The Issue Has Mr. Juliano demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17, Florida Statutes (1981)?
Findings Of Fact On February 12, 1981, Mr. Juliano filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Florida Board of Real Estate. By a letter dated April 28, 1981, the Board denied Mr. Juliano's application. As stated by the letter, "the specific reasons for the Board's action is based on your answer to Question #6 of the licensing application and your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency." Question #6 of the application asks: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Mr. Juliano responded "Yes" he had. The question further requested the details in full concerning any arrests. In response Mr. Juliano answered: Arrested for possession of canibus, [sic] pleaded guilty, placed on probation for 30 months. I am not on probation now. On May 31, 1977, the Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, Florida, in Case No. 77-171-CFA, State of Florida v. Frank Arthur Juliano, entered judgment whereby Mr. Juliano who entered a plea of guilty to possession of controlled substances was placed on probation for a period of 30 months with adjudication of guilt withheld. Mr. Juliano successfully completed the terms of his probation which expired on November 30, 1979. There was some confusion about the nature of the judgment entered by the Seminole County Circuit Court referenced above. Upon the receipt of Mr. Juliano's application for licensure the Board staff, as it customarily does, wrote a letter to him dated March 4, 1981 in which it requested additional information about the arrest mentioned in his answer to Question #6 on the application. In response to that inquiry Mr. Juliano obtained and sent to the Board a report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement which indicates that Mr. Juliano was arrested on March 7, 1977 for the sale and delivery of controlled drugs. The report further indicates that adjudication was withheld and he was placed on probation for 30 months. A cursory reading of the report might cause the reader to believe that judgment was entered on a charge of sale and delivery. Such a reading would not be correct. Mr. Juliano did not enter a plea to the sale and delivery of controlled substances, but pled only to the charge of possession of controlled substances, a less serious crime. This fact is reflected in the actual Order of Judgment entered by the Seminole County Circuit Court. Since his arrest and probation on the possession charge Mr. Juliano has not been arrested for or charged with any other criminal acts. He has subsequently led a law-abiding life and conducted himself in an honest and trustworthy manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Real Estate enter a Final Order finding Petitioner qualified pursuant to Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes (1981) to take the licensing examination provided for in Section 475.17(5), Florida Statutes (1981), to be licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 26th day of February, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Carl D. Hill, Petitioner, applied for licensure to the Florida Real Estate Commission, Respondent, on or about October 19, 1983, and subsequently received a letter of denial dated December 6, 1983. The denial was based upon Sections 475.17(1) and 475.25, F.S., and specifically cited Petitioner's prior arrest in 1980 and criminal record. By Order of the Circuit Court dated June 12, 1984, the record of Petitioner's prior arrest and plea of guilty was expunged and sealed. Petitioner had originally been placed on probation for five years, but that probation was terminated early for good behavior after three years, on or about April 16, 1984. Petitioner has not been arrested for any offense since 1980, and has at all times been employed. His reputation in the community is very good. Petitioner is currently co-owner of Interstate Mobile Homes and handles sales, service and set-up of mobile homes. His partner is a licensed real estate broker who also operates Sun American Realty in the same building. There is no evidence in the record which would indicate that Petitioner has at any time engaged in activities which would require a real estate salesman's license. All such activities are handled by his partner and co-owner who is licensed as a real estate broker. Petitioner held a real estate salesman's license from November 1981 until January 18, 1983. Petitioner's previous license was revoked pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(m), F.S., but he was not precluded from reapplying for reinstatement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson be APPROVED. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 26th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Crooks, Esquire Crooks, Vetter, Cuellar and Blau, P.A. 4202 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Ralph Armstead, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold R. Huff, Director Dept. of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman should be denied because he allegedly lacks the requisite honesty, trustworthiness, truthfulness, good character, and good reputation for fair dealing.
