Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ezell Realty, Inc., was a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0231943 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Winfield Ezell, Sr., held real estate broker's license number 0309739 issued by petitioner and was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Ezell Realty, Inc. The firm is located at 1512 West Gore Street, Orlando, Florida. Grover Crawford was an acquaintance of Ezell who was interested in purchasing certain rental property on Coretta Way in Orlando, Florida. When he was unable to purchase the property Crawford told Ezell to let him know if anything else became available in that area. Ezell happened to own a rental house at 1121 Coretta Way which he had just purchased several months earlier in a foreclosure proceeding, and the two eventually began discussions concerning a possible sale. At all times relevant thereto, the house was rented to tenants, and Crawford intended the property to remain as investor-owned property rather than owner-occupied property. Ezell initially agreed to sell the property for $70,000 and the two entered into a contract on January 8, 1983, using this sales price. However, the lender's appraisal of the residence came in far below this figure, and the parties eventually agreed on a sales price of $55,450. A second contract for sale and purchaser was executed on June 22, 1983. Although the contract provided that Crawford would pay a cash deposit of $2,300 to be held in escrow by Ezell Realty, none was paid since Ezell was given $2,300 by the tenants of the house to make needed repairs to the property prior to the sale. This arrangement was agreeable with Crawford. The contract also required the seller (Ezell) to pay all closing coats. Therefore, Crawford was not required to pay any "up front" costs in order to buy the property. Under the terms of the second contract, Crawford was to obtain FHA financing on the property in the amount of $53,150. This type of financing is the most desirable from an investor standpoint since the mortgage can be easily transferred to another buyer for a small transfer fee without lender approval. After executing the first contract on January 8, 1983, Ezell and Crawford executed an "Addendum to Contract For Sale and Purchase" on the same date which provided in pertinent part: This contract is for the sole purpose of having the buyer obtain an assumable FHA mortgage for the seller and reconveying title to the seller. The seller hereby irrevocably assumes the said FHA mortgage from the buyer immediately after closing and the buyers hereby agree to that assumption. For this, Crawford was to receive $1,000. The parties agreed that this addendum would apply to the second contract executed on June 22, 1983. At the suggestion of Ezell, Crawford made application for a $53.150 FHA loan with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC) in Maitland, Florida, a lending institution which Ezell had done business with on a number of prior occasions. However, Ezell was not present at any meetings between Crawford and RFC. When Crawford applied for the mortgage, he indicated the property would be used for investment purposes and would not be owner-occupied. For some reason, RFC assumed the property would be owner-occupied and structured the-loan in that manner. Because of this, Crawford's down payment was slightly less than 5% of the value of the property with the remainder being financed by the institution. Had RFC treated the loan as an investor-loan, the down payment would have been increased to around 15%. Neither Crawford or Ezell advised RFC of the Addendum to the contract which required Crawford to reconvey the property to Ezell for $1,000 once the FHA mortgage was obtained. Had RFC known of this it would not have approved the loan. There was no competent evidence that such an agreement was illegal or violated any federal laws or contravened any real estate industry standard or ethical consideration. The loan was eventually approved, and a closing held on September 22, 1983. After closing, Crawford retained the property in his name with Ezell making all payments from the rent proceeds. This was consistent with an oral agreement between the two that such an arrangement would last for an indefinite period as long as the payments were current. When Crawford later received several notices from the lender stating that mortgage payments were in arrears, he hired an attorney and demanded that Ezell fulfill the terms of the Addendum. He also filed a complaint against Ezell with petitioner which precipitated the instant proceeding. After the closing, Ezell had intended for the tenants to assume the mortgage since they had expressed an interest in buying the property. However, such a sale never materialized. In July, 1984, the property was reconveyed to Ezell, and Ezell paid Crawford $1,000 as required by the Addendum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Julius L. Williams, Esq. P. O. Box 2629 Orlando, FL 32802 ================================================================ =
