Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman and broker-salesman, license number 0326235. In 1983, Dorothy Nutt and Diane Falstad were the owners of a house located at 608 Hillcrest Street, Orlando, Florida. In December of 1983, Ms. Nutt and Ms. Falstad placed this house for sale with real estate broker Frank Daley. The listing was an exclusive listing except as to the Respondent and another individual, for which no commission would be paid, if a contract submitted by the Respondent was accepted by Nutt and Falstad prior to December 26, 1983. On December 25, 1983, the Respondent, along with his parents, Barbara Okoniewski and Louis Okoniewski, Jr., submitted a written contract to Diane Falstad and Dorothy Nutt for the purchase of the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The contract was accepted by the sellers on December 26, 1983. The contract, as executed by the Respondent and his parents, specified that a $1,000 deposit was to be held in escrow by "Closing Agents." Additionally, Respondent represented to Ms. Falstad that the $1,000 deposit was being maintained in an escrow account. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Respondent applied for a V.A. mortgage loan, but was later determined to be ineligible. Subsequent thereto, on or about February 8, 1984, application was made with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC), to obtain financing to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The application was in the name of the Respondent's parents, with Respondent handling the matter on their behalf. Thereafter, the Respondent requested that the loan officer (Charlyne Becker) at RFC not submit the loan application for approval to the underwriters. Pursuant to his request, the application was not submitted for approval. The transaction did not close. Subsequent to the scheduled date of closing both Ms. Falstad and Ms. Nutt made demands of the Respondent for forfeiture of the $1,000 deposit, due to their belief that, he had breached the contract by failing to secure financing. It was not until after the scheduled closing date that the sellers learned the $1,000 was not in escro. To date, Respondent has neither deposited the $1,000 in any trust account nor paid any money to the sellers. Respondent admits through his own testimony, that he did not make the deposit, nor was the deposit placed in any escrow account by his parents. Respondent's testimony, which was not rebutted, established that he and his parents sought to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property and that adjacent to it for rental purposes. However, they were advised by the RFC loan officer (Charlyne Becker) that the applications were not likely to be approved by RFC. Respondent did not thereafter pursue any of the loan applications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent $500. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 12th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esq. Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis S. Okoniewski 730 Lake View Avenue, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Harold Huff. Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Prehearing Stipulation, the following facts are established: This case is based on allegations by John Carosso that James J. Baruch, a licensed real estate broker, wrongfully allowed the dispersal of a deposit Mr. Carosso had made to Centennial Development Corporation on a villa to be constructed. James J. Baruch was associated with Wyn Pope Associates, Inc., as a realtor and salesman over a period of several years and on several projects which Mr. Pope developed. On the Gasa Tiempo project, the developer was Centennial Development Corporation and sales were handled by Wyn Pope Associates, Inc. This corporate realtor was formed using James J. Baruch's realtor's license. During their association, Wyn Pope and James Baruch had always agreed that no deposits would be accepted which could not be used for construction after the mortgage commitment. In the past Mr. Baruch had rejected contracts which did not allow such use of the deposit. The Casa Tiempo contracts all contained such a provision and deposit monies were invariably used for construction with the knowledge of the purchasers. Only the contract with John Carosso was changed to provide for an escrow and to prohibit use of the deposit for construction. Mr. Baruch did not prepare or negotiate this contract and his only connection with the Carosso sale was to witness Mr. Carosso's signature. The contract was negotiated and altered by Wyn Pope without Mr. Baruch's knowledge or consent. Neither Mr. Baruch nor Wyn Pope Associates was a party to the contract and the contract said that the deposit would be held in escrow, but did not specify an escrow agent. As a party to the contract, Centennial acknowledged receipt of the deposit and thereby agreed to hold it in escrow. Since Mr. Baruch was not an officer or in any way a part of Centennial Development Corporation, he had no authority to approve or modify the contracts and no reason to believe that he needed to review each contract himself. Mr. Baruch was therefore not authorized to control the deposit which according to the terms of the contract was made to Centennial Development Corporation. Although the contract was signed July 6, 1979, no deposit was received until July 17, 1979. The changes regarding escrow, although typed in, were each initialed, indicating that the contract was changed after execution and witnessing. Given the ten-day delay and initialing, it is likely that the changes regarding the deposit were made in the contract after Mr. Baruch had witnessed Mr. Carosso's signature and as a condition of the deposit being actually paid. In that case, Mr. Baruch would have no way of knowing that the standard contract had been modified unless he checked each contract submitted by other salesmen. Contrary to paragraph 9 of Petitioner's Complaint, Mr. Baruch never had actual knowledge of the terms of the Carosso contract until the project was taken over by Casa Tiempo Builders, Inc., in May, 1980. Mr. Baruch received no commission on the Carosso sale and never received any part of the deposit. Mr. Baruch