Findings Of Fact The Defendant was at all times material herein registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On May 3, 1974, the Acting State Attorney filed before the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida an Amended Information charging the Defendant with the offenses of the sale of unregistered securities and the sale of unregistered securities without being registered as a dealer or salesman in violation of Florida Statutes 517.02(1), 517.07, and 517.12(1). On October 11, 1973, the Defendant entered a plea of N0L0 CONTENDERE to both offenses and Judge Humes T. Lasher, Circuit Judge in and for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placed the Defendant on probation for a period of two years. See Commission's Exhibits 1 and 2. Counsel for the Commission takes the position that the Defendant's entry of a NOLO CONTENDERE plea amounts to an admission and therefore a violation of Chapter475.25(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes. The Defendant contrary to the position taken by the Commission, avers that no such inference should be deduced from his entry of a NOLO CONTENDERE plea. He further contends that the plea was entered only because of his wife's mental condition and the extreme hardships brought about by above cited charges, and further that he had never been found guilty or the convicted of any crime in this or any other state. In mitigation, the Defendant testified to his honorary and exemplary military service. Chapter 475,25 sets forth grounds for revocation or suspension of a registrant's license with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Subsection 1(a) thereof provides in pertinent part that a registrant's license may be suspended based upon a finding of fact showing that the registrant has: (a) Been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises etc. in this state or any other state, nation or territory. . . or (e) Been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent or dishonest dealing; and the record of a conviction certified or authenticated in such form as to be admissible in evidence under the laws of this state, shall be admissible as prime facie evidence of such guilt. On April 30, 1975, Defendant, through his attorney, filed a Motion to Terminate Probation, Adjudicating Petitioner Not Guilty and Set Him Free, which was denied by Judge Lasher on May 12, 1975. In denying said motion to terminate probation, the Judge stated that the Defendant had failed to abide by the rules set forth by the Parole and Probate Commission. No further evidence was presented respecting this motion and/or its disposition. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. The burden of proving that a licensed real estate salesman has violated the Real Estate Licensing Law lies with the Florida Real Estate Commission or its representative. State ex rel Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Florida 1973). Insufficient evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that the Defendant based on the allegations contained in Counts 1 and II of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, has engaged in conduct violative of Florida Statutes 475.25(1)(a) and (e). The conduct here alleged and claimed to be violative of the above cited statutes if proven, must rest on a showing that the Defendant has "been guilty of a crime. . ." From the evidence here presented, there was no such showing but rather there was only a showing that an order was entered withholding adjudication of guilt. In view thereof, and since there was no showing that the Defendant has "been guilty of a crime" as set forth in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, insufficient evidence was offered to establish the allegations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William B. Seidel, Esquire Justice Building 524 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue Whether the Respondent was in violation of Subsection 464.21(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The effect of the stipulation was to reduce the charges against Miss Calhoun to the withdrawal of Demerol without a doctor's order, and failing to chart same. The Board presented no evidence regarding any intent to use said drugs, resting its case. There was no evidence that Miss Calhoun intended to use said drugs or whether the drugs were administered to the patients. Therefore, the Respondent admitted withdrawing drugs without a doctor's order and two counts of failing to properly chart. There was no evidence that this resulted in any harm-to the patients. The Petitioner is a white female, 26 years of age, who received her education in nursing at Abraham Baldwin Junior College, Tifton, Georgia; passed her Georgia boards in June 1969; worked for Putnam Memorial Hospital from 1969 until November 1971; passed her Florida nursing examination in October 1971; and worked at University Hospital of Jacksonville, Florida, from November 19/1 until October 1975 when the incident, upon which these charge are based, occurred. The Petitioner then took the stand and Exhibit 1 to 5 were introduced into the record in mitigation of the offenses. These were letters of various nurses and doctors who knew the Petitioner professionally. These letters generally indicate that Miss Calhoun was a very well trained, very competent emergency room nurse who got along well with staff, patients, and their families. In explanation of her behavior the Petitioner testified that she had had a "close personal relationship" with a member of the staff who prior to the incident had transferred from the hospital at which both were employed to another state. Their separation caused Miss Calhoun to go into a deep depression which required her hospitalization for psychiatric treatment for eight (8) days ending the third week of August 1975. Shortly thereafter Miss Calhoun visited the former friend during which time their relationship was permanently severed. She again went into a depression which continued from the period of this final meeting until the date of, the incident. The Petitioner stated that she had not received any further medical assistance for her personal problems after her hospitalization but that she was longer depressed although she was anxious over the outcome of these proceedings. It would appear from the evidence that Miss Calhoun is technically killed and has the ability to relate well with staff, patients, and their families. However, the failure to chart medications is a serious breach of professional conduct. There is uncontroverted testimony that Miss Calhoun suffered a severe emotional depression