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be disciplined upon a charge that he operated as a salesman for any person not registered as his broker in violation of Section 475.42(2)(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and whether Respondent should be disciplined based upon a charge that he collected money in connection with any real estate brokerage transaction without the express consent of his employer and not in the name of his employer in violation of Section 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating and disciplining real estate salespersons. The Respondent is and was at all times material to this complaint a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license no. 0593108. The Respondent's current license was issued as a voluntary inactive with an address of 1421 Daytona Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. In mid-1994, the Respondent was employed by Donal E. Harrigan, d/b/a Donal E. Harrigan Company (hereinafter Harrigan). The Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Harrigan, and was engaged in the selling of timeshares. While employed with Harrigan, the Respondent and his wife talked with Fadel Elbadramany, the broker and owner of AAA Realty. Initially the Respondent and his wife talked with Elbadramany about the purchase of commercial real estate; however, Elbadramany solicited both of them as real estate salespersons with his company. The Respondent's then wife was eventually employed by Elbadramany as a salesperson. The Respondent discussed employment with Elbadramany; however, Elbadramany would not discuss the nature and scope of his business until the Respondent had signed an employment agreement containing a non-competition clause and DBPR Form 400.5. The Respondent was interested in selling commercial property, but did not want to cease selling timeshares. He discussed this with Elbadramany who advised him that he could do both. Pursuant to this discussion, the Respondent filled out a DBPR Form 400.5 checking at the top of said form under Section A, "Multiple Licenses." Nothing was checked on the form indicating a change of employment or broker. The Respondent signed the form in blank and left it with Elbadramany. Fadel Elbadramany was called to testify. Elbadramany testified that he employed the Respondent, that the Respondent obtained list of prospects from his office, that the Respondent never sold any real estate for him, and that he had observed the Respondent engaging in the sale of real estate which was not listed with his brokerage. Brenda Groves, the ex-wife of the Respondent, was called to testify. Brenda Groves was employed by AAA Realty and Elbadramany. During her employment, a conflict arose which resulted in litigation between Brenda Groves and Elbadramany over the anti-competitive clause contained in the employment contract. Brenda Grove testified that Elbadramany threatened to get her and to get her husband. Ms. Grove testified regarding the employment of her ex-husband. The Respondent was not employed by AAA Realty. Ms. Groves testimony is considered very credible. There was a conflict in the testimony between Elbadramany and the Respondent concerning who filled out and completed the DBPR Form 400.5. The most credible evidence is that it was completed by Elbadramany and filed with the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. The form as filled out, requests only multiple licensure. The request for multiple licensure is consistent with the Respondent's intent to continue to sell timeshares for Harrigan and commercial property for Elbadramany. However, prior to commencing employment with Elbadramany, but after filling out the form, the Respondent determined that he did not want to be employed by Elbadramany. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the Respondent, the Division of Real Estate received the DBPR Form 400.5 and, because the Respondent is not a broker, did not issue him a multiple license. Instead, the Division of Real Estate shifted the Respondent's registration as real estate salesperson from Harrigan to AAA Realty. Although the Respondent's registration had been changed from AAA to Harrigan, the Respondent continued to be employed by Harrigan and to work actively in Harrigan's business selling timeshares. The testimony of the Respondent and that of Elbadramany was that he did not do any work for AAA Realty. There is no evidence in this proceeding that the Respondent received a copy of the licensing change or was made aware of this change prior to March 10, 1995. On March 10, 1995, the Respondent was interviewed by an investigator of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. At this time the Respondent became aware that his registration was with AAA Realty. As a result of this interview, the Respondent contacted the Department and discussed with them how to correct the status of his registration. In order to accomplish that in accordance with the instruction he received, the Respondent filed out a DBPR Form 400.5 registering with Harrigan by whom he had been continuously employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Real Estate enter its final order dismissing the administrative complaint against the Respondent Gary Allen Groves. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 15th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gary Allen Groves 1500 Beville Road, Suite 606-182 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now and was at all times material to this action a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0064475. Respondent operated his own real estate brokerage firm under his license. The firm was located in Niceville, Florida. In addition to his real estate brokerage business Respondent maintained and managed his personal real estate investments. Several of these personal investments included rental property which Respondent would later sell. One such piece of property was located at 104 Perdido Circle, Niceville, Florida, and is the property involved in this action. Prior to July 6, 1985, the Respondent, as seller and not as a broker, advertised for sale the Perdido property. Sometime around July 6, 1985, Robert L. Mitchell and June F. Mitchell looked at the Perdido property. Frank Ray, a salesman for John Brooks Realty, an unrelated real estate firm showed the property to the Mitchells. They liked the property and wanted to buy it. Frank Ray made arrangements for himself and the Mitchells to meet with Respondent in order to discuss the terms of the potential purchase contract. They met on July 6, 1985. The meeting lasted approximately an hour to an hour and a half. During the lengthy meeting Respondent went over the purchase terms contained in the contract of sale. The Mitchells main concern was to have immediate occupancy of the house. Special terms were developed for renting the property. At some point during the meeting the down payment came under discussion. Originally, the Mitchells had planned on a $1500 down payment which was acceptable to Respondent. However, as the meeting progressed the Mitchells decided they would like to reduce the amount of the down payment. Respondent informed the Mitchells that the only way he could decrease the $1500 down payment was to make the money a non-refundable option payment. Respondent then marked out the $1500 down payment figure contained in the purchase contract and inserted a $1200 figure. Respondent concurrently added the language "option payment" next to the $1200 figure. The remainder of the contract was discussed and the Mitchells signed the amended document. The Mitchells then wrote a check to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $1200. The note section of the check the Mitchells wrote contained the language "house down payment." The exact discussion on the down payment/option is not clear. What is clear from the evidence is that neither party had a meeting of the minds over what the $1200 check was. The Mitchells being very inexperienced in real estate thought it was a down payment. Although it is doubtful the Mitchells understood the legal meaning of the term "down payment." Respondent thought it was a non- refundable option payment. Absolutely no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Respondent was demonstrated. Likewise, there was no evidence that Respondent in any way used his knowledge or expertise in the real estate market improperly. The final result of the negotiations was that the Mitchells had entered into what on its face purports to be a rental contract with an option to buy. However, since there was no meeting of the minds over the option, the option was eventually unenforceable. Since there was no meeting of the minds regarding the $1200 the money was not properly escrowable property. In essence the $1200 was neither a down payment nor an option payment. This lack of escrowability is borne out by the sales contract which calls for another escrow agent. 1/ The Mitchells took possession of the property for approximately three months. The Mitchells failed to obtain financing. The contract was conditioned upon the Mitchells obtaining financing, and the transaction failed to close. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the down payment/option money. When the dispute could not be resolved by the parties, the Mitchells filed a lawsuit against Nevin H. Nordal demanding a refund of the $1200 "house down payment." As a result of the Mitchell's lawsuit the County Court, in Okaloosa County, Florida, Summary Claims Division, by Amended Final Judgment dated January 20, 1987, awarded the sum of $1,028,87. The judgment figure is the balance of the $1200 after deduction of a counterclaim of $171.13 for cleaning the house after the Mitchells evacuated the property. Additionally, the Respondent was required to pay costs in the sum of $57 for a total of $1,087.87 due the Mitchells. The judgment amount is bearing interest at a rate of 12 percent per annum. The County Court judgment contains no findings of fact as to the Judge's reasoning on the judgment award. The Mitchells have repeatedly demanded of the Respondent that he pay the judgment. He has repeatedly refused to pay the judgment. Respondent did account to the Mitchells for the money when he told them he had deposited the check and had spent the funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint failed against Respondent, Nevin H. Nordal, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of March, 1989.
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner, Florida Home Finders Realty, Inc. ("Realty, Inc."), seeks an award of costs and attorney's fees incurred in its successful defense of an administrative disciplinary proceeding. The disputed issues in this case are whether the case is moot, whether the person acting on behalf of the Petitioner is authorized to do so, and whether circumstances exist that would make an award of costs and attorney's fees unjust.
