The Issue The issues in these two cases are whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints, by (1) failing to return a rental deposit to a potential tenant; (2) serving as the qualifying broker for Friendly International Realty, Inc. (“Friendly”), but failing to actively supervise Friendly’s operations and/or sales associates; failing to preserve Friendly’s transaction records and escrow account documents; and (4) acting in a manner that constitutes culpable negligence or a breach of trust. If there was a violation, an additional issue would be what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency that regulates the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. King is a licensed real estate broker registered with the Department (license numbers BK 3203595, 3261628, 3293588, 3306619, 3335771, 3354773, and 3363985). Ms. King is registered with the Department as the qualifying broker for 16 brokerages located throughout the state of Florida. At all times relevant to this case, Ms. King’s registered address with the Department was 4430 Park Boulevard North, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Friendly International Realty, LLC Friendly was a Florida licensed real estate corporation, holding license number CQ 1040825. Records reflect that James Berthelot was the registered agent for Friendly at the time of incorporation, June 2011. At all times relevant, Mr. Berthelot was a licensed Real Estate Sales Associate (license number SL 3226474) registered with Friendly. In May 2014, Respondent drafted and entered into a Limited Qualifying Broker Agreement (“Broker Agreement”) with Friendly and its owner, Ivania De La Rocha.2/ Friendly and Ms. King entered into the Broker Agreement, “in order to comply with the requirements of the Florida Department of [Business and] Professional Regulation.” Under the terms of the Broker Agreement, Respondent was not paid by Friendly per transaction. Rather, Respondent agreed to serve as the “Corporate Broker of Record” in exchange for a payment of $300 a month “as a flat fee for any and all real estate business conducted by [Friendly].” The Broker Agreement also provided for a “late fee” penalty if Friendly was delinquent in this monthly payment. Section 1.1 of the Broker Agreement outlined Respondent’s duties to Friendly, requiring her to: (1) keep her and Friendly’s licenses active and in good standing under Florida law; (2) keep her other business interests separate from those involving Friendly’s interests; and (3) provide Friendly notice of any governmental inquiry involving her serving as Friendly’s broker. There was no mention in the Broker Agreement of either Respondent’s or Friendly’s responsibilities regarding oversight of transactions, training for sales associates, or day-to-day operations. Regarding document retention, the Broker Agreement provided: Section 9.0 AUDIT & REVIEW RIGHT: Broker shall have the right to enter [Friendly’s] offices upon reasonable advance written notice to verify compliance with the real estate laws of the State of Florida. There was no evidence that Ms. King ever provided Friendly with the kind of notice described in section 9.0 of the Broker Agreement. Although the Broker Agreement did not prohibit Friendly from holding funds or assets on behalf of third parties, section 10.0 (Miscellaneous) explicitly prohibited Friendly from operating an escrow account. (g) Escrow and Ernest Money Accounts. [Friendly] shall not be permitted to hold any escrow account(s). On July 31, 2014, Ms. King was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, as “manager” of Friendly. Ms. King was the qualifying broker for Friendly (license number BK3303898) from August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2015, and November 4, 2015, through January 13, 2016.3/ During the time Ms. King served as the qualifying broker, Friendly operated from a number of addresses in Miami- Dade County, including 11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 292, Miami, Florida 33181; and 2132 Northeast 123rd Street, Miami, Florida 33181. The office door of the Friendly office located on Northeast 123rd Street was painted in large letters, “FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY” and “ALICIA KING” painted underneath. At the hearing, when asked about Friendly’s address, Ms. King could only confirm that when she became the broker the office was “on Biscayne.” The Biscayne Boulevard address is the one listed on the Broker Agreement. At the hearing, Ms. King was wrong about when the Friendly office had moved from the Biscayne Boulevard to the Northeast 123rd Street location, insisting it was over the Christmas holidays in 2015. Records establish Friendly moved from the Biscayne Boulevard location to the Northeast 123rd Street location sometime between April and July 2014. In January 2016, Ms. King believed the office was still on Biscayne Boulevard. In reality, it had been over a year since the office had relocated to that location. At the hearing, when asked by her own counsel how many transactions a month Friendly handled, Ms. King replied, “That’s hard to say. It was not many at all. Ten, maybe.” Respondent could not give the exact number of employees or sales associates affiliated with Friendly; when asked, she stated she could not remember the exact amount, but knew it was “very limited.” Respondent did not have any agreements or documentation related to how many sales associates were registered under her broker’s license. Respondent could not name any other sales associates affiliated with Friendly while she was the qualifying broker, except for Mr. Berthelot. While she was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Respondent did not perform any of the training for the sales associates at Friendly. Respondent did not have any face-to-face meetings with any Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have phone or e-mail contact with any of the Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have copies of any forms, handbooks, reports or files related to Friendly. All of these documents were in paper form and kept in the Friendly office. Respondent had no access or signatory authority for any of Friendly’s bank accounts. Natalie James was a registered real estate sales associate affiliated with Friendly for approximately five months, from November 2015 through March 2016. Ms. James worked out of the Friendly office and was physically present at the office at least three or four times a week. Ms. James was involved in several rentals and one sales transaction while at Friendly. For each transaction she assembled a file, which was kept in the Friendly office. For rental transactions, Ms. James would negotiate and facilitate lease agreements. When she represented potential tenants, she received deposit funds that she deposited with Friendly. Ms. James attended meetings at Friendly; Ms. King was not present at any of them. Ms. James never had any telephonic, electronic, personal, or other contact with Respondent. While at Friendly, neither Mr. Berthelot nor any of Ms. James’ co-workers mentioned Ms. King to Ms. James. Although Ms. King’s name was on the door of Friendly’s office, Ms. James was unaware Ms. King was Friendly’s broker. There was conflicting testimony as to how often Respondent visited the Friendly office. Ms. King’s testimony at the hearing was at odds with the Department’s evidence and testimony regarding this issue. Ms. King insisted that while she was Friendly’s broker, she would travel from Pinellas Park to the Friendly office once or twice a week. This was not believable for a number of reasons. First, had Ms. King visited Friendly’s office as often as she stated, she would have known about the change in location; she did not. Second, Ms. King could not give one concrete date or detail about her travels to the Friendly office. Third, and most compelling, was the testimony of Ms. James (who worked at Friendly for at least two months while Ms. King was its broker) that she had never seen, communicated with, or heard mention of Ms. King while at Friendly. Ms. James’ unbiased and compelling testimony alone supports a finding that Ms. King did not visit the Friendly office as frequently as she indicated. Ms. King was aware that Friendly and Mr. Berthelot provided rental or “tenant placement” services.4/ Friendly collected security deposits and other move-in funds from potential renters and held them in an escrow account. Ms. King was not aware Friendly had an escrow account until January 2016 when she was contacted by the Department in an unrelated case. On January 13, 2016, Respondent resigned with the Department as the qualifying broker for Friendly effective that same day. On January 14, 2016, Respondent filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for operating an escrow account and collecting deposit funds without her knowledge. Facts Related to the Viton Case In November 2015, during the time Ms. King was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Christian Viton signed a lease agreement to rent an apartment located in Miami at 460 Northeast 82nd Terrace, Unit 8 (“Viton transaction”). The Viton lease agreement listed Friendly as the holder of the deposit monies and required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds to the owner of the property. Pursuant to the terms of the Viton lease agreement, Mr. Viton remitted an initial deposit of $500, and received a written receipt from Friendly dated November 2, 2015. Mr. Viton gave Friendly a second deposit of $380, and received a written receipt dated November 4, 2015. Mr. Viton never moved into the apartment and demanded a refund of his deposit from Friendly. On December 8, 2015, Friendly issued a check to Mr. Viton in the amount of $530. Three days later, Friendly issued a stop-payment order on the $530 check to Mr. Viton. On February 29, 2016, Mr. Viton filed a complaint with the Department seeking a return of the $880 he had given to Friendly. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation into Mr. Viton’s complaint and contacted Respondent. Upon learning about the Viton complaint, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot who admitted Friendly had stopped payment on the $530 refund check, but had reissued the full amount of the deposit to a third-party not named on the lease. There is no evidence Mr. Viton ever received a refund of his $880 deposit. Facts Related to Dorestant Case In June 2015, during the time Ms. King served as Friendly’s qualifying broker, Cindy Dorestant entered into a lease agreement to rent a condominium located at 1540 West 191 Street, Unit 110 (“Dorestant transaction”). In the lease, Friendly was listed as the “broker” and holder of the deposit; TIR Prime Properties (“TIR”) was listed as the owner’s agent. The Dorestant lease agreement required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Pursuant to the terms of the Dorestant lease agreement, Ms. Dorestant gave Friendly $1,050 as an initial deposit, and received a written receipt dated June 24, 2015. In late July 2015, Ms. Dorestant contacted TIR’s property manager and sales agent to ask for information about the status of her move into the condominium. TIR explained to Ms. Dorestant that Friendly had not conveyed any of monies collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Both Ms. Dorestant and TIR attempted to contact Friendly, but Friendly was non-responsive. The TIR sales associate relayed this information to TIR’s broker, Mariano Saal, who in turn tried to reach Friendly to resolve the issue. Eventually, TIR was told by Mr. Berthelot that Friendly would release the move-in funds to TIR and that Mr. Berthelot would schedule the move-in. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly, nor did Mr. Berthelot facilitate Ms. Dorestant’s move into the condominium. On August 31, 2015, Mr. Saal contacted Mr. Berthelot and informed him that if TIR did not receive the move-in funds for the Dorestant transaction by 5:00 p.m. that day, it would be required to find another tenant. Ms. Dorestant did not move into the condominium and demanded a refund from Friendly and TIR. On September 14, 2015, Mr. Saal sent an e-mail to what he believed was Respondent’s address, demanding the $1,050 from Friendly because it considered Ms. Dorestant’s failure to move into the property a default of the lease agreement. Respondent, however, did not have access to Friendly’s e-mails. The e-mail was also sent to Mr. Berthelot, and Ms. De La Rocha. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly for the Dorestant transaction. After discovering she could not move into the condominium because Friendly had not transferred the deposit to TIR, Ms. Dorestant demanded a refund of her deposit monies from Friendly. She did not receive it. On February 10, 2016, Mariano Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, filed a complaint against Mr. Berthelot and Friendly with the Department regarding the Dorestant transaction. Ms. Dorestant initially did not receive a refund from Friendly and, therefore, filed a police report against Mr. Berthelot and sued him in small claims court. Eventually, Mr. Berthelot refunded Ms. Dorestant her deposit monies. Department Investigations of Friendly Upon receiving the Viton complaint, the Department assigned the case (DPBR Case No. 2016018731) to Erik Lluy, an Investigator Specialist II in the Miami field office. Similarly, on or around the same time the Department received the Dorestant complaint; it was also assigned to Mr. Lluy (DPBR Case No. 2016018069). On April 25, 2016, Mr. Lluy officially notified Ms. King of each of the complaints. On May 25, 2016, the Department transferred both the Viton and Dorestant complaints from Mr. Lluy to Percylla Kennedy. Ms. King provided a written response to both complaints via e-mail to Mr. Lluy on May 26, 2016. At that time, Mr. Lluy indicated the case had been transferred to Ms. Kennedy and copied Ms. Kennedy on the response. Ms. Kennedy was familiar with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. In January 5, 2016, she had conducted an investigation of Friendly in an unrelated complaint filed against Friendly by Borys Bilan (“Bilan complaint”). As part of the investigation into the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy arrived at the Friendly office address registered with the Department on Biscayne Boulevard to conduct an official office inspection. When she arrived, however, she found the office vacant. As a result, that same day Ms. Kennedy contacted the registered qualifying broker for Friendly–-Ms. King-–by phone. During that call, Ms. Kennedy asked Ms. King where Friendly’s office was located, but Ms. King did not know. Eventually, Ms. Kennedy determined the Friendly office had relocated to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Ms. Kennedy testified that during this call, Ms. King admitted to her that she had not been to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent testified she did not tell Ms. Kennedy this and as proof insisted that the January call was inconsequential and “a very short call.” The undersigned rejects Respondent’s version of events and finds Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and report regarding the January 2016 interview more reliable. First, although Ms. King describes the conversation as occurring on January 7, 2016, both Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and the Inspection Report establish the conversation occurred on January 5, 2016. Second, Respondent’s characterization of the call as inconsequential contradicts her own May 26, 2016, written response to the Department in which Ms. King outlines a number of substantive issues discussed during this phone conversation, including: the nature of Friendly’s practice, whether Friendly had an escrow account, the type of payment accepted by Friendly, and the address of Friendly’s office. After speaking with Ms. King about the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy conducted the inspection at Friendly’s Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent was not present when Investigator Kennedy conducted the office inspection. Ms. Kennedy then e-mailed the Office Inspection form to Respondent. As a result of the January 5, 2016, phone conversation with Ms. Kennedy, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot about the Bilan complaint. On January 13, 2016, Mr. Berthelot provided Ms. King with the transaction file related to the Bilan complaint. When Ms. King reviewed the lease agreement, she realized that Friendly was holding deposit funds in escrow. As a result, on December 13, 2016, Ms. King filed a resignation letter with the Department explaining she was no longer the qualifying broker for Friendly. Ms. King did not ask Mr. Berthelot or anyone else at Friendly for any other transaction records at this time, nor did she make any effort to review any of Friendly’s transaction files to determine whether Friendly had obtained other deposit funds or conducted other transactions similar to the one that was the subject of the Bilan complaint. After having knowledge of the Bilan complaint and transaction, and suspecting Friendly had been operating an escrow account, Ms. King made no immediate effort to access the operating or escrow bank accounts or reconcile the escrow account. After resigning as Friendly’s qualifying broker with the Department, Ms. King filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for unlicensed activity involving an escrow deposit.5/ Despite no longer being Friendly’s qualifying broker, on January 21, 2016, Ms. King executed and sent back to Ms. Kennedy the Inspection Report related to the Bilan complaint. Five months later, on or around May 25, 2016, Ms. Kennedy notified Ms. King she was taking over the investigation into the Viton and Dorestant cases. Ms. Kennedy testified that as part of her investigation into the Viton and Dorestant complaints, she interviewed Respondent again. Respondent denies she was interviewed by Ms. Kennedy regarding the Viton and Dorestant complaints, and instead insists she was only interviewed in January 2016 in connection with the Bilan complaint. Ms. King testified she believed Ms. Kennedy lied about interviewing her more than once because Ms. Kennedy was “lazy.” The undersigned rejects this assertion. Ms. Kennedy’s testimony was specific, knowledgeable, and credible, unlike Ms. King’s testimony, which was intentionally vague. Moreover, Ms. Kennedy specifically attributes her findings to specific sources such as Ms. King’s written response, her interview with Ms. King relating to the Viton and Dorestant transactions, and to her previous conversation with Ms. King during the Bilan investigation. The citations to information gleaned from the January 5, 2016, call were marked by the following sub-note. SUBJECT was previously interviewed by this Investigator in January 2016 for the unrelated complaint and was unaware that FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY LLC had moved from license location 11900 Biscayne Blvd.[,] Suite 292 Miami, FL 33181 to 2132 NE 123ST[,] Miami, FL 33181 (See Ex. 9). At that time, SUBJECT was unable to provide the transaction file. Ms. Kennedy would have no reason to fabricate the source of the conclusions she reached in her report or the number of times she contacted Ms. King. Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Viton complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Mr. Viton and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016. In this report, Ms. Kennedy determined that on February 25, 2016, Friendly issued a check in the amount of $875 to a person who was not listed on either the lease agreement, the receipts Friendly issued to Mr. Viton, or any other paperwork. Similarly, Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Dorestant complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Ms. Dorestant and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016, indicating Ms. Dorestant did eventually receive a refund. During the course of the Viton investigation, Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Viton transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. During the course of the Dorestant investigation Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Dorestant transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. Professional Standards Mr. Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, testified he had served as a broker for approximately ten years. As TIR’s qualifying broker, he kept the documentation related to the transactions handled by TIR’s six sales associates. The testimony of the TIR sales associate and property manager established that they relied on Mr. Saal for advice and to resolve issues. For example, when Ms. Dorestant began contacting TIR’s sales associate and property manager regarding the move-in and then for a refund of her deposit, the sales associate went to Mr. Saal to discuss the situation. Mr. Saal then attempted to resolve the issue by attempting to communicate with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in brokerages, reviewed the Department’s investigative files and reports relating to the Viton and Dorestant complaints, as well as applicable Florida Statutes and rules. Mr. Trafton’s testimony and report established that in Florida the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to others. Petitioner showed that Mr. Viton was entitled to a refund of his deposit from Friendly and that Respondent erred in not ensuring he received this refund. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. “Active supervision” is not defined by statute or rule, but by usual and customary practices exercised statewide. “Active supervision” requires a broker to: have regular communications with all sales associates, not just communicating when there is a complaint; be aware of problems, issues and procedures in the office and among sales associates; have access to and signatory power on all operating and escrow accounts; hold regular scheduled office/sales meetings; conduct in–person training meetings; provide guidance and advice for sales associates; be intimately involved in how transaction forms and other documents are stored and retrieved; and be available to provide advice and direction on short notice. In other words, a broker should set the tone at the brokerage by overseeing her sales associates’ conduct of transactions. Ms. King failed to manage, direct, and control her real estate sales associate, Mr. Berthelot, to the standard expected of a qualifying broker in both the Viton and Dorestant transactions, if not all of Friendly’s transactions. She did not actively supervise Mr. Berthelot as a sales associate. Mr. Trafton also testified that a broker, not the brokerage, is ultimately responsible for preserving transaction files, forms related to transactions, and other related documents. Although less certain than Mr. Trafton about whether a broker or the brokerage firm is responsible for preservation of transaction files, Mr. Saal testified “the broker is responsible for the . . . transactions. It’s [the broker’s] client at the end of the day.” Ms. King failed to preserve accounts and records relating to Friendly’s accounts, the files related to the Viton and Dorestant rental transactions, or any other documents related to Friendly. Petitioner also clearly established that Respondent was guilty of either “culpable negligence” or “breach of trust” in the Viton or Dorestant transaction. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Viton complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,625.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Dorestant complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,608.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Case No. 17-3989 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint in the Viton case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling $2,500 ($500 fine per count for Counts I, II and III; and $1,000 fine for Count IV). Imposing license suspension for a total period of nine months (one-month suspensions each for Counts I, II, and III; and a six-month suspension for Count IV). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,625.25. Case No. 17-3961 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint in the Dorestant case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling of $2,000 ($500 fine per count for Counts I and II; and $1,000 fine for Count III). Imposing license suspension for a total period of eight months to be imposed consecutive to the suspension in Case No. 17-3989 (one-month suspensions each for Counts I and II; and a six-month suspension for Count III). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,608.75. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a preneed sales agent should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following relevant Findings of Fact are made. Petitioner seeks a license as a preneed sales agent so that she may work at Good Shepherd Memorial Gardens Funeral Home (“Good Shepherd”). Petitioner plans to work as a family service advisor to help families with preneed services. A preneed sales agent assists families with planning for funeral or burial needs prior to death. Petitioner anticipates she would conduct meetings with potential customers at the cemetery or in their homes. Petitioner worked with Good Shepherd from January 2018 until June 2018. Although Petitioner is currently not employed at the funeral home, she anticipates that Good Shepherd would allow her to return to work if her application for licensure is approved. Respondent is the state entity responsible for regulating licensure of persons who provide preneed sales services under chapter 497, Florida Statutes. When applying for any license under chapter 497, Respondent considers whether the applicant has a criminal record. An applicant must disclose any felony offense that was committed within 20 years immediately preceding the application. The Board then considers the applicant’s criminal history and whether the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to members of the public who might deal with the applicant in preneed transactions. Petitioner has a criminal history involving an incident that occurred two years ago. In September 2016, Petitioner’s husband placed Petitioner’s then eight-year-old daughter in a dog cage because the daughter had allegedly mistreated the family dog. Petitioner returned home from work, found her daughter in the dog cage, and removed her. In a separate but related incident, Petitioner watched her husband take her daughter to her bedroom. Petitioner entered the daughter’s bedroom and saw her husband spanking her child with a flip-flop sandal on her behind. At no point did Petitioner attempt to protect her daughter from her husband’s abusive actions or report him to the appropriate authorities. The abuse was ultimately reported by a roommate who lived in the home. On June 12, 2017, Petitioner (age 28) pled nolo contendere to one count of child neglect without great bodily harm, a third-degree felony, in violation of sections 827.03(1)(e) and 827.02(2)(d), Florida Statutes. The court sentenced Petitioner to: one day of jail time with credit for time served, probation for 24 months, 100 hours of community service (within the 18 months of probation), and peaceful contact with her daughter. Petitioner was also ordered to pay court costs and fees and fines in the amount of $937.00. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner’s husband, who was not the child’s biological father, pled guilty to two counts of child abuse without great bodily harm. Among other things, he was ordered to have no contact with the child. Prior to the criminal offense at issue in this matter, Petitioner had no criminal history. In addition, Petitioner has had no known contact with law enforcement since the criminal offense. In a Notice of Intent to Deny issued on April 26, 2018, Respondent notified Petitioner that her application for a preneed sales agent license had been denied as follows: On June 7, 2017, Ms. Hoff pled no contest to a felony charge of child neglect without great bodily harm and was sentenced to 24 months of probation, 100 hours community service, assessed court costs and fines in the amount of $937.00, and her parental rights were terminated. The [A]pplicant stated that her criminal probation will not be completed until June 2019. The Applicant stated that she has not yet paid the fines and fees assessed in this [criminal] matter. The Applicant stated that she is still married to the gentleman she was married to at the time of the arrest. This gentleman was involved in the criminal allegations of child neglect. On May 1, 2018, Petitioner timely requested a hearing disputing the factual basis for the denial of licensure. Petitioner has completed 40 hours of the 100 hours community service requirement. She anticipates that she may be eligible for early termination of her probation after she completes the community service hours. Petitioner did not present any evidence of community service other than court- ordered community service. Prior to submitting her application, Petitioner completed approximately 150 to 175 hours of training in preneed sales, covering family planning, death certificates, Veterans Affair benefits, types of burial products, and financial plan development. Petitioner provided no explanation regarding why she did not protect her daughter from abuse. In addition, Petitioner continues to live with her husband and indicated that she has not yet divorced him due to financial reasons. Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to meet her burden to prove that she is not a danger to the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services enter a final order denying Shayla Hoff’s application for licensure as a preneed sales agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In responding to question 14(a) of the application, Petitioner answered that his license, as a real estate broker, had been revoked for non-payment of an administrative fine. (Respondent's exhibit 1). Petitioner attached to his application a copy of a transcript of an administrative hearing held in DOAH Case No. 84-0981. A final order was entered in that case based on a stipulation wherein Petitioner agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 within 30 days of entry of the final order. Petitioner has not paid the administrative fine as he agreed. Petitioner admitted during hearing that he had not paid the fine and made an offer during the hearing herein to pay that fine in as much as he failed to pay it earlier since he did not have the wherewithal to pay the fine. Petitioner is now employed as a sales representative with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1/ Petitioner's license as a real estate broker was revoked by Respondent based on his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed in an earlier case (DOAH Case No. 86-145, Respondent's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this of 27th day of January, 1989. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1989.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are, first, whether Respondent, a licensed real estate salesperson, intentionally concealed an offer to purchase her clients’ house and, second, whether Respondent engaged in a course of conduct so egregious that she cannot be trusted to deal with the public.