as the result of the termination of a close personal relationship., Her condition was so bad that she required treatment by a psychiatrist while hospitalized for eight (8) days for severe depression with suicidal tendencies. Those who know her have indicated that her behavior was not in keeping with her normal professional conduct, and that she has a deep respect and love of her chosen profession. Miss Calhoun indicated her willingness to seek professional help and guidance to assist her with her emotional problems, and to have periodic reports on her progress submitted to the Board as a condition of her continued practice. She also was willing to have her job performance monitored by periodic reports from her employer to the Board. Considering particularly Dr. Farquhar's letter, he places some degree of responsibility for her condition upon the supervision which she received from the physicians and nurses at her hospital. Dr. Farquhar states that Miss Calhoun's performance prior to the occurrence of her personal problem was outstanding. He further indicates that he would be willing to re-employ Miss Calhoun if she were rehabilitated and if she could meet the expectations of her profession. Dr. Farquhar concludes by expressing his belief that she can again represent the best of nursing as she had in the period before her problems. There are few of us who have not tasted the bittnerness of a broken personal relationship. Each person is effected to a greater or lesser deree, and reacts differently . The majority are able to re-establish their personal relationships and pursue their social and professional interest. However, during that period when all seems lost and when just coping is a struggle there are few of us who have not succumbed to some form of abnormal behavior. The duty of the Board of Nursing is first to protect the people of Florida by insuring the high quality of nursing care. The Board has the further duty to insure its members adhere to the high standards and ideals of the nursing profession. It also has a duty to its members individually to nurture and protect their talents so that the Boards two other purposes are served. In this case the Board has an opportunity to fulfill all of its purposes. The record in this case would indicate that Miss Calhoun's behavior was the result of an isolated, though undoubtedly personally tragic situation. The record reveals that her case was not effectively followed up after her release from the hospital, and that at the time of the incident charged she was not responding normally.
Recommendation Therefore the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board place the Respondent on probation for one year and require her to submit periodic reports to the Board regarding her employment and health. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Counsel for Petitioner Richard Moore, Esquire 924 Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Counsel for Respondent.
The Issue Whether respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on the grounds: (1) that he operated as a real estate broker without holding a valid and current license, and (2) that he is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction. Background By administrative complaint dated October 30, 1981, petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission 1/ ("Department"), charged respondent William A. Canty ("respondent") with six violations of the Florida Real Estate Law, Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1979). Respondent disputed the charges and requested a Section 120.57(1) proceeding. On November 30, 1981, the Department forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Hearing was thereafter set for April 23, 1982. At hearing, the Department voluntarily dismissed Count Nos. Three through Six, inclusive, leaving only Count Nos. One and Two. Count One alleges that respondent's broker's license expired; that he then negotiated a real estate transaction in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Count Two alleges that in connection with this real estate transaction, respondent signed a sales contract incorrectly acknowledging receipt of a $5,000 earnest money deposit, when, in fact, he had received a demand note; that the seller was led to believe that he held a $5,000 earnest money deposit in escrow; that such actions constituted misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The Department called Robert S. Harrell and Alfred C. Harvey as its witnesses, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 into evidence, each of which was received. Respondent testified in his own behalf and Respondent's Exhibit 2/ No. 1 was received in evidence. The transcript of hearing was received on April 27, 1982. Neither party has filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact As to Count One Respondent is a licensed Florida real estate broker. He holds license No. 0012715 and his business address is 988 Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) Since obtaining his broker's license in the early 1970s, respondent has earned a livelihood as a real estate broker. He has been a sole practitioner, having never employed any other person in connection with his practice. (Testimony of Canty.) A real estate broker's license must be renewed every two years. Effective April 1, 1978, respondent paid the requisite fee and renewed his then existing broker's license the new expiration date was March 31, 1980. (P-1.) On March 31, 1980, respondent's broker's license expired for failure to renew. His failure to timely renew was due to simple inadvertence; he admits that it was an oversight on his part. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) As soon as he realized his omission, he filed a renewal application and paid the requisite $40 fee in addition to a $15 late fee. His license renewal became effective on July 25, 1980. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) In May, 1980, respondent negotiated, prepared, and assisted in the execution of a written contract for the sale and purchase of 1.6 acres, including a 21,000 square-foot warehouse, located at 315 West Grant Street, Orlando, Florida. The seller was Alfred Harvey, the buyer was Preferred Services, Inc., and the purchase price was $208,000. The contract called for the buyer to pay the sales commission under separate agreement with respondent. The commission agreement never materialized since the sales transaction failed to close. But, the buyer understood that he had an obligation to pay a real estate commission, and respondent fully expected to receive one. (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) As to Count Two Prior to the parties' execution of the sales agreement mentioned above, respondent and the buyer, Robert Harrell, of Preferred Services, Inc., discussed with Alfred Harvey, the seller, the acceptability of using a demand note as the $5,000 earnest money deposit required by the agreement. (The buyer wished to avoid tying up his funds in escrow during the extensive time required to obtain Small Business Administration approval for assuming the existing mortgage loan.) The seller agreed to the depositing of a $5,000 demand note. 3/ (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) When the sales contract was executed by the parties, respondent acknowledged on page 2 that he held the specified earnest money deposit in escrow. The deposit was a $5,000 demand note. He did not indicate on the face of the contract that the deposit was in the form of a demand note. But, neither did he indicate that the deposit was in cash or check form. Respondent acknowledges that he was "sloppy" in failing to indicate on the contract that the deposit was a demand note. (Testimony of Canty.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 475.42(1) and 475.25(1)(a), F.S., and reprimanded. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., is a registered corporate real estate broker holding license number C00213882. Respondents Richard S. Testut, A. C. Kibler and Beatrix Meyer-Burghagen are registered real estate brokers holding licenses numbered 0180949, 0047414 and 0145168, respectively, and these individuals are officers of Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc. In addition, Beatrix Meyer-Burghagen holds a license to operate real estate school named Florida Real Estate Clinics, Inc., which is also a Respondent herein. In support of the allegations in its Administrative Complaint the Petitioner presented testimony and evidence from five witnesses. The first, Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., is an officer of Respondent, Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., and he is also an officer of Florida Real Estate Council, Inc. Neither Mr. Thomas nor Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., hold any real estate licenses, and they are not parties to this proceeding. Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., was formed to offer licensed salespeople an opportunity to belong to their own association. During the month of April, 1980, this organization sponsored a series of public meetings to which inactive licensees were invited by means of a flier which was mailed to approximately 21,000 of them in South Florida. The purpose of these meetings was to inform inactive real estate salespeople concerning the status of their licenses after June of 1980. Generally, these fliers conveyed the impression that inactive licenses had been placed in jeopardy by a change in the real estate law, and the information conveyed at the public meetings reiterated the existence of an apparent threat to these licenses. Two other witness presented by the petitioner established the content of one of the public meetings held by Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., in April of 1980. The remaining two witnesses were presented to clarify the actual changes that were made in the real estate law on July 1, 1980. There was no truth or substance to the information conveyed to over 21,000 inactive licensees concerning the status of these licenses as a result of statutory changes made in 1980. However, this information was not established to be more than an inaccurate lay interpretation of the Florida Statutes by Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., or by Florida Real Estate Council, Inc. In summary, the Petitioner's evidence fails to prove a conspiracy among the Respondents as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Except for the fact that Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., is an officer of both Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., and Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., insufficient evidence was presented to establish a connection between these corporations. Any false and misleading statements or information disseminated at the public meetings and by flier was the action of Mr. Thomas, individually, and/or Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., neither of whom are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Real Estate, and neither of whom are parties to this proceeding. The evidence does not support a finding that any of the Respondents conspired together for the purpose of distributing false information to real estate license holders, as alleged. Nor was there substantial, competent evidence that the Respondents, or any of them received financial benefit either from the flier or the public meetings. Finally, based upon the testimony of Petitioner's witness, Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., and evidence from the only Respondent who testified, Richard S. Testut, Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., attempted to operate a real estate brokerage business beginning on July 1, 1980. The initiation on July 2, 1980, of the investigation which resulted in the filing of the administrative Complaint under consideration here adversely affected its employees, as well as potential employees, to such an extent that no sales or commissions could be earned. However, this company did have a staff, listings, sales meetings, literature, and advertised to recruit salespeople. Thus, the Petitioner's contention that this corporation neither actively employed any licensees, or performed any brokerage services, was not proven.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this case be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 18 day of February, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 18 day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan H. Konigsburg, Esquire 1700 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Richard S. Testut 4180 Coral Springs Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33035