Findings Of Fact On June 10, 1983, petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Question No. 6, on the application, reads: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? If yes, state details including the outcome in full. Question #6 was answered by Petitioner as follows: Feb. 11, 1979 arrested - (hit & run & possession of cocaine) [sic] Case #79521C. In hit & run charge - (felony was dropped) In the cocaine [sic] charge 3 yrs. probation (Aug. 1, 79, Aug. 1, 82). Also (July 11, 80) went to court for loitering or prowling charge - Pleaded no contest and paid $25 court cost - Case No. 80-4630mm. On August 17, 1983, the Commission tentatively denied his application because of his criminal record disclosed by this answer to Question No. 6. His answer was truthful and correct. On February 11, 1979, he was arrested in Lake Worth, Florida, and charged with possession of cocaine and hit and run. The hit and run charge was dropped and, on August 1, 1979, he pled guilty to the charge of possession of cocaine. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to three years of probation. On April 22, 1980, while on Probation, petitioner, was arrested in Boynton Beach, Florida, charged with loitering or prowling, and later convicted. II. Petitioner, 22, was 18 years old in 1979, when he was arrested, and convicted of possessing a small amount of cocaine. The seriousness of his loitering or prowling conviction, which occurred in the next year, is revealed by the minimal sentence he received--a $25 fine. That was his last unlawful act, and it occurred almost four years ago. During the last two years, his life and character have changed dramatically. He avoids illicit drugs; he works 60 hours a week as a salesman in a West Palm Beach furniture store; and he is the sole support for his 2 year old daughter, Keisha. Both he and his friends attribute his change in lifestyle and character to the love and responsibility he feels for Keisha, whose mother left him approximately a year ago. Two character witnesses, admittedly his friends, know petitioner to be an honest, trustworthy, and straight-forward person. They have been impressed by his willingness to accept responsibility for his young daughter and raise her almost single-handedly; by his willingness to work hard as a salesman and improve his lot. Both witnesses are reputable real estate brokers or salesmen in Florida. One has been in the real estate business for 11 years, is president of the largest realtor office in Palm Beach County, does a real estate radio talk show, and teaches and publishes articles on investing in real estate. He has known petitioner for about three years and stated, without hesitation, that he would hire petitioner if he obtains a real estate license. The other witness, licensed since 1977, has known petitioner since boyhood and believes that respondent would make a good real estate salesman. The opinions of these character witnesses are persuasive and supported by other convincing evidence. Until recently, when he began working at a West Palm Beach furniture store because of the opportunity for increased sales, he had worked at a Lake Worth furniture store for 3 and 1/2 years. He began as a delivery boy, was promoted to part-time sales, then full-time sales. He opened the store four to six days a week. For the last four years, he has been a stable, productive and, by all accounts, reliable employee. The Commission has not alleged or shown otherwise. Petitioner's completion of his application, and his candor and demeanor at hearing, provide further evidence of his character and honesty. On his application he truthfully and fully disclosed his previous arrests and convictions. At hearing, he candidly admitted his past indiscretions or unlawful acts, and expressed a sincere desire for an opportunity to become a real estate salesman: Yes, I would very much appreciate an opportunity to take the test. Like I say, my four years is a very long time. I don't know if it is for most people. It's been a long time for me. My lifestyle, you could really call it boring. Like I say, I am working sixty hours a week and taking of the business with the baby just about the rest of the time, and ninety percent of my spare time is spent with her. I am trying to prove something to you today that I already know in my heart, and that is that I would not cheat anybody and I do have a general fair and loving outlook on life. That's all. (TR.-28) Based on the above, it is concluded, as an ultimate finding, that petitioner is honest, truthful, and trustworthy, and has good character and reputation. His conduct, over four years, demonstrates that he possesses these qualities. Two licensed real estate professionals, aware of his past misdeeds, enthusiastically vouch for his good character and ask that he be given an opportunity to become a salesman. It appears likely that his licensing, should he pass the examination, will not endanger the interests of the public or real estate investors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner be found qualified, under Section 475.17, and that, upon passing the required examination, he be licensed as a Florida real estate salesman. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 16th day of February, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated from the University of Texas at El Paso in 1976. Since that time she taught school in Texas for six years, entered a stockbroker training program, qualified, but did not work as a stockbroker. She completed one semester of pre-law before moving to Florida in 1983. Since her arrival in Florida she ran an antique restoration business, taught at a private school for girls, and did a lot of volunteer counseling services principally in the evenings in group sessions. Her primary interest in the field of counseling has been to help rape victims and abused children. While carrying out these counseling services, Petitioner came into contact with a family of three children, the father of whom had recently remarried after the death of their mother. They were experiencing difficulties with their stepmother, and ultimately the father sided with his children and separated from the new wife. Although Petitioner has never met this woman, she evidentally blamed Petitioner for her failed