completely severed his connection with Wyn Pope Associates, Inc., and Casa Tiempo in March, 1980, and did not profit in any way from the additional deposits demanded and received by Joseph Falso in May, 1980. On or about August 7, 1980, John Carosso entered into an agreement for the completion of his villa in which he released Centennial Development from all claims connected with his deposit. John Carosso was injured by the use of his deposit only in that he lost the option of withdrawing his deposit and rescinding the contract. He could not have finished his home at the original contract price even if the deposit remained in escrow. All the homes in the project had appreciated greatly in value between the contract of July 6, 1979 and the May, 1980 meeting, thus it was to each owner's advantage to pay the 7,500 and complete construction. Because of this appreciation, Mr. Carosso could have paid the $7,500 and immediately sold the house in May, 1980 for enough to return his entire initial deposit plus a profit. One Mr. Hmeilewski, a contract vendee, did so with the help of the new management of Centennial. Selling his contract would thus have enabled Mr. Carosso to be in a better position than rescission and return of the deposit. He preferred to have the house at the increased price. Respondent's position is that he was not responsible for the deposit and should not be sanctioned for the events stipulated to, especially since no actual damage was incurred by Mr. Carosso and all claims against the Developer and escrow holder Centennial Development Corporation were released by Mr. Carosso.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against James J. Baruch be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation State Office Building 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nicholas Rockwell, Esquire McCUNE HIAASEN CRUM FERRIS & GARDNER, P.A. 25 South Andrews Avenue Post Office Box 14636 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Bldg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, Kenneth A. Norberg, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all pertinent times, Respondent, Kenneth A. Norberg, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued License Nos. 0143669 and 0243001 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued to Respondent were as a broker t/a Arden Real Estate Associates, 525 West Lantana Road, Lantana, Florida 33462. Respondent operates both an insurance business and a real estate business out of his office. There is a large sign outside the office near the street that indicates both "INSURANCE" and "REAL ESTATE" in large letters. Beneath those words in smaller print, are the words "Arden Insurance" Association and "Ken Norberg Real Estate". This sign is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit 1 and has been in place for approximately fifteen years. Sometime prior to March of 1989, Joe Ann Shoop was awarded ownership of a corporation known as Jerraang Enterprises, Inc. as part of a divorce settlement. That corporation owned certain property located at 7967 Overlook Road, Hypoluxo, Palm Beach County, Florida. There are two small cottages located on the property. Ms. Shoop's attorney is an officer of the corporation, but it is not clear whether he is a stockholder. Ms. Shoop visited Respondent's office in order to inquire about insurance for the property. While she was in Respondent's office, Ms. Shoop asked Respondent if he would be interested in listing the property for sale. She explained that she did not need the property and was anxious to sell it in order to get some cash. Respondent agreed to list the property. Sometime in March of 1989, Respondent received an offer to purchase the property from Bernadette Butler. Included with that offer was a $500.00 earnest money deposit. Respondent placed the $500.00 deposit into his escrow account maintained at the Bank of South Palm Beaches, Hypoluxo, Florida. Ms. Shoop accepted Ms. Butler's offer and a contract was agreed upon in March of 1989 with an anticipated closing date in May of 1989. The contract price was $30,000. The specific terms of that initial contract have not been established. Neither party offered the contract into evidence at the hearing. The parties agreed to extend the closing date of that contract and a new written contract was entered on June 23, 1989. That new contract indicated that the closing was to take place on July 26, 1989. The second contract provided that the sale was contingent upon the purchaser obtaining financing in the amount of $21,000.00. The purchaser was unable to arrange financing and the transaction failed to close by July 26, 1989. The parties verbally agreed to extend the contract, however, the evidence is inconclusive as to how long an extension was agreed to. By October of 1989, it became clear that the transaction would not close. At that time, Ms. Shoop demanded the deposit and began efforts to sell the property to someone else. Ultimately, the property was sold at auction for $15,000. Ms. Shoop claims that she was not advised and would not have agreed to a contract that was contingent upon the buyer obtaining financing. As indicated above, the terms of the first contract have not been established. However, it is clear that the second contract did provide a contingency for financing. On October 31, 1989, Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Butler indicating that Ms. Shoop had requested the release of the deposit to her. Respondent enclosed a copy of a Release of Deposit Receipt form for Ms. Butler to execute. Ms. Butler did not execute the form and/or authorize the release of the deposit to Ms. Shoop. Respondent retained the deposit in his escrow account for several more months. During this time, Ms. Butler continued her attempts to obtain financing and also began searching for additional properties. Ms. Butler indicated to Respondent her intention to apply the money held in escrow to any new purchases that may arise if the contract with Ms. Shoop did not close. On several occasions in late 1989 and early 1990, Ms. Shoop attempted to contact the Respondent and determine the status of the escrow money. Respondent did not answer her inquiries. On