Findings Of Fact Material Adjudicative Facts The evidence adduced at hearing establishes the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 clearly and convincingly. The Parties Respondent Kathleen Marie Oros (“Oros”) is a licensed real estate salesperson subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission (“Commission”). Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (“Department”), has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission’s direction, the Department is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Leonard Transaction On or about July 22, 2000, Re/Max Consultants Realty (“Re/Max”), as the Listing Broker, entered into a Residential Listing Contract (“Listing Contract”) with Francis E. and Rita Leonard (“Sellers”) for the exclusive right to secure a purchaser for the Sellers’ house in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Oros, who several years earlier had assisted the Sellers in purchasing the house they now intended to sell, procured the Listing Contract for Re/Max. She and her partner, David Comanic, were identified collectively in the Listing Contract as the “Listing Agent.” In early November 2000, a real estate salesperson named Jacqueline Federico (“Federico”) brought her client Doreen Moskowitz (“Moskowitz”) to the Sellers’ house, where they were shown around by Oros. Thereafter, on November 9, 2002, Moskowitz executed a written offer to purchase the property for $210,000, which Federico presented to Oros. Oros presented Moskowitz’s offer to the Sellers, who considered it too far below their asking price of $249,000 to accept. The Sellers authorized Oros to make a counteroffer of $245,000, which she did. Moskowitz rejected the counteroffer. Over the next couple of weeks, Moskowitz made two more offers to purchase the Sellers’ house, for $220,000 and $225,000, respectively, neither of which was in writing. Oros presented both of these verbal offers to the Sellers, who rejected each with a counteroffer of $245,000. Meanwhile, Oros had twice shown the Sellers’ property to Carol Kuehnle and Michael Cleary (“Buyers”), who were engaged to be married and wanted to purchase a home in the area. On November 22, 2002, the Buyers called Oros and asked to see the house again that day. Oros arranged for them to do so. After seeing the property with Oros on the afternoon of November 22, 2002, the Buyers signed a written offer to purchase the Sellers’ house for $235,000. The Buyers’ offer required the Sellers to accept the proposed terms by 5:00 p.m. that day or the offer would be withdrawn. Oros promptly brought the Buyers’ offer to the Sellers, who were at home. The Sellers timely accepted the offer and entered into a contract for sale with the Buyers. The transaction ultimately closed. A Previous Complaint In April 1996, the Department brought an Administrative Complaint against Comanic and Oros on the allegation that they had failed to present their client with an offer to purchase his property, which they were listing to sell. This matter was referred to DOAH, where it was docketed as Case No. 97-4937 (“DBPR v. Comanic”). On June 7, 1999, the parties signed a stipulation of settlement pursuant to which Comanic and Oros each agreed to pay a $500 fine plus $100 apiece in costs. The two also agreed to complete 45 hours of post-licensure education for real estate salespersons. Neither respondent admitted the Department’s allegations but rather entered into the stipulation “for the purpose of avoiding further administrative action by [the Department] with respect to [the matter].” The Commission entered a Final Order adopting the stipulation on August 18, 1999. Non-Essential, Explanatory Findings The greater weight of the evidence1 adduced at hearing establishes the facts set forth in paragraphs 13 through 15. On the morning of November 22, 2002, Federico called Oros and communicated another verbal offer from Moskowitz, this one to purchase the Sellers’ house for $230,000. As a result, before Oros showed the Buyers the house for the third time, which she would do a few hours later, Oros presented Moskowitz’s fourth offer to the Sellers. They turned it down, instructing Oros to repeat their previous counteroffer of $245,000. Oros called Federico and transmitted the Sellers’ counteroffer. Later that day, when she met the Sellers to present the Buyers’ offer, Oros turned off her cell phone so as not to be interrupted, as she customarily did at such times. Oros’s phone remained off throughout her entire meeting with the Sellers, until after they signed the contract. As she was preparing to leave the house, Oros switched her cell phone back on. The phone soon rang, but Oros did not answer it, explaining to the Sellers that the caller was Federico, and that she (Oros) would return the call from her car. Once she was in her car, Oros called Federico and let her know that the house had been sold. This news upset Federico. The Charges In Count I of its Administrative Complaint, the Department accused Oros of having committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The gravamen of Count I is the Department’s allegation that “[d]uring the meeting with . . . Sellers [on November 22, 2002,] [Oros] refused to respond to calls from [Federico].” The Department has charged Oros in Count II with a violation of Section 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes, which makes it a disciplinable offense either to be found guilty, for the second time, of misconduct warranting suspension or to be found guilty of a course of conduct so egregious that the licensee cannot be trusted to deal with the public. The Department is traveling under a “course of conduct” theory, arguing that the circumstances allegedly surrounding the Leonard transaction, coupled with the stipulated disposition of DBPR v. Comanic, demonstrate that Oros repeatedly has refused to convey offers, threatening “unimaginable” danger if not stopped. Ultimate Factual Determinations Having examined the entire record; weighed, interpreted, and judged the credibility of the evidence; drawn (or refused to draw) permissible factual inferences; resolved conflicting accounts of what occurred; and applied the applicable law to the facts, it is determined that: The evidence is not so compelling as to produce in the undersigned’s mind a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, that Oros intentionally concealed an offer from the Sellers or otherwise intentionally deceived, defrauded, or tricked any person interested in the subject transaction. Indeed, the undersigned is not even persuaded, by a preponderance of evidence, that Oros’s handling of this business transaction was merely negligent——a finding that would not, in any event, support a determination of guilt under Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Therefore, Oros is not guilty of the offense charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Because Oros is not guilty of intentional wrongdoing in connection with the Leonard transaction as charged in Count I, she cannot be found guilty of a “course of conduct” in violation of Section 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes, for that offense requires a showing of misbehavior in more than one transaction. Further, the stipulated disposition of DBPR v. Comanic——assuming for argument’s sake that it constitutes competent evidence of the underlying allegations2——does not convince the undersigned that Oros truly committed the offense charged in that previous disciplinary proceeding, for two reasons. First, because of the settlement, the Department never proved the charge clearly and convincingly at a formal hearing; and, moreover, as the stipulation expressly states, Oros “neither admit[ted] nor den[ied] the factual allegations” that had been brought against her. Second, the undersigned, who was able personally to observe Oros’s credibility and demeanor as a witness at hearing, credits and believes Oros’s testimony that she did not refuse to convey an offer as charged in DBPR v. Comanic; in fact, she acceded to a light punishment only to avoid the much greater expense certain to be incurred in litigating that matter to conclusion. Therefore, Oros is not guilty of the offense charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Oros not guilty of the charges brought against her in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 25th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of mishandling an escrow deposit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Vu is and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license number 0394778. He is and was at all material times the qualifying broker for Respondent American Homes and Investment Realty, Inc., which holds Florida license number 0250718. Respondent Vu owns Respondent American Homes. In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Serge Delisfort contacted Respondents about purchasing a residence. The Delisforts eventually signed a contract to purchase a home and paid the $500 earnest money deposit to Respondents. Later learning that they would be liable to pay an annual homeowners' fee of $72, the Delisforts told Respondent Vu that they did not want to complete the purchase. The listing broker, which was not either Respondent, omitted mention of the homeowners' fee from the listing information supplied Respondents and the Delisforts. The sellers refused to release the deposit. Confronted with the dispute, Respondent Vu promptly requested an escrow disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 29, 1991. Due to the presence of a factual or legal dispute, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents, in a 47-word letter dated October 16, 1991, that it could not issue an escrow disbursement order. The October 16 letter warns Respondents to "immediately choose one of the other two alternatives available to you under ss. 