Findings Of Fact At all times here involved Defendant was a broker registered with the FREC. In 1974 he obtained a listing on a house located at 227 River Hill Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. An associate measured the interior dimensions of all rooms in the house and the dimensions of the carport, basement, attached utility shed, covered entry way, covered patio, and walks. The interior dimensions of the heated portions of the house, which did not include the basement, was approximately 1540 square feet. The basement contained 310 square feet, the utility shed 120 square feet, the covered entry 38 square feet, a covered porch 295 square feet, two patios 497 square feet, and the carport 380 square feet. Thereafter Defendant made up and had placed in the Florida Times Union and Journal on July 14, 1974 an advertisement offering this house for sale with the ad stating the house contained 2300 square feet. Mr. and Mrs. Beaudreau saw the ad, arranged with Defendant's office to see the house, and on July 16, 1974 made an offer to purchase the house which offer was subsequently accepted by the seller. On September 3, 1974 the transaction was closed. Approximately one year later the Beaudreaus decided to put the house on the market and called a real estate broker to handle the sale. When the salesman visited the property he measured the floor area contained in the exterior dimensions of the house, excluded all unheated area and advised the Beaudreaus that the house contained approximately 1560 square feet. When the Beaudreaus asked Defendant why he had advertised the house as containing 2300 square feet and were given short shrift they complained to the FREC and the investigation and administrative complaint here involved followed. In appraising property the value of all components of the property are considered with the heated area generally receiving the highest value per square foot. The Jacksonville Board of Realtors conduct indoctrination courses which are required for all members, however, they do not teach how to determine the square footage in a house. No uniform system of measuring the square footage of a house is taught at the approved real estate course's which are compulsory for all applicants for registration with the FREC. There is no one uniform system for determining the square footage in a house. Some consider only the heated area should be included; others include areas not heated, such as porches, garages, basements, etc. No regulation has been promulgated by the FREC to standardize the procedure for determining the square footage of a residence, although the better view appears to be that only the heated area be included and all open area, such as porches, carports, patios, garages, etc. be excluded. The covered area of the residence at 227 River Hill Drive exceeded 2700 square feet. In placing the ad Defendant excluded the area of the carport to arrive at his figure of 2300 square feet.
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services acted arbitrarily or capriciously in awarding Lease No. 590:2437 to Edwards-Macy- Brenner's, Inc. Whether said bid was not responsive to the I.T.B. because it provided less than 23,697 square feet + of net square footage measured in accordance with the Standard Method of Space Measurement. BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION Pursuant to the invitation to bid for Lease No. 590:2437, Respondent received bids from PROCACCI FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., EDWARDS-MACY-BRENNER'S, INC. and PARK CENTER PROPERTIES. All bids were deemed responsive. On or before September 13, 1993, the Respondent awarded the Lease to Edwards. On September 16, 1993, the Petitioner filed its Notice of Intent to file a Formal Protest and thereafter filed its Formal Protest on September 23, 1993. On September 30, 1993, the Department notified Edwards-Macy-Brenner that the Award to it had been withdrawn by the Department, stating that the net rentable square footage of the bid was only 22,592 feet. On October 6, 1993, the Department cancelled its recision and gave Notice of Reinstatement of the Award to Edwards-Macy-Brenner's, Inc. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer pursuant to Section 120.53(5). A Notice of Referral and Notice to Bidders was served on November 3, 1993. Edwards-Macy- Brenner's, Inc. did not seek to intervene in the proceeding. A formal hearing was held on November 29, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. At the formal hearing the parties stipulated to the admissibility of joint Exhibits A, C and D. In addition, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Mary Virginia Goodman, Richard F. Schaffer, Marc Weiner and Philip J. Procacci. Petitioner introduced Exhibits 1 through 5 into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of Jim Birch, Cornell Arterbury and John Stewart. The parties stipulated that Petitioner's bid was