The Issue The Administrative Complaint presents essentially the same factual allegations in its various counts supporting different legal violations. These factual allegations are summarized as follow: Reinlie represented to Estelle Pitts that if she put up the earnest money deposit for her son, William Lambert, on the commercial property that Lambert wanted to purchase in the form of notes secured by mortgages on her house: (1) the mortgages and notes would not be a lien on her property; (2) the mortgages and notes would not be recorded; (3) the mortgages and notes would be returned to her when Lambert obtained financing for the property he desired to purchase; (4) the mortgages and notes merely showed good faith on Lambert's part regarding his offer to purchase; (5) Lambert's contract for purchase was contingent upon the sale of commercial property which he owned in South Florida; and (6) even if the sale to Lambert did not go through, Mrs. Pitts would not be responsible for the mortgages and notes. Contrary to his representations, Reinlie recorded the various mortgages and notes executed by Estelle Pitts. Contrary to his representations, Reinlie advised Estelle Pitts that she would be responsible for the mortgages and notes, and that if said notes were not satisfied "foreclosure proceedings would be initiated." Petitioner called Estelle Pitts, who testified concerning the representations made by Reinlie. Reinlie testified, denying that he had made said representations. William Lambert was the only other person present when most of these alleged representations were made. Lambert, who had suffered a physically debilitating stroke, could not attend the hearing, and his deposition was received into the record. Lambert's recollection of the events was wholly supportive of neither his mother's nor Reinlie's recollection of the events. None of the witnesses were disinterested: Reinlie's license was in jeopardy; Mrs. Pitts' home was in jeopardy; and Lambert is Mrs. Pitts' son. The conflicts in testimony can only be resolved from extrinsic facts and the credibility of the witnesses. Having considered the facts, the testimony of Reinlie is deemed more credible. Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based upon the prehearing stipulation of the parties: At all times in question, the Respondent, James Reinlie, Jr., was a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida and is the holder of license number 0112757. The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1981). William C. Lambert, Estelle Pitts' son, did not have the necessary money with which to furnish a deposit to the sellers of the Robin Hood Motel at the time the contract for sale and purchase and the addendums thereto were executed. A contract for sale and purchase was executed on August 11, 1979, and August 13, 1979, between Irene B. Smith, seller, and William C. Lambert, Sr., buyer, for the purchase of the Robin Hood Motel, located at 1150 North Atlantic Avenue in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent Reinlie was a co-broker on that contract. On August 13, 1979, an addendum to the contract for sale and purchase was executed between Irene B. Smith, seller, and William C. Lambert, Sr., buyer. On January 7, 1980, and January 8, 1980, a second addendum was executed under the original contract for sale and purchase between Irene B. Smith, Gilbert Brown and Liselotte M. Brown, sellers, and William C. Lambert, Sr., buyer. On August 13, 1979, a mortgage deed and mortgage note were executed by Estelle Pitts and Linda L. Smith (Mrs. Pitts' daughter) as mortgagor, to B.I.C. Realty, Inc., escrow account, as mortgagee, said note in the principal amount of $5,000 and secured by a first mortgage on 900 West New York Avenue, Deland, Florida, also known as: . . . the east 60' of the north 150' of Lot 1, Block I, Stetson Home Estates MB 10, page 79, Volusia County, Florida; Said property is the residential home of Estelle Pitts with title in the names of Estelle Pitts and Linda L. Smith. On October 16, 1979, a second mortgage was executed by Estelle Pitts and her daughter, Linda L. Smith, dated November 1, 1979, and secured by a mortgage note in the amount of $5,000 on the residential home of Estelle Pitts, said property being described in detail in paragraph 7 above. On October 16, 1979, a third mortgage was executed by Estelle Pitts and her daughter, Linda L. Smith, dated November 1, 1979, and secured by a mortgage note in the amount of $5,000 on the residential home of Estelle Pitts, said property being described in detail in paragraph 7 above. On August 17, 1979, Respondent Reinlie took the first mortgage deed and mortgage note to The Abstract Corporation and instructed that it be recorded in the public records of Volusia County, Florida, said first mortgage deed and mortgage note in the amount of $5,000 dated August 11, 1979, and executed August 13, 1979. On November 29, 1979, Reinlie took the second