The Issue Whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts On or about May 14, 2007, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondents in the merits case held themselves out as interior designers. On or about August 15, 2007, Braxton filed an Election of Rights requesting a formal hearing. On October 15, 2007, Braxton filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. On or about October 18, 2007, the Department filed a Motion to Dismiss Formal Hearing based on the parties’ agreement that the case would be resubmitted to the Probable Cause Panel with the recommendation of dismissal. On or about October 19, 2007, the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File. On or about November 5, 2007, the case was presented to the Probable Cause Panel and a Closing Order was entered. On or about December 18, 2007, a letter was sent to Braxton’s attorney indicating the matter was closed and no further action was required. However, the letter did not enclose a copy of the Probable Cause Panel Closing Order. On March 3, 2008, Braxton sent a letter to the Department’s counsel asking for a copy of “any final action taken by the Probable Cause Panel.” On or about March 7, 2008, a copy of the closing order was faxed to counsel for Braxton. On or about April 7, 2008, Braxton filed a Supplemental Motion of Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record In the Motion and Supplemental Motion, Braxton seeks relief under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. There is no dispute that Braxton is a small business party for purposes of Subsection 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes. There is no dispute that Braxton is the prevailing party in the underlying merits case. There is no dispute that the fees and costs set forth in the April 7, 2008, affidavit filed with the Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs are reasonable. The undersigned has reviewed the Supplemental Affidavit as to Attorney’s Fees and Costs filed on October 27, 2008, and the Second Supplemental Affidavit as to Attorney’s Fees and Costs filed on December 10, 2008, and finds the fees and costs contained therein to be reasonable. Dwight Chastain is an investigator for the Department and, while employed by a private law firm, investigates complaints concerning the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. In December 2006, Mr. Chastain received a complaint letter regarding Petitioner herein, Sheryl Lyn Braxton. The complaint letter was addressed to the law firm for which Mr. Chastain is employed. The letter alleged that Ms. Braxton represented herself to the public as an interior designer, and that the complainant could find no evidence that she held a license “specifically that of an interior designer as represented in attached CBS website, is held either by her personally or her company “Braxton Designs.” Attached to the complaint letter is a page purportedly from the website, CBS.com, specifically a link from the television show, “Big Brother 2.” Additionally, the complaint letter alleged that Ms. Braxton had verbally represented to "many individuals" that she had performed interior design work for Ivana and Donald Trump at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan. While the letter contains a signature, it is impossible to decipher the writer’s last name, and Mr. Chastain considered the signature to be illegible. Further, the letter did not contain a return address or a telephone number. Because the writer’s name is illegible and there was no contact information in the letter, the complaint letter is essentially anonymous. The printed page attached to the complaint letter from the CBS website identifies a participant on the show as “Sheryl,” with no last name mentioned, from Ponte Vedre Beach, Florida. Under the heading “personal profile,” her occupation is listed as interior designer. The copyright date at the bottom of the page is “MMIII,” which is 2003, although Ms. Braxton participated in the Big Brother show in 2001. The name “Braxton Interiors” does not appear on the printout from the CBS website. Also attached to the complaint letter is a page purportedly from the myflorida.com website showing that Sheryl Lyn Braxton held a current real estate license and was employed by Florida Network LLC, a real estate corporation. Mr. Chastain could not decipher the signature on the letter and, therefore, did not attempt to contact the complainant. He did a fictitious name search of and did not find anything under the name of Braxton Designs, Braxton Designers or Sheryl Lyn Braxton. Mr. Chastain searched the Department's database and found that Sheryl Lyn Braxton was not licensed by the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. Mr. Chastain also went to the CBS website and found the page referencing “Sheryl” more fully described above in paragraph 18. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Mr. Chastain called CBS to seek any information which Ms. Braxton submitted to CBS about herself, i.e., whether she actually held herself out to be an interior designer to CBS. Mr. Chastain acknowledged at hearing that in his computer searches of Ms. Braxton’s name and “Braxton Designs,” he found nothing indicating that Ms. Braxton held herself out to anyone as an interior designer. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Mr. Chastain spoke to anyone who confirmed the allegations in the complaint letter that Ms. Braxton verbally held herself out to anyone that she was an interior designer. On January 5, 2007, Mr. Chastain wrote a letter to Ms. Braxton informing her that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design had initiated a complaint investigation as to allegations that she was using the title “interior designer," or words to that effect, without a valid license. The letter also informs her that “[y]ou have 20 days to respond in writing or you may contact me at (850) 402-1570. My email address is dwightc@stslaw.com.” Ms. Braxton called Mr. Chastain’s office and left two voice mail messages for him, neither of which he received. Regardless of the circumstances of Ms. Braxton’s response to the letter, Mr. Chastain proceeded with the belief that she had not responded to his letter.3/ Mr. Chastain wrote an Investigative Report which was provided to the Probable Cause Panel. The report read in pertinent part: Alleged Violation: FS481.223(1)(c) use of the name or title “interior designer”, or words to that effect, without a valid state license. Synopsis: This investigation was based on a consumer complaint in which it is alleged that subject appeared on the CBS television show Big Brother Show link, identifies her as an interior designer. Complainant alleges subject does business under the name Braxton Design and that she has verbally represented herself to “many individuals” that she has been involved in the interior design of many high-profile residential and commercial buildings. (Exhibit 1) Subject is not licensed as an interior designer in Florida, but is licensed as a real estate sales associate. Braxton design is not a registered corporation or fictitious