responsive but it was second in score after the Edwards-Macy-Brenner's bid. A transcript of the hearing was filed on December 15, 1993 and Petitioner timely filed its Proposed Recommended Order on January 7, 1994. On February 14, 1994, before a recommended order was prepared, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss as moot stating that the property that was the subject of the successful bid was sold to a third party and "...the protestor has become the successful winning bidder by operation of law." On February 16, 1994 a telephone conference was conducted with the hearing officer and counsel for each party. Both Petitioner and Respondent stipulate to the entry of this order determining that the case is moot and that Petitioner is entitled to award of the bid, as lowest and best bidder by operation of law. Moreover, it is further stipulated that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter is final order, consistent with the stipulation of the parties, awarding the bid for lease #590:2437 to Petitioner, Procacci Financial Group, Inc. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 21st day of February, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office South Tower, Suite S827 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.A. 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Sanford B. Sheber Park Center Properties I 64 Hannay Lane Glenmont, New York 12077 N. Brenner, President Edwards-Macy-Brenner's, Inc. 3720 Lake Sarah Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Michael Jacob Piwko (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated December 15, 2009, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. As such, Petitioner is fully authorized to prosecute disciplinary cases against real estate licensees. Respondent was at the times material to this matter, the holder of a Florida real estate associate license, license number 707518, issued by Petitioner. As last known, Respondent was an active sales associate with All Star Investment Realty, Inc., 9425 Sunset Drive #180, Miami, Florida 33173. From January 2008 through May 2008, Respondent was employed as a sales associate with Enrique Piwko, the qualifying broker for All Star Investment Realty, Inc. In January of 2008, Joaquin Inigo, a buyer, sought to purchase a condominium in Tampa, Florida. He gave Respondent a deposit for the purchase, but was later advised the deal had “fallen through.” On or about May 17, 2008, Mr. Inigo executed a contract for purchase and sale seeking to acquire a second condominium, unit number 208, at 310 Crestwood Circle, Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411. As part of the transactions with Respondent, Mr. Inigo tendered approximately $77,000.00 to Respondent to be applied to the purchase price of unit 208. Monies were tendered to Respondent directly because Mr. Inigo expected Respondent to get an employee discount related to the sale and pass that on to him. The closing date in July passed without unit 208 being conveyed to Mr. Inigo. Efforts to achieve a refund of the deposit monies were fruitless. Upon investigation of the matter, Petitioner discovered that Respondent never deposited Mr. Inigo’s funds in escrow with his broker. Petitioner did not negotiate the purchase of unit 208. Petitioner did not refund the deposit monies. All monies provided by Mr. Inigo to Respondent were for the purchase of unit 208 and were not a personal loan to Respondent. Respondent asserted in pleadings that the monies from Mr. Inigo were a personal loan. Respondent did not, however, present written evidence of the alleged loan or its terms and declined to respond to the investigatory efforts made by Petitioner. Petitioner did not present evidence regarding the cost of investigating this matter.
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 finding Respondent in violation of the provisions of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint as alleged by Petitioner, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00, and imposing a suspension of Respondent’s real estate license for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Heather A. Rutecki, Esquire Rutecki & Associates, P.A. Bank of America Tower 100 Southeast Second Street, Suite 4600 Miami, Florida 33131 Roger P. Enzor, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, and dishonest dealing, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on September 30, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Based on admissions, Gary Steinman, Respondent herein, is a registered real estate salesman and holds license number 0084567. During times material to the allegations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent was a registered real estate broker/salesman. During the period from November, 1974, until February of 1977, Respondent was employed by Suncoast Highland Corporation (Suncoast), an owner/developer. From February 25, 1977, and