. I further intend to avoid all contact with him in the future. At this time, I have an outstanding offer from Dominion Realty, Inc. In fact, the Broker at this firm is encouraging me to make this application to become a real estate salesperson. I realize this is a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to begin a career. It will allow me to stand on my own and provide a respectable home and future for my children. Based upon the above response, the Division issued proposed agency action on July 14, 1987 denying the application. As grounds, the Division stated its action was "based upon (her) answer to Question #6 of the licensing application and/or (her) criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency." The denial prompted this proceeding. Petitioner is divorced and the sole support of three young children. She has been in the work force since 1972. According to all accounts, her work performance over the years has been exemplary, and Rangel was steadily promoted to positions of greater responsibility and duties in each of her jobs. Her work experience includes stints with a mortgage brokerage firm, an air freight carrier, an equipment distributor and a property management firm where she is now employed. In 1983 Rangel was arrested on the previously cited charges, and pled guilty. She received three and five year prison terms in California and Florida, respectively, to run concurrently. Her involvement in the crimes was due to a romantic relationship with another man (the father of one of her children), who was also arrested and charged with the same offenses. Needless to say, their relationship went on the skids and they no longer have contact with one another. After her plea, Rangel began serving her sentence in January, 1984 at a federal institution in Lexington, Kentucky. In early October, 1986, or thirty-four months later, she was given an early release. Rangel then lived in a halfway house in Coral Gables until April- 1987. She now lives with her parents and three children in Miami. She will remain on probation until July, 1991. As such, she is subject to a number of special conditions, including random drug testing, a restriction on travel, and regular reporting to a parole officer. So far, she has had no problem in conforming with all restrictions imposed by the government, and anticipates none in the future. Independent testimony established that petitioner is highly regarded by her employer. She is considered to be honest and of good character, and even though her employer is aware of her criminal record, Rangel has been entrusted with the responsibility of handling large amounts of cash (up to 10,000) each day without supervision. She is in charge of managing four executive office centers, and if licensed, will become a rental agent for Dominion Realty, Inc., a subsidiary company of the corporation for which she now works. Rangel was candid and forthright in her testimony. She willingly accepted responsibility for her prior actions, and now wants the opportunity to use a real estate license as a means to provide support for her family. She appeared to the undersigned to be mature, and capable of handling the responsibilities of a real estate salesperson. Given her present job responsibilities, including the handling of large sums of money, and subsequent good conduct since release from prison, it is found Rangel is sufficiently rehabilitated to justify granting her application. Moreover, it is not likely that the public and investors will be endangered by licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Teresita de Jesus Rangel for licensure as a real estate salesperson be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3028 Respondent: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis N. Urbano, Esquire 1000 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33132 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation as a real estate salesman having been issued license number 0142776, effective August 27, 1984. Linda J. Nuccitelli is his registered employer. John Nuccitelli was respondent's former registered employer. In February, 1983, a final order was entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission which revoked the broker's license of John L. Nuccitelli. The final order was appealed, and the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, stayed the order of Real Estate Commission pending disposition of the appeal. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the order of the Real Estate Commission, and the court's mandate was issued on March 16, 1984. On April 1, 1984, respondent's license was renewed by the Department of Professional Regulation even though John Nuccitelli was named as his employer. The respondent was notified of the revocation of John Nuccitelli's license and automatic cancellation of respondent's license as a salesman, by letter from the Florida Real Estate Commission dated June 21, 1984. Prior to receipt of that letter neither the respondent nor John L. Nuccitelli were aware that the appeal process has been completed and the final order revoking Mr. Nuccitelli's broker's license had become effective. On April 16, 1984, the respondent submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), on behalf of Israel Branton, an offer to purchase certain property located at 4746 Miramar Road. The offer was set forth on a standard form entitled "Offer to Purchase and Broker's Tender." The form has a space for the signature of the broker and also has a space for the name and address of the broker. The offer to purchase designated "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as broker. Respondent signed his name in the space designated "Signature of Broker". The offer was accepted, and a HUD Standard Retail Sales Contract was executed. At the bottom of the contract is a certification to be signed by the broker. Typed in above the line stating "Name of Broker and Phone No" is "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli 305-422-0747." The line below states "By", and is signed "Louis Boatman, Jr. associate." On the Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit form, also submitted to HUD in connection with the transaction, respondent's signature is located on the line provided for the signature of the selling broker. A sales/broker's commission of $1,623.00 was paid to Anchor Realty as a result of this sale. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) On April 27, 1984, respondent submitted to HUD on behalf of Israel Branton an offer to purchase property located at 5019 Columbia Street, Orlando. As in the transaction above, "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" is named as the broker and respondent signed his name in the space provided for the signature of the broker. The certificate at the bottom of the Standard Retail Sales Contract was executed in the same manner it was on the contract for the property on Miramar, indicating "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as broker and signed by "Louis Boatman, Jr. Associate." On the Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit form submitted to HUD in connection with the transaction, respondent's signature was located on the line provided for the signature of the selling broker. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4). Israel Branton had known the respondent several years and was aware that respondent was a salesman and not a broker. Judy Sellers of Lawyers' Title Insurance Corporation, who handled the closing on the Miramar property, was aware that respondent was a salesman and John Nuccitelli was the broker for Anchor Realty. John Nuccitelli had given respondent authorization, as his agent, to sign all documents submitted to HUD on his behalf. Mr. Nuccitelli was aware that respondent was a very competent salesman with a thorough understanding of HUD paperwork and procedures. Due to the time restraints involved with HUD sales, respondent sometimes worked until midnight preparing the paperwork that had to be delivered to Tampa the next morning. To avoid having to get up before 5 a.m. to sign the documents himself, Mr. Nuccitelli told the respondent to sign: the documents for him. However, Mr. Nuccitelli was always fully informed about the transactions The Department of Housing and Urban Development has no objection to a salesman signing on behalf of a broker as long as the broker has authorized the salesman to do so. On August 2, 1984, respondent submitted to HUD, on his own behalf, an offer to purchase property located at 4777 Pleasant Valley, Orlando. Mr. Schroeder, Chief of the Loan Management and Property Disposition Branch of HUD, Tampa Office, rejected the offer noting on the document that the "OFFER MUST BE SUBMITTED BY A LISCENSED (sic) Broker." Mr. Schroeder had been informed shortly before August 2, 1984, that Mr. Nuccitelli's broker's license had been revoked and that the people who worked for him at Anchor Realty were not legally licensed. The Offer to Purchase had been signed by respondent as applicant and as broker, and it named "Anchor Realty REALTOR" as broker. Respondent indicated Anchor Realty as broker because respondent was still with Anchor Realty, and he filled out the form as he always had. However, he had not been authorized by Linda Nuccitelli to sign as the broker. Linda Nuccitelli became the licensed broker of Anchor Realty in August of 1984. Respondent did not represent to anyone that he was a broker. He never concealed the fact that he was a real estate salesman. He signed the HUD forms in the places for the broker's signature because John Nuccitelli told him that he could do so. At the same time, respondent clearly named "Anchor Realty REALTOR John Nuccitelli" as the broker. Mr. Schroeder, the HUD official who signed the contracts, was aware that John Nuccitelli was the broker. Mr. Schroeder indicated that HUD officials don't look at the signature on a form too closely but rely instead on the name that is typed in the appropriate space to determine the broker. The evidence presented established that respondent did not intend to deceive or mislead anyone and that in fact, no one was deceived or misled. Respondent has held a real estate license for about 15 or 16 years and has never had a disciplinary action filed against him until the instant complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed, that respondent be found to have violated section 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that respondent be fined $500 pursuant to section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard J; R. Parkinson, Esquire 602 East Central Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2, except last half of last sentence which is a legal conclusion. Accepted as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted as modified in Finding of Fact 5. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant and not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Respondent signed on behalf of the broker, and clearly signed by respondent as "associate." Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted By Respondent 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1, 2 and 3. 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 7. 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5 and 7. 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are, first, whether Respondent, a licensed real estate salesperson, intentionally concealed an offer to purchase her clients’ house and, second, whether Respondent engaged in a course of conduct so egregious that she cannot be trusted to deal with the public.
