The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent on November 1, 1991. In it, the Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, charges in six counts that the Respondent: committed dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in business transactions, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Counts I and III); operated as a broker under a trade name without causing the name to be noted in the records of the Florida Real Estate Commission and placed on his license, or operated as a member of a partnership or as a corporation, or as an officer or manager thereof, without the partnership or corporation being the holder of a valid current registration, in violation of Section 4775.42(1)(k) and, therefore, Section 475.25(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (Count II); failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (Count IV); failed to preserve and make available to the Petitioner all books, records, and supporting documents, and failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions, together with such additional data as good accounting practice requires, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-14.012(1) and, therefore, Section 475.25(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (Count V); and failed to prepare and sign required written monthly escrow reconciliation statements, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-14.012(2) and, therefore, Section 475.25(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (Count VI). The issues are whether the evidence sustains the charges and, if so, how the Respondent should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, prosecutes violations of the licensing laws and regulations governing real estate brokers in the State of Florida. The Respondent, John A. Rorabacher, is now and was at all times material to this case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0254845 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to the Respondent, effective November 12, 1991, was as a broker, in limbo, and was issued to his home address. Upon application filed in February, 1988, the Respondent registered The Ladysmith Group, Inc., as a real estate brokerage, effective March 1, 1988. The Respondent was the corporation's sole officer, director and shareholder. Operating through The Ladysmith Group, Inc., through October, 1991, the Respondent acted as property manager and agent for the Spring Hill Executive Center, owned by Nimit and Cattaliya Talvanna. He secured tenants and prepared leases for office space at the Spring Hill Executive Center that provided for lease payments to be made to the Talvannas "c/o The Ladysmith Group, Inc., 5467 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida 34606." He corresponded with tenants on the letterhead of The Ladysmith Group, Inc. He placed lease payments he received on behalf of the Talvannas into an escrow account maintained by The Ladysmith Group, Inc. He arranged for repairs and maintenance and renovations to the Talvanna property on their behalf. 2/ While maintaining the registration of The Ladysmith Group, Inc., the Respondent applied in March, 1988, to also register his broker license with Consumers Aid Realty, Inc. (Consumers Aid), which registration became effective on May 9, 1988. 3/ In addition to being a broker for the company, the Respondent also was a part owner. He was a signatory on the company's rental escrow account. In December, 1989, the Respondent had the Florida Real Estate Commission cancel the registration of The Ladysmith Group, Inc., and the cancellation became effective January 5, 1990. However, the Respondent continued to operate through The Ladysmith Group, Inc., as described in Finding 3, above. He did this in part to minimize confusion among tenants, who were used to making their lease payments through The Ladysmith Group, Inc., and in part to shield the payments from liens and/or seizure by the IRS, to which the Respondent owed back taxes. Sometime in May or June, 1990, Winston Griffith acquired an ownership interest in Consumers Aid. Griffith did not then possess and never has possessed a real estate license in the State of Florida. The Respondent remained with the company as a part owner and as a broker for the company. He continued to be a signatory on the company's rental escrow account. 4/ However, by the end of July, 1990, the Respondent secured other full-time employment and changed his status with the company from that of an active broker (involved primarily in sales and listing) to that of a consultant. Another broker remained with the company full-time. In late October, 1990, the remaining broker at Consumers Aid gave notice of her intention to resign and cancel her registration with the company. Griffith informed the Respondent, who cooperated in Griffith's search for a replacement. The Respondent agreed to be fully responsible for the brokerage in the interim. After approximately four to six weeks, a replacement named Mr. Foster was secured in December, 1990, supposedly to act as the full-time broker for the company so that the Respondent could continue in his status as consultant. But the evidence suggests that Mr. Foster never actually served as the full-time broker and that the Respondent nonetheless continued in the status of consultant. It is not clear from the evidence who, if anyone, performed the function of broker for the company during the time Mr. Foster was the nominal full-time broker. In April, 1991, the Respondent returned to the brokerage on a more or less full-time basis for about three months. During this time, there was no discussion of Mr. Foster, or his status with company, or whether he was ever there, or whether he would ever be back. It is clear the Respondent knew that he was the company's only broker and that he was fully responsible for the brokerage during those three months. In June, 1991, the Respondent, acting for the Talvannas as described in Finding 3, above, prepared a lease for office space at the Spring Hill Executive Center for execution by Griffith, for Consumers Aid, as tenant. The lease is dated June 27, 1991. Among other things, the lease provided, on the first page, that the lessee would be responsible for a pro rata share of insurance and real estate taxes. When informed of the provision for payment of a pro rata share of insurance and real estate taxes, Griffith protested that he was unaware of the provision, notwithstanding the terms of the lease, and refused to pay those items. At the beginning of August, 1991, the Respondent's status with Consumers Aid changed again. He secured full-time employment elsewhere and ceased acting as a broker for the company. The Respondent knew that the company had no other broker, but only two real estate sales persons and Griffith, who had no real estate license. Nonetheless, he allowed Griffith to use his license until Griffith could hire another broker. In late August, 1991, the Respondent prepared a notice to the Florida Real Estate Commission that he was cancelling his registration with Consumers Aid. The evidence is not clear when this notification was sent to the Commission. The cancellation was not made effective until November 12, 1991. On or about August 20, 1991, the Respondent, acting for the Talvannas as described in Finding 3, above, sent a letter to Griffith demanding unpaid rents less the pro rata share of insurance and property taxes. The letter was on the letterhead of The Ladysmith Group, Inc. On or about August 22, 1991, Griffith paid a portion of the monies demanded in the August 20, 1991, letter and made a note of the payment in the upper right-hand corner of the letter. Still acting for the Talvannas as described in Finding 3, above, the Respondent continued to collect rents due under the Consumers Aid lease in the name of The Ladysmith Group, Inc., and deposited them in the escrow account maintained by The Ladysmith Group, Inc. On September 27, 1991, an investigator with the Department conducted a review and audit of the rental escrow account maintained by Consumers Aid. Normally, in conducting such an audit, lease agreements are reviewed to determine the trust liability, which is compared to the reconciled bank balance. But all lease agreements, bank statements and cancelled checks for the rental escrow account of Consumers Aid were not available at the time of the audit. Instead, the company's accountant provided figures representing the amount which should have been held in escrow and totalling $11,470. The reconciled bank balance on closure of the company's rental escrow account on September 26, 1991, was $2,399.77, showing a shortage of $9,070.23. The September 27, 1991, audit also showed that monthly reconciliation reports for the Consumers Aid rental escrow account were not being prepared despite a detailed explanation of the requirement during an audit performed approximately one year earlier. The Respondent was present, along with others from Consumers Aid, during parts of the earlier audit. At the time of the September 27, 1991, audit, the Commission records still indicated that the Respondent was registered as a broker for Consumers Aid and showed his address as being 5467 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida 32606-4597, the location of Consumers Aid. For reasons not revealed by the evidence, Griffith did not give the DPR investigator the Respondent's home address, and the investigator left word at the home of the Respondent's parents for him to contact the investigator. The Respondent never contacted the investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order: (1) suspending the Respondent, John A. Rorabacher, for two (2) years; (2) conditioning reinstatement upon either successful completion of the required broker's course or approved Real Estate Commission continuing education, including in the area of escrow accounts, to be specified by the Commission; and (3) fining the Respondent $1,000 to be paid within 30 days. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of February, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, James P. Hudson, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: At all pertinent times, Respondent, James P. Hudson, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0148841 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been operating as a broker from an office at 413 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435. Respondent maintains an escrow account No. 018200602689 at Sun Bank in Boynton Beach, Florida into which he deposits trusts funds received in his capacity as a real estate broker. Sometime in the early part of September 1989, Petitioner initiated a random audit of Respondent's business. Prior to the audit, Petitioner's investigator advised the Respondent that he would need to produce all the records related to his escrow account. An investigator for Petitioner visited Respondent's office on or about September 18, 1989 to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow accounts. Based upon the investigator's review of the records, five different transactions were identified as allegedly involving delays or mishandling of escrow funds by Respondent. Those transactions are the basis for several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Each transaction is addressed separately below. The first transaction involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Fitz as buyer and Kerstin as seller (the "Fitz Contract"). Included in Respondent's files on this transaction was a copy of a contract for sale and purchase that was dated and signed by the buyer on September 6, 1989 and dated and signed by the seller on September 9, 1989. The buyer in the Fitz Contract gave Respondent a check for $1000 as a deposit to be held in escrow in connection with the transaction. The Respondent's written receipt for that check is dated September 7, 1989. The evidence established that this initial deposit check was delivered to Respondent on Thursday evening, September 7, 1989. Respondent was out of town on Friday, September 8 and returned on Monday evening, September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as a deposit on September 13. The sellers (the Kerstins) signed the contract on September 9, 1989. However, in executing the contract, they crossed out the $900,000 sales price submitted by the buyer and increased the price to $1,400,000. In other words, the sellers made a counteroffer with respect to this contract. The initial deposit was timely returned to the sellers when the counteroffer was rejected. Petitioner's investigator erroneously assumed that Respondent did not timely collect the additional deposit required under this contract. While Petitioner's investigator considered this signed contract in Respondent's files to be a binding agreement on the parties, it is clear that the change in sales price was only initialed by the sellers and, therefore, there was no enforceable agreement. The parties to the Fitz Contract subsequently executed another written contract. This second agreement provided for a sales price of $1,100,000. That contract was executed by the buyer on September 20, 1989 and by the sellers on September 24, 1989. This second contract called for a $49,000.00 deposit upon acceptance. The buyers gave Respondent a check dated September 25, 1989 in the amount of $49,000.00. That check was deposited by Respondent in his escrow account on the afternoon of September 26, 1989. The $49,000 deposit is reflected in the bank records as being deposited on September 27, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay by Respondent in collecting or depositing the funds into escrow. The second transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Campanis as buyer and Hoffman as seller. The buyer in this transaction gave Respondent a check dated September 6, 1990 to be held as a deposit for this contract. A photocopy of the check presented to Petitioner's investigator included a handwritten note that states "hold until Friday 9/8/89." The evidence did not establish who wrote this note. The evidence established that the check was received by one of Respondent's sales associates on September 7 and left on the Respondent's desk on September 8. Respondent is the only company employee authorized to deposit checks or otherwise handle transactions involving the escrow account. As indicated above, Respondent was out of town from September 8 through the evening of September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as being credited to the escrow account on September 13. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was not delinquent in depositing these funds. The third transaction involved a contract for the purchase and sale of real property between White as buyer and Adkins as seller (the "White Contract.") The White Contract was executed by the buyer on July 26, 1989 and by one of the sellers on July 27 and by the other seller on Friday, July 28. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500.00 with an additional deposit of $1,700 upon acceptance. The initial deposit check was dated July 26, 1989. That deposit check was attached to the contract executed by the purchaser and presented to a cooperating real estate agent who was to present the proposed contract to the seller. The executed contract was not returned to Respondent until sometime during the weekend of July 29 and 30. The initial deposit check along with the additional deposit were then deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, July 31, 1989. Under the circumstances, the evidence established that there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The next transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for sale and purchase of real property between Milera as buyer and Twillie as seller (the "Milera Contract.") The Milera Contract provided for an additional deposit due upon acceptance. The contract was accepted by Twillie on August 23, 1989. The parties to the contract agreed that the time for making the additional deposit would be extended for two days. The check for the additional deposit was dated and received by Respondent on Friday, August 25, 1989. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Tuesday, August 29, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The final transaction involved a contract with the sale and purchase of real property between Gerrety as buyer and the estate of John Walsh as seller (the "Gerrety Contract.") The Gerrety Contract was executed by the purchaser on August 10, 1989. The deposit check was given to one of the Respondent's associates on that Thursday evening. The deposit check was not delivered to Respondent until after business hours on Friday, August 11. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, August 14. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money on this transaction. During the audit, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent was holding deposits on two separate rental properties in his escrow account. At the time of the audit, Petitioner's investigator was not provided with any leases or other documentation regarding these transactions even though Respondent was supposed to produce records for all sums in the escrow account. Respondent contends that he did not realize he was supposed to produce his rental files, was never specifically asked to produce these files and did not know that Petitioner was questioning these transactions until he received the Administrative Complaint in this action. While there was apparently some miscommunication at the time of the audit, adequate documentation for these rental deposits was produced at the hearing. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not maintain adequate documentation regarding these deposits is without merit. Petitioner has also charged that Respondent did not produce all of the deposit slips in connection with the escrow account and did not produce any evidence of reconciliation of the escrow account. The evidence at the hearing established that all deposit slips are available even though they were not all kept with the bank statements. Moreover, the evidence failed to substantiate the allegation that Respondent did not reconcile his escrow account. Thus, these charges were not substantiated. At the time of the audit, Respondent advised Petitioner's investigator that the escrow account included some commission money that had not yet been removed. In the past, Respondent would sometimes collect his commissions at the close of a transaction from the funds held in escrow. (Respondent no longer collects commissions in this manner.) In auditing Respondent's escrow account, Petitioner's investigator determined that there was an overage of approximately $8,178.17 in the account. Within thirty days of the completion of the audit, Respondent removed $7,500 of the overage which represented his commission on two previously closed transactions. While Respondent believed that the remaining amount of the overage was also his commission money, he refrained from removing any more money until completion of a year-end audit by his accountant. Respondent's records reflected a slight difference in the amount of the overage than the amount calculated by Petitioner during the audit. Respondent wanted to be absolutely certain that only the proper amount was removed from the escrow account. At the conclusion of the audit on September 18, 1989, Respondent signed an office inspection report form prepared by Petitioner which contained the following pre-printed statement: ...I certify that to the best of my knowledge all records pertaining to my sales escrow/trust account(s) and my rental property management account(s) have been provided to the investigator. The above violations are brought to my attention this date and thoroughly explained. I will take corrective action within thirty days and furnish photo/sketches of corrections and documents on the same... There is some confusion as to what additional documentation Respondent was expected to provide following the completion of the September, 1989 audit. Respondent did not believe he was required to provide any additional evidence to Petitioner or its investigator and no further documentation was provided by Respondent until Petitioner's investigator returned to his office in January of 1990. Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's office on January 17, 1990. At that time, $7500.00 of the overage had been removed from the escrow account. The remaining amount of the overage was removed later in January. It does not appear that Respondent provided Petitioner's investigator with copies of the rental agreements or the second contract in the Kerstin transaction during the January visit by Petitioner's investigator. Respondent contends that this information was never specifically requested. It is clear that communication between Respondent and Petitioner's investigator had deteriorated from bad to worse by the time of this January visit. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted new record keeping requirements regarding escrow accounts in July of 1989. The new rules require a written monthly reconciliation of a broker's escrow account. At the time of the audit, Respondent was not keeping the minimum written statement comparing broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance of all trust accounts as required by the new rules. Even after the audit in September, Respondent did not keep the written reconciliations in the format required by the new rules. Respondent was reconciling the account on his computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts III and IV and reprimanding him for minor and techinical violations of those counts and imposing a fine of $100.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3589 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in pertinenet part in Findings of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 15. Subordinate 23. to Findings of Fact 8, 9 and Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. This subject is also addressed in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Rejected as not established by competent susbstantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findigns of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed to some degree in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not numbered. The numbers below refer to the numerical sections contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6-9. The second two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in some degree in Findings of Fact 21. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentencess are subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The next two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentence are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The second sentence is rejected as vague. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 and 25. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18, 19 and 22. The fourth sentence is rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. This subject matter is addressed in part in Findings of Fact 19. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James P. Hudson 413 South Federal Highway Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes (1991), and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondents, Shirley M. Ferguson and Dosh Realty, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed real estate brokers in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers 0393921 and 0252372, respectively, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued were as brokers, c/o Dosh Realty, Inc., 595 N. Nova Road 105A, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. At all times material hereto, Ms. Ferguson was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Dosh Realty, Inc. On or about August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson maintained and operated a branch office of Dosh Realty, Inc., at the Aliki Condominium located in Daytona Beach. On or about August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson and Carol Savage, a licensed salesperson, entered into an "Independent Contractor Agreement" whereby Ms. Savage agreed to act as a property management agent for Dosh Realty, Inc., at the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage's license was registered with Dosh Realty, Inc. The Independent Contractor Agreement between Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Savage specifically required that Ms. Savage set up "two rental accounts - Dosh Realty, Inc./ (condo name) - one account to be a general account for rentals, the other account to be a non-interest escrow account for security deposits." On August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson opened an account, number 1130222031, at Barnett Bank in Ormond Beach, Florida. Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Savage were signatories on the account. The account was not an escrow security account. Ms. Ferguson inquired of Ms. Savage about a rental escrow account for Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage informed Ms. Ferguson that security deposits were not required or received and, therefore, no escrow account was necessary. Despite the requirement of the Independent Contractor Agreement that an escrow account be established, Ms. Ferguson did not require that Ms. Savage comply with the terms of the Independent Contractor Agreement. Between August 1, 1990, and July 20, 1991, Ms. Savage, in the course of her association with the Respondents, solicited and obtained tenants to lease condominium units at the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage informed Ms. Ferguson that the agreements for these rentals were verbal. Ms. Ferguson did not insist that written agreements be entered into. Between August 1, 1990, and July 20, 1991, Ms. Savage in fact received monies as security deposits for rentals at the Aliki Condominium. Not all of the monies received by Ms. Savage were deposited in an account of the Respondents. Respondents were not notified of the security deposits and the Respondents were not aware that the security deposits had been collected. On July 20, 1991, Ms. Ferguson became aware that Ms. Savage had been collecting security deposits from tenants of the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Ferguson learned that Ms. Savage had taken the deposits and had failed to deliver the deposits to the Respondents. On or about July 20, 1991, tenants of the Aliki Condominium began to demand a return of their security deposits and Ms. Savage left the State of Florida. Ms. Ferguson reported the foregoing events to the Department and ultimately filed a complaint against Ms. Savage. Ms. Savage ultimately surrendered her license with the Department for revocation. The Respondents have not returned the security deposits received by Ms. Savage at the Aliki Condominium. Although Ms. Ferguson was very cooperative during the Department's investigation of this matter and although Ms. Ferguson did inquire of Ms. Savage concerning the manner in which rentals were handled at Aliki condominium, Ms. Ferguson did not insist, as a condition for the continued use by Ms. Savage of Ms. Ferguson's brokers license and the brokers license of Dosh Realty, Inc., that Ms. Savage use written rental agreements, require deposits and use an escrow account. Ms. Ferguson acknowledged during the investigation of this matter that monies were received at Dosh Realty's branch office at the Aliki Condominium that were not deposited in an escrow account and that she accepted Ms. Savage's representation that no written leases were entered into at the Aliki Condominium.