mortgage deed and note to The Abstract Corporation and instructed that it be recorded in the public records of Volusia County, said second mortgage deed and note in the amount of $5,000 dated November 1, 1979, and executed October 16, 1979. On December 4, 1979, Reinlie took the third mortgage deed and note to The Abstract Corporation and instructed that it be recorded in the public records of Volusia County, said third mortgage deed and note in the amount of $5,000 dated December 1, 1979, and executed October 16, 1979. On May 2, 1980, Estelle Pitts notified Reinlie that she wanted the aforesaid mortgages and notes returned to her immediately. On May 14, 1980, Reinlie notified Mrs. Pitts that he would not return the mortgages and notes and had been advised by the "former" owners of the Robin Hood Motel that they desired to pursue their full deposit, plus expenses, under the contract and, if necessary, would foreclose the mortgages and notes in order to enforce their legal rights. On May 19, 1982, Reinlie executed three satisfactions of mortgages on the three mortgages and notes referred to in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 above upon the advice of counsel. The following Findings of Fact are based upon testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing: Reinlie did not state to Mrs. Pitts that the mortgages would not be recorded and would not be a lien on her property. (See Lambert deposition, pages 11 and 12.) William Lambert was aware that the mortgages and notes were to be recorded and would be a lien on his mother's property. Mrs. Pitts did not understand the transaction and the terms thereof, although Lambert explained it to her. (See Lambert deposition, page 13.) The contract for purchase was not contingent upon the sale of Lambert's motel in Hollywood, Florida. Lambert signed the contract and was presumably aware of its terms. Reinlie did not represent to Mrs. Pitts that the contract for purchase was contingent upon the sale of her son's motel in Hollywood. (See transcript, page 20.) It was Lambert's intent to replace the mortgages on his mother's home with cash he would obtain from the sale of his motel in Hollywood. By substitution of the cash for the mortgages and notes, it was Lambert's understanding that his mother's home would not be "used," i.e., that her home was not in danger of foreclosure. However, Lambert realized that the money would have to be substituted for the mortgages and notes. Lambert felt that he could sell his Hollywood motel prior to the closing date on the Robin Hood Motel. Had Lambert sold his motel in Hollywood prior to said closing, the mortgages and notes on his mother's house would have been cancelled, i.e., "returned" to her. Lambert initially advised Reinlie that his mother owned her home free and clear. At that time, both Lambert and Reinlie were seeking the means for Lambert to come up with the earnest money deposit, which does show a "good faith offer." Reinlie suggested the use of Mrs. Pitts' home to secure the deposit. Lambert discussed this matter with his mother, who agreed and executed the various mortgages and notes. Reinlie did not make the primary approach to Mrs. Pitts, and it was Lambert who primarily explained the transaction to her. Both Lambert and Mrs. Pitts stated that they failed to understand the terms and effect of the mortgages and notes. The addendum to the contract provides that the buyer will provide the seller within five days of the date of the contract a mortgage title binder showing the $5,000 deposit mortgage to be a first mortgage. Their failure to understand the transaction was not due to any misrepresentations or lack of explanation to them by Reinlie. The original closing date was set for late October 1979. When Lambert was unable to sell his Hollywood motel, Reinlie arranged for extensions of the closing date, the first until early December, and the second until January 1980. The considerations for these two extensions were the second and third mortgages and notes. After these were prepared, without signatures, they were delivered to Lambert, who in turn returned each of the executed documents to Reinlie shortly before Reinlie recorded them. Reinlie was not present when said mortgages and notes were executed. Around Thanksgiving 1979, when it became evident that Lambert was having difficulty closing, Reinlie suggested that the contract, which was similar to an option, be sold. Although the contract would have had to be discounted, it would have reduced the potential loss. Reinlie attempted unsuccessfully to do this. Reinlie's suggestion of this course of action did not assure the sale of the contract. (See transcript, page 91.) By late January 1980, when Lambert could not close, Reinlie attempted to obtain an additional extension, which the sellers refused to grant. At that time, the contract for purchase was in default. In the spring of 1980, the sellers made demand upon Reinlie for