name with the Florida Secretary of State. (Exhibit 2) Subject was notified of this investigation by letter dated January 5, 2007, but failed to respond. The letter was not returned undelivered. (Exhibit 3) Meeting of Probable Cause Panel The Probable Cause Panel met on May 14, 2007, during which the Braxton case was considered. The packet of materials which the panel members received regarding the Braxton case consists of a memorandum to the panel members from the prosecuting attorney regarding the case; another memorandum from the prosecuting attorney to someone named Emory Johnson regarding the case; a draft administrative complaint; a draft Notice and Order to Cease and Desist; the investigative report written by Mr. Chastain with three attachments: the complaint letter with the page from the CBS website and printout showing Ms. Braxton’s real estate licensure status; copies of licensing and corporate registration information found by Mr. Chastain; and the letter written by Mr. Chastain to Ms. Braxton notifying her of the complaint. The transcript of the Probable Cause Panel concerning the Braxton case reads as follows: MR. MINACCI: Tab A-6, Sheryl Lyn Braxton, Case Number 2007-000968. The subject is unlicensed and held herself out as an interior designer on the CBS television show “Big Brother.” The subject failed to respond to the investigation. Recommendation, notice of order to cease and desist, one count Administrative Complaint for using the title “interior designer” without a license. MR. WIRTZ: Motion to accept counsel’s recommendation for one count. THE CHAIR: Second. Discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (so signified by aye.) THE CHAIR: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) THE CHAIR: Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. MR. WIRTZ: She’s a big star. She can afford 5,000 for the count plus costs. THE CHAIR: Second. Recommendation has been made and seconded. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the recommendation, signify by saying aye. (So signified by aye.) THE CHAIR: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) THE CHAIR: Hearing none, the recommendation carries. MR. HALL: Shall we send a copy of the complaint to CBS? THE CHAIR: If you would like to. THE [sic] HALL: We certainly can. MR. Wirtz: I think we should. An Administrative Complaint was filed against Sheryl Lyn Braxton and Braxton Designers with the Department’s clerk on May 21, 2007, which began the underlying merits case.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, is eligible to sit for the Florida Real Estate Commission's licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and exhibits, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On or about July 26, 1981, Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. By letter dated September 28, 1981, Randy Schwartz, Respondent's counsel, advised Petitioner that the Respondent, at its duly noticed meeting of September 23, 1981, denied Petitioner's application for licensure. That letter recited that the specific reason for the Respondent's actions was baked on Petitioner's answer to question six (6) on the licensing application and her criminal record. In this regard, evidence reveals and Petitioner's application reflects that Petitioner was convicted in the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach), on September 8, 1978, of embezzlement of monies from a bank, in violation of Title XVIII, United States Code, 656. Petitioner was sentenced by the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins on that date, pursuant to the split-sentence provision of Title XVIII, United States Code, 3651, in that she was to be confined in a jail-type institution for a period of one (1) month, and thereafter, the remainder of the sentence of confinement [one (1) year] was suspended. Upon discharge from incarceration, Petitioner was to be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years under the special condition that she make restitution for the monies embezzled. Jurisdiction of that case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, and on March 29, 1982, Petitioner was terminated from probation supervision. Robert E. Lee, a chief U.S. probation officer, who supervised petitioner while she was under the supervision of the subject office as a probationer, indicates that Petitioner reflected a favorable attitude toward her probation officer, remained gainfully employed and abided by all the rules of probation. Petitioner has never been arrested since her conviction in 1978, and has received only one (1) traffic citation during December of 1981. Petitioner has been continuously employed since her conviction and is presently a secretary/receptionist where she is in charge of and controls office business for Mobile Craft Wood Products in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner has been in charge of processing cash sales for the past four (4) years. Petitioner is presently making restitution to the savings and loan association that she embezzled. Charles Demenzes, a realtor/broker who owns Demenzes Realty Inc., has known Petitioner approximately one (1) year. Mr. Demenzes spoke highly of Petitioner and was favorably impressed with her desire to become licensed as a real estate salesperson. Mr. Demenzes is hopeful that Petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to sit for the licensure examination such that she can join his sales force, if she successfully passes the examination. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner, having been convicted of the crime of embezzlement, which involves moral turpitude and therefore is ineligible to sit for the Respondent's licensure examination. In this regard, counsel for Respondent admits that the Board, when acting upon Petitioner's application for licensure, did not consider the fact that Petitioner has been released from probation supervision inasmuch as that factor did not exist at the time Petitioner made application for licensure. Character letters offered by Petitioner were highly complimentary of Petitioner's reputation and abilities as an employee. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1982, 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 13th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, the Respondent Tremone Rudman was an active real estate salesman having been issued license number, 0201202. The Respondent Rudman was employed by Fantastic Properties, Inc., as a salesman from February 6, 1979 until September 6, 1979. The broker and owner of Fantastic Properties, Inc., from February 6, 1979 through September 6, 1979, was Elaine Mueller. In July 1979, the Respondent Rudman negotiated a contract between Barbara Medema, seller, and Eugene and LaLita Mascarenhas, buyers, for two separate parcels of property described as Lot 14, Block Y, Coral Springs Subdivision Number 1 (parcel number 1) and Lot 13, Block Y, Coral Springs Subdivision Number 1 (parcel number 2). The transaction involving the properties was scheduled to close on November 12, 1979, at Taylor Title and Abstract in Sunrise, Florida. At the time of the closing, the Respondent Rudman and Elaine Mueller had terminated their business relationship due to personal differences. The Respondent was concerned that he would not receive his share of the Mascarenhas commission because of difficulties he was having collecting his share of other commissions from Mueller. In response to his actual or perceived difficulties in obtaining pending commissions, the Respondent Rudman made demands upon Mueller, his broker, and Pat Taylor, the title agent handling the closing, to disburse the Respondent's portion of the Mascarenhas commission directly to him rather than through the broker at closing. The closing, which occurred on November 12, 1979, was difficult and lasted long into the afternoon. During the course of the closing the Respondent placed calls to Taylor Title Company to ascertain when he could pick up his commission check. Elaine Mueller indicated to Taylor that the proper procedure should be that the check would be made payable to Fantastic Properties, Inc., as the broker, and that Fantastic Properties would then write a check to the Respondent, as the salesman. The procedure suggested to Taylor was not acceptable to the Respondent due to his belief that Mueller might delay his check. The Respondent contacted his attorney, David Hoines, and instructed him to demand that the commission check be issued directly to the Respondent. On November 12, 1979, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Hoines called Taylor Title Company, and in conversation with Mueller and Taylor, demanded that the commission check in question be paid directly to the Respondent per his client's request. Both Mueller and Taylor expressed apprehension concerning such a procedure and advised Hoines that in their opinion, they could not legally issue a commission check directly to the Respondent, a salesman. Hoines reiterated his demand on behalf of his client and threatened to institute legal proceedings which could stop the closing and/or create problems for both the buyer and the seller. Hoines indicated to Taylor that he had the means at his disposal to bring the closing to a halt if the commission check was not distributed to his client as he demanded. When Taylor inquired concerning what those means were, Hoines refused to elaborate. Hoines acknowledged that he had specifically made reference to a declaratory judgment action and in that sense, threatened legal action. He also stated that he ignored the statements made to him by Mueller and Taylor that the procedure he demanded that they follow was illegal. As a consequence of the actions taken by the Respondent Rudman and his attorney at his initiation, Mueller was placed in an untenable position. On one hand, Mueller was threatened with legal action if she did not pay the commission to the Respondent and on the other, she knew that if the closing did not take place that day, it would probably never occur since the outstanding mortgages on the two parcels were months in arrears. Mueller's problems with the mortgages on the property were also known to the Respondent when he and his attorney demanded the commission check. Mueller objected to issuing a check to the Respondent but was concerned that withholding the check could result in stopping the closing as a result of the threatened legal proceedings. Under such circumstances, Mueller did not voluntarily consent to the issuance of the check to the Respondent. As characterized by counsel for Petitioner, Mueller "acquiesced" rather than risk the possibility that the Respondent or his attorney would initiate action which could have affected the sale. Thus, the "consent" given by Mueller was under protest, the result of coercion and was not free and voluntary. As a result of Respondent's demands, Pat Taylor contacted her attorney, Mr. Finn, who instructed her to type the document dated November 13, 1979, Petitioner's Exhibit 10. Mueller did not see this document nor did she assist in its preparation. On November 13, 1979, Taylor presented the document, together with a check for the Respondent's share of the commission to Respondent at his office. The Respondent accepted the check which was made payable to "Tremone Rudman". The Respondent then signed the document and added, "I do not agree to the foregoing." The Respondent subsequently negotiated the check. The Respondent Rudman acknowledged that he was not collecting on behalf of the broker with whom he was employed when he received this commission, nor did he collect the funds on behalf of Fantastic Properties, Inc., for whom he was no longer employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the Respondent Rudman guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.42(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes (1979), and suspending his real estate salesman's license for ninety (90) days. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 1983, 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 2nd day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John G. DeLancett, Esquire 801 North Magnolia Avenue Suite 402 Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32803 Richard H. Adams, Jr., Esquire Carlos B. Stafford, Executive PLEUS ADAMS FASSETT & DIVINE Director 220 North Palmetto Avenue Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 2747 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Regulation 400 West Robinson Street 130 North Monroe Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0000925 DOAH NO. 81-2152 TREMONE RUDMAN, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On January 17, 1975 Respondent pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, of knowingly and unlawfully aiding and abetting Larry E. Williams in the receipt of compensation, that is, a political contribution in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) for Edward J. Gurney with intent to unlawfully defeat the purposes of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a Department of the United States; in violation of Title 18 USC 1012 and 2(a) as charged in Count I of the Information. The court adjudged Respondent guilty as charged, withheld