extending through June of 1978, Respondent was employed by Suncoast Highland Realty Corporation, a licensed real estate corporation. For purposes herein, the two (2) corporations are the same. (Tr. 150) 2/ From November of 1974 through June of 1978, in his efforts to induce prospective purchasers to buy lots in a Suncoast development known as Shadow Run, Respondent, in his capacity as a salesman for Suncoast, made the following verbal representations pertaining to the parcels in Shadow Run: Underground utility connections would be used exclusively in the sub- division; That a recreation area would be constructed, including tennis courts and a concrete boat ramp; and That a central water system would be installed by the developer. In November of 1974, Suncoast opened and offered for sale individual residential lots in Shadow Run. Respondent, during his employment with Suncoast is not now nor has he ever served as an officer or director of that corporation. Nor did Respondent formulate or participate in the formulation of policy or development decisions for the corporation. (Testimony of Respondent and C. Thomas Peterson, the President of Suncoast since 1964.) To summarize, Respondent is charged with making certain representations to purchasers or prospective purchasers of lots in Shadow Run Subdivision which allegedly Respondent knew or should have known were false. As stated, one such representation was that underground utilities (electric and telephone) would be installed for all lots in Shadow Run. The testimony and exhibits produced in evidence reveal and Respondent admits, without dispute, that the developer, Suncoast, did make such promises and representations in its initial public offering statement dated September 16, 1974. That public offering statement was in effect when Shadow Run Subdivision opened in November of 1974. The evidence reveals, and Respondent admits that he first learned, on January 15, 1975, that the developer decided not to install underground utilities and therefore would have conventional overhead utilities. C. Thomas Peterson verified that the decision to change utilities was not communicated to Respondent until January 15, 1975. (Tr. 119-120) This fact was also verified by another Suncoast salesman, William Mayer. (Tr. 139) Sue Reed and her husband purchased a lot in Shadow Run during December of 1974, and Respondent was the salesman. Respondent admits and the evidence reveals that Respondent represented to the Reeds, prior to the sale, that underground utilities would be installed in the development. Alfred Vetrano also purchased a lot in Shadow Run and again Respondent was the salesman. Mr. Vetrano first viewed Shadow Run during early 1976. At that tine, the decision had been made by Suncoast not to install underground electric utilities. In fact, overhead utility lines were completely installed in Shadow Run Subdivision at that time. Mr. Vetrano, a trained, licensed plumber, admits that he saw the overhead lines and power poles prior to the time that he purchased his lot sometime during 1976. (Tr. pp. 51-52) Chester C. Fennell also purchased a lot in Shadow Run during approximately March of 1976. (Tr. 92) Respondent sold Mr. Fennell his lot, although from Mr. Fennell's own testimony, he was also receiving certain information about the property in Shadow Run from another salesman, whose name he (Fennell) could not recall. When Mr. Fennell purchased his lot, the decision had been made by Suncoast not to install underground utilities. In fact, Mr. Fennell admits to seeing the overhead electric utilities. James Dovin also purchased a lot in Shadow Run on April 25, 1975. Respondent and another salesman, whose name Mr. Dovin could not recall, sold Mr. Dovin his lot. (Tr. pp. 107-108) According to Dovin, Respondent represented to him during his sales presentation, on or about April 25, 1975, that all underground utilities would be utilized in the development and that a park or recreation facility, including a tennis court and a boat dock and ramp would be built on the property. Mr. Dovin could not recall precisely whether Respondent or another unnamed salesman made representations to him during April of 1975. (Tr. 110- 111) Also, Mr. Dovin could not recall from which of the two (2) offices that were selling lots in Shadow Run, that he obtained the information concerning the subdivision. Nor, in view of the seven (7) year hiatus between the time he purchased the lot and the subject hearing, could Mr. Dovin recall with any specificity, exactly what took place and who made what representations. (Tr. pp. 111-114) Mr. Dovin, like other purchasers who had been told that a central water system would be utilized in the Shadow Run Subdivision, was offered by Suncoast a $1,000.00 credit toward the purchase price for the installation of a well. Concerning the representations allegedly attributed to Respondent respecting the construction of the recreation area with