their deposit money. Reinlie advised both Lambert and Mrs. Pitts of the sellers' demand and sought to obtain mortgage financing for Mrs. Pitts in lieu of initiating a foreclosure action. Mrs. Pitts did not elect to borrow the money. Lambert tendered $5,000 to Reinlie in order to settle the matter, which was rejected by the sellers. The sellers renewed their demand that Reinlie pay them their escrowed deposit. In a meeting with the sellers, Rein lie pointed out that if he foreclosed the mortgages there would be additional delay and legal costs. Because the notes had an interest rate of ten percent and were secured by the mortgages, Reinlie suggested that nothing be done during the life of Mrs. Pitts, but a claim be made against her estate. The sellers determined that this was a better approach than forcing Reinlie to foreclose on the mortgages. Thereafter, all of the parties determined that they desired to settle the matter. Reinlie advised the sellers that he would release the mortgages and notes to Mrs. Pitts if they, in turn, would release him from his obligation to pay them the escrowed money. This was finally done and the matter resolved on that basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the Respondent, James Reinlie, Jr., did not violate Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d) or (j), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the charges filed against him in the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John G. DeLancett, Esquire James R. Mitchell, Esquire 801 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 402 Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32853 Irving Gussow, Esquire Highway 17-92 Post Office Box 965 Fern Park, Florida 32730 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact John F. Cole, David J. Hayes and Andre LeClerc conveyed certain real estate situated in Broward County ("the property") to respondent by quitclaim deed dated December 16, 1976, and recorded on December 29, 1976. This instrument reflects payment of a documentary stamp tax in the amount of thirty cents ($0.30) as well as a documentary surtax. On September 30, 1971, Thomas N. Sprague and Peggy A. Sprague had mortgaged the property to Merle Ford to secure repayment of the principal sum of twenty-three thousand five hundred dollars ($23,500.00). On October 1, 1971, the Spragues mortgaged the property to Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Lauderdale to secure repayment of the principal sum of one hundred three thousand dollars ($103,000.00) On November 21, 1973, John A. Kasbar, as trustee, mortgaged the property to the Spragues to secure repayment of the principal sum of twenty- three thousand one hundred dollars ($23,100.00) On June 5, 1969, Esther E. Adams conveyed the property by warranty deed to Andre LeClerc, as trustee. The warranty deed reflected payment of a documentary stamp tax in the amount of five hundred forty-three dollars ($543.00). The property which was the subject of these transactions is evidently worth a substantial sum of money, but the evidence fails to establish the value of the interest quitclaimed on December 16, 1976, and does not establish what consideration for the quitclaim deed was given, if any was given.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the notice of proposed assessment be withdrawn. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Mr. Ronald Payne, Esquire 621 South Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Findings Of Fact Kenneth M. Olson, Jr., is a registered real estate broker with the FREC and Active Firm Member of Olson and Associates Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker registered with the FREC. A copy of the Administrative Complaint was forwarded to the last address of Defendants registered with the FREC by certified mail numbers 4747 and 4748 and the notice of hearing was forwarded to the same address by certified mail numbers 4613 and 4614. Accordingly the Hearing Officer had jurisdiction over the Defendants and the offenses. By contract dated September 17, 1975 (Exhibit 6) Joseph J. Pillucere contracted to purchase real property from Paul L. Nave. The contract provided, inter alia, for a $500 earnest money deposit, $9500 down payment at closing with purchaser to assume existing first mortgage of approximately $28,000; and the seller taking back a purchase money second mortgage in the amount of $17,000. Thereafter, at the time scheduled for closing, the purchaser failed to produce the additional down payment required, execute the second mortgage and assume the existing first mortgage. After receiving conflicting demands from buyer and seller for the return of the earnest money deposit Defendant requested an advisory opinion from the FREC in accordance with Section 475.25(1)(c) FS. On May 13, 1976 an advisory opinion (Exhibit 5) was given by FREC to the Defendant, with copies to both parties to the contract, advising Defendant that the earnest money deposit should-be disbursed to the seller. The deposit has been disbursed to neither party to the contract.