Findings Of Fact Realty, Inc., the Petitioner in this proceeding, was one of numerous Respondents in a multi-count Administrative Complaint filed by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation in September of 1995. Two of the other Respondents named in the same Administrative Complaint were Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff. Most, if not all, of the other Respondents in that multi-count Administrative Complaint resolved the charges against them without resort to proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff both disputed the charges in the Administrative Complaint and requested an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff retained the services of the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., to represent them in their defense against the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Messrs. Law and Schiff were represented by Mark Herron, Esquire, and Chris Haughee, Esquire, of the previously mentioned law firm. Simultaneous with the filing of the Administrative Complaint described above, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued an emergency suspension order. The effect of the emergency suspension order was to suspend the real estate broker licenses of Messrs. Law and Schiff and to suspend the corporate real estate broker registration of Realty, Inc. Immediately following the filing of the Administrative Complaint and the emergency suspension order, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a petition in circuit court seeking to place Realty, Inc., and a related corporation into receivership. The petition was granted, and Realty, Inc., and the related corporation were placed in receivership. Receivers were appointed to operate Realty, Inc., and the related corporation, and to take possession of the assets of Realty, Inc., and the related corporation. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, the receivership was still in effect, although the assets of Realty, Inc., and the assets of the related corporation had been sold. The receivers were able to conduct the business affairs of both Realty, Inc., and the related corporation without either corporation being registered as a real estate broker. Accordingly, it was of no importance to the receivers that Realty, Inc.'s, real estate broker registration had been suspended by emergency order or that such registration might be revoked as a result of the Administrative Complaint.4 Therefore, the receivers took no action to challenge the emergency suspension order or to defend Realty, Inc., against the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Specifically, the receivers did not file any response to the Administrative Complaint and did not request an evidentiary hearing on the charges against Realty, Inc. In June of 1996, counsel for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a motion with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking entry of a final order against Realty, Inc., on the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Grounds for the motion were that there were no disputed issues of material fact, because Realty, Inc., had failed to respond to the service of the Administrative Complaint and had failed to request a hearing on the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The receivers of Realty, Inc., did not oppose the motion, because they were not concerned about the disposition of the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The Department's motion was, however, opposed by Ian Law and Benjamin Schiff. Messrs. Law and Schiff, through their legal counsel, Mark Herron, Esquire, filed a response in which they argued that the motion should be denied on the grounds that a final order revoking the registration of Realty, Inc., would have an adverse impact on the substantial interests of Messrs. Law and Schiff. In this regard they directed attention to Section 475.31(1), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: An order revoking or suspending the license of a broker shall automatically cancel the licenses of all sales persons registered with the broker, and, if a partnership or corporation, of all members, officers, and directors thereof, while the license of the broker is inoperative or until new employment or connection is secured. Based on the above-quoted statutory provision, Messrs. Law and Schiff argued that, in order to protect their own interests, they were entitled to litigate the issue of whether Realty, Inc., was guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Messrs. Law and Schiff also argued that it would be a violation of their personal due process rights if they were deprived of an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Realty, Inc., was guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint. By order dated June 18, 1996, the Florida Real Estate Commission denied the relief requested in the Department's motion and directed that the charges against Realty, Inc., be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.5 Since the issuance of the order placing Realty, Inc., in receivership (the order was issued October 6, 1995, nunc pro tunc to September 28, 1995), Messrs. Law and Schiff have not had any authority to take any action on behalf of Realty, Inc. That authority has been, and continues to be, vested solely in the receivers appointed to manage the affairs of Realty, Inc., and in the circuit judge who entered the receivership order. Neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever retained legal counsel to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings from which this case arises. Neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever authorized anyone else to retain legal counsel to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings from which this case arises. Specifically, neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever retained or authorized anyone else to retain the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings. Similarly, neither the circuit judge nor the receivers have authorized either the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., or Benjamin Schiff, Esquire, to file the instant proceeding on behalf of Realty, Inc.