a boat ramp and the tennis courts, Respondent admits to having made these representations. Suncoast's president Peterson indicated his intention to install a boat ramp and tennis courts at the subdivision; however, the actual construction date for these facilities has been postponed on several occasions. In this regard, the evidence reveals that Respondent relayed these representations to prospective purchasers as they were told to him by officials of Suncoast. William Mayer, another Suncoast salesman who was involved in the day-to-day sales presentations at Shadow Run, corroborates Respondent's testimony on the above points. From the outset, it also appears, and the evidence reflects, that the developer in fact intended to construct a central water system for the subdivision. To accomplish their purpose, Suncoast purchased the pipe for transmission of the water to the various lots but later abandoned its efforts to construct a central water system based on cost prospectives and other factors. As a result, Suncoast resold the pipe it had bought to complete the central water system at a loss to the developer. (Testimony of president Peterson) Finally, as noted above, Suncoast gave a $1,000.00 credit to all property owners who had been told that a central water system would be constructed, as a means to help defray the costs of the homeowners in getting a well drilled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Respondent, Gary Steinman, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of real estate professionals in Florida. Petitioner was a licensed real estate salesperson in Florida whose license was listed with Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc. in Ft. Myers. In October, 1989, Clyde H. Ward applied to Goldome Realty Credit Corporation for a $40,000.00 fixed rate mortgage on his property located in Ft. Myers. On October 5, 1989, Goldome sent Mr. Ward a commitment letter for a mortgage initially described as a 30 year fixed rate mortgage, but which was, five days later, amended to a 15 year fixed rate mortgage at 10%, conditioned upon, among other things, a satisfactory appraisal. Consistent therewith, Goldome thereafter contacted its regular appraiser in the area, Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc., and requested that an appraisal of the property be accomplished. Horizon assigned the Petitioner, Ms. Wilcox, to conduct the appraisal. The original first page of her report indicated the property was a manufactured house with a crawl space, not situated on a slab. In reality, however, as was noted on the amended first page of the report, as of October 9, 1989, the property was not a manufactured house and was situated on a concrete slab without a crawl space. Goldome denied a fixed rate mortgage to Mr. and Mrs. Ward but offered them a one year adjustable rate mortgage. The Wards accepted this change under protest. A formal denial of the fixed rate mortgage was sent to the Wards on December 18, 1989 by a form which indicated that their application for the fixed rate mortgage had been denied for (1) inadequate collateral, and (2) "we do not grant credit to any applicant on the terms and conditions you request." The "inadequate collateral" basis for denial noted, however, that a mortgage had been offered, accepted and closed with the Wards under an adjustable rate bank loan. On February 16, 1990, Mr. Ward wrote to Goldome expressing his concern over the denial of the fixed rate loan and the basis for denial. In response to Mr. Ward's letter, on March 7, 1990, Mr. Krohe, Goldome's vice president for residential lending, wrote to Mr. Ward and clearly stated that Goldome's denial of the fixed rate mortgage was based on several areas in the appraisal that caused concern. Mr. Krohe specifically pointed out that the fact that the property was described in the appraisal as being a "mobile home" was not the only reason for denial. In his testimony, Mr. Krohe cited several other reasons for denial. One was that the appraiser indicated that the predominant value of homes in the neighborhood was $35,000.00 and Mr. Ward's application was for a mortgage in excess of that. It is Goldome's policy typically to not make a loan in excess of the predominant value since there would be no way to sell the loan in the secondary market. In addition, comments on the appraisal indicated that homes in the area were a mixture of mobile homes and small CBS or frame houses located on paved and graveled roads, and the homes in the neighborhood reflected average maintenance. The zoning classification for the property was MH-3, which permits mobile home use on the property. Further, the room sizes and layout was indicated as "fair to average" and the appraiser pointed out an incurable functional problem with the room layout. This problem related to the fact that the only full bathroom in the house was located between the master bathroom and the second bedroom and could