Findings Of Fact At the beginning of the hearing in this cause, it was stipulated and agreed to that certain pleadings and exhibits would constitute the factual basis for consideration of the case. Specifically, the parties agreed that the First Amended Petition and its parts that were admitted by the Respondent; together with interrogatories propounded by the Respondent to the Petitioner and the answers thereto; and Exhibits A and C attached to the First Amended Petition; would be the underlying facts that could be examined in arriving at a statement of the facts, and ultimate conclusions of law. A further refinement in the stipulation and agreement of the parties was their acceptance of the stated amount of $952.05 in surtax owed, if it were concluded that any amount of surtax was properly assessed. Finally, the parties agreed that copies of the aforementioned Exhibits A and C could be utilized in deliberating this case. (Copies of the First Amended Petition, Answer to that Petition, Interrogatories propounded by the Respondent and Answers provided by the Petitioner, and Exhibits A and C attached to the First Amended Petition, are hereby made a part of the record herein and forwarded to the agency head in lieu of a transcript.) The Petitioner in this action is Wisconsin Real Estate Investment Trust, whose address is Marine Plaza, 111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202. On or about April 11, 1975 the Petitioner was a grantee in the certain Warranty Deed from James E. Russell, Jr., as trustee to Wisconsin Real Estate Investment Trust, dated April 11, 1975, and recorded May 20, 1975, in Official Records Book 2620, Page 1812, Public Records of Orange County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Warranty Deed"). A copy of the said Warranty Deed is a part of the First Amended Petition found as Exhibit A. The conveyance of the property as set forth in the Warranty Deed was subject to certain mortgages described in detail upon Exhibit A attached to the Warranty Deed and identified briefly as follows, to wit: A first mortgage to Prudential Insurance Company of America in the amount of three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000); Four "Second" mortgages to the Petitioner herein, said mortgages being in the total amount of eight hundred sixty five thousand, eight hundred fifty four dollars ($865,854); A "third" mortgage granted by Orlando Quadrant Development Limited to United Associates, Inc. in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Exhibit A to the Warranty Deed also contained the following provision: "It is the intent of the Grantor and the Grantee that this conveyance shall not cause a merger of the mortgages held by the Grantee which are described above, and the fee simple title of the Grantee received hereby in that said mortgage shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue to be a lien on the property." Documentary stamps were paid with respect to the full amount of the purchase price in the amount of four million, six hundred sixty five thousand, eight hundred fifty four dollars ($4,665,854.) and minimum stamps for surtax in the amount of fifty five cents ($.55) were paid. On or about August 20, 1975, the Respondent delivered to Petitioner a form letter styled "Request for Information and Response" requesting the reason why minimum surtax was paid. Petitioner replied that minimum surtax was paid because the transaction constituted a sale and not a deed in lieu of foreclosure. A copy of the "Request for Information and Response" was attached as Exhibit B to the First Amended Petition. On or about November 20, 1975, the Respondent sent to Petitioner a "Proposed Notice of Assessment" informing Petitioner of a proposed imposition of tax in the amount of nine hundred fifty two and 05/100 dollars ($952.05) and a penalty in the amount of nine hundred fifty two and 05/100 dollars ($952.05), for a total assessment of one thousand nine hundred four and 10/100 dollars ($1,904.10). A copy of the "Proposed Notice of Assessment" was attached to the First Amended Petition as Exhibit C. In response to the Proposed Notice, the Petitioner, through counsel, wrote to Respondent on December 11, 1975, questioning the necessity for surtax charge under the present status of Florida Law. In that letter there was a formal request for conference within thirty (30) days of the proposed assessment to discuss the assessment before it became final. A copy of the letter of December 11, 1975 was Exhibit D to the First Amended Petition. On December 24, 1975, the Petitioner wrote the Respondent with respect to a telephone conference that was held with Respondent wherein the Respondent indicated there was a legal authority for imposition of surtax against Petitioner. The Respondent sent the information to Petitioner