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the Respondents have violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1991). It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Ferguson be reprimanded, placed on probation for one year and required to complete the 30 hour broker management course. DONE and ENTERED this day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 day of July, 1992. APPENDIX Case Number 92-1990 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 4 3. 5 4. See 5. See 8. 8 10. See 11. The exact amount of the deposits at issue was not proved by competent substantial evidence. Hereby accepted. 11 12. 12 13-14. 14 15. 15 See 17. The Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4. 5 5. 6 8. 7 11. See 9-10. 8 10-11. 9 12 and 13. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence and is not relevant. Although it is true that the exact monies Ms. Savage took were not received by the Respondents, they were responsible and could have returned monies of the Respondents. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section Hurston Building, North Tower #308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 R. Michael Kennedy, Esquire Post Office Box 4319 South Daytona, Florida 32121 Jack Ray General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints against real estate professionals, including real estate brokers and their qualified corporations. Respondent Edward J. Zibro is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0359349 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. is now and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0251315 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Edward J. Zibro is now and was at all times material hereto an officer of and qualifying broker for Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. The Respondents' offices are now and were at all times material hereto located at 2803 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 202, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondents and Pamela L. Mereider, d/b/a/ Earthrise Realty, Inc. (Mereider) submitted to arbitration through the Fort Lauderdale Area Board of Realtors, Inc. a dispute involving the right of Mereider to share in a commission check which had been deposited in Respondents' escrow account. By an award entered December 4, 1987, Respondents were ordered by the arbitration board to pay Mereider the sum of $1,800.00 within ten days of the date of the award. Respondents had not paid the award at the time of the final hearing. On February 15, 1989, the County Court in and for Broward County, Florida, issued a final judgment ordering the Respondents to pay to Mereider the sum of $1,800.00 plus arbitration costs of $100.00 and court costs of $58.00. This final judgment was based on the arbitration award dated December 4, 1987, which the Court found to be binding on the parties. Respondents had not satisfied the final judgment at the time of the final hearing in this proceeding. On November 13, 1987, Respondents, as agents for the seller, obtained a contract for the purchase of Crystal Lakes Chevron Station by Werner Hatzelhoffer (Hatzelhoffer). Hatzelhoffer, as buyer, placed an $11,000.00 deposit in trust with Respondents. On or about March 16, 1988 Hatzelhoffer's bank was notified that his application for financing this transaction through the Small Business Administration had been rejected. Hatzelhoffer did not obtain financing and the transaction did not close. On August 17, 1988, Hatzelhoffer requested in writing that Respondents return the $11,000.00 deposit with interest. Based on the terms of the contract executed by the parties, Respondents and the seller of the property disputed that Hatzelhoffer was entitled to a refund of the deposit. Hatzelhoffer later requested the return of the deposit money by telephone and went to Respondent's office in person to demand the refund of the deposit. On October 25, 1988, Hatzelhoffer's attorney made written demand of Respondents for the return of Hatzelhoffer's deposit. On April 21, 1989, Respondent Edward J. Zibro advised Petitioner for the first time of the conflicting demands on the escrow deposit and requested an escrow disbursement order from Petitioner. Petitioner opened an escrow disbursement case and, on May 2, 1989, Gerri E. Barnoske, a complaint analyst for Petitioner, requested in a letter certain information from Respondents relating to the escrow dispute. Respondents did not receive this letter. On June 2, 1989, Ms. Barnoske wrote to Respondents a second time. This second letter advised that the previously requested information had not been received and that failure to cooperate could result in disciplinary proceedings being brought. The second letter also advised Respondents to let Petitioner know if the matter had been settled. The dispute involving Mr. Hatzelhoffer's deposit was amicably resolved on May 30, 1989. On May 8, 1989, the seller and his wife executed an agreement which released any claim they may have had to the escrowed funds and which authorized Respondents to negotiate a settlement with Hatzelhoffer. Respondents were also authorized by the release instrument executed by the seller on May 8, 1989, to retain as their commission for the failed transaction any sums they could get Hatzelhoffer to agree was due the seller. As a result of the settlement, Hatzelhoffer was reimbursed $6,500.00 and Respondents retained $4,500.00. Upon receiving Ms. Barnoske's letter dated June 2, 1989, Respondent Edward J. Zibro advised Ms. Barnoske that he had not received her letter dated May 2, 1989. He further advised that the escrow dispute had been settled and enclosed a statement signed by Mr. Hatzelhoffer on May 30, 1989, which acknowledged that the matter had been resolved. On June 22, 1989, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondents which contained four counts. Count I and Count II charged Respondent Edward J. Zibro and Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc., respectively, with having failed to account and deliver a share of a commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, based on the dealings with Mereider. Count III and Count IV charged Respondent Edward J. Zibro and Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc., respectively, with having failed to account and deliver a deposit in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, based on the dealings with Hatzelhoffer. Respondents denied the allegations of the Administrative Complaint and timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order which finds as follows: Respondent Edward J. Zibro guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; Respondent Edward J. Zibro guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; and Respondent Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475,25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order entered by Petitioner assess administrative fines against Respondents as follows: Against Edward J. Zibro in the amount of $500.00 for the violation of Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Against Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. in the amount of $500.00 for the violation of Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Against Edward J. Zibro in the amount of $500.00 for the violation of Count III of the Administrative Complaint. Against Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. in the amount of $500.00 for the violation of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order entered by Petitioner suspend the licenses and registration of the Respondents for a period of six months or until such time as the administrative fines are paid and the final judgement in favor of Pamela L. Mereider, d/b/a Earthrise Realty, Inc. is satisfied, whichever occurs first. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer 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. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE 89-4205 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact contained in the first sentence of paragraph 17 are adopted in material part by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact contained in the second sentence of paragraph 17 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in Paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of paragraph 19 are rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Edward Zibro Ed Zibro Realty, Inc. 2803 East Commercial Boulevard Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Phyllis A. Crosby, Respondent, was registered as a real estate broker by the Florida Board of Real Estate, and was qualifying broker for Crosby Realty Corporation, a corporate real estate broker (Exhibit 4). Crosby had actual knowledge of the hearing scheduled to be heard September 3, 1986, and failed to appear. William Nolte and Marilyn Nolte owned a duplex in Tampa, Florida that they desired to sell. They talked with Wade Black and Dale Peterson, real estate salesmen with American Realty Company, and agreed to give American Realty Company an exclusive right of sale agreement, a listing agreement to list the property for rent before sale, and to pay a $100 commission for each tenant. The exclusive listing agreement dated February 26, 1985 was attached to Exhibit 2, deposition of Marilyn Nolte, as Exhibit 2. Pursuant to these agreements, tenants for each of the apartments were obtained and a buyer for the property was subsequently found. In March 1985, Crosby purchased American Realty's assets which included the Nolte agreements. Salesmen licenses of Black and Peterson were transferred to Crosby Realty. Rental and deposit checks from the two tenants, totalling $1,130.00, were obtained by Black and/or Peterson and delivered to Respondent. This money was never deposited into Respondent's escrow account. The Noltes demanded remittance of the $1,130.00 minus $200 (commission), or $930.00 from Respondent on numerous occasions and made numerous phone calls to the Crosby Realty Company office to obtain this money without success. On March 13, 1985, a buyer for the Nolte property was secured by Tam- Bay Realty, and the property was sold with the closing taking place June 9, 1985. Prior to the closing, Nolte wrote to the American Title Company, who closed the transaction, regarding the $930.00 owed Nolte by Respondent and this $930.00 was deducted from the commission paid Respondent. At the closing, Respondent appeared, took the check representing Crosby Realty's Commission less the $930.00 deducted to pay Nolte, and left before the final papers were signed. No commission for the rentals of the sale was ever paid by Respondent to Black or Peterson. Respondent, during 1985, had three accounts in the Citrus Park Bank in Tampa. One was the Crosby escrow account, one was the Crosby Realty general account, and one was the Phyllis A. Crosby personal expense account. Numerous overdrafts were drawn on the general account and personal expenses account and the bank notified the Respondent that these overdraft charges would be deducted from her escrow account as a set-off to keep the bank from losing money because of these overdraft charges. During June 1985, the bank debited the escrow account $88.50 (debit memo Exhibit 1), the July statement contained a debit memo of $283.00, and in August, debit memos of $126.76 and $62.88 appeared. In September 1985, Citrus Park Bank closed all of Respondent's accounts. On April 29, 1985, Respondent leased office space and a townhouse from Carlton Properties in Tampa. She signed a three-year lease effective May 1, 1985, which provided for two months free rent for the office, with tenant to make a security deposit in the amount of $817.79 (which equals one month rent) due June 1, 1985. This deposit was never made and she was evicted in July. The townhouse lease provided for two weeks free rent with the security deposit due May 15, 1985. Respondent made this payment and one additional payment, but the check for the second payment was returned marked insufficient funds. She was evicted July 22, 1985. Respondent leased office space on July 9, 1985, from Ayers-Siera Insurance Association in the Carrolwood Village Center for a broker's office. She gave the lessor a check for $842.00 for the August rent and a security deposit. She moved into the office space and the check, written on the Crosby Realty general account, bounced. It was returned for collection twice, marked insufficient funds. When run through a third time, the check was returned marked "account closed." Eviction proceedings were instituted and Respondent's furniture was moved out of the office by the Sheriff in early October. The lessor has never received any monies from Respondent. In September or early October 1985, Respondent entered into a three year lease agreement with Paramount Triangle to lease office space commencing November 1, 1985. She moved her offices into that space and occupied the premises until April or May 1986 when she departed. During the period that Respondent occupied this office space, only one rental check from her was honored by the bank. Numerous checks given to Paramount Triangle for rent were not honored by the bank. Finally, the last check from Respondent dated March 6, 1986, which Paramount Triangle tried to deposit, was returned showing the account on which the check was drawn was closed on March 4, 1986. Pamela Glass was employed as a secretary by Respondent from July 6, 1986 through August 6, 1986. During this period, Respondent refused to accept certified mail and became very angry with Glass when she once signed for a certified letter addressed to Respondent. Glass received numerous phone calls from people complaining about not being paid for billing sent to Respondent. When her pay was not forthcoming at the end of the month, Glass quit. Glass also testified, without contradiction, that Respondent held accounts for utilities under various aliases she used for this purpose. Frank Maye, investigator for Petitioner, failed to get escrow account records from Respondent when requested and made appointments with her to audit her escrow accounts which were not kept by Respondent. Failing to obtain the records from Respondent, Maye subpoenaed the records from the bank.
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined for dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction contrary to Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes and for having failed to maintain deposits received in a trust or escrow bank account maintained by the Respondent until disbursement thereof was properly authorized contrary to Subsection 475.75(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Due to the Respondent's failure to receive the Notice of Hearing the Hearing Officer continued the date of final hearing to November 15, 1984, in Clearwater, Florida and notice was provided to the Respondent's last known official address. At the hearing, held November 15, 1984, the Department called Vivian C. Firmin, Sandy MacWatters, Angela Damalos, James Damalos, Rosie Hazealeferiou, Paul Hazealeferiou, Georgia White and Alan E. Shevy as witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 12 were received into evidence. The Respondent failed to appear and no witnesses were called on behalf of the Respondent nor exhibits submitted into evidence on behalf of the Respondent. Proposed findings of fact not included in this order were considered irrelevant to the issues, immaterial to the results reached or were not supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, the Respondent, Mark D. Gabisch was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license number 0189069. (Petitioner's Exhibit #12). Georgia M. White, a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida was employed by the Respondent until September 1, 1983. On July 27, 1983, Ms. White obtained a written offer for the purchase of real property from James and Angela Damalos and Paul and Rosie Hazealeferiou as purchasers. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7). The terms of the contract called for a $500.00 earnest money deposit. On July 27, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Damalos and Mr. and Mrs. Hazealeferiou each issued a check to the Respondent's escrow account in the amount of $250.00 for a total deposit of $500.00. (Petitioner's Exhibits #1 and 9). The $500.00 deposit was placed in the Respondent's escrow bank account (Petitioner's Exhibit #4). The contract for Sale and Purchase was presented to the sellers by Ms. White and the contract was rejected and no counter-offer was made. This information was passed on to the purchasers by Ms. White and the purchasers requested the return of their deposit. On August 11, 3.983, the Respondent issued from his escrow bank account Check No. 102 in the amount of $250.00 payable to Mr. and Mrs. Hazealeferiou. On the same day the Respondent issued from his escrow bank account Check No. 103 in the amount of $250.00 payable to Mr. and Mrs. Damalos. (Petitioner's Exhibits #2, 3, 8 and 10). Checks 102 and 103, identified in paragraph 6 above, were deposited by the purchasers, dishonored by the bank upon presentment, and returned stamped "insufficient funds." (Petitioner's Exhibits #2, 3, 5, 8 and 10). Mrs. Damalos contacted Ms. White and informed her that the escrow checks had been returned for insufficient funds. Ms. White, on her own accord, contacted Respondent and eventually the purchasers received their deposit back in cash. The Respondent, in a letter to Mr. Alan Shevy, Investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, admitted that he had misused the escrow funds and acknowledged his guilt in the matter. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finds of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's Mark D. Gabisch, license as a real estate broker, be suspended for a period of six months and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1984 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Mark D. Gabisch 1443 Otten Clearwater, Florida 33515 James R. Mitchell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent, Antonio Prado, has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license no. 0138312. Respondent, Antonio Prado, is the President and qualifying broker for a real estate company called Bayside International Realty, Inc. Respondent, Bayside International Realty, Inc., has been issued real estate license no. 1001760. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. On January 13, 1995, an investigator employed by the Department conducted an office inspection and audit of the Respondents' place of business. During the course of the audit, the investigator discovered that the escrow account for the business contained $1,000.00. None of the $1,000.00 was, in fact, "trust funds" owed or belonging to a third party as Respondents have not held "trust funds" since August, 1990. The investigator advised Respondent that he was not allowed to hold personal funds in excess of $200.00 in the company escrow account. Based upon that information, Respondent immediately, on January 13, 1995, removed $800.00 from the escrow account leaving a balance of $200.00. The purpose of holding $1,000.00 in the account related to a Barnett Bank policy which required the minimum balance of $1,000.00 to avoid service charges on the account. Respondent, Antonio Prado, has not been active in the real estate practice for several years and was unaware of changes to the escrow policy dating back to December, 1991, which prohibit more than $200.00 of personal funds in an escrow account. Respondent, Antonio Prado, has been licensed for 19 years and has never been disciplined for any violations of the real estate law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order determining the Respondent, Antonio Prado, committed only a minor technical violation of Section 425.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and, in recognition of Respondent's exemplary record as a broker, which, along with his willing, immediate action to correct the error, demonstrates sound judgment, issue a letter of reprimand and guidance regarding escrow account rules and regulations. All other allegations against these Respondents should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 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 15th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0038 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are rejected as statements of fact as they are restatement of argument or comment made at the hearing. Paragraphs 3 through 6 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director 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 Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Theodore R. Gay Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Rhode Building Phase II 401 Northwest Second Avenue N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Antonio Prado, pro se and as President of Bayside International Realty, Inc. 1390 Brickell Avenue, Suite 230 Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed yacht and ship broker salesman. He has been licensed since 1990. In December 1990, Respondent was issued license number 1322, as a yacht and ship broker salesman for Seafarer Brokerage, Inc. (Seafarer). In October 1998, he renewed his license, which had an expiration date of October 28, 2000. On July 31, 1997, Lorraine Woods, the President of Seafarer, wrote to Peter Butler, section head of the yacht and ship section of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, notifying him that Respondent was the broker of record for Seafarer. Ms. Woods' license had been suspended, and Respondent knew that her license had been suspended prior to his becoming broker of record for Seafarer. As the broker of record, Respondent knew that he was solely responsible for safeguarding the money of all clients in the brokerage's escrow account. Respondent did not know the details involving the suspension of Ms. Woods' license. He was not aware that Ms. Woods had abused the control of Seafarer's escrow account for her own benefit by taking client funds from the escrow account to pay for Seafarer's operating expenses. Mr. Butler was very concerned with the abuse of Seafarer's escrow account committed by Ms. Woods. He demanded assurance from Respondent that Ms. Woods would not have access to the escrow account, and Respondent provided that assurance. On August 4, 1997, Respondent wrote to Mr. Butler confirming that he (Respondent) was the broker of record for Seafarer. In his written communication, Respondent confirmed certain details of the escrow account of Seafarer, including that he was broker of record and that the account was located at First Union National Bank of Florida, with the address and account number listed. Moreover, Respondent indicated that, as of July 30, 1997, he became the sole signatory on the account. Respondent personally provided the signatory card, showing that he was the sole signatory on the account, to the bank. Even though the bank did not have a record of such a signatory card, the undersigned is persuaded that Respondent's testimony is credible and that he provided the signatory card to the bank. Even though Respondent was the broker of record for Seafarer, Respondent looked upon Ms. Woods as the employer and himself as the employee, resulting in an employer-employee relationship. Seafarer consisted of two persons, Respondent and Ms. Woods. If Respondent was unavailable for a situation in which a check had to be written and executed, he would prepare a blank check with his signature on it and give it to Ms. Woods. She continued to maintain the business records. Ms. Woods maintained all the operating and escrow records, checks, and bank statements in a locked drawer for which she had the only key; Respondent did not have free and unobstructed access to these documents even though he was Seafarer's broker of record. Respondent and Ms. Woods continued this procedure for over a year without incident. On April 2, 1999, Warren Scott made an offer on a 1974 CAL2-46, a 46-foot yacht, with Seafarer. He placed a $6,000.00 deposit on the yacht. Mr. Scott's dealings, regarding the yacht, were with Ms. Woods. He had dealt with Seafarer and Ms. Woods on a prior occasion, had made a deposit, and had his deposit refunded. As a result, Mr. Scott felt comfortable dealing with Seafarer and Ms. Woods even though he had not purchased a yacht from Seafarer. On April 5, 1999, Mr. Scott's check was deposited in Seafarer's escrow account. On April 5, 1999, check numbered 1144, made payable to cash for $4,305.00, bearing Respondent's signature was written. The check bore the notation at the bottom left corner at the "FOR" space: "CAL2-46 (illegible) Enterprises." This check cleared Seafarer's escrow account on April 7, 1999, leaving a balance of $2,512.34. Respondent had signed the check and left it for Ms. Woods to fill-in the details. The check was signed by Respondent in March 1999 for a closing that was taking place at the end of March, but the check was not used at the closing in March. Ms. Woods had written the check to pay the rent for Seafarer. Even though Respondent had signed the check, the undersigned is persuaded that he did not know that Ms. Woods was going to use the check for a purpose other than for what it was written. On April 27, 1999, Respondent signed a check for $100.00, payable to Complete Yacht Service for engine repair to the CAL2-46. This check cleared Seafarer's escrow account on April 30, 1999, leaving a balance of $5,796.36. After a sea trial and survey, Mr. Scott wrote to Ms. Woods on April 30, 1999, indicating that he had decided not to purchase the 1974 CAL2-46 pursuant to their arrangement of April 2, 1999. On May 3, 1999, Mr. Scott again wrote to Ms. Woods that his offer to purchase the 1974 CAL2-46 for $55,000.00 in the conditional acceptance of vessel agreement, dated April 29, 1999, was expiring on May 3, 1999, at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Scott went to Seafarer on May 4, 1999, to obtain a refund of his deposit from Ms. Woods. Respondent informed him that Ms. Woods was out and that they would have to wait for her return, which was going to be in about an hour. Mr. Scott was unable to wait. He left Fort Lauderdale, returning to Nevada, with the understanding that his deposit, less $100.00 for the engine survey, would be returned to him. Mr. Scott expected the monies within a week to ten days. On May 5, 1999, a deposit of $4,700.00 was made to Seafarer's escrow account, leaving a balance of $9,136.36. On May 5, 1999, Seafarer's escrow account contained sufficient monies to give Mr. Scott a full refund of his deposit, less the $100.00. Respondent left for a vacation to the United Kingdom on May 17, 1999, with his return on June 15, 1999. Prior to his leaving, Respondent signed two blank checks, numbered 1153 and 1154, from Seafarer's escrow account. The checks were written for an upcoming business transaction during his absence, regarding a closing and Respondent's commission on the closing. On May 18, 1999, Seafarer's escrow account balance fell to $5,192.21, after three checks cleared the account. Two of the three checks, signed by Respondent, were payable to Seafarer in the amount of $1,360.00 for "comm.