September 10, 1990, an investigator from the Department visited Respondent's office to conduct a random audit of Respondent's business and his escrow account. During this audit, the investigator discovered the deposit being held in escrow without a current contract. She advised Respondent that he needed to be sure to comply with the requirements of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code. In October of 1990, the Respondent sent a letter to both Ms. Butler and Ms. Shoop enclosing a Release of Deposit Receipt form pursuant to which he suggested that the parties divide the deposit equally. Respondent sent a copy of this letter to the Department to notify it of his attempt to resolve the dispute over the deposit. By letter dated October 11, 1989, Gerri E. Barnoski, an analyst for the Florida Real Estate Commission, (the "Commission") advised Respondent of his options. In this letter, Ms. Barnoski told Respondent that he had to either (1) arrange for arbitration, (2) place the matter before a civil court or (3) request an Escrow Disbursement Order from the Florida Real Estate Commission. The Respondent subsequently requested an Escrow Disbursement Order from the Florida Real Estate Commission and the matter is currently pending resolution by the Commission in Case No. E902949. The deposit remains in Respondent's escrow account. In sum, the evidence demonstrated that Respondent failed to promptly notify the Commission of the conflicting demands to the escrow deposit. Respondent claims that he never received a formal written demand from either party. However, the evidence is clear that by at least October of 1989, Respondent was aware of the conflicting demands for the deposit. After delay of approximately one year, Respondent finally attempted to resolve the matter in an appropriate manner. Respondent says he was concerned that attorney's fees would consume the entire deposit. However, this concern does not excuse the delay. There is no indication that Respondent was manipulating the transaction for his own personal gain and/or that he was trying to defraud either party. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. At the time Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's office in September of 1990, there was no sign immediately outside the entrance door to Respondent's office. The large sign alongside the roadway (which is described in Finding of Fact 2 above) was in place and there was a trademark indication of a Realtor on the entrance door. However, a sign which had previously been on the wall immediately next to the entrance door was missing. The evidence established that the sign at the entrance door was temporarily missing due to unusual circumstances. Respondent was in the middle of a hotly contested divorce. Respondent and his former wife had previously worked out of the office together. The sign next to the entrance door had both of their names on it. Respondent taped over the name of his former wife and the sign was subsequently vandalized. Respondent had delayed obtaining a new sign until the divorce proceedings were concluded. The evidence indicates the road side sign was in place approximately fifteen feet from the entrance. Visitors to the office were sufficiently alerted to the identity of the real estate broker within. In view of all the circumstances, Respondent was not in violation of the requirement that he have a sign on or about the entrance to the real estate office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts II and III, reprimanding him, placing him on probation a period of one year and imposing a fine of $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9-15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2 and 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7-15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 10-17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth A. Norberg Arden Real Estate Associates 525 West Lantana Road Lantana, Florida 33462 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Respondent, Raymond J. Scent was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, holding license number 0117710. He is the qualifying broker for Respondent, Buckingham Wheeler Realty, Inc., which at all material times was licensed as a brokerage corporation in Florida holding license number 0011055. On or about February 8, 1987, Raymond and Kathleen Lenau, timeshare owners of interval week 50, for unit number 120 at Hideaway Sands in St. Petersburg, Florida, received a post card solicitation from Respondent to sell their unit at auction. The notice indicated that Aardvark, Inc., with "Colonel" Ray Scent as auctioneer, would sell, for a flat fee, timeshare condominium ownerships at auction. The solicitation indicated that the seller would pay no commission. Respondent was listed on the return address as a Florida licensed real estate broker. Subsequent to receiving this Solicitation, the Lenaus, on February 23, 1987, entered into a "firm, fixed cost (no commission) interval ownership (timeshare) auction agreement" for their property which indicated that the property would be offered at a public sale in Orlando, Florida on or about March 6, 1987. The agreement further provided that the auctioneer, (Respondent), would receive as "compensation" for "promoting, advertising, and conducting said auction sale" the total sum of $279.00. If the unit was sold or withdrawn by the owner prior to the auction, Respondent was to retain the full amount paid as liquidated damages. If the Respondent failed to present the unit for sale, he would return the fixed cost fee. There were other costs incident to a consummated sale, but these are not relevant to the issues herein. The Lenaus paid Respondent the $279.00 called for in the agreement. Respondent did not place this money in an advance fee escrow or trust account but instead placed it in a business checking account maintained by him, co- mingled with other funds of his auction business. The Lenau's property was offered for sale at the March 6-7, 1987 auction along with numerous other units owned by other individuals but there were no bidders for this unit and it was not sold. When the Lenaus contacted Respondent after the