under cover of a letter dated January 2, 1976, and the Petitioner responded to said letter by letter dated January 9, 1976 wherein the position of the Petitioner with respect to the imposition of the surtax was set forth in detail. A copy of the Petitioner's letter of January 9, 1976, was made Exhibit E to the First Amended Petition. Subsequent to the letter of January 9, 1976, Respondent requested by telephone that Petitioner provide Respondent with a copy of the Declaration of Trust of Petitioner, which said Declaration of Trust was sent to Respondent under cover letter dated June 7, 1976. On September 8, 1976, Respondent sent Petitioner a notice that a Tax Warrant and Execution had been prepared and would be filed. A copy of said letter of September 8, 1976 was made Exhibit F to the First Amended Petition. Informal efforts to resolve the dispute were not effective and this led to a formal hearing. A closer look at the events involved in the conveyance of the Warranty Deed points out that the first mortgage held by Prudential Life Insurance Company of America was in default at that time, and the institution of foreclosure proceedings was eminent. The Grantee, Petitioner, held three mortgages subordinate to the first mortgage held by Prudential Life Insurance Company, and it was felt that the conveyance from Grantor to Grantee was the best method of protecting Grantee's interest. The conveyance did not provide for merger of the ownership interest and the mortgage interest in favor of the Grantee, on the face of the Warranty Deed. In fact, the Warranty Deed disclaims such merger, as stated before. There was no agreement either in writing or verbally between the Grantor and the Grantee with respect to payment or non-payment of the second mortgages held by the Grantee, subsequent to the transfer. None of the second mortgages held by the Grantee, Petitioner, have been satisfied of record at the time of conveyance or since that time. There has been no payment of principal and interest on the second mortgages in question since the conveyance under the Warranty Deed. The Petitioner advances its argument in opposition to the documentary surtax premised on the assertion that such tax does not apply to amounts of existing mortgages on the real estate sold, and therefore no surtax should be levied, because the four second mortgages at issue are still in existence. In stating this position the Petitioner refers to 201.021, F.S. which states: "(1) A documentary surtax, in addition to the tax levied in s. 201.02, is levied on those documents taxed by s. 201.02 at the rate of 55 cents per $500 of the consideration paid; provided, that when real estate is sold, the consideration, for purposes of this tax, shall not include amounts of existing mortgages on the real estate sold. If the full amount of the consideration is not shown on the face of the document, then the tax shall be at the rate of 55 cents on each $500 or fractional part thereof of the consideration." The Petitioner also makes reference to Rule 12A-4.12(4)(e) pertaining to the definition of consideration as found in 201.021, F.S. The pertinent provision of that rule says: "For Consideration - Surtax: The term "consideration" under 201.021, F.S., includes but is not limited to: (e) Conveyance where outstanding mortgage debt, lien or encumbrance is cancelled, satisfied, or otherwise rendered unenforceable by the conveyance." According to the Petitioner the four subject mortgages are not cancelled, satisfied, or otherwise rendered unenforceable by the conveyance, and consequently there is no taxable "consideration". They rely on the aforementioned language of the Warranty Deed which disclaims the merger of the mortgage debt with the equity of redemption when the conveyance was made. Moreover, under the Petitioner's argument, because it has stated its intention not to have a merger that stated intention should control and no merger should apply. For this proposition the Petitioner cites the case of Friedman v. Pohnl, 143 So.2d 690, (3 DCA Fla. 1962). Within the language of the case is reference to the case of Jackson v. Relf, 26 Fla. 465, 8 So. 184 (Fla. 1890). The Jackson case, supra, states that it is the intention of the person in whom the debt and equity of redemption are united that determines if there is a merger of the mortgage debt and equity of redemption, or if the mortgage debt continues to be in force and effect. The Petitioner also argues that the reason it elected not to merge the debt claim and equity of redemption, was to protect its priority position under the second mortgages over the third mortgage holder in the case of any sale to any third party and assumption of a second mortgage by a third party or in the case of any formal foreclosure. The Respondent counters the Petitioner's argument by claiming that the four subject second mortgages have been extinguished, thereby entitling the Respondent to impose a documentary surtax