Findings Of Fact Residential Realty, Inc. was incorporated by Ralph R. Voss, a non broker, some two years ago. He advertised for a registered broker to act as AFM and Mrs. Lucille Busch responded. Her broker's license was then inactive but since the job offered would not require full time participation she agreed to take it after consulting with her attorney and the FREC office in Ft. Myers. Mrs. Busch signed all checks drawn upon the escrow account and kept careful records involving this account. She conferred with Voss on office policies and on hiring or firing salesmen; however, as owner, it appears that Voss had the final say in policy matters if any dispute arose. Before assuming the duties as AFM Mrs. Busch, as noted above, received confirmation that such AFM participation was not in violation of the Real Estate License Law. She be lives that she was performing the duties required of a broker and that neither Voss, nor his successor Bach, held themselves out as brokers or performed the functions that can only be performed by a broker. Some twelve months ago Warren Bach and his wife purchased all shares of stock in Residential Realty, Inc. from Voss. Bach is a registered real estate salesman and he continued the office practices that existed under Voss with Mrs. Busch remaining AFM. When Bach purchased the realty corporation he too checked with an attorney and the Real Estate Commission office in Ft. Myers regarding the operation of Residential Realty, Inc. before continuing the status quo. Bach had been a real estate broker in Wisconsin for ten years before moving to Florida and purchasing Residential Realty, Inc. One sales person in Residential Realty, Inc., Mrs. Joan Edwards, obtained an exclusive listing on property owned by her parents-in-law. Bach subsequently obtained a purchaser and presented an offer to Edwards to purchase his property. The contract provided for a purchase price of $39,900 with a $100 down payment with an additional $900 to be paid by the buyer upon acceptance of the contract by the seller. This offer was presented to Edwards by Joan Edwards and Bach. Edwards modified the contract to a total price of $40,900, initialed this counter offer, but left the balance of the contract unchanged. The contract was returned to the purchaser by Bach and was accepted by him, but the additional $900 down payment required by the terms of the contract was never paid. Initially the buyer advised Bach that he would produce the $900 balance when he sold his home in Tampa, however, he never produced the $900 required by the contract and Bach failed to notify Edwards of this fact. Mrs. Busch, the AFM, became aware of the contract and the $900 discrepancy shortly after the contract was executed and she discussed this with Joan Edwards, the daughter-in-law of the seller. Mrs. Edwards testified that she became aware of the $900 problem about one week before the scheduled closing date while Mrs. Bach, who also worked in the real estate office, recalled numerous discussions about this additional deposit with Mrs. Joan Edwards several weeks before the scheduled closing. Regardless of the knowledge within the realty office, the seller was informed of the breach of the contract by the buyer by neither Bach nor his daughter-in-law, Joan Edwards, until only a few days before the scheduled closing. Bach assumed, incorrectly, that Mrs. Edwards would inform her parents-in-law- of the fact that the buyer had failed to produce the additional deposit. Bach considered the contract still valid although the buyer had failed to comply with the provision requiring him to make the additional $900 payment upon acceptance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received, my observation of the witnesses while testifying and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby-make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Harry Gorman, is presently, and has been since September 1982, a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida (license number 0229673). Respondent is the owner of Lee County Property Exchange, Inc. Lee County Property Exchange, Inc. is organized for the primary purpose of buying and selling real estate lots. The company customarily buys a group of unimproved residential lots and sells them to "wholesalers". Ms. Mary A. Bosley responded to a mass mail advertisement provided by Lee County Property Exchange. Thereafter, on March 31, 1983, Respondent, acting for Lee County Property Exchange as purchaser,, entered into two sales contracts for the purpose of buying two unimproved residential lots with Mary A. Bosley, as seller. Ms. Bosley was represented by counsel at the signing of the contracts. The contracts provided that the purchase price for each lot would be $1,000. The transaction was to close on or before August 1, 1983. The transaction did not close as anticipated on August 1, 1983. From approximately August 22, 1983 to March 15, 1985, Respondent requested and was granted four six month extensions of the closing date. Ms. Bosley granted each extension because she wanted to sell the lots. In accordance with the terms of the contracts between Ms. Bosley and Lee County Property Exchange, two $25.00 earnest money deposits (EMD) were to be held in escrow by Lehigh Title Company, Inc. On April 21, 1983, Ms. Barbara Mast, president of Lehigh Title Company, received the two contracts with the accompanying $25.00 EMD's and "opened a file". Ms. Mast was later informed that the Bosley contracts were "on hold". on March 19, 1985, after the expiration of the final extension of closing date granted by Ms. Bosley, Mr. Burney J. Carter, Esquire, attorney for Ms. Bosley, mailed a letter to Mr. Gorman demanding return of the two $25.00 EMD's. Lehigh Title Company did not receive a request from Ms. Bosley nor Respondent that the two EMD's be taken out of escrow. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Bosley received the two $25.00 EMD's back from Lehigh Title Company. Respondent, upon speaking with a DPR investigator, did not agree to personally mail a check to Ms. Bosley, for the two $25.00 EMD's, but stated that, in his view, Ms. Bosley was entitled to return of the money and that Lehigh Title Company was responsible for sending it to her. Respondent failed to close the two transactions as purchases for economic reasons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding the Respondent Harry G. Gorman, not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 29th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire; Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack J. Pankow, Esquire P. O. Box 580 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner The parties were given 20 days from the date the original transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings in which to file their proposed findings. Petitioner failed to submit any proposed findings of fact within the specified time limits. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. The evidence was unclear as to whether the two $25.00 EMD's were in the escrow account up to the date of hearing. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, (noting the obvious typographical error in Respondent's failure to include the word "not" between "has" and "made"). Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 4. Respondent's assertion that "Harry Gorman was not acting in his professional capacity as a licensed real estate salesman "is rejected as a conclusion of law and as unnecessary to a resolution of this case. The Respondent, as a licensed real estate salesman, could be subject to discipline for fraud, misrepresentation and/or breach of trust in a business transaction whether or not the fraud, misrepresentation or breach of trust occurred during the course of his "real estate activities".
The Issue At issue herein is whether respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined for-the alleged violations set forth in the administrative complaint. Based upon all of the evidence, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Juan Rios, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0155126 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Victoria R. Rios, is a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0331183 by petitioner. The Rios are husband and wife and presently reside at 855 80th Street, #1, Miami Beach, Florida. On December 13, 1982, Juan Rios obtained a six-month multiple listing agreement to sell a house located in Hacienda Estates at 11451 S.W. 33rd Lane, Miami, Florida. The agreement was executed by Rios "As Realtor" and by the property owner, Mercedes Garcia. At Mercedes' request, the Rios placed an initial sales price of $145,000 on the home. On December 15, a similar agreement was executed by Rios and Garcia on condominium unit 9B, Laguna Club Condominium, 10710 N. W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. That property was also owned by Garcia. Although the agreement introduced into evidence does not contain Rios' signature, at final hearing Juan Rios acknowledged that he had executed such an agreement. The listing agreements provided that if the properties were leased during the term of the agreements, the listing realtor would receive a brokerage fee of 10% for such leasing. The agreement also provided that the realtors were not responsible for vandalism, theft or damage of any nature to the property. Garcia is a native and resident of Venezuela, where she owns a radio station. The two properties in question were previously owned by her father. When the father died, apparently sometime in 1982, Mercedes inherited the house and condominium. The Rios were friends of the father, and agreed to list and manage the properties as a favor to the deceased. Mercedes left the country after the agreements were signed, and has apparently not returned. Although she is the complainant who initiated this matter, she did not appear at final hearing. The house at 11451 S. W. 33rd Lane had been vandalized prior to the listing agreement being signed. According to documents introduced into evidence, the property has also been the subject of subsequent vandalisms, the nature and extent of which are unknown. A tenant was eventually procured by Mercedes' aunt in February, 1983 at a monthly rate of $800. The tenant, a Mrs. Ramirez, paid some $4,800 in rents and deposits before she was killed at the home in June, 1983. The Rios spent some $2,644.36 of the $4,800 on repairs to the vandalism and for general maintenance. They also retained a 10% commission for their services, or $480. That left $1,675.64 owed to Mercedes. No lease was apparently ever signed by Ramirez, or at least none was given to the Rios by the relative who procured the tenant. The home was eventually sold to Mercedes' aunt for $85,000.1 None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. The condominium unit was rented in June, 1983. The tenant, Oscar Ruiz, had answered an advertisement run by the Rios in a local newspaper. Although Ruiz executed a lease to rent the unit at a monthly rate of $500, the Rios did not have a copy of same, and claimed none was kept in their records. According to the Rios, Ruiz continued to rent the unit through April, 1984, or for eleven months. Total monies collected by the Rios from Ruiz, including a $500 security