marriage and commenced a program of harassment of Petitioner that included threatening phone calls, discontinuance of Petitioner's telephone service, and access to confidential information about some of Petitioner's clients she was counseling. Unable to get any protection from the police absent some overt act by the harasser, Petitioner succumbed to the pressure and in desperation, paid two young men $100 to rattle the woman's door and tell her to leave Petitioner alone. The two men did not carry out the intimidation and shortly thereafter Petitioner notified the police of her plans. She was subsequently arrested and brought to trial on a charge of solicitation to commit burglary. Upon advice of counsel, she pleaded guilty, adjudication of guilt was withheld by the court, and she was placed on probation for four years. In her application for licensure Petitioner accurately reported this incident. Petitioner has never before been arrested or otherwise involved with the police on the wrong side of the law. She has been an exemplary parolee and her probation will likely be reduced to two years if Petitioner continues on her present course. Since this incident Petitioner has been named guardian advocate for a party placed in involuntary placement due to incompetence. Raul Martin, a registered real estate broker, has known Petitioner and members of her family for many years. He is fully aware of the criminal charges that were brought against Petitioner and that as supervising broker, he would be responsible for her actions as a real estate salesman. He will hire her as a salesman if she is allowed to take, and successfully passes, the real estate examination for salesman.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed barber in the State of New York where he has 30 years experience in men's hair styling. He also maintains a residence in Pompano Beach, Florida. Petitioner was convicted of attempted grand larceny, third degree, in the State of New York in 1978. The offense involved assisting his employee in attempting to defraud an insurance company. Petitioner was fined $350 for committing this offense, which is a Class A misdemeanor. He was issued a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities by the State of New York on September 25, 1978. A licensed Florida real estate broker and a building contractor testified on behalf of Petitioner. The broker has known Petitioner for over five years and trusts him sufficiently to employ him in her realty business if he is granted a real estate salesman's license. The building contractor has known Petitioner for nine years and has found him to be honest and reliable. Petitioner also introduced twelve letters of recommendation submitted by business and professional persons. These individuals have known Petitioner for substantial periods, and uniformly conclude that he is honest and trustworthy. They base their conclusions on extensive personal contact with Petitioner, as well as their knowledge of his general reputation.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Anthony A. Deriggi for registration as a real estate salesman be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Jeffrey C. Barnes, is a 60-year-old male who maintains a residence in Illinois and is currently a licensed realtor in Illinois and Wisconsin. On April 9, 2007, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation received the Petitioner’s application to become a licensed real estate broker in Florida. The Petitioner responded affirmatively to a question on the application form which asked, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) . . ., even if you received a withhold of adjudication?” The Petitioner’s reported criminal history began with an incident on November 19, 1985, when the Illinois police stopped him for driving 53 M.P.H. in a 40 M.P.H. zone. Upon discovering that the Petitioner was driving with a suspended license, the police arrested him and found a small glass bottle containing cocaine on his person. The police also found 23 individually-wrapped packets of cocaine in the Petitioner’s vehicle. Because of this incident, the Illinois authorities charged the Petitioner with unlawfully possessing a controlled substance with the intent to deliver more than 30 grams. On February 18, 1986, an Illinois police officer witnessed the Petitioner driving erratically and pulled his car over. While asking for the Petitioner’s license, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the car. Upon looking into the car, the officer saw a bottle containing cocaine hanging from one of the Petitioner’s pockets. During a subsequent search of the Petitioner and his car, the police discovered drug paraphernalia and more cocaine. The police also administered a sobriety test which the Petitioner failed. The Petitioner was 38 years old during the incidents described above. Ultimately, the Petitioner was convicted on two counts of manufacturing and delivering a controlled substance, one count of possessing cannabis, and one count of possessing a controlled substance (i.e., cocaine). The Petitioner was released in 1990 after serving four years in prison. The Commission considered the Petitioner’s licensure application on July 18, 2007 during a regularly-scheduled meeting in Orlando, Florida. The Petitioner was present, but he was not represented by an attorney. During the aforementioned meeting, the Commission made the following findings of fact: (a) “[a]pplicant’s criminal record is as revealed in [his] application; (b) “[a]pplicant’s testimony or evidence in explanation/mitigation was unpersuasive;” and (c) “[a]pplicant’s criminal history is recent in time.”2/ Based on the findings of fact described above, the Commission concluded the Petitioner had “engaged in conduct or practices which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license.” The Commission also concluded the Petitioner had been “[c]onvicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, . . . a crime which directly relates to activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing.” Ultimately, the Commission elected to deny the Petitioner’s application by concluding “it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida.” The Commission’s decision was memorialized in a “Notice of Intent to Deny” rendered on August 8, 2007. The Petitioner responded by filing a petition disputing the facts on which the Commission’s decision was based. Specifically, due to the lapse of time since his convictions and subsequent good conduct, the Petitioner asserted he satisfied the criteria for licensure set forth in Section 475.