under the authority of 201.021(1), F.S. and Rule 12A-4.12(4)(e) F.A.C. The Respondent feels that you may look behind the disclaimer statement found in the Warranty Deed and by the facts of the conveyance determine that there is a merger for purposes of taxation. The Respondent relies upon a series of case decisions in arriving at this position. The first two cases Gay v. Inter-County Tel & Tel. Co., 60 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1952) and Choctawhatchee Electric Corp. v. Green, 132 So.2d 556 (Fla. 1961), it argues, stand for the proposition that the Documentary Stamp Tax Act in Florida is similar to the Federal Act 26 U.S.C.A. 1800 et. seq. and the same construction given to the federal tax cases in the federal courts, may be given to the Florida documentary stamp tax cases in the Florida cases. Using that theory as a basis for the persuasiveness of the federal authority, the Petitioner then cites the cases of Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. United States, 110 F Supp. 606 (1953) and Railroad Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n. v. United States, 135 F.2d 290. According to the Respondent, the two federal cases were sufficiently close in their facts to be applicable to the case at bar. Furthermore, since these cases required the payment of federal documentary tax, the Respondent believes that the rationale used in those cases would sustain a claim for documentary surtax and penalty in the case sub judice. An examination of the two federal cases shows them to be distinguishable in their facts. Mutual Life, supra, is distinguishable for two reasons. The first reason being that certain mortgage debts spoken of in that case had clauses indicating that the mortgage on the property was not to merge with the fee and that the mortgage would remain with the property notwithstanding conveyance; however, in all those cases a covenant had been given not to sue on the mortgage debt, which extinguished the mortgage debt. No such covenant has been given in the case at bar, and consequently the consideration, constituted of the extinguishment found in Mutual Life, supra, is not found in the case at bar. There is a second distinguishing factor between the Mutual Life case and the present case. That pertains to the fact that the action in Mutual Life involved the laws of the State of New York, which were being applied to a different set of facts. Under the New York Law, consideration was also found to exist notwithstanding a clause which disclaimed any merger of the fee and mortgage. This situation pertained to five mortgage cases in which no covenant not to sue had been given. The New York Law, according to the opinion in Mutual Life, called for the extinguishment of the mortgages in those five cases, due to the statutory statement which prohibited deficiency judgments on the mortgage indebtedness, because the fair market value of the property exceeded the debt claim. Therefore under the statement of the case, the mortgage indebtedness was extinguished as a matter of law, by transferring the interest in the fee to the mortgagee. A tax was placed on that transfer, based upon the extinguishment of the mortgage debt as consideration. The law in Florida does not prohibit a foreclosure suit by the second mortgage holder in the way set forth in the New York Law. In addition, the five mortgages in the Mutual Life case were not surrounded by first and third mortgages as is the case herein. The existence of the first and third mortgages, is a legitimate reason to maintain the second mortgages held by the Petitioner, as a protection against the other mortgagees. The other federal case cited by the Petitioner is the Railroad Federal case, supra. This case involved a deed in lieu of foreclosure and the imposition of a tax on the balance of principal and accrued interest due on the mortgages plus any cash amount paid. These mortgages involved in the Railroad Federal case were later cancelled by the resale or the subsequent purchase subject to the mortgages. The deed also contained an agreement not to seek a deficiency judgment on the part of the mortgagee which made it clear that the mortgagee was taking the property in full satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness. In fact the mortgagee did not seek a deficiency judgment, nor was any further interest paid or demanded. This is distinguishable from the case at bar, in that the clear intent of the mortgagor and mortgagee herein is to keep active the second mortgages. The Respondent cited several administrative cases namely: Friedman v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No. 75-1304: Hutner v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No. 75-1771; and Atico Mortgage Investors v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No 77-1124. Respondent cited too, Opinion of the Attorney General, 059-203. Without discussing those administrative cases and the Attorney General's Opinion, they are all distinguishable in their facts and would not appear to have application to the case at bar. Based on an analysis of the evidential facts and the argument of the parties, the position of the Petitioner is well founded and the documentary surtax and penalty should not be paid.