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Petitioner is presently sixty-eight years of age. She first became licensed as a real estate sales associate in the State of Florida in 1982, and in December of 1988 she passed the examination for a broker's license. Shortly after she passed the examination for a broker's license, the Petitioner began setting up her own real estate brokerage firm. At that time the Petitioner had her sales associate license placed with a broker named Robert F. Armand & Associates. Her arrangement with Mr. Armand was that she would pay him a flat monthly fee of $250.00 in exchange for the services brokers usually provide for sales associates. The agreement provided that Mr. Armand would not receive any share of any commissions earned by the Petitioner. While the Petitioner was in the process of making arrangements to terminate her relationship with Mr. Armand and start her own brokerage firm, the Petitioner was successful in obtaining a contract for the sale of a residence ("the Molina transaction"). At that time the Petitioner still had her license placed with Mr. Armand's brokerage firm and had not yet begun operation of her own brokerage firm. Because Mr. Armand had become very upset when the Petitioner told him she would soon be leaving, the Petitioner did not want to have any further dealings with Mr. Armand that were not absolutely necessary, so she did not tell Mr. Armand about the Molina transaction. Rather, she held the Molina transaction and processed it through her own brokerage firm shortly thereafter. The Molina transaction closed in due course and there was no financial harm to either the buyer or the seller. There was no financial harm to Mr. Armand, because he was not entitled to share in any commission related to the Molina transaction. By some means not revealed in the record of this proceeding, the Respondent became aware of the manner in which the Petitioner had handled the Molina transaction and initiated disciplinary action against the Petitioner.1 The Petitioner decided to resolve the disciplinary proceedings by agreeing to surrender her licenses for revocation. Towards that end, on April 10, 1989, the Petitioner signed a document titled Affidavit for the Voluntary Surrender of License, Registration, Certificate/Permit for Revocation. That document included the following statements by the Petitioner: That my name is Addy Miller. That I am currently the holder of a real estate license/registration/certificate or permit issued pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes and the Rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. That in lieu of further investigation and prosecution of the pending complaint(s) and case(s) received and filed with the Department of Professional Regulation, I do hereby consent to and authorize the Florida Real Estate Commission of the Department of Professional Regulation to issue a Final Order revoking any and all of the licenses, registrations, certificates and permits issued to or held by the undersigned. That the effective date of the revocation shall be April 10, 1989. All licenses, registrations, certificates and permits are hereby deemed surrendered and the undersigned hereby requests that the same be placed in and remain in inactive status pending final disposition by the Florida Real Estate Commission. That I will not apply for nor otherwise seek any real estate license, registration, certificate or permit in the State of Florida for a period of not less than ten (10) years from the effective date of the revocation. That I will not perform any act or service without first being the holder of a valid and current license, registration, certificate or permit thereof [sic] at the time the act or service is performed. That I waive any right to be noticed of any further administrative proceedings in this matter. That I waive any right to appeal or otherwise seek judicial review of the Final Order of revocation to be rendered in accordance with the provisions of this affidavit. [Emphasis added.] The above-quoted affidavit was considered at a meeting of the Florida Real Estate Commission on April 18, 1989. At that meeting the Commission issued a Final Order, the material parts of which read as follows: On April 18, 1989, the Florida Real Estate Commission heard this case to issue a Final Order. On April 10, 1989, the Respondent voluntarily surrendered her license and entered a written agreement that her license would be revoked. A copy of this agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. Based upon this information and upon the information provided to the Florida Real Estate Commission at its meeting of April 18, 1989, the Commission ORDERS that the license of the Respondent be revoked, effective April 10, 1989. Prior to the incident that led to the 1989 order described immediately above, the Petitioner had never before had a complaint filed against her. Consistent with paragraph 8 of the affidavit quoted above, the Petitioner did not appeal the Final Order issued on April 18, 1989. The Petitioner has complied