the imposition of sentence and placed Respondent on probation for a period of one year. Violation of the above provisions of the U.S. Code constitutes a misdemeanor. In defense of his conduct Respondent testified without contradiction that he was a member of a venture called Minorca Arms formed for the purpose of building apartments to be financed by FHA. The approval of the application for financing had been delayed by FHA and one member of the venture, Walton, who was heading the venture, told Respondent that he, Walton, thought that if a $5,000 donation to Senator Gurney's campaign in a cash contribution was made to Williams it might assist in getting the commitment out of FHA. Shortly thereafter Williams, who Respondent never saw before or after the visit, came to Jacksonville, was picked up by Walton, brought by Respondent's office where an envelope containing $5,000 was picked up by Williams. No mention of the FHA commitment or anything related there to was made during the few minutes Williams was in Respondent's office. The project was subsequently approved by FHA as was two additional projects subsequently applied for. Respondent has been a registered real estate broker in Florida for approximately 30 years. Since 1947 he has been engaged in sales, promotion, development, and construction of real property. During this period he has had business dealings with Stockton, Whatley, and Davin, Inc. involving millions of dollars. He enjoys an excellent reputation in the community for his work in community affairs, as well as in business dealings with his associates and others with whom he has been involved. He has never before been convicted of a crime or been involved with a complaint by the Florida Real Estate Commission against his license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent stipulated at formal hearing to Paragraphs 1- 6 of the Administrative Complaint, (TR-5-6) and it is accordingly found that: Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against Respondent as licensee and against his license to practice the real estate brokerage business under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times alleged in the administrative complaint a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0191613. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Cluett Realty, Inc., 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. On about July 14, 1983, Respondent received a check in the amount of $400.00 from Mary Snodgrass, a salesman, who at the time was associated with Respondent. Snodgrass had received the money from Robert James. James had submitted four contracts which were accepted for purchase of four duplexes listed with Respondent. The $400.00 represented a deposit of $100.00 on each of the four contracts. When the check was entrusted to Respondent, Snodgrass stated that the buyer had requested the check be held a couple of days before depositing into escrow to insure it would clear. Respondent indicated this was wrong and the check should be deposited immediately. 1/ The check was not deposited into Respondent's escrow account, but, was held by Respondent until September 15, 1983, two months after initial receipt of the check. The check presented by Mr. James (buyer) to Mrs. Snodgrass (saleswoman) was drawn on the Fort Myers Barnett Bank and on its face represents it is drawn on an account in the name "Clara A. James For: Caj-Raj-Casa De Chihuahua's." There is no indicator on the check itself that Robert A. James is an appropriate signatory on this account. At hearing, Mr. James represented that he was a proper signatory on the account because Clara A. James is his wife. Mrs. Snodgrass represented that she knew Mr. James had this authority but there was no predicate laid for this knowledge on her part and there is nothing about the check itself which would convey such knowledge to someone not intimate with the James' household, nor does the check itself reveal any relationship between Mr. James and "Caj-Raj-Casa De Chihuahua' s." At the time Snodgrass submitted the check to Respondent, she informed Respondent that it was possible that the check would not clear the bank due to insufficient funds. At the time of his conversation with Mrs. Snodgrass on July 14, Respondent was aware of previous problems arising from failure of an earlier check written by Mr. James for rent to one of Respondent's other clients to clear the bank. Respondent was also aware that Mr. James had refused to vacate the premises which James, James' wife, and approximately 80 Chihuahuas occupied by rental from this other client. Respondent perceived Mr. James resented Respondent due to Respondent's involvement in getting the James entourage out of the rental properties so that Respondent's other client as seller could close sale of that property to a third party buyer. Accordingly, Respondent retained the check when it was given him by Mrs. Snodgrass for a few minutes to think about the situation. He then returned it to her and explained it was an inappropriate deposit because it did not represent cash if they knew at the time it was tendered that it might be returned for insufficient funds. He told Mrs. Snodgrass to either secure a check which would clear or to inform both potential buyer and sellers that there was no deposit placed in escrow on the four contracts. Mrs. Snodgrass denied that the check was returned to her by Respondent or that this conversation ever took place; she assumed the check would be held by Respondent until evening and in the evening she went out and got the sellers to sign the 4 contracts previously signed by James. Mrs. Snodgrass placed the signed contracts in a file drawer in Respondent's office and never again initiated any title work or any conversation with Respondent about the transaction. The testimony of Mrs. Weise and Mrs. Cluett support the material particulars of Respondent's version of this second interchange between Mrs. Snodgrass and Respondent. Mr. James testified that he did, indeed, go the following day (July 15) to the bank to transfer funds if needed, but did not then notify Mrs. Snodgrass or Respondent because the money transfer was not necessary. Upon this evidence and due to the credibility problems recited in footnote 1, supra and in Findings of Fact Paragraph 8 infra, the Respondent's version of this interchange is accepted over that of Mrs. Snodgrass and provides additional, but not contradictory, information to Finding of Fact Paragraph 1-e as stipulated by the parties. In early September, Mrs. Snodgrass secured employment with Barbara Ware Realty, a competitor of Respondent. She then turned