auction, they were advised that the unit had not sold but if they wanted it to be re-offered at the next sale, they could pay an additional $79.00 and it would be offered. The Lenaus declined to do this. At no time has Respondent accounted to the Lenaus for the expenditure of the $279.00 received from them, nor has he returned the fee. On or about May 1, 1987, subsequent to a complaint filed by the Lenaus, Charles E. Kimmig, Sr., an investigator with the Division of Real Estate, met with Respondent to discuss the escrow books required to be maintained by Respondent as a real estate broker. Mr. Kimmig contends he requested to see the records pertaining to the fee paid by the Lenaus. In response, according to Mr. Kimmig, Respondent indicated that the money was placed in his personal account, which was private, and that he would not make the records available except by court order. Petitioner contends that the $279.00 fee paid to him was his compensation for offering the property for sale at auction and was designed to recover the cost of advertising, printing, and other expenses incident to the auction as well as a portion of profit. In addition to the fee received from the seller, he also receives a $40.00 fee from each bidder and a premium from the buyer of 15 percent of the purchase price. The actual auction company is Aardvark, Inc., which is owned by Respondent, Scent. Raymond Scent, as a registered real estate broker, is employed by Aardvark Inc., to conduct the auctions of time share units as is required by statute. In all his advertising, Respondent identified himself as a licensed broker, along with Aardvark Inc., as the auction company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against the Respondents Raymond J. Scent and Buckingham Wheeler Realty, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of September, 1987 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 4th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Raymond J. Scent Post Office Box 6089 Vero Beach, Florida 32961-6089
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Respondent, Linda H. Abraham, was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker under license number 0323486. During the months of February and March 1983 Martha L. Tew owned a parcel of waterfront property located in Panama City Beach which was identified as being for sale by a sign on the property reflecting her husband's real estate company. Her husband was Ronald Eugene Tew and Mrs. Tew also held a salesman's license. Mr. Tew was contacted by Gregory A. Peaden, a contractor and developer in the Panama City Beach area on several occasions prior to March 1983 with offers to purchase the Tew property. The contacts with Mr. Peaden subsequently culminated in a contract dated March 8, 1983, between Greg Peaden, Inc., and the Tews in the amount of, initially, $180,000.00. During the negotiations for the property, Mr. Peaden had introduced the Respondent to the Tews as his broker. When, at the time of Use contract, Mr. Peaden advised the Tews he wanted Respondent to get a commission for the sale, Mr. Tew refused to pay any commission indicating that Respondent had performed no service for him; that he, Tew, was a broker himself; and that he had no intention of paying any commission to the Respondent or to anyone, for that matter. After some further negotiation, a second contract was prepared and agreed upon wherein the contract price was raised to $189,000.00 and the Respondent's commission was to be paid with the additional money from Mr. Peaden. The contract in question executed by the parties on March 8, 1983, reflected that the sum of $5,000.00 deposit was paid to Linda Abraham, Inc., by check. Mr. Tew contends that at this point he was led to believe that Respondent had the $5,000.00 check and, he contends, he would not have signed the contract if he had known that the check had not been delivered and placed in Respondent's escrow account. The actual signing of the contract took place in Respondent's office, a mobile home which she shared with Mr. Peaden's business. This trailer home was described as having Mr. Peaden's office on one end, and Respondent's on the other, with the living-kitchen area in the middle used as a reception area for both businesses. Mr. Peaden contends that once the contract was signed by the Tews, he gave a check drawn on one of his business accounts, that of Peaden and Guerino, a property management company he owned, to his secretary, Judy White, to deposit in Respondent's escrow account and thereafter promptly forgot about the matter until the date scheduled for closing, two months in the future. Ms. white, on the other hand, contends that Mr. Peaden at no time gave her a check for $5,000.00 to deposit to Respondent's escrow account. It is her contention that when she received the contract after it was signed, she, on her own, inserted the receipt portion on the bottom of the second page and signed as having received it merely to complete the contract. At the time, she contends, she did not know if the deposit was received from Peaden or not. She has never signed a contract like this before without a deposit and cannot give any other reason why she did it on this occasion. She is certain, however, that at no time did Mr. Peaden ever give her a $5,000.00 check or tell her to draw one for his signature on March 8, 1983, or, for that matter, at any time thereafter. What is more, neither Mr. Peaden nor the Respondent, at any time after the signing of the contract and prior to her departure under less than friendly circumstances approximately a week or so later, ever asked her whether she had made the escrow deposit or discussed it with her at all. Ms. white contends that she left Mr. Peaden's employ because he expected her to perform certain functions she was unwilling to do. When she left his employ, she did not feel there was any unfinished business that needed her immediate attention. To the best of her recollection, there were no sales contracts or deposits left in or on her desk - only bills. According to Respondent, the $5,000.00 deposit by Mr. Peaden was to stay in her escrow account. She understood Mr. Peaden was going to arrange with the bank to borrow the