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes. During the December 11, 2007 formal hearing, the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and described how he has worked in the information technology field for over 35 years. In addition, the Petitioner described his charitable and civic activities in considerable detail. The Petitioner attributed his convictions to a serious cocaine addiction. While incarcerated, he participated in substance abuse programs and describes his time in prison as a blessing. The Petitioner testified that he has had no further involvement with illegal drugs since his release from prison. During his testimony at hearing, the Petitioner revealed that he had sold 3.5 grams of cocaine to a friend in the presence of an undercover police officer, a crime not disclosed to the Commission in his licensure application. The Petitioner was not specific about when this crime occurred, but he believed that he was 25 or 30 years old at the time. While it is uncertain whether the Petitioner’s sale of cocaine actually resulted in a conviction which had to be expressly disclosed to the Commission in his licensure application, his claim that this crime was fully disclosed casts doubt on his credibility. In addition to his own testimony, the Petitioner offered the testimony of his brother, Pastor Christopher Barnes. When asked about the Petitioner’s character, Pastor Barnes expressed his opinion that the Petitioner’s arrest and convictions were responsible for the turn-around in the Petitioner’s life and present day exemplary good character. The Petitioner also offered the testimony of his wife, Ms. Janet Victoria. They met in late 1991 or early 1992 and have been married since 1997. Ms. Victoria works as a real estate broker in Illinois, and the Petitioner began working for her in 2004. Reverend James Dean Millar also testified on the Petitioner’s behalf that he and the Petitioner met in 2003, that the Petitioner has been involved in charitable endeavors and that the Petitioner regularly attends church services. All of the Petitioner’s witnesses responded affirmatively when asked if they knew the Petitioner to be honest, truthful, trustworthy, and a person of good character. They also responded affirmatively when asked if they knew whether the Petitioner had a good reputation for fair dealing. However, their statements were more in the nature of conclusions, lacking any specific detail to support their opinions. No specific instances were related where the Petitioner demonstrated honesty, morality, or ethical behavior. Also, none of the witnesses can be considered “disinterested.” The testimony and evidence indicated the Petitioner is accomplished in the fields of information technology and real estate sales.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 30th day of January, 2008.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent should deny an application for a real estate broker's license on the grounds that the applicant pled nolo contendere to a crime involving moral turpitude, within the meaning of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), was adjudicated guilty of the crime, and has not been rehabilitated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate brokers and sales persons in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent has licensed Petitioner as a real estate sales person since July 1, 1996. Petitioner has also been licensed in the state as a mortgage broker since September 1, 1993. On June 25, 2004, Petitioner applied for a license as a real estate broker. On December 1, 2004, Respondent issued a Notice of Denial. The Notice of Denial proposes to deny the license application on specific grounds. The Notice limits the grounds for denial to those included in the following statement: The Florida Real Estate Commission has determined that the Applicant has been adjudicated guilty of crimes relating to the activities of a licensed broker or sales associate, and crimes of moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. Specifically it has found that the applicant . . . has been convicted of or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to: Contributing To The Delinquency of A Minor, 2001 During the hearing, Respondent stipulated that it does not seek denial of the application on the grounds that the alleged crimes relate to the activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or to fraudulent or dishonest dealing. Respondent relies solely on allegations that Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor; that the crime involved moral turpitude; and that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and has not been rehabilitated.1 It is undisputed that Petitioner pled nolo contendere in 2001 to a first-degree misdemeanor in the Circuit Court of Charlotte County, Florida, for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The factual allegations in the criminal