in all of her keys, gear, and papers to Cluett Realty. Shortly thereafter, Helen Weise, secretary to Respondent, discovered the July 14, 1983, check on what had been Mrs. Snodgrass's desk. This discovery is confirmed by both Respondent and Mrs. Weise. Respondent knew Mrs. Snodgrass and Mr. James were personal friends. He telephoned Mrs. Snodgrass about the status of the James' transaction when the check was discovered. Mrs. Snodgrass admitted she thereafter called Mr. James to verify the status of the transaction and then called Respondent to tell him she thought the sale would go through, but she now denies telling Respondent that the July 14, 1983, check was good or even that Respondent mentioned the check when he called her the first time. Respondent then deposited the check into his escrow account the next day, September 15, 1983. He immediately placed the request for title search and insurance. Thereafter, two duplexes out of the four involved in the four James contracts with Cluett Realty were sold by Mrs. Snodgrass through her new employer, Barbara Ware Realty, and two were sold by Mary Cluett, Respondent's wife, through Cluett Realty. During the period from July 14, 1983, until September 15, 1983, Mr. James was apparently aware that the check submitted to Cluett Realty had never been deposited by Cluett Realty because it did not show up in monthly bank statements. After September, Mr. James clearly was further aware of what was going on because he admits to trying to get Mary Snodgrass to pursue the transaction under her new employer's auspices, despite Cluett's retaining the exclusive listing for the sellers of the properties. It was not established whether or not the sellers were misled by Respondent's failure to immediately deposit the July 14, 1983, check, but Mr. James testified that when Respondent approached him about refunding his deposit or at least a portion thereof, he, (Mr. James), told the Respondent to keep it or give it to the sellers or at least not to give it back to him due to all the inconvenience. Mr. James and Mrs. Snodgrass were friends on July 14, 1983. They became friendlier thereafter. Apparently, in early September, Mrs. Snodgrass left Respondent's employ upon very unfriendly terms. The terms may be characterized as "unfriendly" even if one accepts Mrs. Snodgrass' version that her job hunt was successful before she was fired by Respondent and therefore she should be viewed as quitting upon being asked by Respondent to resign. Respondent has previously filed an unsuccessful complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation against Mrs. Snodgrass. It was she who initiated the complaint giving rise to these instant proceedings against Respondent. Mrs. Snodgrass' resentment of Respondent's filing a complaint against her was evident in her demeanor on the stand. An attempt at formal hearing to impeach Respondent's credibility upon the basis of a supposed prior admission to Petitioner's investigator that Respondent forgot to deposit the crucial check and upon the basis of Respondent's July 13, 1984, letter to the Department of Professional Regulation (P-7) left Respondent's credibility intact. When Investigator Potter's testimony as a whole is compared with Respondent's letter as a whole in light of Potter's investigation of three separate complaints over a period of many months 2/ there is no material variation of Respondent's representations. Also, what was "forgotten" and when it was forgotten is vague and immaterial in light of consistent information supplied to the investigator by Respondent that there was a request to hold the July 14, 1983, check for a couple of days due to insufficient funds.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Ciccarelli and Moreau are registrants with the Florida Real Estate Commission (Board of Real Estate), both holding registrations as saleswomen. Ciccarelli and Moreau were the real estate salespersons who handled the transaction for the sale of a residence between Dessie Wilson, the seller, and Carl Dudley, the buyer. Darlene Becker, Wilson's daughter, also owned an interest in the property but was not an actual party to the negotiations between Wilson and Dudley as mediated by Ciccarelli and Moreau. Ciccarelli and Moreau presented to Wilson the contract for sale and purchase containing Dudley's initial offer signed July 13, 1978. A copy of this contract was introduced as Exhibit 7. Wilson made a counter offer by interlineating and initialing certain terms in the contract on July 14, 1978, as indicated by her signature and date on Exhibit 2. Dudley had returned to Fort Myers, Florida, where he was living, and Ciccarelli and Moreau communicated Wilson's counter offer to him by telephone July 18, 1978. Dudley made a counter-counter offer in which he accepted the cash terms proposed by Wilson but included the cement table and benches described in Paragraph 1(c) of the contract in the purchase. The table and benches had been stricken and initialed by Wilson in her offer. Ciccarelli and Moreau annotated the contract to reflect the inclusion of these items in the sale by adding "OK for cement table and benches" to Paragraph 1(c). This contract was not initialed by Dudley before presentation to Wilson because Dudley was in Fort Myers. See Exhibit 9. Ciccarelli and Moreau presented the contract, Exhibit 9, to Wilson, who accepted the terms orally. Ciccarelli and Moreau then sent the contract to Dudley by the letter dated July 18, 1978, Exhibit 4. This letter advised Dudley to initial the contract's changes to include the cement table and benches. Dudley did so and returned the contract to Ciccarelli and Moreau, who then presented the contract to Wilson's daughter, Darlene Becker. Becker executed the contract, Exhibit 9, after it was returned. The transaction closed afterward, and a conveyance of the property and payment were exchanged. The closing was attended by Dudley and Wilson, and no objection to the terms of the contract was raised by either party. After closing a controversy arose between Wilson and Dudley concerning the transfer of the cement table and benches. Wilson returned to Dudley the table and benches which she had removed. Paragraph X of the general provisions of the contract provides that the buyer may request personal property be conveyed by absolute bill of sale.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the licenses of Ciccarelli and Moreau. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 1001, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harvey R. Klein, Esquire 333 North West Third Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670