entire cash payment called for under the contract, including the deposit, and when that was done, it was her intention to give him back his $5,000.00 check. Under these circumstances, the amount in escrow would never be paid to the sellers but would be returned to Mr. Peaden and the Tews would receive the entire cash amount called for by the contract from the proceeds of the bank loan. Respondent also indicated that this procedure had been followed at least once, in a prior transaction. Under the circumstances, it is clear that no deposit was ever received from Mr. Peaden nor was it placed in Respondent's escrow account. Therefore, the contract, dated on March 8, 1983, was false in that it represented a $5,000.00 deposit had been received. The check for $5,000.00 dated March 8, 1983, payable to Linda Abraham, Inc. and drawn by Mr. Peaden on the Peaden and Guerino account with the stub admitted to show the date of issuance, does not establish that it was written on March 8, 1983, as contended. This check, number 1349, comes after two other checks, 1347 and 1348, which bear dates of April 4 and September 7, 1983 respectively. Mr. Peaden's explanation that the checks were drafted out of sequence is non-persuasive. Of greater probative value is the fact that neither Mr. Peaden nor Respondent bothered to review their bank statements on a regular basis. The check in question was drawn on an account not related to the construction and development business of Greg Peaden, Inc. Further, examination of Respondent's escrow account reflects that there were approximately eleven transactions over a three year period even though, according to her, she handled numerous other closings as well as this. Her explanation is that in most cases the attorney handling the closing served as escrow agent even though she was the sales broker. Her explanation is not credible. This appears to be a classic situation of movement of accounts to satisfy a particular end. The contract called for closing of the sale to be held on or before May 8, 1983, in the office of Panama Title Company. May 8, 1983, fell on a Sunday. As a result, the closing would not have been held that day, but it was not held the following day, Monday, May 9, 1983 either. Mr. Peaden admits that he had not checked with Panama Title prior to May 9 to see if everything was prepared for the closing. Instead, he contacted the title company for the first time at approximately noon on May 9. Apparently he received disquieting information because he thereafter called his attorney, Mr. Hutto, and asked him to check with the title company to see if and when the closing would be held. Mr. Hutto's inquiry reflected that the title insurance binder was ready but the closing statement and the package were not because the title company required a copy of the contract. At this point Mr. Peaden immediately had a copy of the contract delivered to the title company but later that day was advised that the closing still could not be held because of the failure to provide a survey. Mr. Hutto indicates that the reason given was that the release clauses called for in the contract required the survey to be furnished though he did not necessarily agree with that. In any event, closing was not held on May 9. At this time both Mr. Peaden and Respondent allegedly became concerned about the $5,000.00 deposit. Admittedly, neither had concerned themselves with it from the time of the signing of the contract. At this point, Mr. Peaden indicates that he examined his bank records which failed to show the deposit being made and his subsequent search of Ms. White's desk finally revealed the check, undeposited, still there. On May 11, 1983, a $5,000.00 deposit was made to the account on which the deposit check was drawn and on the same day, May 11, 1983 check number 1349, in the amount of $5,000.00 was presented against the account. When on May 10, 1983, Mr. Peaden and Respondent went to Mr. Hutto's office the primary reason for the visit was because Mr. Peaden had heard that the Tews were planning to sell the property in question to someone else at a price much higher than that agreed upon for the sale to Peaden. At this point Mr. Hutto indicated that if Peaden so desired, Hutto could "fix up the contract to jam up the works" until he could do something about it. His examination of the contract revealed that it was not recorded or acknowledged and under the laws of Florida, acknowledgment is required in order for a contract to be recorded. Hutto asked the Respondent if she had seen the parties sign the contract and when she said that she had, he had his secretary prepare a jurat. Unfortunately, his secretary prepared an affidavit type notary jurat rather than an acknowledgment and Hutto quickly admits that he did not look at it when it was given back to him. He says that if he had, he would have had it changed but in any event, without looking at what was given him, he gave it to the Respondent with the implication, at least, that she should notarize it and have the contract recorded. According to Hutto, Peaden, and the Respondent, the sole purpose for notarization and recordation was to preserve the status quo to protect Mr. Peaden's interest in the property so that the matter could be adjudicated in a lawsuit which was soon to be filed. Respondent contends she never intended any misconduct throughout this transaction nor did she do any of the things alleged in the Administrative Complaint. She contends she never saw the check which Mr. Peaden allegedly gave to his secretary for deposit to her escrow account. She merely assumed that it was given and never checked to insure that it had been placed in her account. She does not know why Mr. Peaden did not give her the check. When she took the contract to the Tews, she was operating under the assumption that the check had been received but did not verify this to insure that it had. She contends that since she represented the buyer, her duties were limited to insuring that he performed and this made it simple. She did not check on him because she had had so much experience with him, him being by far her largest account, if he said something, she believed him and when the contract was executed, she merely instructed the secretary, Judy White, to make the file and did not check on it again. As to the recordation and the notarization after the fact, she acted upon the advice of counsel, she states, and did what was suggested to her by Mr. Hutto. It should be noted, however, that Mr. Hutto did not represent her but instead represented Mr. Peaden and while because of her long-standing relationship with him and Mr. Hutto, she may have felt safe in relying on his advice, the fact remains that Hutto was not her attorney.