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, to settle this dispute, i.e., arbitration or a civil court." Instead, Respondents did nothing. The Delisforts periodically contacted Respondent Vu and asked if he could release their deposit. The sellers sold their house to another party and moved to Puerto Rico. The Delisforts contacted another broker and purchased a different house through the new broker. Eventually, the Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission and asked its help in obtaining the deposit. An investigator for the Division of Real Estate interviewed Respondent Vu on March 1, 1994. Explaining the reason for the delay, Respondent Vu, possibly confused, stated that the buyers had left Orlando for awhile. In fact, the buyers had remained in Orlando. At the suggestion of the investigator, Respondent Vu contacted both parties, and they agreed to split the deposit equally. Respondent Vu prepared the paperwork, which the parties signed on March 11, 1994. At that time, Respondents paid each party $250. The Delisforts have since listed their home for sale by Respondents. While improperly holding the $500 deposit, Respondent Vu was preoccupied by the illnesses and deaths of his parents, who remained in Vietnam. Despite the possibility of trouble upon his return to Vietnam, Respondent Vu traveled to Vietnam at least once during this time to care for one or both of his parents. Respondents failed to implement timely the remedies established by law and identified by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its letter of October 26, 1991. Respondent Vu acted two and one-half years later, only after one of Petitioner's investigators contacted him. It is no excuse that the costs of arbitration or court would have consumed a large part of the amount in dispute. Confronted with that prospect, the sellers or the Delisforts would probably have settled the matter. If not, that would have been their problem, not Respondents'. The fact is that Respondents failed to discharge their obligations by presenting the dispute for resolution in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, the amount involved is modest. Neither party had a clear claim to the funds, nor was either party exceptionally troubled by Respondents' casual handling of the matter. The Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission, but did not realize that they were in effect filing a complaint against Respondents, in whom they entrusted the sale of their current home. A final order issued July 18, 1988, involves Respondents' mishandling of a salesperson's commission. The husband of the salesperson owed Respondent Vu some money, and both men agreed that the debtor's wife would work off the debt by selling real estate at Respondent American Homes. However, the debtor's wife was of a different mind. After earning her first commission, she refused to allow Respondents to credit it against her husband's debt. When Respondent Vu ignored her demand for payment, she filed a complaint, which resulted in the final order and Respondents' proper payment of the commission.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding both Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25((1)(d)1, reprimanding both Respondents, and requiring Respondent Vu to take a thirty-hour broker management course. ENTERED on February 22, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on February 22, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section--Suite N-308 Hurston Bldg., North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802-1772 Dau Viet Vu 1048 Pine Hills Rd. Orlando, FL 32808
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Teresita de Jesus Rangel, who is a thirty-four year old female, made application in early 1987 for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondents Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: 6. Conviction of crimes: January 28th, 1983 - Charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Was found guilty and charged with 3 years incarcerated and 3 years Special Parole. Conviction took place in Los Angeles, Ca. March 17th, 1983 - Charges: Conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana. These were started as two different cases. Pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was sentenced five years on each case to run concurrent with the case in California. This conviction took place in Fort Lauderdale, Fl. I started my sentence on January 11th, 1984 at F.C.I., Lexington, Kentucky and was released to a Half-way House on October 2nd, 1986. These arrests stem from the same circumstances and were handled together and treated as one. The arrests occurred as a result of my involvement with my then boyfriend. Approximately a year and a half prior to my arrests I became romantically involved with this individual. This individual was Co- defendant in the case I was arrested. My involvement in the criminal case stands on my romantic involvement with him. Due to lack of judgement [sic] on my part, I became criminally involved with him eventually leading to our arrest. I have had no contact whatsoever with this individual since my incarceration. I further intend to avoid all contact with him in the future. At this time, I have an outstanding offer from Dominion Realty, Inc. In fact, the Broker at this firm is encouraging me to make this application to become a real estate salesperson. I realize this is a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to begin a career. It will allow me to stand on my own and provide a respectable home and future for my children. Based upon the above response, the Division issued proposed agency action on July 14, 1987 denying the application. As grounds, the Division stated its action was "based upon (her) answer to Question #6 of the licensing application and/or (her) criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency." The denial prompted this proceeding. Petitioner is divorced and the sole support of three young children. She has been in the work force since 1972. According to all accounts, her work performance over the years has been exemplary, and Rangel was steadily promoted to positions of greater responsibility and duties in each of her jobs. Her work experience includes stints with a mortgage brokerage firm, an air freight carrier, an equipment distributor and a property management firm where she is now employed. In 1983 Rangel was arrested on the previously cited charges, and pled guilty. She received three and five year prison terms in California and Florida, respectively, to run concurrently. Her involvement in the crimes was due to a romantic relationship with another man (the father of one of her children), who was also arrested and charged with the same offenses. Needless to say, their relationship went on the skids and they no longer have contact with one another. After her plea, Rangel began serving her sentence in January, 1984 at a federal institution in Lexington, Kentucky. In early October, 1986, or thirty-four months later, she was given an early release. Rangel then lived in a halfway house in Coral Gables until April- 1987. She now lives with her parents and three children in Miami. She will remain on probation until July, 1991. As such, she is subject to a number of special conditions, including random drug testing, a restriction on travel, and regular reporting to a parole officer. So far, she has had no problem in conforming with all restrictions imposed by the government, and anticipates none in the future. Independent testimony established that petitioner is highly regarded by her employer. She is considered to be honest and of good character, and even though her employer is aware of her criminal record, Rangel has been entrusted with the responsibility of handling large amounts of cash (up to 10,000) each day without supervision. She is in charge of managing four executive office centers, and if licensed, will become a rental agent for Dominion Realty, Inc., a subsidiary company of the corporation for which she now works. Rangel was candid and forthright in her testimony. She willingly accepted responsibility for her prior actions, and now wants the opportunity to use a real estate license as a means to provide support for her family. She appeared to the undersigned to be mature, and capable of handling the responsibilities of a real estate salesperson. Given her present job responsibilities, including the handling of large sums of money, and subsequent good conduct since release from prison, it is found Rangel is sufficiently rehabilitated to justify granting her application. Moreover, it is not likely that the public and investors will be endangered by licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Teresita de Jesus Rangel for licensure as a real estate salesperson be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3028 Respondent: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis N. Urbano, Esquire 1000 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33132 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. Murata is a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license numbers BK 3266198, 3326041, 3330594, 3334183, 3338731, 3345773, 3346456, 3346845, 3350300, 3364670, 3366527, 3366441, 3368235, 3369788, 3372663 and 3378303. Ms. Murata is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner and subject to applicable statutes and rules. Ms. Murata is the owner of the Florida Qualifying Broker of Record Service and maintains the Internet website, http://floridabrokerofrecord.com, which states its business model to be an opportunity for Florida real estate sales associates to run their own real estate companies without having to share their commissions with the broker of record. Friendly International Realty, LLC ("Friendly"), was formed in June 2011. From March 3, 2016, to June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata was the qualifying real estate broker for Friendly. Ms. Murata agreed to receive a monthly fee of $289.00 in exchange for being the qualifying broker of record for Friendly. Ms. Murata did not physically visit the license location of Friendly, at 937 Northeast 125th Street, North Miami, Florida, 33161, during the time that she was the qualifying broker. Ms. Murata was not a signatory on any escrow account used by Friendly. Ms. Murata did not keep any of Friendly's brokerage records. From March 4, 2016, to November 21, 2016, Jean Berthelot was a registered real estate sales associate with Friendly. He acted as an independent contractor. Ms. Murata was aware that Mr. Berthelot was doing business on the Multiple Listing