-37'Irwin." During May 1999, checks totaling $6,900.00, which were signed by Respondent, cleared Seafarer's escrow account. Mr. Scott made several telephone calls to Seafarer regarding the return of his deposit. Each time Mr. Scott spoke with Ms. Woods and he was not provided with a satisfactory response from her. On June 16, 1999, Mr. Scott received a check, check numbered 1153, for $5,900.00 from Seafarer. He also received a telephone call that same day from Ms. Woods requesting him not to deposit the check until the end of the month; Mr. Scott agreed. Respondent was not aware that check numbered 1153 was going to be used to refund Mr. Scott's deposit. Respondent was unaware that the check was used for a purpose other than for what it was intended. On June 17, 1999, check numbered 1154, made payable to Seafarer for $1,000.00 for "petty cash" cleared Seafarer's escrow account. The check was used by Ms. Woods to pay Seafarer's telephone and utility bills. Respondent was unaware that check numbered 1154 was going to be used for a purpose other than for what it was written. When Respondent returned from his vacation, he was contacted by Mr. Scott who advised Respondent of the problem with the return of his refund. Respondent checked the bank statements for Seafarer's escrow account and discovered that Ms. Woods had not used the checks for their intended purpose and that she had used funds from the escrow account for improper purposes. On June 25, 1999, Mr. Scott deposited the check that he received from Seafarer. The check, payable to Mr. Scott, was posted to Seafarer's escrow account on June 29, 1999, leaving a negative balance of $2,667.22. For 67 days, between April 5, 1999, when Mr. Scott's deposit of $6,000.00 was deposited in Seafarer's escrow account, and June 29, 1999, the date Mr. Scott's refund of $5,900.00 cleared, Seafarer's escrow account did not have sufficient funds to pay the refund. The period between May 5, 1999, and May 17, 1999, was the only time period, during the 67-day period, that Seafarer's escrow account had sufficient funds to pay the refund. Mr. Scott indicates that his refund was received in his account in July 1999. Respondent remained with Seafarer long enough to ensure that Mr. Scott received his refund. On July 8, 1999, Respondent notified Mr. Butler that he was no longer the broker for Seafarer. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Sustaining the Notice to Show Cause and finding that John Scales violated Subsections 326.002(1) and 326.005(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Suspending Respondent's license for three years. Imposing a civil penalty of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 14th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Janis Sue Richardson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tracy J. Sumner, Esquire 1307 Leewood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Ross Fleetwood, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, allegedly committed by real estate brokers and brokerages who are licensed in Florida. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Ursoleo was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0090870 through the Division of Real Estate. Respondent Jewell was a corporation registered as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0258744. Both licenses were issued to the following address: 1154 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33931. Respondent Ursoleo was the active broker for Respondent Jewell, and held the office of president within the corporation. On July 10 and 11, 1989, the Respondents' accounting records were reviewed in a random, routine audit conducted by the Division of Real Estate as part of its regulatory functions. During the review, the investigator reported that financial shortages existed in two accounts kept by the corporate broker in a fiduciary capacity. A deficiency of $4,569.81 was allegedly located in the rental escrow account, and a deficiency of $1,218.83, was allegedly located in the Bigelow Shopping Center management account. The Rental Escrow Account The rental escrow account is an account that contains monies held in a fiduciary capacity by the real estate broker on behalf of a number of separate clients who own rental property in Lee County, Florida. Respondent Jewell, through its qualifying broker and corporate officer Respondent Ursoleo, manages these properties for a commission or management fee. As part of the management duties, the Respondents collect rents, maintain the property, and render periodic accountings to the clients regarding the rents collected, property repair and maintenance expenses, and other financial matters involving the properties. Each client has an independent agreement with Respondent Jewell regarding how his property is handled and how his escrow account funds are to be managed. However, the primary purpose of each account is to deduct expenses from the rents deposited prior to disbursing the balance of the rents to the property owners. Mr. James Alexander owns twenty-eight rental units which he co-manages with the Respondents. Between $8,000.00 to $9,000.00 from these properties are deposited into Respondents' rental escrow account each month. Due to a twenty- year business relationship regarding these properties, Mr. Alexander allows the Respondents to use his escrowed funds for whatever personal or business use is desired by the Respondents. Mr. Alexander is aware that some of his escrowed funds have been used for Respondent Ursoleo's personal business, real estate brokerage bills, and to advance other rental property owners the necessary funds for property maintenance and repairs. The only conditions placed upon the Respondents' use of the money for purposes beyond the needs of Mr. Alexander's properties are as follows: 1) Monthly accountings to Mr. Alexander of the amount of money due to him must be correct; and 2) The money used for the other purposes must be replaced in one month's time in order to be available for disbursement to Mr. Alexander. During the time period between June and July 1989, $13,145.26 of Mr. Alexander's funds were in the escrow account and were available for use by the Respondents. Mr. James Hall, an attorney in Indiana, is president of San Carlos Lodge, Inc., the owner of a mobile home park in Lee County, Florida. This park has been managed by the Respondents for thirteen years. Because the lot rents within the park are due at various times, and because some renters pay in advance, the Respondents' rental escrow account always contains funds belonging to San Carlos Lodge, Inc. In June and July 1989, $4,675.53 remained in the rental escrow account on behalf of the corporation after the monthly accountings and rental disbursements were made by the Respondents to Mr. Hall. Pursuant to its escrow agrement, San Carlos, Inc. allowed the Respondents to use the money as Respondent Ursoleo saw fit, without reservation. The only restrictions placed upon the use of the funds were: 1) Monies received on behalf of the corporation must be acknowledged as corporate funds; and 2) Funds removed must be returned to the rental escrow account within a one-month period for disbursement purposes. Between April and July 1989, Frank Helmerich owed the rental escrow account $5,756.28 for advances made from the account in order to manage and maintain his rental properties. All of these funds were not repaid within the one-month period required by the Respondents' clients, Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc. Some repayment was made with rents collected on behalf of Mr. Helmerich, but the exact amount of timely reimbursement was not presented at hearing. The Respondents' rental escrow account records do not reflect that the funds advanced to Mr. Helmerich for rental property management expenses were removed from the funds earmarked for Mr. Alexander's escrow or San Carlos Lodge, Inc.'s escrow. In addition, the account records do not show that the funds specifically removed from either account were replaced with Respondent's Ursoleo's personal funds in the amount of $5,000.00, or with rental funds received on behalf of Mr. Helmerich. Under the escrow agreement between Mr. Helmerich and the Respondents, rental income could be used to repay any and all rental property expenses. Bigelow Shopping Center Management Account The account maintained by Respondents Jewell and Ursoleo, as agent for Bigelow Shopping Center, is an operating account for the business of managing, renting, maintaining and preserving the shopping center on behalf of its owner, the Huntingburg Corporation. Mr. Olinger, an officer and shareholder of the corporation who is a banker by profession, testified that the "deficiency" in the