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a registered real estate broker in Florida be suspended for six months and that she pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 6th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur Shell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 John D. O'Brien, Esquire P. O. Box 1218 Panama City, Florida 32402 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Benny Isaiah, holds real estate broker's license number 0311124 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Greater Realty of Orlando, Ltd., Inc., is a real estate broker corporation and holds license number 0223392 also issued by petitioner. When the events herein occurred, its offices were located at 66408 International Drive, Orlando, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Isaiah operated as the qualifying broker for Greater Realty. On or about November 2, 1982, Isaiah's wife, Dalia, a real estate salesman in respondent's fir, obtained an offer from Arthur Zimand to purchase a residence located at 9227 Bay Point Drive, Orlando, Florida, for $190,000. The residence was owned by Tran Van Don, a former Vietnamese army officer. In the contract for sale and purchase, Zimand established a closing date of February 1, 1983. He also gave respondent's firm a $2500 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Greater Realty which was placed in the appropriate escrow account as required by law. The contract provided that "(i)f the offer is not executed by both of the parties on (a date specified therein), the . . . deposit(s) shall be, at the option of the Buyer, returned to him and this offer shall thereafter be null and void." The above offer was presented to the seller and rejected. Thereafter, Don prepared a counter-offer on November 9, 1982, which increased the sales price to $205,000 and changed the closing date to November 30, 1982. After reviewing the counter-offer, Zimand agreed to all changes except the closing date of November 30, 1982. He could not agree to that date since he was unable to obtain sufficient funds to close the transaction until December 10, 1982. Accordingly, Zimand crossed out the closing date suggested by the seller, wrote in December 10, 1982, in its place, and initialed the change on the contract. The later closing date was unacceptable to the seller and he did not accept Zimand's counter-offer. Therefore, no contract was executed by the parties. Respondents were so notified by the seller's attorney by letter sent on November 23, 1982. The letter advised them that the seller would not accept the closing date of December 10, and that accordingly no contract between the two parties existed. On November 24, 1982, Zimand wrote respondent's wife a letter in which he withdrew his offer and requested a prompt refund of his $2500 deposit. On December 3 and 11, 1982, respectively, Zimand and Don executed a "release of deposit receipt" wherein both parties instructed respondents to disburse the deposit held in escrow to Zimand. By signing the release form, the seller acknowledged that he had no interest in the deposit monies. The document was mailed to respondents on January 11, 1983. This was followed by a letter to Isaiah from Zimand's attorney on January 25, 1983, again requesting a refund of the deposit within ten days. Despite these requests, Isaiah did not refund the deposit. On or about December 8, 1982, Isaiah withdrew the $2500 from his escrow account. The disposition of those funds is not known. Zimand later instituted a civil action against Isaiah seeking to recover his deposit. He also filed a complaint with petitioner. On May 9, 1984, or just before the matter went to trial, Isaiah returned the deposit to Zimand. This was some seventeen months after Zimand first requested a refund of his deposit. Isaiah contends there was a valid contract between Zimand and Don, and that they used a "technicality" (a dispute over closing dates) to get out of closing the transaction. Because of this, he believes he was originally entitled to keep the $2500 as a sales commission. He also contended that his wife is the person who should be involved in this proceeding rather than him since she negotiated the contract and is more familiar with the details of the contract. Finally, he asserts the dispute has no clear-cut answer, and falls within a "gray" area. As such, he was justified in his actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of Counts I, II and III of the administrative complaint, that their licenses be suspended for six months, and each pay a $500 administrative fine within forty-five days after a final order is entered in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November 1984.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1999), by failing to maintain an escrow deposit in a trust account until properly authorized; whether Respondents violated Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, by failing to account for or deliver funds; whether Respondents violated Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by committing a breach of trust or culpable negligence in a business transaction; and, if so, whether the proposed penalty is reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in the state. Simons is licensed in the state as a real estate broker/officer of Respondent, Home Hunters USA, Inc. (Home Hunters), pursuant to license number BK-0159866. Home Hunters is a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker pursuant to license number CQ-0146369. On March 21, 1996, Respondents entered into a property management contract (amended contract) with Max and Mary Newman (Newmans). The amended contract authorized Respondents to