Service ("MLS"). After she became the broker for Friendly, Ms. Murata activated one sales associate to help Mr. Berthelot. Joan Feloney is the owner of the subject property. Audrey Flanders is a real estate broker acting on behalf of Ms. Feloney in her efforts to lease the subject property. Ms. Flanders received a contract to enter into a lease from Tamara Stanton, a real estate sales associate at Friendly, on behalf of Paul Allicock. Ms. Feloney accepted the offer. Mr. Allicock paid $2,350.00 to Friendly toward lease of the subject property in the form of signed money orders dated March 6 and March 18, 2016. The money was placed in a Friendly escrow account. These money orders were paid to engage the services of Friendly and Ms. Murata as broker in the rental of the subject property. Pursuant to a written statement signed by Ms. Feloney, $550.00 of this amount was to be paid to Friendly, and $1,650.00 was to be paid to Ms. Feloney. A lease agreement between Mr. Allicock as tenant and Ms. Feloney as landlord and owner of the subject property was executed on March 21, 2016. Mr. Berthelot wrote a check from the Friendly escrow account to Ms. Feloney for $1,650.00 on the same date. Ms. Feloney attempted to deposit the check, but on April 14, 2016, the check was returned to her marked "NSF," indicating that insufficient funds were in the account. She was charged a $15.00 return item fee. Under the agreement between Ms. Murata and Friendly, Mr. Berthelot was not authorized to have an escrow account or otherwise hold funds or assets on behalf of a third party. As for brokerage transactions, he was supposed to e-mail transactional records to Ms. Murata or place them in a dropbox. Neither Ms. Stanton nor Mr. Berthelot ever placed documents in the dropbox. But, as Ms. Murata told Investigator Percylla Kennedy, she did learn that Friendly was doing business on the MLS. Ms. Murata became aware of the Friendly escrow account on April 26, 2016, in connection with a complaint about a transaction unrelated to this Administrative Complaint. She discussed the escrow account with Mr. Berthelot on April 27, 2016. Ms. Murata requested that Mr. Berthelot close the escrow account, submit proof that he had closed the account, and turn over all contracts between Mr. Berthelot and current clients. Ms. Murata did not want to perform a reconciliation of the escrow account. As she testified in deposition: Q: When you learned that there were third party funds being held by Friendly International Realty, did you demand the records of that account so you could perform a reconciliation? A: No, because [sic] was to be closed, because I did not want to manage an escrow account. So when I discovered what he was doing, the agreement was that he was going to close it immediately. I was not going to manage an escrow account for him, so I demanded, what I demanded was proof that the account was closed and proof that he had engaged in a written agreement with a title company for all escrow funds. Q: Approximately when did you make that demand? A: The moment that Jessica Schuller came up and he confessed that he had kept the account from his previous broker. That he had not told me because he was going to close it. I threatened I was going to resign once he paid those funds to Jessica. But then I agreed to continue if he closed that account immediately. On May 10, 2016, a complaint was filed with the Department against Ms. Murata, as broker of Friendly, regarding the lease transaction involving the subject property. After Ms. Murata became aware that Friendly owed money to Ms. Feloney, she maintained regular contact with her brokerage in an attempt to ensure that the money owed to Ms. Feloney was paid. Ms. Murata cooperated with the Department's investigation. Ms. Feloney, through Audrey Flanders, requested on June 2, 2016, that the $1,650.00 and an additional service charge of $82.00 be paid within 15 days or a case would be filed with the state attorney's office. The parties stipulated that on June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata resigned from her position as broker of record for Friendly. She testified that she resigned because she had not received the documents or actions that she had requested of Mr. Berthelot. Ms. Murata did not write a check to Ms. Feloney to pay the amount Friendly owed her because, with an investigation underway, Ms. Murata did not want it to be construed as an admission that she had personally collected funds from Mr. Allicock. She also evidently believed that since she had resigned, she was not professionally responsible for obligations that arose during the time that she had been the broker. Ms. Murata convincingly testified that in another, unrelated, situation, she became involved as the broker to resolve a potential dispute by ensuring that the party entitled to funds was paid. On June 25, 2016, a Bad Check Crime Report was filed with the Broward County State Attorney's Office. By letter dated June 8, 2016, the Department requested that Ms. Murata provide copies of monthly reconciliation statements; bank statements and records; and sales, listing, and property management files of Friendly. As Ms. Kennedy testified, Ms. Murata never provided those accounts and records to the Department, saying she did not have them. While Ms. Murata insists that any failure was only because Mr. Berthelot actively kept information from her, the parties stipulated that Ms. Murata failed to maintain control of, and have reasonable access to, some of the documents associated with the rental of the subject property. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in real estate brokerages, reviewed chapter 475; Florida Administrative Code Rule Title 61J; the deposit paperwork of Mr. Allicock; the Bad Check Crime Report; the investigative report; and the Administrative Complaint. He prepared an expert report to the Department. As Mr. Trafton testified, the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to other parties. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. He also testified that a broker must maintain the records of the brokerage. Mr. Trafton testified that in his opinion, Ms. Murata failed to meet these standards. Ms. Murata failed to promptly deliver funds to Ms. Feloney that were in possession of the brokerage. Ms. Murata failed to manage, direct, and control Real Estate Sales Associate Berthelot to the standard expected of a broker of record. She did not actively supervise him, instead relying completely on Mr. Berthelot and other associates to provide her any information she needed to know. Ms. Murata failed to preserve accounts and records relating to the rental or lease agreement of the subject property. Petitioner did not clearly show that Respondent was guilty of either "culpable negligence" or "breach of trust." As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of this complaint through September 14, 2017, costs incurred by the Department were $1,443.75, not including costs associated with an attorney's time.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Finding Maria Camila Murata in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), and 475.25(1)(e) as charged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00; imposing license suspension for a period of two months; and imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 2018.
The Issue Should Petitioner, Charles Caputo's, application for a real estate sales associate license be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as a real estate sales associate. His application was filed on November 3, 2007. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate professionals in the State of Florida and has the statutory authority to approve or deny Petitioner's application. Petitioner's application revealed the following record of criminal involvement: Driving "while ability impaired"-- December 21, 1987, Suffolk County, New York. (This is a civil infraction based on a plea to the initial charge of Driving Under the Influence.) Petit Theft--August 29, 1991, St. Cloud, Florida. Burglary--July 27, 1997, Orange County, Florida. (Adjudication withheld.) Passing a Bad Check--March 17, 1998. Trespass After Warning--November 13, 2002, Orange County, Florida. When Petitioner applied for a license in 2005, he only disclosed two offenses. On August 7, 2008, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for real estate sales associate licensure. The stated reasons listed in the Notice of Intent to Deny are "Failure to Disclose," "Unpersuasive Testimony," "Crimes Recent," and "Pattern of Crime." In addition, the Notice of Intent to Deny concludes that Petitioner failed "to demonstrate honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character, a good reputation for fair dealing, competent and qualified to conduct transactions and negotiations with safety to others"; that Petitioner was "guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction"; and that Petitioner had been "convicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contender to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealings." Finally, the Notice of Intent to Deny concludes that Petitioner "has not had sufficient lapse of time, without government supervision, to establish rehabilitation by being crime free." The several "character" witness presented by Petitioner were not well-informed regarding Petitioner's criminal history, and while they apparently thought well of him, their testimony was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Charles Caputo's, application for real estate sales associate licensure be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: S. W. Ellis, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801 N Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1420 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 200 Celebration, Florida 34747