Recommendation It is recommended that the subject assessment of documentary surtax and penalty be set aside. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. Lee Bennett, Esquire Lowndes, Peirsol, Drosdick & Doster, P.A. Suite 443, First Federal Building Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Division of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 475.025(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what the appropriate penalty is.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, O. Dane Streets was licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker having been issued License No. 0085710-1 for an address in Lakeland, Florida. In the Spring or early Summer of 1991, Nathan Price, a minister in Orlando, Florida, contacted Respondent to solicit Respondent's participation in representing Price's daughter, Melissa Howard, in purchasing real estate in Orlando. Price and Respondent have been business and social acquaintances for more than 10 years, and Price was helping his daughter and son-in-law in purchasing a home. The Howard's found a house they liked, Respondent obtained the listing information from the listing broker and prepared a contract for sale and purchase (Exhibit 1). As modified and accepted by all parties, this contract provided for a $1000 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Respondent's real estate company. In lieu of obtaining the deposit from Price or Howard, Respondent told Howard to give the earnest money deposit to the selling broker as all of the transactions were to be conducted in Orlando. The $1000 earnest money deposit was given to neither Respondent nor the listing broker, ReMax Southwest in Orlando. The failure of Respondent to follow up to insure that the earnest money deposit had been given to the listing broker in this transaction does not reach the status of fraud or dishonest dealing as Respondent had no such intent. Shortly before the August 21, 1991 closing date, Price advised Respondent that the mortgage lender was asking about the earnest money deposit. Respondent immediately obtained a cashier's check dated August 8, 1991 (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $1000 which Price presented at the closing on August 21, 1991. In his testimony, Respondent acknowledged that he erred in not obtaining the earnest money deposit or failing to check to be sure the deposit had been made with the listing broker. Since Respondent is located in Lakeland and the property being purchased is in Orlando when the closing was held, Respondent thought everything would be simplified if the deposit was held by the listing broker. When the listing broker learned that the deposit of $1000 had never been received by Respondent and placed in escrow, a complaint was made to the Florida Real Estate Commission, and these proceedings followed. Respondent has held licenses from the Florida Real Estate Commission for some 20 years, and this is the first time any charges have been brought against his license.
Recommendation It is Recommended that a Final Order be entered finding O. Dane Streets not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged. ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1992. Copies furnished to: Steven N. Johnson, Esquire Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate Division Director 400 W. Robinson Street Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1900 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1900 O. Dane Streets Post Office Box 6852 Jack McRay, Esquire Lakeland, FL 33807 Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On or about August 18, 1977, Respondent, Charles Leon Winkleman (Winkleman), filed an application with Petitioner, Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance (Department) for registration as an associated person with Tax Favored Securities, Inc., now known as Global Investors Securities, Inc. Winkleman's application was granted November 1, 1977. On April 11, 1984, Winkleman pled guilty to an information filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (District Court) , Case No. 84-6043-Cr-JLK, which charged that he: did wilfully and knowingly aid assist in, and counsel, procure, and advise the preparation and presentation to the Internal Revenue Service of a United States Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) of William I. and Amy Steele Donner for the calendar year 1978 which was false and fraudulent as to a material matter, in that it represented that said William I. Donner was entitled under the provisions of the Internal Revenue laws to claim deductions in the sum of $83,313.00 representing an ordinary loss of income, as a result of being owner of a sole proprietorship managed by Charles L. Winkleman, whereas, as . Winkleman . . . then and there well knew and believed William I. Donner was not entitled to said deductions all in violation of Title 26 United States Code, Section 7206(2). 