lease and manage real property owned by the Newmans and located at 1555 Whiskey Creek Drive, Ft. Myers, Florida 33919 (the property). The original contract that Respondents proposed to the Newmans was dated March 11, 1996. The original contract contained a clause that would have obligated the Newmans to pay a sales commission to Respondents in the event Respondents sold the property to a tenant or certain other purchasers. The Newmans deleted that language from the original contract, initialed the deletion, dated the deletion "3/21/96," signed the amended contract on March 21, 1996, and returned the amended contract to Respondents. The deleted language in the amended contract signed by the Newmans provided: Owner agrees to pay Agent a sales commission for the sale of said property to the tenant, or any other the tenant relates or refers. Agent will perform any services normally performed to consummate the sale to the tenant in a professional and diligent manner. Owner shall notify Agent at earliest possible time so that Agent may perform services (prequalify, arrange financing, closing, repairs, etc.). It is the owners [sic] responsibility to pay said fee to Agent upon closing of sale. Petitioner's Exhibit 5 (P-5) at 19 (the second unnumbered page of the exhibit). On or about February 1, 1999, Respondents brokered a lease of the property from the Newmans to Ms. Lilly Gilson (Gilson). Mr. Newman signed the lease agreement on February 14, 1999, and Gilson signed it on February 23, 1999. The lease agreement, in relevant part, obligated the Newmans to pay Respondents a "fee" in the event the "tenant should enter into a lease purchase, lease option, or purchase through their tenancy." The lease agreement states that the fee is for Respondents "serving the sale as a broker" but does not specify the amount of the fee, does not express the fee as a percentage of the purchase price, and does not otherwise specify how the fee is to be determined. Neither of the Respondents is a signatory to the lease agreement. At the time Gilson entered into the lease agreement, Gilson paid a deposit of $650 to Respondents as a security deposit in accordance with the lease agreement. Respondents placed this deposit into a trust account. At some point prior to December 1999, the Newmans entered into a purchase and sale contract to sell the property to Mr. Gary Newman (Buyer). The Buyer is unrelated to the Newmans, but is a relative of Gilson. The Newmans closed on the sale to the Buyer on December 28, 1999. The parties to the sale used other brokers in the transaction over Respondents' objections, and neither of the Respondents served the sale as a broker. The closing statement shows that the Buyer was obligated to pay the $635 security deposit to the Newmans. Subsequent to the closing, Respondents transferred the security deposit from their trust account to their operating account. Simons believed he was entitled to a commission on the sale from the Newmans to Buyer. Respondents had actual knowledge that the Newmans claimed entitlement to the security deposit and disputed Respondents' entitlement to the security deposit. Simons was aware as early as December 11, 1999, that the Newmans did not knowingly consent to pay Respondents a commission on the sale transaction. Respondents failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) of the dispute concerning entitlement to the security deposit. Respondents did not institute the settlement procedures prescribed in Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes (1999).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondents violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (k), Florida Statutes (1999), by committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $1,000 against each licensee; and suspending Respondents' licenses concurrently for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 4th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. DeCosta, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801-N Orlando, Florida 32801 Larry A. Simons Home Hunters USA, Inc. 1415 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 3 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Nancy P. Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802-N Orlando, Florida 32801-1772
The Issue The issue presented is whether a broker and active firm member for a corporate real estate broker can be held accountable for the wrongful handling of escrow funds by non-registered persons after the broker has resigned his employment and notified the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) of his resignation when another active firm member is not qualified by the corporation prior to the effective date of the broker's resignation.
Findings Of Fact Telfair is a registered real estate broker holding registration 0087817 issued by the FREC. Telfair was employed by LTP as the firm's sole broker and active firm member. LTP was a registered corporate broker. Telfair was not a corporate officer of LTP. The monies at issue in this case were deposited to the escrow account of LTP, pursuant to pending real estate contracts. These monies were maintained properly in the escrow account at all times during the period that Telfair was an active firm member. On February 14, 1975, Telfair gave notice to Frank Carcaise, President of LTP, that he was going to resign effective March 1, 1975. A copy of Telfair's letter of resignation to Carcaise as an active firm member and broker for LTP was forwarded to the FREC. On March 1, 1975, Telfair did resign, severed his relationship with LTP, removed himself from the business premises, together with his property. Prior to that date, he had advised Carcaise of the necessity to obtain a broker to serve as an active firm member for LTP, but Telfair was never replaced by Carcaise. As of the date of Telfair's resignation, there were sufficient funds on deposit in the LTP escrow account to meet all obligations against the account. On June 4, 1975, Carcaise directed the corporate bookkeeper, in writing, to issue a check transferring the escrow funds to Gateway Consultants. The bookkeeper, who had refused to issue any checks without written direction, called Telfair and asked him what she should do. Telfair suggested that she report this matter to the FREC, and Telfair volunteered to accompany her to Orlando to the FREC offices. On June 5, 1975, the bookkeeper, and Telfair met with Mr. Jones of the FREC legal staff and advised him of the removal of the escrow funds and showed him the corporate books which the bookkeeper had brought with her. Jones advised them that there was nothing which could be done because no demand had been made for the funds, and there had been no failure to deliver the funds by LTP. The funds were transferred, demand was subsequently made for the escrow funds by LTP's client, and they were not paid. Subsequently, the FREC brought the instant complaint against Telfair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against Robert M. Telfair by the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Joseph A. Scarlett, Esq. 210 East New York Avenue DeLand, FL 32720