deposit, were $6,000, of which $3,364.86 was spent for maintenance, utilities, two mortgage payments, and a $500 payment to the owner (Mercedes). An additional $40.33 was spent on a plumbing bill, and $600 was retained as a commission by the Rios. This left $2,724.53 owed to Mercedes. None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. In the spring of 1984, Mercedes retained the services of an attorney in Miami to seek her monies due from the Rios. Up to then, she had received no income or accounting on the two properties. The attorney wrote the Rios on several occasions beginning in April 1984, asking for a copy of the lease on the condominium unit, the security deposit, an accounting of the funds, and all other documents relating to the two, properties. He received his first reply from the Rios on May 3, 1984 who advised him that they had attempted to reach Mercedes by telephone on numerous occasions but that she would never return their calls. They explained that rental proceeds had been used to repair vandalism damage and structural defects. When the attorney did not receive the satisfaction that he desired, he filed a civil action against the Rios on October 10, 1984. On October 26, 1984 the Rios sent Mercedes a letter containing an accounting on the two properties reflecting that she was owed $4,400.17 by the Rios. To pay this, they sent a $140 "official check," and a promissory note for the balance to be paid off in 40 monthly installments at 10% interest. They explained that their real estate business had closed, and due to financial problems, they were unable to pay off the monies due any sooner. They also asked that she instruct her attorney to drop the suit. Mercedes rejected this offer and has continued to pursue the civil action. It is still pending in Dade County Circuit Court. At final hearing, the Rios characterized their involvement with Mercedes as a "professional mistake," and one undertaken out of friendship for Mercedes' father. They acknowledged they did not use a trust account on the transactions and that they had used the $4,400 in rental money due Mercedes for their own use. They considered the excess rent proceeds to be compensation for other "services" performed by them on behalf of Mercedes. However, there is no evidence of any such agreement between the parties reflecting that understanding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Juan and Victoria Rios be found guilty as charged in Counts II and III, and be found guilty of culpable negligence and breach of trust in Count I. It is further recommended that Juan Rios' license be suspended for one year and that Victoria Rios' license be suspended for three months. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1986
The Issue Whether Defendants breached an oral contract with their employer. Whether the Defendants, both of whom were registered salesmen employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., conducted themselves in such a manner that the sellers of a certain parcel of real estate suffered a loss of a substantial profit from their property. Whether the licenses of the Defendants should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Defendants Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, husband and wife, were registered real estate salesmen employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., a corporate broker, with offices located at 2341 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. Defendants were employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., a corporate broker, under an oral employment agreement whereby real estate transactions entered into by them or either of them as registered salesmen or personally or jointly for their own account were to be handled through said broker's office; that all details of any such real estate transaction were to be available in open files in said office; that they were to identify themselves as salesmen for Rivas Realty, Inc. On or about December 20, 1973, Defendant Victor Hugo Hernandez individually and for the benefit of himself and his wife jointly contracted to buy the residence at 526 E. 44th Street, Hialeah, Florida, from Frank J. Crawford, Jr., and Alexis Jo Crawford, his wife, for the sum of approximately $27,000. The transaction closed on or about January 3, 1974, and conveyance by warranty deed was made by the Crawford to Paul G. Block, Trustee. The property was soon resold. The Real Estate Commission contends: That the Defendants represented themselves as individuals desiring to purchase the home from the Crawfords for their son; That the Defendants had no intention of purchasing said property for the son and in fact, soon thereafter resold the property at a substantial profit to themselves; The Defendants through their misrepresentation defrauded the Crawfords of a substantial profit; They did not inform the Crawfords that they were in fact salesmen for Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the Defendants violated the oral agreement they had with the employer, Rivas Realty, Inc., when they failed to process the purchase and the resale of the Crawford property through the Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the Defendants are guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes; That the registrations of Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez should be suspended or revoked. The Defendants contend: That at the time of the sale and the purchase of the home from the Crawfords they had secured permission from the Rivas Realty, Inc. to purchase a home for their son; That the employer, Mr. Anthony Rivas, had given permission to the