The Issue The issue is whether either Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts I through VIII of their respective Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board is the state agency charged with regulating real estate appraisers who are, or want to become, licensed to render appraisal services in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent, Ms. Green was licensed as a certified residential real estate appraiser. Ms. Green held license number 3236 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Moody was licensed as a registered trainee appraiser. Ms Moody held license number 16667 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. In October 2008, Ms. Moody received a license as a certified residential appraiser, license number RD 7444. On March 8, 2007, Ms. Moody signed an appraisal of real property located at 11735 Chanticleer Drive, Lot 16, Block B Grand Lagoon, in Pensacola, Florida. She signed as appraiser. Ms. Green signed the report as supervisory appraiser. The listed borrower was James W. Cobb, and the lender was Premier Mortgage Capital. Respondents developed, signed, and communicated this report. Subsequently, the borrower, Mr. Cobb, who was also the buyer, complained to the Division with regard to the appraisal on the property, and the Division investigated the matter. The investigation resulted in an investigative report dated December 21, 2007. According to the appraisal, the property was listed for $1,030,000 in the multiple listing service, and the contract price was $790,000. The appraisal report valued the property using both the sales comparison approach and the cost approach. Both approaches resulted in a value of $1,030,000. These facts were reported in a six-page Uniform Residential Appraisal Report, Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005. At the time of the hearing, the property was the subject of a foreclosure action. The USPAP provides guidance to those involved in the business of conducting real estate appraisals. Real estate appraisers typically use both a "sales comparison approach" and a "cost approach" in attempting to arrive at a value. A "sales comparison approach" uses data obtained from sales of similar properties and adjusts for differences. A "cost approach" starts with the cost of an empty building site and adds to that the cost of building an identical structure and adjusts for enhancements and depreciation. Both approaches were used by Respondents and were reported on the Form 1004. The Division's expert witness, Sylvia G. Storm, reviewed the Form 1004 and all of the available supporting data. She did not make an appraisal herself and did not visit the property in question. Ms. Storm was accepted as an expert as provided by Section 90.702, Florida Statutes, because she had "specialized knowledge" regarding real estate appraisals. This was the first time that Ms. Storm testified as an expert witness in a case involving appraisals. The same was true in the case of the expert witness presented by Respondents, Victor Harrison. It is noted that these experts were only minimally qualified, and their testimony is given little weight. Ms. Storm commented on the fact that the property was called "new" in the improvements section yet on the following sales comparison approach it was listed under actual age, "27/E New-2." This suggests the property with improvements is 27 years old, but has an effective age of new to two years. In fact, in the improvements section it was noted that the property has been completely reconstructed. It is clear from the Form 1004, and the hearing record, that the property was essentially destroyed during Hurricane Ivan and was rebuilt above the surviving foundation. It is found that the house was essentially new at the time of the appraisal. Ms. Storm believes some of the deficiencies she noted in the Form 1004, discussed in more detail below, and the supporting documentation contained in the work file, affect the credibility of the report. She believes that some of these deficiencies amounted to a violation of USPAP. Ms. Storm stated that an appraiser should do a complete analysis of the contract and that if it is not done the appraiser is not being reasonably diligent. She also testified that an appraiser, who failed to discuss the large difference between the contract price and appraised value, and who failed to document the analysis, is not being reasonably diligent. Mr. Harrison, on the other hand, testified that after his analysis of the report he found no indication at all of a lack of reasonable diligence. Ms. Storm opined that two or more appraisers, appraising the same property may arrive at two or more numbers and that there is nothing unusual when that occurs. Ms. Moody testified under oath that the supporting information contained in the work file was adequate and that references to other documents, such as public records, were plentiful and complied with the requirements of USPAP. This testimony was adopted by Ms. Green. In order to provide clarity, actual allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints will be discussed in seriatim. As will be addressed more fully in the Conclusions of Law, the Division must prove its factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In evaluating the evidence presented, that standard will be used below. The factual allegations will be presented in bold face type, and the discussion of the proof will be in regular type: Respondent made the following errors and omission in the Report:"Failure to discuss or explain why the Subject Property was listed for sale for $1,030,000 and the contract price was $790,000." Ms. Storm opined that the discussion of the contract price did not go into the details as to the history of the property, or list price history, or who the contracting parties were or any fees to be paid by either party. She believes the Form 1004 should have reported when the property was listed and how many days it had been on the market. She believes that USPAP requires the appraiser to analyze the contract completely. She believes the Form 1004 should have commented on the large difference between the sales price and the appraised price. The Form 1004 states, "I did analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction." Ms. Moody testified under oath that they analyzed the difference between the appraisal price and the selling price. She stated that there was no requirement to discuss it in the Form 1004. Ms. Green adopted this testimony. Ms. Moody also stated that the contract price of a piece of property does not affect the value of the property as reported in the Form 1004. This factual allegation was not proven. "Use of an outdated FEMA map for the Subject Property." Respondents used a FEMA flood map that was outdated. This occurred because the computer program Respondents were using, InterFlood.com, presented an out-of-date map. The map used in the appraisal was dated February 23, 2000, but the most current edition of the map available at the time of the appraisal was dated September 26, 2006. The later map was no different from the map Respondents used. The Form 1004 notes, with regard to the flood status, "It appears to be located in FEMA Flood Zones X and AE. A survey would be needed to confirm flood zones." In sum, there is nothing incorrect or misleading with regard to flooding potential. The Division's expert witness, Ms. Storm, concluded that Respondents did not err with regard to the FEMA flood map. This factual allegation was not proven. "Misstatement of PUD Homeowner's Association Fees for the Subject Property." Respondents asserted the homeowner's association fee to be $100 annually. The by-laws of the Grande Lagoon Community Association, Inc., in effect during all times pertinent, state unequivocally that annual dues of the Association are $100. The Division's investigator stated that he learned through a telephone call with a "Mr. Broome," who was possibly an officer in the homeowner's association, that at the time of the appraisal there was an annual assessment by the homeowner's association of $250 for canal maintenance, and that this amount was to increase to $500 annually in 2008. Information about this assessment was not readily available to Respondents. An assessment is different from a homeowner's fee. The Division's expert witness stated that if there is a homeowner's fee it should be stated on the Form 1004, but that it is not a USPAP requirement. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to differentiate view of Subject Property and comparable sale 2, when the Subject Property is located on a canal and the comparable had an open water location." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a small, lagoon- like body of water with access to Pensacola Bay, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note financial assistance in the sales contract, where seller was to pay all closing costs." The agreement whereby seller would pay $20,000 in closing costs was not made until March 28, 2007, 20 days after the appraisal was completed. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note consulting fee to Investor's Rehab in the sales contract." This allegation is true in that the consulting fee was not mentioned. Ms. Storm opined that it should be analyzed in the appraisal report. She asserted that persons who were not privy to the contract might make decisions in reliance upon the appraisal report and, therefore, the Form 1004 should mention the consulting fee. However, Ms. Moody pointed out that the consulting fee had no effect on the value of the property and stated that it was intentionally omitted. This factual allegation was proven to the extent that the consulting fee was not mentioned, but this omission did not affect the accuracy or credibility of the appraisal report. "Failure to explain range of effective age dates for the Subject Property and comparable sale 1." As discussed in Finding of Fact 8, the subject property was essentially new at the time it was appraised. As pointed out by Mr. Harrison, the effective age was new. Effective age is an estimate of the physical condition of a building. The actual age of the building may be shorter or longer than the effective age. The determination of effective age is largely a matter of judgment. In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5 years. The Form 1004, therefore, presented a one year error as to actual age, which is insignificant. The allegation is that Respondents failed to explain the range of effective age dates. However, it is found that the Form 1004 adequately informs anyone reading it. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its effective age difference." No evidence supporting this allegation was presented. The unrebutted testimony of Ms. Moody, adopted by Ms. Green, was that there was no market data suggesting that there was a need for adjustment. There was no evidence that an explanation for no adjustment was required. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Incorrect site size adjustment for comparable sale 1; the $17,000 should be in the positive direction." The site size adjustment for Comparable Sale 1 is in the amount of $40,000. It appears that the intentions of the Administrative Complaints were to allege an error in gross living area. The result is that the record provides no proof of this allegation. "Adjustment for both the room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 1." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 1." In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5. The Form 1004 therefore presented a one-year error. This error is insignificant. "Failure to explain inconsistent site size adjustments made to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The subject property was located on a site (or lot) that was .3 acres. Comparable Sale 1 was located on a site that was .52 acres. Respondents subtracted $40,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 1. Comparable Sale 2 was located on a site that was .7 acres. Respondents subtracted $60,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 2. Comparable Sale 3 was located on a site that was .44 acres. Respondents added $25,000 to the sale price of Comparable Sale 3. It is the appraiser's duty to value a comparable in such a way that differences between the comparable and the subject property are accounted so that a common denominator may be found. For example, Comparable Sale 1 was approximately .2 of an acre larger than the subject property and thus more valuable solely because it is on a larger site. To equalize the situation, the price of Comparable Sale 1 must be reduced, and it was. Comparable Sale 2 also was reduced, but Comparable Sale 3 that was on a larger lot than the subject property, was credited with a $25,000 addition to its price. Nothing in Respondents' work file provides how the figures for the comparables were found. Moreover, if two of the comparables experienced a downward adjustment because of a larger lot size, then the third comparable, having a larger lot size, should have been adjusted downward also. Therefore, there were inconsistencies requiring explanation, and no explanation was found in the file. "Failure to note that comparable sale 1 has a fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." Comparable Sale 2 was built in 1990. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 17 years old. It last sold November 2006. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of five years on the Form 1004. This is both incorrect and insignificant. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 2." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." This allegation repeats that stated in "O" above. "Failure to not [sic] that comparable sale 2 has three fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its multiple fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its lake view." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a lagoon-like body of water with access to open water, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age of comparable sale 3." Comparable Sale 3 was built in 1989. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 18 years old. It last sold in August of 2005. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of 10 years on the Form 1004. This age was reported incorrectly. "Use of comparable sale 3 which sold 19 months prior to the Report." The Form 1004 noted that finding comparables was difficult due to market disruption caused by Hurricane Ivan. As noted by Ms. Storm, the change in the real estate market during the years 2004, 2005, and 2006, have been profound everywhere. Primarily, market prices have declined during those years. She was of the opinion that the August 18, 2005, sale date of Comparable Sale 3 was too remote. She stated, correctly, that a market condition adjustment should have been made to the price reported for Comparable Sale 3. Ms. Storm found in the work file analyst listings of the comparables that were utilized, and pages from the Marshall and Swift, but did not see any actual paired sale analyses for any of the adjustments that were used in the report. She could not determine from where they obtained these sales and the adjustments for differences. She opined that this made the report less credible. According to Ms. Storm, the insufficient analysis runs afoul of USPAP. The opinion of Ms. Storm, however, fails to take into account the insufficient data in the Pensacola area that resulted from hurricane-induced market disruption and the consequent lack of sales. Because of the lack of viable alternatives, using this property as a comparable was necessary. This factual allegation was not proven. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to calculate and list the net adjustment and gross adjustment totals for comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to utilize current Marshall & Swift information for the Cost Approach section of the Report." Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information in the cost approach analysis. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides "local multipliers" for the cost per square foot for construction. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the Form 1004 issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue after February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. "Failure to complete the PUD information section of the Report, when Subject Property, as noted by Respondent in Report, is located in a PUD." The Division acknowledged during the hearing that there was no support for this allegation, and withdrew it. AA) "Failure to date when Respondent inspected the Subject Property and comparable sales listed in the Report." (This allegation was made in the case of Ms. Green, but not in the case of Ms. Moody.) In the blocks on the Form 1004, below the Supervisory Appraiser's signature, Ms. Green signed statements indicating that she inspected the interior and exterior of the subject property and that she inspected the exterior of the comparable sales properties. She did not date either of these statements. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $40,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 1. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $60,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $25,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $50,000 "view" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Comparable Sale 1 is on Big River. The Form 1004 notes that Big River is similar to Big Lagoon. A $50,000 downward adjustment was made in the "view" category. Ms. Storm stated that she had searched for documentation and did not find it. The work file does not have documentary support for the adjustments. Respondents and Ms. Storm agreed that the lack of sales in the area made such adjustments like this problematic. As Ms. Storm said, "I know there haven't been that many sales of waterfronts so it's really difficult to arrive at that data." Nevertheless, the lack of any information in the work file to support the adjustment means that this factual allegation is proven. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $5,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $3,000 "triple garage" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $3,000 was made to Comparable Sale 3 because of its triple garage. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, includes Marshall and Swift data for garages. Although exactly how the $3,000 adjustment was calculated is not clear, the Marshall and Swift information was in the file and provided a method for making the calculation. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "dock/pier" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $10,000 was made to Comparable Sale 1 because of the presence of a "dock/pier." No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $15,000 "pool" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $15,000 was made to Comparable Sale 2 because of the presence of a pool on the property. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $39/square foot adjustment for gross living area made tocomparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. The Division has not directed the attention of the Administrative Law Judge to any reference in the record to a "$39/square foot adjustment for gross living area." An independent search of Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, did not reveal documentation for this adjustment or any documentation mentioning it. Accordingly, this allegation is not proven. The work file lacks current Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Reports were completed, as well as any local builder information, to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section of the Report. Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information for use in the cost approach. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides information used to calculate the construction cost per square foot. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the report issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue subsequent to February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $30,000 As-Is Value of Site Improvements adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report. As-is value of site improvements adjustment, in the cost approach section, is a positive value of $30,000. There is no explanation in the record as to what an "as-is value of site improvements adjustment" is or from what source came the $30,000 value. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $60,000 Porches/Appliances adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, contains Marshall and Swift information for porches and appliances. Thus, documentation is present.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board find Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, by failing to document adjustments made to comparable sales and reprimand Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. Brady, Esquire 3250 Navy Boulevard, Suite 204 Post Office Box 12584 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2584 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Frank K. Gregoire, Chairman Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