Findings Of Fact Material Adjudicative Facts The evidence adduced at hearing establishes the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 clearly and convincingly. The Parties Respondent Kathleen Marie Oros (“Oros”) is a licensed real estate salesperson subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission (“Commission”). Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (“Department”), has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission’s direction, the Department is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Leonard Transaction On or about July 22, 2000, Re/Max Consultants Realty (“Re/Max”), as the Listing Broker, entered into a Residential Listing Contract (“Listing Contract”) with Francis E. and Rita Leonard (“Sellers”) for the exclusive right to secure a purchaser for the Sellers’ house in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Oros, who several years earlier had assisted the Sellers in purchasing the house they now intended to sell, procured the Listing Contract for Re/Max. She and her partner, David Comanic, were identified collectively in the Listing Contract as the “Listing Agent.” In early November 2000, a real estate salesperson named Jacqueline Federico (“Federico”) brought her client Doreen Moskowitz (“Moskowitz”) to the Sellers’ house, where they were shown around by Oros. Thereafter, on November 9, 2002, Moskowitz executed a written offer to purchase the property for $210,000, which Federico presented to Oros. Oros presented Moskowitz’s offer to the Sellers, who considered it too far below their asking price of $249,000 to accept. The Sellers authorized Oros to make a counteroffer of $245,000, which she did. Moskowitz rejected the counteroffer. Over the next couple of weeks, Moskowitz made two more offers to purchase the Sellers’ house, for $220,000 and $225,000, respectively, neither of which was in writing. Oros presented both of these verbal offers to the Sellers, who rejected each with a counteroffer of $245,000. Meanwhile, Oros had twice shown the Sellers’ property to Carol Kuehnle and Michael Cleary (“Buyers”), who were engaged to be married and wanted to purchase a home in the area. On November 22, 2002, the Buyers called Oros and asked to see the house again that day. Oros arranged for them to do so. After seeing the property with Oros on the afternoon of November 22, 2002, the Buyers signed a written offer to purchase the Sellers’ house for $235,000. The Buyers’ offer required the Sellers to accept the proposed terms by 5:00 p.m. that day or the offer would be withdrawn. Oros promptly brought the Buyers’ offer to the Sellers, who were at home. The Sellers timely accepted the offer and entered into a contract for sale with the Buyers. The transaction ultimately closed. A Previous Complaint In April 1996, the Department brought an Administrative Complaint against Comanic and Oros on the allegation that they had failed to present their client with an offer to purchase his property, which they were listing to sell. This matter was referred to DOAH, where it was docketed as Case No. 97-4937 (“DBPR v. Comanic”). On June 7, 1999, the parties signed a stipulation of settlement pursuant to which Comanic and Oros each agreed to pay a $500 fine plus $100 apiece in costs. The two also agreed to complete 45 hours of post-licensure education for real estate salespersons. Neither respondent admitted the Department’s allegations but rather entered into the stipulation “for the purpose of avoiding further administrative action by [the Department] with respect to [the matter].” The Commission entered a Final Order adopting the stipulation on August 18, 1999. Non-Essential, Explanatory Findings The greater weight of the evidence1 adduced at hearing establishes the facts set forth in paragraphs 13 through 15. On the morning of November 22, 2002, Federico called Oros and communicated another verbal offer from Moskowitz, this one to purchase the Sellers’ house for $230,000. As a result, before Oros showed the Buyers the house for the third time, which she would do a few hours later, Oros presented Moskowitz’s fourth offer to the Sellers. They turned it down, instructing Oros to repeat their previous counteroffer of $245,000. Oros called Federico and transmitted the Sellers’ counteroffer. Later that day, when she met the Sellers to present the Buyers’ offer, Oros turned off her cell phone so as not to be interrupted, as she customarily did at such times. Oros’s phone remained off throughout her entire meeting with the Sellers, until after they signed the contract. As she was preparing to leave the house, Oros switched her cell phone back on. The phone soon rang, but Oros did not answer it, explaining to the Sellers that the caller was Federico, and that she (Oros) would return the call from her car. Once she was in her car, Oros called Federico and let her know that the house had been sold. This news upset Federico. The Charges In Count I of its Administrative Complaint, the Department accused Oros of having committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The gravamen of Count I is the Department’s allegation that “[d]uring the meeting with . . . Sellers [on November 22, 2002,] [Oros] refused to respond to calls from [Federico].” The Department has charged Oros in Count II with a violation of Section 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes, which makes it a disciplinable offense either to be found guilty, for the second time, of misconduct warranting suspension or to be found guilty of a course of conduct so egregious that the licensee cannot be trusted to deal with the public. The Department is traveling under a “course of conduct” theory, arguing that the circumstances allegedly surrounding the Leonard transaction, coupled with the stipulated disposition of DBPR v. Comanic, demonstrate that Oros repeatedly has refused to convey offers, threatening “unimaginable” danger if not stopped. Ultimate Factual Determinations Having examined the entire record; weighed, interpreted, and judged the credibility of the evidence; drawn (or refused to draw) permissible factual inferences; resolved conflicting accounts of what occurred; and applied the applicable law to the facts, it is determined that: The evidence is not so compelling as to produce in the undersigned’s mind a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, that Oros intentionally concealed an offer from the Sellers or otherwise intentionally deceived, defrauded, or tricked any person interested in the subject transaction. Indeed, the undersigned is not even persuaded, by a preponderance of evidence, that Oros’s handling of this business transaction was merely negligent——a finding that would not, in any event, support a determination of guilt under Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Therefore, Oros is not guilty of the offense charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Because Oros is not guilty of intentional wrongdoing