Defendants, as long time and effective salesmen, to purchase the property inasmuch as it was for the benefit of the son; That the son did not want the property after it was bought and therefore the property was immediately placed for sale; That the Defendants shortly after the purchase and sale of the property in question did in fact buy for their son a home in another location; That they in no way planned to trick the Crawfords into the sale of their home by not representing themselves as real estate agents; That in fact they did so represent themselves as real estate agents and placed the sign of Rivas Realty, Inc. in front of the Crawford home before the resale; That it was generally understood by the owners and among the long time employees of Rivas Realty, Inc. that they could at times buy and sale for their own personal benefit properties that members of their family might desire without processing the sale through the business office of Rivas Realty, Inc. or dividing the profit with the corporation. That they did not breach the oral contract between themselves and the employer. The Hearing Officer finds: That the Defendants, Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, bought the home of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford under circumstances which tended to deceive the purchasers but without actual misrepresentation; That there was no showing of an actual loss by the Crawfords; That the oral agreement between the Defendant salesmen and the employer, the Rivas Realty, Inc., was at times waived by the owner, Mr. Rivas or his brother, as special favors to their salesmen; That the Defendants acted under a waiver of the oral agreement between themselves and the Rivas Realty, Inc. when they purchased and resold the home of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, or their acts were approved or condoned by the employer; That the evidence received and the testimony taken do not show that the Defendants, Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, breached the fiduciary relationship with their employer, Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the evidence received and the testimony taken do not prove the Defendants to have been guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, trick, schemes or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
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, Ralph De Ponte, Jr., is a licensed real estate salesman, license number 0110328, in the State of Florida. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. On or about August 25, 1993, Respondent, while licensed as a real estate salesperson, solicited and obtained a joint venture agreement between Eugenio R. Martinez and Johnco Management, Inc. The purpose of the joint venture was to purchase and sell real estate lots for profit. Lot Center Real Estate, the brokerage company for whom Respondent was employed at the time, was to act as the exclusive agent for the purchase and resale of all properties purchased by the joint venture. Mr. Martinez entrusted $15,000 with Respondent in accordance with the joint venture agreement. Mr. Martinez, based upon the representations from Respondent, believed the money would be invested in the purchase of real estate. Instead, Respondent used the $15,000 to pay off his personal debts. Johnco Management, Inc. was administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State on August 26, 1994, for failure to file its annual report as required by law. Mr. Martinez made repeated demands on Respondent for the return of the $15,000 because no effort was being made to purchase real estate and sell it for profit. Respondent is unable to return Mr. Martinez' investment and claims that the lack of additional funds caused the joint venture to prove unsuccessful. Respondent considered the $15,000 from Mr. Martinez a personal loan. Mr. Martinez' version of the incident, which is also supported by the written joint venture agreement drafted by Respondent, has been deemed more credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order revoking Respondent's real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 27th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0661 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Ralph De Ponte, Jr. Post Office Box 7751 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34985
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(a), 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Phillip F. Niles, is and was, at times material to this matter, a licensed real estate broker. His license number is 0173298. Respondent's license was inactive from August 2, 1996, through March 31, 1997. It was invalid due to non-renewal from March 31, 1997 through May 28, 1997. From May 29, 1997 through August 20, 1997, Respondent was an active broker. From August 21, 1997 through June 10, 1998, Respondent was an inactive broker. From June 11, 1998, through the date of the formal hearing, Respondent was an active individual broker. The address of his last license was 1700 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. Sam L. Berry owned a condominium located at 840 Center Street, Unit 101, Holly Hill, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the property). Sometime prior to April 27, 1997, Mr. Berry asked Respondent to sell the property. Mr. Berry wanted to receive $20,000 for the property. Mr. Berry told Respondent that he could keep any amount of the sales price in excess of $20,000. Respondent placed an advertisement for the sale of the property in the newspaper. Thereafter, he prepared a Contract for Sale and Purchase (the contract) for the sale of