Findings Of Fact By contract dated March 13, 1974 Frederick W. and Judith P. Shaw placed $500 as earnest money to purchase property from Comfort Builders, Inc. represented by Giles Realty. The $500 was duly placed in escrow. The contract provided that seller would furnish title insurance and buyer could take posession on April 1, 1974. Buyer occupied the house as per the contract and delayed the initially intended closing to require the builder (seller) to correct defects. Shortly after the contract was executed buyer paid seller an additional $3,000 of the purchase money. This payment did not go through Giles. At the first closing session on May 15, 1974 a subcontractor's lien was discovered and the closing did not occur. At a second scheduled closing additional liens against the property were discovered. The $500 check representing buyers' deposit that had been forwarded by Giles to First Federal Savings and Loan Association, who was to loan the mortgage money, was returned to Giles by letter of October 10, 1974 advising that they were unable to make the mortgage. Subsequently the bank, which had also provided the construction mortgage money, foreclosed on the mortgage and took title to the property. Thereafter on March 21, 1975 the bank sold the property to Shaw who had occupied the premises since April, 1974. After the property had been conveyed by the bank to Shaw, Giles prepared a Release of Deposit Receipt which was executed by Comfort Builders, Inc., the original seller, to allow the $500 deposit to be retained by Giles. When asked to execute this release Shaw declined. Whether Giles told Shaw that she had asked the FREC for an advisory opinion respecting the $500 as Shaw testified or only that she would ask for an advisory opinion as testified to by Giles is immaterial as no advisory opinion was requested by Giles. Thereafter Shaw filed a complaint with FREC which led to the charges here under consideration. When this complaint was being investigated by Kimmig, Giles asked Kimmig for an advisory opinion and she was told she would have to request same from the Commission. Several years earlier Giles had obtained an advisory opinion by submitting a written request to the Commission, but no such request was submitted by Giles respecting the disposition of the $500 deposit of Shaw. The $500 has not been disbursed from the escrow account. Mrs. Giles has been registered with the FREC for some 20 years and these are the first disciplinary proceedings ever brought against her. Exhibit 10 contains numerous achievements and recognitions received by Mrs. Giles showing an excellent reputation in the community.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license numbers 0487611 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as t/a First Capital Realty & Investments, 3510 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33137. Hector F. Sehwerert, Petitioner's Investigator, conducted an office inspection and audit of Respondent's office and escrow accounts on or about November 19, 1990. The investigation disclosed that Respondent failed to maintain escrow reconciliation statements required by applicable law. Respondent commingled the escrow funds with his personal funds. On or about October 1, 1990, and November 3, 1990, Respondent received two earnest money deposits from purchasers of HUD properties in the respective amounts of $2,000.00 and $1,615.00. Respondent deposited the earnest money in the aggregate amount of $3,615.00 into his personal account number #012153441 maintained at Southeast Bank, N.A., which contained $11,926.49 in personal funds. Respondent has subsequently changed banks and has now opened an escrow account in accordance with applicable statutes and rules. Respondent failed to display the required office entrance sign on or about the entrance to his real estate office. The Respondent had moved his office some 30 days prior to the office inspection and the sign he had maintained at his previous office had not yet been moved. The sign had been moved and was displayed in front of Respondent's new office location at the time of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued and filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent: Guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint; Placing Respondent's real estate broker certifications, licenses, permits and registrations on probation for a period of one (1) year; and During such probationary period, requiring Respondent to provide copies of monthly escrow account statement/reconcilia- tions to: James H. Gillis, Senior Attorney, Division of Real Estate, Legal Section, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801-1772. Additional terms of the probationary period, including broker education, shall be determined by the Florida Real Estate Commission; provided that such probationary terms shall not require Respondent to retake any state licensure examination as a result of these proceedings or the resulting administrative action. In accord with Florida Administrative Code Rule 21V-24.001(2)(a), it is further recommended that, as a part of the probationary conditions, Respondent appear before the Commission at the last meeting of the Commission preceding termination of probation. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 1991.