with all of the terms of the Final Order issued on April 18, 1989. The loss of the Petitioner's real estate license has adversely affected her ability to make a living and support herself. In recent years she has been working in sales and marketing with several different companies. She appears to be highly regarded by some of her employers. During the fifteen years since the revocation of her license, the Petitioner has lived a moral and honorable life and has not been involved in any matters that would cast doubt upon her good character and her reputation for fair dealing. During the fifteen years since the revocation of her license, the Petitioner has not been the subject of any criminal charges. The Petitioner acknowledges that her conduct related to the Molina transaction so many years ago was improper and is committed to avoiding any improper conduct in the future. Further, the Petitioner is sincerely embarrassed about her conduct in that matter and is remorseful regarding her actions in that regard. In view of the long lapse of time (more than fifteen years) since her misconduct related to the Molina transaction, and in view of her good conduct and reputation during that fifteen-year period, it is unlikely that the interests of the public and investors will be endangered by the granting of her application for relicensure. On or about March 19, 2004, the Petitioner filed an application to be relicensed as a sales associate. At a meeting on May 19, 2004, the Florida Real Estate Commission considered the Petitioner's application to be relicensed. Following such consideration the Commission voted to deny the application. The Commission's order denying the application gave the following reason for the denial: "After completely reviewing the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Board ORDERS that the application be DENIED based on the applicant's answer to the question regarding a professional license disciplined." Apparently, at the May 19, 2004, meeting the Commission was somewhat less than "fully advised," because at a Commission meeting on June 16, 2004, there was staff discussion of the fact that at the prior meeting "we did not have the information that you have today," and that at the prior meeting "we could not locate the old information." At the June 16, 2004, meeting staff confirmed that "[s]ince the May meeting we have found the old file. That's in your packet today." At the June 16, 2004, meeting, the Commission tabled further consideration of the Petitioner's application because the Petitioner was sick and could not attend that meeting. The Petitioner's application for relicensure was reconsidered at a Commission meeting on July 21, 2004. During that meeting there was some discussion of the Petitioner's background. During the course of that discussion the Petitioner agreed with the observation of one of the Commissioners that during the past fifteen years she had "been absolutely squeaky clean." During the course of the meeting, without any statement of the reason for doing so, one of the Commissioners moved to deny the application, another seconded the motion, and without any further discussion the Petitioner's application was denied by a vote of five to one. Following the July 21, 2004, Commission meeting, the Commission issued a written order again denying the Petitioner's application to be relicensed. The written order contained the following reason for the denial: "After completely reviewing the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Board ORDERS that the application be DENIED based on the applicant's answer to the question regarding the discipline of a professional license." The question on the application regarding any prior discipline of a license called for a "yes" or "no" answer. The Petitioner truthfully checked the "yes" box. Instructions on the application form asked those who checked the "yes" box to also: . . . please provide the full details of any . . . administrative action including the nature of any charges, dates, outcomes, sentences, and/or conditions imposed; the dates, name and location of the court and/or jurisdiction in which any proceedings were held . . . and the designation and/or license number for any actions against a license or licensure application. The Petitioner complied with this request by including as part of her application a typed statement and a handwritten statement which, respectively, read as follows, in pertinent part: THE TYPED STATEMENT I held real estate licenses from 1982-1989. I voluntarily surrendered my license to the Department in 1989. I was not involved in any litigation, with the DPR or the courts, and there was no payment made from the Recovery Fund. However, my license was suspended for ten years that was fulfilled in April, 1999. The Department informed me that once I had served my suspension term, I would be able to start again with the salesman's classroom requirements and apply for and pass the state examination as I am presently doing with the Gold Coast School of Real Estate. If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. THE HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT I voluntarily surrendered my license in April 1989. I held on to escrow money for a longer period of time than the law allows. The transaction was successfully closed and it was to be my last. My suspension was for a maximum of ten years that was satisfied in 1999. There was no other consequence other than my ability to practice real estate for ten years. The answers quoted above appear to be truthful and candid answers consistent with the requirements of the instructions on the application form. The details in the answers provide some enlightenment regarding the basis for the Commission's disciplinary action against the Petitioner in 1989, but those details, standing alone, do not provide any enlightment regarding the basis for the Commission's vote to deny the pending application for relicensure. It appears that since the revocation of her real estate license in 1989, the Petitioner has rehabilitated herself and that therefore it is not likely that her relicensure would endanger the public.2