checking account occurred because two checks from the same shopping center tenant bounced. As the funds were never received by the corporation, they were never escrowed. A review of the mathematical calculations on page 4 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 reveal that the investigator for the Division of Real Estate consistently made the same mathematical errors when she calculated the sum of the funds held in escrow in the Bigelow Shopping Center account. The entries on line 3 and line 13 in the "Total in Escrow" column in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, are negative numbers because the two checks bounced. If the investigator insisted upon adding these two numbers, which totaled $1,444.50, into the "Total in Escrow" column, she should have also subtracted them out because they were negative numbers. Instead of $11,311.50, the total escrow on the front page of the Management Account Inspection relating to the Bigelow Shopping Center bank account for July 11, 1989, should have been $9,867.00. The actual bank balance for the Bigelow Shopping Center reported by the bank to the investigator on July 11, 1989, was $10,886.37. The total of outstanding checks was $793.70. When the outstanding checks are subtracted from the reported bank balance, the difference is $10,092.67. As the escrowed amount of funds was $9,867.00, and the actual bank balance after the deduction of outstanding checks was $10,092.67, there was no deficiency in this account. Mitigation Once the deficiency was located in the rental escrow account maintained by Respondent Jewell, the Respondent Ursoleo immediately transferred $5,000.00 of his personal funds into the account on July 11, 1989. The Respondents have revamped the bookkeeping procedures within the brokerage offices. The individual escrow agreements with Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc. are no longer used by the Respondents to make short term loans to other clients who also own rental property in Lee County, such as Mr. Helmerich. The Respondents have reviewed the Department's rules relating to the maintenance of escrow accounts, and are prepared to comply with the law in the narrowest, strictest sense. Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc., did not incur any actual monetary harm as a result of the temporary deficiency of funds in the rental escrow account. The clients were never in fear that the funds would not be returned to them upon demand. The Respondents' accountings to these clients have always been accurate. The Respondents have a long-standing reputation for honesty and reliability in their business dealings that involve financial entrustments. The Respondent Ursoleo has been an active Florida realtor for thirty- seven years. There was no evidence presented of a prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended: That Respondent Ursoleo be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count IX of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent Ursoleo be issued a written reprimand and be fined $500.00. That all other charges filed against Respondent Ursoleo in the Administrative Complaint filed October 18, 1989, be dismissed. That Respondent Jewell be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count X of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent Jewell be issued a written reprimand and be fined $500.00. That all other charges filed against Respondent Jewell in the Administrative Complaint filed October 18, 1989, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6378 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected finding that all of the funds in the rental escrow account were security deposits. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted, except for the date of transfer. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #13. Reject conclusion. See HO #13 and #14. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Se HO #5 thru HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper argument and improper conclusion. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to the exhibits and Respondent Ursoleo's testimony that a general account existed. Accept the second sentence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accept Respondent Ursoleo was not aware of a shortage in the rental escrow account. Accept that the money was immediately replaced. See HO #15. Reject that the prior office manager was solely responsible for the deficiency. The proof provided at hearing demonstrated that the book- keeper may have failed to deposit the $862.50. Rejected. Legal argument as opposed to factual finding. Rejected. Legal argument as opposed to factual finding. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Legal argument. All legal arguments were considered in the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Leslie T. Arenholz, Esquire 19110 San Carlos Boulevard Post Office Box 2656 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33932 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated January 19, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulation filed by the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees. The Respondent, Charles P. Grimes, is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, license number 0034301. In November, 1980, a contract for sale and purchase of real estate was drafted between Dorothy Langham Scott, seller, and Phillip Crawford, buyer. The contract, which was subsequently executed by both parties, provided that a deposit in the amount of $18,500 was to be held in escrow by Respondent. A separate brokerage agreement between Respondent and the seller, executed November 30, 1980, provided that Respondent would receive a brokerage fee of ten percent of the total gross sales price. The brokerage agreement specified that "should the buyer default and not close the transaction in accordance with the Contract, the Broker shall not be entitled to any commission." The agreement further provided that Respondent would "use reasonable diligence and his best efforts to see that the transaction is closed in accordance with the executed Contract." The contract described in paragraph 3 did not close. Subsequently, the seller sued Respondent in the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Case no. 82-1974 CA (L) 01 B. On August 13, 1985, an amended final judgment was entered which provided, in part: The facts adduced at trial indicate that Crawford and Scott entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of certain real property, located in Putnam County and that for no apparent reason Crawford defaulted on the contract. The evidence is clear and convincing and unrefuted. Crawford has admitted several letters which he says were communicated to the attorney for Scott. However, the substantial weight of the evidence will not support his repudiation of the contract. Accordingly, it is clear that as between Scott and Grimes, the real estate agent who was allegedly holding the deposit under the provisions of the deposit receipt contract, Scott is entitled to a judgment for $18,500.00, plus its costs and attorney's fees. John L. Burns, an attorney who represented the seller, Scott, during the contract negotiations in November, 1980- January, 1981, received a letter from Respondent on December 12, 1980. That letter, dated December 5, 1980, provided: "I have enclosed the signed contract and have received the deposit check from Dr. Crawford." On or about January 29, 1981, Mr. Burns received a letter from Respondent which indicated that the contract would close in March, 1981. Respondent did not advise the seller that the deposit on the Crawford/Scott contract was not in escrow. Respondent erroneously assumed that a deposit from the buyer (which had been deposited on another contract for sale and purchase) could be applied to the contract. That deposit, in the amount of $20,000.00, was not transferred and was not used to satisfy the amended judgment entered in Scott's favor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00, suspending his license for a period of 60 days, and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years. It is recommended that the Respondent be found not guilty of the other alleged violations. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-2517 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that on or about November 30, 1980, Respondent was attempting to procure the contract described; however, the exact date the parties executed the contract is not known. The contract was ultimately executed by both parties but did not close. Consequently, the proposed fact, as written, is not supported by the record. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that the contract did not close and that a court of competent jurisdiction determined that the deposit should be awarded the seller; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as outside the scope of this record. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn M. Blake Blake & Torres, P.A. 200 South Indian River Drive Suite 101 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