proceeding were that Petitioner solicited a 13-year-old female (minor female) to pose topless or nude on August 2, 2001, when Petitioner was approximately 38 years old. It is undisputed that the minor female did not pose for Petitioner. The court adjudicated Petitioner guilty and withheld sentencing. Petitioner paid $353 in costs, served 75 hours of community service, and successfully completed probation of 12 months. The Notice of Denial does not allege that Petitioner actually committed the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Nor does the applicable statute require proof that Petitioner committed the acts alleged in the criminal proceeding as a prerequisite for denial in this proceeding.2 It is legally unnecessary to determine whether Petitioner is guilty of the crime to which he pled nolo contendere. The entry of the plea, by itself, is a sufficient statutory ground for the proposed denial. The plea does not operate statutorily as conclusive evidence that Petitioner committed the crime to which he pled nolo contendere.3 No finding is made in this proceeding that Petitioner either did or did not solicit the minor female. The court adjudicated Petitioner guilty, and this Recommended Order refers to the solicitation as the adjudicated solicitation. The threshold factual issue in this proceeding is whether the adjudicated solicitation involved moral turpitude. If so, it must be determined whether there is a rational connection between the moral turpitude and Petitioner's fitness to engage in the real estate business. If the requisite connection exists, it must be determined whether Petitioner has been rehabilitated and is not a "danger to the public." The adjudicated solicitation involved an act of moral turpitude. Solicitation of a 13-year-old female to pose topless or nude was a substantial deviation from the standard of conduct acceptable in the community, violated the duties owed to society, and was an inherently base or depraved act.4 The base or depraved nature of the adjudicated solicitation did not arise from a desire for monetary gain, as the motive typically is in other crimes, such as grand theft or the intent to sell controlled substances, that have been held to involve moral turpitude.5 Rather, the base or depraved nature of the adjudicated solicitation arose from an attempt to coerce the involuntary compliance of a minor female by exploiting her vulnerability; exploiting a financial relationship over which Petitioner enjoyed financial control; and exploiting a quasi- familial relationship in which Petitioner was imbued with the advantage of an authority figure.6 A person of common understanding would have known there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such conduct would encourage delinquency and that disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from an appropriate standard of conduct. At age 13, the minor female was nowhere near the 18 years of age required for legal majority. That vulnerability was accentuated during the adjudicated solicitation by Petitioner's age of 38. The minor female was also financially dependent on Petitioner for income as the family babysitter. Petitioner enjoyed the advantage of financial control of that relationship and possessed the power to terminate the relationship. Petitioner also enjoyed the benefit of an authority figure in a quasi-familial relationship. The minor female is the daughter of the brother of Petitioner's wife. The minor female is not legally the niece of Petitioner because the brother never married the mother of the minor female. The minor female is also a long-time friend of Petitioner's daughter. There is no direct evidence of actual intent to exploit the vulnerability of the minor female and any existing relationship. However, Petitioner should have known that the minor female was in a position of vulnerability and that the adjudicated solicitation necessarily exploited her vulnerability and the advantages he enjoyed in their relationship. A person of common understanding would have known there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the solicitation would tend to cause or encourage delinquency. The risk was of such a nature and degree that Petitioner's adjudicated disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from the appropriate standard of conduct.7 The moral turpitude evidenced by the adjudicated solicitation in 2001 is not rationally connected to the applicant's fitness to engage in the real estate business. Respondent admits that the adjudicated solicitation is not related to the activities of a licensed broker or sales associate and does not involve fraudulent or dishonest dealing. It is undisputed that the adjudicated solicitation did not impugn Petitioner's fitness to engage in the real estate business. From July 1, 1996, through the date of hearing, Petitioner has functioned as a licensed real estate sales person with no harm to the public before or after the adjudicated solicitation. Petitioner disclosed the adjudicated solicitation to Respondent sometime after June 25, 2004. Respondent did not prevent Petitioner from engaging in the real estate business as a sales person. Respondent cited no evidence or authority to support a finding or conclusion that the misdemeanor disqualifies Petitioner from performing the functions of a real estate broker, but does not disqualify Petitioner from performing the duties and responsibilities of a real estate sales person. As a mortgage broker, Petitioner maintains trust accounts and transfers client deposits to third parties, including surveyors and credit reporting agencies. The absence of a rational connection to the applicant's fitness to practice real estate imbues the allegation of moral turpitude with the potential for arbitrary