the property with $20,000 as the sales price. The buyer's name was John Richards. Meanwhile, Peggy Holloway became interested in the property after seeing Respondent's advertisement. Ms. Holloway contacted Respondent at the number referenced in the advertisement. Subsequently, she met Respondent at the property. At that time Respondent's broker's license was inactive. Ms. Holloway made an offer on the property. In order to make a commission or profit on the sale, Respondent decided to sell the property to her. He changed the existing contract by marking through Mr. Richard's name and adding Ms. Holloway's name as the buyer. Respondent changed the sales price on the contract to $23,000. On April 27, 1997, Ms. Holloway signed the contract as the buyer. That same day, Mr. Berry signed the contract as seller. As part of the contract, and pursuant to Respondent's instructions, Ms. Holloway made a check out to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $500. Respondent assured Ms. Holloway that he would place the money in an escrow account. The contract stated that the $500 deposit would be held in escrow. Respondent did not place Ms. Holloway's money in escrow. He cashed her check and kept the $500. At all times material to the transaction Ms. Holloway believed that Respondent was a licensed real estate broker. Additionally, the contract contained language stating that Respondent was a real estate broker. During subsequent conversations with Ms. Holloway about financing arrangements for the purchase of the property, Respondent appeared drunk. As a result of those conversations, Ms. Holloway became suspicious about Respondent's intentions and his competence to handle the real estate transaction. Ms. Holloway contacted Petitioner and learned that Respondent's license was inactive. On or about May 6, 1997, Ms. Holloway telephoned Respondent. She told him that she did not want to go through with the contract. She demanded that Respondent return her $500 deposit. Respondent failed to return Ms. Holloway's $500 deposit. Ms. Holloway then began to deal with Respondent's brother, Peter Niles, who is an attorney. Respondent's brother prepared a document for Mr. Berry to sign acknowledging receipt of the $500 deposit. Mr. Berry signed the document prepared by Respondent's brother even though Respondent never gave the $500 deposit to Mr. Berry. Ms. Holloway eventually decided to deal directly with Mr. Berry. They agreed on a sale price and closed the transaction with no assistance from Respondent, his brother, or any other individual. Ms. Holloway sued Respondent in the County Court of Volusia County, Florida. In Case No. 97-31586, the County Judge entered a judgment against Respondent in favor of Ms. Holloway. Respondent had not satisfied the judgment as of the date of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for a period of ten years and requiring him to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000 within one year of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip F. Niles 5747 Sweetwater Boulevard Port Orange, Florida 32127 Phillip F. Niles Apartment 503 100 Seabreeze Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Harry T. Vaught, is a registered real estate broker doing business at the principal address of 410 Cortez Road West, Room 409, First Commercial Bank Building, Bradenton, Florida 33507. On or about January 25, 1979, an administrative complaint was filed by the Petitioner Commission against Respondent alleging that Respondent has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction involving certain described real property. Respondent Vaught had been interested in personally buying the property involved in this hearing for a long period of time, inasmuch as he owned nearby property. He and other realtors had had listings on the subject property over a period of years. In September of 1977, Respondent Vaught was contacted by Kings III, Inc. broker Don Zimmerman, seeking information on properties Respondent had listed for sale. Thereafter, Respondent drove to the subject acreage with Mr. Zimmerman and C. Anita Lioce, a registered real estate salesman in the employ of Kings III, Inc. and viewed the subject property Respondent Vaught told the other realtors that the asking price for said property was $2,200.00 per acre. Shortly after their return from the trip to view the subject property, Zimmerman told Lioce to call Roy Amerson about the property Respondent had shown them. Subsequently, Lioce told Respondent Vaught that she had a prospective client who was interested in buying the subject property and requested the legal description and other such information necessary for writing a contract. Thereupon, Respondent advised Lioce that he himself was interested in purchasing said property and had a contract to buy it from the owner, Ms. Mamie Ezell, President of Gillette Fruit Company, the corporate owner of the subject property. Subsequently, Lioce was showing Mr. Amerson another piece of property, when he again inquired about the subject property. Lioce told Amerson that she would investigate to see if there were a contract on the property, and told him that if there were she could write a "back-up" contract which would be valid if there were a contract and the sale were not closed pursuant thereto. This conversation with Amerson probably took place in the month of November, 1977. Previously thereto, in September of 1977, Respondent Vaught had gone to see Ms. Ezell, President of Gillette Fruit Company, about the subject property and offered to buy said property for $1,790.00 per acre. The attorney for Gillette Fruit Company was contacted by Ms. Ezell and