be reached only through one of those rooms. Further, the appraiser indicated there were no recent sales similar to the subject property in the neighborhood and those sales which were comparable were noted to have superior construction and functional utility. Mr. Krohe pointed out that not one of those concerns by itself necessarily would have caused the fixed rate mortgage applied for to be declined. He notes, however, that underwriting is not a science, and all of those reasons combined caused the underwriter to decline the loan. Notwithstanding his receipt of this letter, Mr. Ward filed a complaint with the Division of Real Estate which was referred to Investigator John Harris for inquiry in March, 1990. During the course of his investigation, Mr. Harris spoke only with the Petitioner, Ms. Wilcox, and with Mr. Ward. On or about March 22, 1990, he met with Petitioner at her place of business, Horizon Appraisal Service. During the course of that interview, Ms. Wilcox admitted she had made a mistake on the first page of the appraisal report whereon the property w as described as a manufactured home situated on a crawl space without a slab. She indicated she had corrected the form as soon as she found out about the mistake, occasioned not by a written description but by check marks to pre- printed descriptions which were to be marked if appropriate. The work was done by typewriter, not by pen. Mr. Harris also interviewed Mr. Ward, but did not interview anyone else during his entire investigation even though Ms. Wilcox pointed out that information she had from Ms. Selph and Mr. Krohe indicated that the declination of the loan was not primarily based on this erroneous information. In fact, Ms. Wilcox requested that Mr. Harris contact both Selph and Krohe to verify this but he chose not to do so, relying instead on the information provided to him by Mr. Ward and the March 7, 1990 letter from Krohe to Ward which he interpreted as indicating the denial was based on the description of the property as a "mobile home." That letter does not so indicate, however, and clearly shows that any such classification was not the sole basis for denial of the loan. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Harris considered the fact that Ms. Wilcox admitted to making the mistake as tantamount to an admission of culpable negligence and he recommended that action be taken against her. Thereafter, the matter was referred to a probable cause panel of the Real Estate Commission which, on May 15, 1990, considered the allegations against Ms. Wilcox and, after a review of the file and a presentation by a counsel to the Board, found probable cause. Review of the transcript of the probable cause panel as it relates to Ms. Wilcox reveals that even there, the case was inaccurately described to the panel by its counsel who claims that, "the loan was rejected on the basis of the appraisal which incorrectly described the structure as a manufactured house with a crawl space and no slab." Counsel completely omitted any mention of any of the other bases for denial which were described by Mr. Krohe in his deposition of which the Department was notified but declined to attend, and which could have been determined by an appropriate investigation into the matter. The discussion by the panel members, as documented in the transcript of its meeting, in no way related to the particulars of the alleged misconduct but instead concerned itself primarily with the status of the appraiser. In short, it is clear that the probable cause panel's finding of probable cause was based only on its review of the completely inadequate investigation by Mr. Harris and the slanted comments of the panel's counsel. Nonetheless, an Administrative Complaint was filed against the Petitioner which alleged culpable negligence, breach of trust and misrepresentation and concealment. Prior to the hearing, the Board dismissed the allegation of misrepresentation and concealment. A hearing was conducted on the remaining counts on October 11, 1990 in Ft. Myers before H.O. Parrish. In her Recommended Order dated December 12, 1990, Ms. Parrish concluded that the Department had failed to establish the Respondent committed any misconduct; that Ms. Wilcox had accurately described and evaluated the home within customary ranges; and that the lender verified the reasons for denial of the requested mortgage were not related to the typographical errors pertaining to the type of home, the crawl space, and the slab. Ms. Parrish thereafter recommended a Final Order be entered by the Commission dismissing the Administrative Complaint and such an Order was entered. By Motion dated March 4, 1991, Petitioner's counsel sought reimbursement for the Petitioner of attorney's fees and costs relating to her defense against the allegations made against her in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent has stipulated that the amount claimed for the original