1/ On April 18, 1984, Winkleman filed an amended Form U-4 with the Central Registration Depository, and thereby advised interested parties that he had pled guilty to the information filed in the District Court. A copy of the amended Form U-4 was, contemporaneously, filed with the Department. 2/ On June 6, 1984, the District Court entered a judgment of guilt on Winkleman's plea. Winkleman was sentenced to six months imprisonment and fined $3,000.00. Winkleman failed, however, to notify the Department of such conviction until April 10, 1987, and offered no explanation at hearing for such failure. Following Winkleman's plea of guilty in the District Court, the Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations (Department of Commerce) in Juneau, Alaska, issued a notice of intent to revoke Winkleman's registration. This notice, dated June 4, 1984, sought revocation based primarily on Winkleman's plea of guilty to the charges filed in the District Court. Winkleman failed to notify the Department of the pendency of the Alaska proceeding until April 10, 1987, and offered no explanation at hearing for such failure. On March 10, 1987, the Department of Commerce entered an order revoking Winkleman's registration in Alaska based on his conviction in the District Court. By amended Form U-4, filed April 10, 1987, Winkleman advised the Department of his conviction in the District Court and the revocation of his registration by the State of Alaska. 3/ The order of the Department of Commerce, revoking Winkleman's registration, is currently on appeal. Winkleman seeks reversal of such order predicated on his assertion that the Department of Commerce breached an agreement to allow him to withdraw his registration in lieu of revocation. On July 20, 1987, the court, which is reviewing the Department of Commerce proceedings, entered an order staying the order of revocation pending the disposition of Winkleman's appeal. On April 1, 1987, a hearing was held before the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), to consider whether Winkleman, because of his conviction, should be disqualified as a registered representative with Global Investors Securities, Inc. On August 13, 1986, NASD entered a "Notice Pursuant to Rule 19h-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934" whereby it proposed that Winkleman not be disqualified. On January 8, 1987, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rendered its decision that it would not invoke Section 15A(g)(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to direct NASD to disqualify Winkleman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the registration of Respondent, Charles Leon Winkleman, as an associated person under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 6th day of October, 1987.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is indebted to Petitioner as alleged in the Complaint filed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Findings Of Fact Robert Sepos is the comptroller for Ben-Bud Growers, Inc. As such Mr. Sepos maintains the company records which document amounts owed to it by others. As to this case, Mr. Sepos presented the invoices and statements due and owing from the Respondent. Based upon the unpaid invoices, Respondent owes Petitioner the sum of $10,471.80. Respondent acknowledged that the sum of $10,471.80 is owed to Petitioner but claimed that such amount was not for the purchase of agricultural products as contemplated by Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. According to Mr. Towell the bulk of the debt owed to Petitioner is for packaging and shipping fees for produce from growers represented by Fantastic Produce. Mr. Towell maintains that packing and shipping fees are not encompassed within Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Mr. Sepos could not verify what sum, if any, of the total amount claimed was for agricultural products (versus packing or shipping). Based upon the admissions made by Mr. Towell, Respondent owes the Petitioner for agricultural products the sum of $775.00 in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's claim in the amount of $775.00 and disallowing the remainder. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ben Litowich, President Ben-Bud Growers, Inc. 6261 West Atlantic Boulevard Margate, Florida 33063 George Towell, President George Towell Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Fantastic Produce Post Office Box 159 Belle Glade, Florida 33430 American Southern Insurance Company Legal Department 3715 Northside Parkway, 8th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30327