in connection with the Leonard transaction as charged in Count I, she cannot be found guilty of a “course of conduct” in violation of Section 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes, for that offense requires a showing of misbehavior in more than one transaction. Further, the stipulated disposition of DBPR v. Comanic——assuming for argument’s sake that it constitutes competent evidence of the underlying allegations2——does not convince the undersigned that Oros truly committed the offense charged in that previous disciplinary proceeding, for two reasons. First, because of the settlement, the Department never proved the charge clearly and convincingly at a formal hearing; and, moreover, as the stipulation expressly states, Oros “neither admit[ted] nor den[ied] the factual allegations” that had been brought against her. Second, the undersigned, who was able personally to observe Oros’s credibility and demeanor as a witness at hearing, credits and believes Oros’s testimony that she did not refuse to convey an offer as charged in DBPR v. Comanic; in fact, she acceded to a light punishment only to avoid the much greater expense certain to be incurred in litigating that matter to conclusion. Therefore, Oros is not guilty of the offense charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Oros not guilty of the charges brought against her in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 25th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's real estate broker's license application should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rhonda S. Dietz, is a 36-year-old woman who currently holds a real estate sales associate's license. She was first licensed by the State of Florida in December 2001 and has held her license in good standing since that time. At the time Petitioner obtained her sales associate license, she disclosed in her application that she had a criminal background. That background included two grand larcenies, possession of a controlled substance, failure to appear, violation of probation, and obtaining property with a worthless check. Each of the offenses will be further discussed below. Despite the criminal history, Respondent approved Petitioner's sales associate's license, and Petitioner has been selling real estate for the past six years. In 2006, Petitioner first applied for a real estate broker's license. Petitioner maintains that in her 2006 application, she disclosed each of the aforementioned events in her criminal history.1 Nonetheless, her application was denied. In May 2007, Petitioner again filed an application for a real estate broker's license. That application clearly contained documentary evidence of her entire criminal history. The events in that history are hereby discussed: The first grand larceny in Petitioner's background was related to the purchase of goods from a K-Mart in 1994 with a bad check belonging to a roommate. Upon discovering the check was bad, Petitioner immediately turned herself in, made restitution, and paid court costs. She was sentenced to five years' probation for that charge. The second grand larceny involved allegations in 1994 by Petitioner's then-current roommates that Petitioner stole property from them when she moved out of the residence. Although Petitioner denied the charge because the claim was merely retaliation by her roommates for moving out, she agreed to a plea bargain at the advice of counsel. Again, she was given five years' probation and made to pay restitution. In 1998, Petitioner was charged with possession of a controlled substance: a vial of testosterone and some pain pills. She explained that these drugs came from a pharmacy where she was working. The pharmacy specialized in treatment of AIDS patients. She had the drugs in her possession so she could turn them over to a medical group that could disperse them to AIDS patients. The pharmacy supported Petitioner and paid for her defense against the possession charge. Petitioner was sentenced to 24 months' probation, court costs, and 50 hours of community service for that charge. Petitioner also had a probation violation in 1998 for failing to appear and for failing to pay a fine related to one of the aforementioned charges. She did not pay the fine due to lack of funds. She failed to appear due to lack of notice. She was placed on ten months' house arrest for the violation of probation. Petitioner met all other conditions of her probation and has not had any criminal activity since the charges listed above. She does not deny the existence of her prior criminal history and has not attempted to hide it from Respondent. When Petitioner applied for a broker's license in 2005, she filed an application that included her criminal history. The application disclosed all of the charges addressed above. Respondent confirmed the charges by referring to a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) report. When Petitioner re-applied in 2007, she personally obtained a FDLE report on her criminal background, which she submitted along with her application. Again, she listed all of her prior history in the application. There is no competent evidence to suggest otherwise. Since the time of her last criminal charge, Petitioner has been gainfully employed. She has worked in an office doing medical billing, in a pharmacy, and as a real estate agent. In her current position, she has been entrusted with large sums of money for clients. She has had no adverse employment actions taken against her. Her co-workers state that she has good moral character and is trustworthy. Petitioner has passed the classroom work needed to become a broker; her application for licensure will complete that process. Meanwhile, she continues to sell real estate and is involved in an investor monitoring program. The broker's license will simply allow Petitioner to make a career move by expanding her capabilities in the area of real estate sales. Respondent did not call any witnesses at the final hearing and did not refute or rebut the facts as stated by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission granting Petitioner's application for a real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2007.