representation is reasonable as to both hours claimed and fee per hour. It claims, however, that fees and costs are not reimbursable here because, (1), Petitioner is not a small business entity, and (2), the Division had probable cause to initiate the Administrative Complaint. Petitioner has also submitted an additional affidavit, subsequent to the hearing, in which she claims 7.1 additional hours, at $110.00 per hour, for services rendered subsequent to the final hearing in the original action. Petitioner claims to be an independent contractor to Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc.. She works strictly on commission. She has a desk at the Horizon office and keeps almost all her business information there. She has no other office. She cannot do appraisals for other brokers because she can work for only one broker at a time. She claims to be licensed as an appraiser in Florida but the licensure information on file with the Department of Professional Regulation as of September 4, 1990, reflects she is licensed only as a real estate salesman. By affidavit dated December 6, 1985, and attached to the Independent Contractor Agreement of equal date, Petitioner outlines her working conditions with Horizon. She pays all her own license fees and dues; she is responsible for her own auto and transportation expenses; she pays all her client development costs without reimbursement; she is not required to maintain any set working hours; she takes vacations when she pleases; she is not required to meet any quotas; she receives no minimum salary, sick pay or other fringe benefits; she pays her own income and FICA taxes; and the association with the broker may be terminated by either party at any time. Under the terms of the Agreement referenced above, Petitioner is to get 45% of the fee charged by Horizon for the appraisal done by her. Any lawsuits for the collection of appraisal fees must be maintained only in the name of the Broker, however, since the appraiser is considered to be a subagent. Though the appraiser may conduct the actual appraisal, the Agreement requires that these completed appraisals be submitted to the broker for review, and Mr. Krohe, of Goldome, indicated that his institution would accept only appraisals signed by the broker, not the appraiser. The agreement also stipulates that all clients brought in by the appraiser will result in an additional 10% fee split, and will remain clients of the broker upon termination of the agreement. Notwithstanding the appraiser can take vacations when desired and work when she pleases, she must, however, notify the broker a minimum of two weeks in advance of vacation time and call in on days when she will not be available. The appraiser agrees to a five day turnaround on appraisals, may not solicit listings for the transfer of property other than owned by her, and, significantly, may perform her services only for this broker, Horizon Appraisal Services, Inc.,
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Clifford Altemare (Mr. Altemare) was a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license BK-3062479. At all times material to this case, Respondent Altema Consulting Co., LLC (ACC), was a licensed real estate brokerage, holding Florida license CQ-1024239. Clifford Altemare was the owner, qualifying broker, and officer for ACC. On August 21, 2006, Mr. Altemare signed an agreement to represent for sale hotel property owned by Sweet Hospitality, LLC. The agreement stated that Mr. Altemare would receive an unidentified commission based on the sales price. On December 12, 2006, Mr. Altemare received an escrow deposit of $25,000 from Rakesh Rathee, who signed an agreement to purchase the hotel. The $25,000 deposit was transferred by wire from Rakesh Rathee into a corporate operating account of ACC. Mr. Altemare failed to place the $25,000 escrow deposit into an ACC escrow account. Apparently, because the seller decided not to sell the property, the proposed sale did not close, and the buyer demanded the return of the $25,000 deposit. There is no credible evidence that the seller has made any claim upon the deposit. Mr. Altemare has refused to return the $25,000 deposit to Rakesh Rathee. At the hearing, Mr. Altemare asserted that the deposit has not been returned to the buyer because of uncertainty as to whom the deposit should be refunded. There was no credible evidence offered at the hearing to support the assertion that someone other than Rakesh Rathee should received a refund of the $25,000 deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order, stating that the Respondents violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.010 and imposing a $15,000 administrative fine and a five-year suspension of licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Clifford Altemare Altema Consulting Co., LLC 1047 Iroquois Street Clearwater, Florida 33755 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801