was requested to draw a contract between Respondent Vaught and Gillette Fruit Company for the sale of the subject property. A Contract for the Sale of Real Estate was drawn dated October 22, 1977, between Respondent Vaught and Gillette Fruit Company, which was signed by the three officers of Gillette Fruit Company and the Respondent. The attorney for the corporation required the signatures of the other stockholders of the corporation in addition to that of the President, Ms. Ezell, for the reason that the purchase price was low. The contract called for a closing date of December 15, 1977. At the designated time of December 15, 1977, in the office of the attorney for Gillette Fruit Company and in the presence of the attorney for Respondent Vaught, the son of Ms. Ezell showed the assembled group a "back-up" contract to purchase dated the previous day, December 14, 1977, in which Roy Amerson had agreed with Kings III, Inc. to purchase the subject property for a price of $2,150.00 per acre. Neither the attorney for Gillette Fruit Company nor Respondent Vaught knew of this contract prior to the closing. An altercation arose between Ms. Ezell's son and Respondent, and the attorney for Gillette Fruit Company thereupon called off the closing. Respondent Vaught knew that Roy Amerson was interested in purchasing the subject property, but no deposit had been made by Amerson, and no contract had been signed by him prior to the offer made by Respondent in September of 1977 to buy the subject property or prior to the contract signed in October of 1977. Subsequent to this hearing, Petitioner decided not to submit a proposed recommended order or memorandum of law. Respondent's attorney by telephone orally requested a postponement of the issuance of this Recommended Order for the reason that he intended to avail himself of the statutory right to submit a proposed recommended order. No proposed recommended order was submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that this case be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of September7 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire State Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jerome Pratt, Esquire 701 Eighth Avenue Post Office Box 67 Palmetto, Florida 33561
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In May 1988, he was working as a broker-salesman with G.V. Stewart, Inc., a corporate real estate broker whose active broker is G.V. Stewart. On April 20, 1989, Respondent submitted a Contract for Sale and Purchase to the University of South Florida Credit Union who was attempting to sell a house at 2412 Elm Street in Tampa, Florida, which the seller had acquired in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. This offer reflected a purchase price of $25,000 with a deposit of $100 (Exhibit 2). The president of the seller rejected the offer by striking out the $25,000 and $100 figures and made a counter offer to sell the property for $29,000 with a $2000 deposit (Exhibit 2). On May 9, 1989, Respondent submitted a new contract for sale and purchase for this same property which offer reflected an offering price of $27,000 with a deposit of $2000 held in escrow by G.V. Stewart (Exhibit 3). This offer, as did Exhibit 2, bore what purported to be the signature of William P. Murphy as buyer and G. Stewart as escrow agent. In fact, neither Murphy nor Stewart signed either Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3, and neither was aware the offers had been made at the time they were submitted to the seller. This offer was accepted by the seller. This property was an open listing with no brokerage firm having an exclusive agreement with the owner to sell the property. Stewart's firm had been notified by the seller that the property was for sale. Respondent had worked with Stewart for upwards of ten years and had frequently signed Stewart's name on contracts, which practice was condoned by Stewart. Respondent had sold several parcels of property to Murphy, an attorney in Tampa, on contracts signed by him in the name of Murphy, which signatures were subsequently ratified by Murphy. Respondent considers Murphy to be a Class A customer for whom he obtained a deposit only after the offer was accepted by the seller and Murphy confirmed a desire to purchase. Respondent has followed this procedure in selling property to Murphy for a considerable period of time and saw nothing wrong with this practice. At present, Respondent is the active broker at his own real estate firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that William H. McCoy's license as a real estate broker be suspended for one year. However, if before the expiration of the year's suspension Respondent can prove, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Commission, that he fully understands the duty owed by a broker to the seller and the elements of a valid contract, the remaining portion of the suspension be set aside. ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Alexander, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley 400 West Robinson Street General Counsel Orlando, Florida 32802 Department of Professional Regulation William H. McCoy 1940 North Monroe Street 4002 South Pocahontas Avenue Suite 60 Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tampa Florida 33610 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulation of licensed real estate salespersons in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson, holding Florida license no. 0566297. Most recently, the Respondent's license identifies her as a salesperson with Robert E. Bartlett at Bartlett Realty, 3500 First Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701. From July 11, 1995, to September 27, 1996, the Respondent was employed by Century 21, Grant Realty of Florida, 6450 Seminole Boulevard, Largo, Florida 34642. Steve and Janice Perry (the Perrys) owned a house located at 12907 Hickorywood Lane, Largo, Florida. On or about June 5, 1996, the Perrys listed the house for sale through execution of an Exclusive Right to Sell Listing Agreement with the Respondent and Grant Realty. The Perrys were very anxious to sell the house and contacted the Respondent almost daily to determine whether there was activity on the listing. In time, the Respondent presented to the Perrys a written and signed offer (the "first offer") to purchase the property. The Perrys declined the offer, but proposed a counteroffer, and executed the document. The Respondent did not provide a copy of the offer or counteroffer to the Perrys. The Respondent eventually told the Perrys that the purchasers had been unable to obtain financing. The Respondent has no documentation of the first offer. The Respondent is unable to recall the names of the prospective buyers or of any agent representing the buyers. The files of Grant Realty contain no records related to the first offer. At some time after the first offer had failed to close, the Respondent presented a second written and signed offer to the Perrys. The Respondent indicated to the Perrys that she knew the second buyer. On the Respondent's advice, Mr. Perry amended the second offer, initialed the changes, and signed the document. Mr. Perry told the Respondent that if the amendments were not acceptable to the buyer, he would accept the original offer. The Respondent did not provide a copy of the second offer to the Perrys. The Respondent has no documentation of the second offer. The files of Grant Realty contain no records related to the second offer. The day following execution of the second offer, the Perrys inquired about the status of the matter. The Respondent told Mr. Perry that the buyer was part of an "investment group" and that the group was being contacted about the Perrys' amendments. The Perrys continued to contact the Respondent about the status of the second offer, but she offered little new information. The Respondent eventually told the Perrys that the prospective buyer thought she was being "too pushy" and was refusing to discuss the matter with her. The Respondent told the Perrys that the buyer's agent would handle the sale, but stated that it would be improper for the Perrys to contact the buyer's agent and declined to identify the agent. The Perrys continued to contact the Respondent and request information. She eventually indicated that the buyer's agent was "Dave," another Century 21 agent, and suggested it could be Dave Sweet, another Grant Realty agent. The Perrys contacted Dave Sweet. Mr. Sweet had no knowledge of the second offer and was unable to provide any information. At this point, the Perrys contacted the Respondent's employer and spoke with Karen Selby, a broker at Grant Realty. Ms. Selby was unaware of any offer on the property. Conrad Grant, owner/broker of the agency, was also unaware of any pending offer on the Perry property. Ms. Selby took possession of the Perry listing file. There was no documentation in the file suggesting that any offers were received. Ms. Selby questioned the Respondent about the second offer. The Respondent stated that the offer came from "John," a man who had come through an open house a few weeks earlier, that she'd prepared a written offer according to his direction but that he had not signed it, that Mr. Perry counteroffered, and that the counteroffer had been declined. The Respondent further told Ms. Selby that the buyer had been working with "Dave," an agent in another Century 21 agency. Ms. Selby asked for the full names of the buyer and the agent, but the Respondent was unable to provide them. Ms. Selby asked the Respondent to consult her notes or the open house sign- in sheet for the information. The Respondent was unable to provide any additional information related to the offer. Ms. Selby contacted the agency's attorney and arranged a meeting with the Respondent. During this meeting, the Respondent was again asked for, but was unable to provide, additional information related to the alleged offers. Subsequent to the meeting, the Respondent provided a name and telephone facsimile number for the alleged buyer. Using the phone number, Ms. Selby attempted to contact the buyer, identified as "Brian John Edridge." Ms. Selby received a response from a business which stated that no one by that name was involved in the business. Ms. Selby discussed the matter with Dave Sweet. Mr. Sweet told Ms. Selby he was not involved in the purported offer and had no information about the situation. The Respondent's employment at Grant Realty was terminated. There is no credible evidence that the "offers" presented by the Respondent to the Perrys were real. There is no credible evidence that the prospective "buyers" identified to the Perrys by the Respondent existed. There is no credible evidence that anyone identified as "Brian John Edridge," or any variation of the name, was involved in any prospective purchase of the Perry property. There is no credible evidence that an agent identified as "Dave" was involved in any prospective purchase of the Perry property. At the hearing, the Respondent testified in her own behalf. Her testimony lacks credibility and is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order revoking the Respondent's real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801-2169 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