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that the Petitioner is qualified to practice as a real estate sales associate, subject to passing the licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 23rd day of February, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in this case, Respondent was a Florida licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license numbered 0376339. Respondent had been employed by American Specialty Properties (ASP) for several years as an expediter prior to being assigned to Tampa, Florida. As an expediter, his duties were to take over stagnated operations of his employer and take whatever action was necessary to clear blockages and bring the operation to a successful conclusion. Respondent came to Tampa to resolve difficulties his employer, ASP, was encountering in regard to certain properties it had contracted to purchase at the Mission Bell Square shopping center being developed in Tampa by K-Mart Corporation. ASP wanted to build on the out-lots and lease the properties to various selected tenants. However, numerous legal and technical problems had come up that delayed the projects, and Respondent was to resolve those problems and get the structures erected and leased. It very soon became apparent to Respondent that his duties for ASP would not occupy all his time, so he secured the permission of Mark M. Mayers, president of ASP and Respondent's employer, to apply for a Florida real estate license and, once having secured it, to engage in outside employment to earn extra income. In furtherance of that plan, after becoming licensed as a real estate salesman, Respondent entered into an arrangement with Timothy Kerwin, president of Max Properties, Inc., in November, 1980, whereby Respondent's license would be registered with that firm, but no actual work would be done within that relationship by Respondent until some further date when Respondent was finished with his Mission Bell Square duties and room was available for him within the Max Properties organization. Kerwin says he does not recall knowing of Respondent's other employment with ASP until February, 1982, when he discovered that Respondent had been instrumental in the sale of the four out-lots at Mission Bell Square, which sale had not gone through Max Properties. He does admit, however, that Respondent may have discussed his work with ASP earlier than February, 1982, and in fact may have advised him that he, Respondent, still had work to do for ASP before he could do work for Kerwin. Kerwin did not, however, check with ASP to determine Respondent's status when he became aware of the possible conflict. When Kerwin found out about the closing of the sales on the Mission Bell Square out-lots, he questioned Respondent about them, and Respondent readily advised him that two lots had been closed and the remaining two were about to be closed. Respondent did bring about the sale of the four out-lots in question. At the time he did this, he was an employee of ASP and paid a regular salary of $2,000 per month plus expenses. A memorandum purportedly from Mr. Mayers dated March 25, 1982, to James W. Roberts, Jr., an independent real estate broker who-had done work on this property for ASP, indicates Respondent was to receive $1,250 commission for the sale of each of the four lots. However, Mr. Mayers indicated that he did not prepare the memorandum, did not sign it, and renounced it. In fact, Mr. Mayers' assistant, Tom Ferguson, in discussions with Mr. Roberts, indicated that notwithstanding the commissions mentioned in the memorandum, Respondent was paid only salary and expenses, and no commissions. I find, therefore, that Respondent did not receive any commission for these transactions nor, for that matter, at any time while he was an employee of ASP. The sale of the four lots was dictated by Respondent's employers at ASP, who, because of changed economic factors, made a business decision to dispose of the four properties rather than follow the prior plan of developing and leasing them. Respondent, in arranging the sales, was following the directions of his employers--not serving as a broker or salesman for commission. The sales were arranged through the offices of Mr. Roberts, and Respondent did not receive any commission out of these sales. He did, however, receive a bonus to his regular salary from ASP, his employer, as a reward for extricating his employer from a potentially unprofitable business arrangement. The negotiations for the sale, however, were conducted during the time Respondent's real estate license was registered with Max Properties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this action be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen M. Crawford, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