and discriminatory denial of the license application.8 The potential for selective enforcement should be avoided. The issue of whether Petitioner has been rehabilitated is moot in the absence of a rational connection between an act of moral turpitude and the fitness to engage in the real estate business. If it were determined that a rational connection existed between the adjudicated solicitation in 2001 and the fitness of Petitioner to engage in the real estate business, Petitioner has been rehabilitated.9 Petitioner paid the required court costs, served the community service, and completed his probation. Petitioner is a father of three children, has been married for more than 16 years, is a licensed real estate sales person, a licensed mortgage broker, and has not exhibited a pattern or practice of violations before or after the incident on August 2, 2001. Rather, the incident in 2001 stands alone as the only blemish on an otherwise flawless professional record as a real estate agent and a mortgage broker. The issuance of a broker's license to Petitioner does not frustrate legislative intent. The issuance of a license does not expose the public to a dishonest real estate broker that engages in fraudulent practices. The crime for which Petitioner was adjudicated guilty does not impugn the honesty of Petitioner or his ability to deal fairly with the public in the real estate business.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting the license application. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 August, 2005. 1/ Transcript at pages 44-45. 2/ The last sentence in Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), states that the court record of conviction is prima facie evidence of guilt. However, the statutory language preceding the last sentence does not expressly require proof of guilt as a prerequisite for denial. The last sentence appears to be a vestige from former statutory language that required a plea of nolo contendere to be treated as a conviction. The legislature deleted the former statutory language from the current statute, but, so far, has not deleted the remaining vestige of the former statute. The issue is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law. If proof of guilt were a statutory prerequisite for denial, evidence Petitioner submitted to overcome the prima facie showing of guilt or to mitigate the prima facie showing of guilt is neither credible nor persuasive to the trier of fact. The relevant evidence consists of Petitioner's own testimony and hearsay statements that the testimony attributes to the minor female, members of her family, and others. The hearsay did not supplement or explain competent and substantial evidence within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). 3/ Cf. McNair v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, 518 So. 2d 390, 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(plea is not statutorily evaluated as conclusive evidence of the commission of wrongdoing but is, by itself, statutorily sufficient for disciplinary action). This issue is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law. 4/ Neither party cited an applicable statute or rule that defines moral turpitude. Judicial decisions generally hold that moral turpitude involves: . . . the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. (citations omitted) It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals. . . . State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth et al., 108 Fla. 607, 146 So. 660, 611 (Fla. 1933). 5/ Judicial decisions finding moral turpitude in the exploitation of others for monetary gain are discussed in the Conclusions of Law. 6/ Judicial decisions discussing exploitation of vulnerable persons in professional relationships are discussed further in the Conclusions of Law. 7/ Culpable knowledge is an element in the judicial definition of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. State v. Shamrani, 370 So. 2d 1, 2 n.3 (Fla. 1979); Kito v. State, 888 So. 2d 114, 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). 8/ By analogy, the Florida Supreme Court has held that a rational connection to an applicant's fitness to practice law must be applied to the requirement for good moral character or the requirement could become "a dangerous instrument for arbitrary and discriminatory denial of the right to practice law." Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: G.W.L., 364 So. 2d 454, 458-459 (Fla. 1978). 9/ Counsel for Respondent questioned Petitioner in an unsuccessful attempt to show that Petitioner currently lacks veracity and is therefore dishonest. Counsel stipulated that the grounds for denial do not include dishonesty or fraudulent practices. The attempt to show current dishonesty is relevant only to the issue of rehabilitation. See Transcript at pages 36-51. 10/ The agency action in McNair was mandatory but is discretionary in this proceeding. The substantially affected party in McNair pled nolo contendere to a felony while Petitioner entered a similar plea to a misdemeanor. However, those factual distinctions are not material to the absence in the applicable statute of the former statutory infirmity that spawned the requirement of proof of guilt in Ayala and Son. 11/ Unlike the facts in the instant case, the holding in some of the cited cases are arguably ambiguous in that the allegations recite all of the grounds in the applicable statute, and it is not clear in every case whether the decision is restricted to allegations of moral turpitude. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 419 West Vine Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Guy Sanchez, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(e) and (1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is 58 years old. He is employed full-time as a real estate sales associate. Respondent holds an active real estate sales associate license. His license number is SL706350. The license was issued to Respondent based upon his sworn application for licensure submitted on or about March 14, 2001. Question No. 9 on the license application asked whether Respondent had “ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if [he] received a withhold of adjudication.” The following explanation is provided as part of the question: This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer “NO” because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering “NO.” (Emphasis supplied) Immediately following Question No. 9 is the following statement in all capital letters: YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE OR THE DENIAL OF A REAL ESTATE LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR THE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE. Respondent checked the box marked “NO” for Question No. 9 on the application that he submitted. Respondent’s negative answer to Question No. 9 was a material misstatement of his criminal record. On March 27, 1972, Respondent pled guilty to attempted robbery in the third degree in the Erie County Court in New York. The offense was a felony. On May 5, 1972, Respondent was sentenced to five years of probation for that offense. Respondent’s probation was revoked on January 14, 1974, and he was sentenced to “the care and custody of the NY State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission for an indefinite period of 60 months.” The latter sentence ran concurrently with a sentence imposed for another offense, the substance of which is not reflected in the record. On August 3, 1992, the Erie County Court issued a Certificate of Relief From Disabilities to Respondent, which relieved him of “all disabilities and bars to employment, excluding the right to be eligible for public office.” The certificate expressly states that it “shall NOT be deemed nor construed to be a pardon,” and it is limited to the “crime or offense specified [t]herein.” The Certificate of Relief From Disabilities makes no mention of expungement or sealing of the records related to the enumerated offense. The only offense enumerated in the Certificate of Relief From Disabilities is the third degree attempted robbery conviction with a sentence date of May 5, 1972. No other offenses are mentioned. On February 18, 1993, the New York Executive Department, Board of Parole, issued a Certificate of Good Conduct to Respondent. The certificate referenced three offenses: the third degree attempted robbery conviction discussed above; a second degree robbery conviction with a sentence date of May 8, 1975; and a federal distribution of heroine conviction with a sentence date of May 1, 1978. The purpose of the Certificate of Good Conduct was to “remove all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license and privilege except those pertaining to firearms . . . and except the right to be eligible for public office.” The certificate states that it “shall be considered permanent.” The Certificate of Good Conduct makes no mention of expungement or sealing of the records related to the enumerated offenses. Respondent testified that his negative answer to Question No. 9 was based upon his understanding of the legal effect of the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and the Certificate of Good Conduct. Specifically, Respondent testified that although he understood that the certificates did not “remove” his criminal history or expunge his records, it was his understanding that the certificates provided him a “safe harbor” to answer “no” to Question No. 9 because all legal bars to employment had been removed by the certificates. Respondent’s understanding regarding the legal effect of the certificates and his obligation to disclose his prior offenses based upon the certificates was based, in part, on advice he received from an attorney in New York. Respondent knew that the Department would learn of his criminal history through the background check based upon the fingerprint card that he submitted with his license application, and he credibly testified that he did not intend to mislead the Department regarding his criminal history through his negative answer to Question No. 9. Respondent was unaware at the time he submitted his license application that the Department and/or the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) processed applications in which no criminal history was disclosed differently than applications in which a criminal history is disclosed.2 Respondent’s understanding regarding the legal effect of the certificates was erroneous. Respondent acknowledged as much in his testimony at the final hearing (Tr. 54) and in his PRO (at ¶29). The record does not establish precise legal effect of the certificates,3 but it is inferred that the certificates restore the civil rights that Respondent lost due to his felony convictions. It is also inferred that the reason that the Certificate of Good Conduct does not mention Respondent’s misdemeanor offenses (See Endnote 5) even though it was issued after those offenses is because misdemeanor convictions typically do not result is the loss of civil rights as is the case with felony convictions.4 Neither of the certificates expunge or seal any of Respondent’s criminal records and, contrary to his understanding at the time, the certificates did not excuse Respondent from disclosing his criminal offenses in response to Question No. 9 on the license application. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent was convicted of third degree attempted robbery, a felony, in 1972; that the offense was not sealed or expunged; and that Respondent failed to disclose that conviction on his license application when he answered “no” to Question No. 9.5 The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent intentionally misrepresented or fraudulently concealed his criminal history from the Department by answering “no” to Question No. 9.6 To contrary, the evidence establishes that Respondent’s negative answer to Question No. 9 was based upon his good faith, albeit erroneous belief, that he was not required to disclose his prior criminal offenses in light of the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and/or the Certificate of Good Conduct. It has been 34 years since Respondent’s third degree attempted robbery conviction, which is the basis of the Administrative Complaint. It has been more than 18 years since Respondent’s last criminal offense, which was a misdemeanor petit larceny offense. All of Respondent’s criminal offenses occurred in the state of New York. He has remained out of trouble with the law since he came to Florida in 2000. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action, other than this proceeding, since receiving his license. Respondent did not present the testimony of any character witnesses, but he credibly testified that he has completely turned his life around since the time of his criminal offenses in New York. Respondent served in the U.S. Air Force Security Service in Viet Nam. He was honorably discharged. Respondent was licensed as a mental health counselor in New York and Virginia prior to coming to Florida and obtaining his real estate sales associate license. Respondent testified that he was required to disclose his criminal background and undergo a background check in order to obtain those licenses; that he did not disclose his criminal background on the license applications based upon his understanding of the certificates described above; that his criminal background was not an issue to the licensing agencies in New York and Virginia, even though it was not disclosed on his license applications; and that this experience (along with the advice he received from the attorney in New York) led him to believe that his criminal records were sealed and need not be disclosed. Respondent offered no evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony, and it is given very little weight because it is unknown how, if at all, the disclosure requirements and licensure regimes for mental health counselors in New York and Virginia compare with the disclosure requirements and licensure regime for real estate sales associates in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order that: finds Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count I of the Administrative Complaint); finds Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2) and, hence, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (Count II of the Administrative Complaint); imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; suspends Respondent’s license for 30 days; places Respondent on probation for one year after the end of the suspension period; and imposes the costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 21st of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mike Somogyi, filed an application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Respondent, Board of Real Estate, on or about April 16, 1980. By Order dated June 23, 1980, Respondent denied Petitioner's application because Petitioner had not made it appear to the Board that he was honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character as required by Section 475.17, Florida Statutes. Respondent based its denial on Petitioner's arrest in 1980 for possession of controlled substances, i.e., marijuana, quaaludes and narcotic equipment. A five count information was filed against Petitioner on March 4, 1980, in Martin County. Petitioner entered a not guilty plea and was subsequently approved for the Pretrial Intervention Program. Petitioner's required involvement with the program will expire on January 15 1981, and if the program is successfully completed, all charges pending against Petitioner will be dismissed. Respondent further relied upon Petitioner's arrest on September 1, 1976, in Dade County, Florida, for resisting arrest. However, that charge was dismissed in October, 1976. Petitioner has no other record of arrests or convictions.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what penalty, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, license number 0646052. On or about July 15, 1996, the Respondent completed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson that was submitted to the Department. Such application posed several questions to be completed by the Respondent by checking boxes "Yes" or "No." Among such questions was the following: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld. This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." In addition to the foregoing, the question also advised the Respondent as follows: Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. After reviewing the foregoing question, the Respondent submitted the answer "No" on his application for licensure. The Respondent represented at hearing that prior to submitting the application he consulted an attorney. The Respondent's application for licensure also contained an affidavit wherein the Respondent, after being sworn, represented that he had carefully read the application and that all answers to same are true and correct. The answer the Respondent gave to the above-described question was not accurate. In fact, in Case No. 87-2661-CF before the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, the Respondent was charged with grand theft of the amount of $4200.00, a felony. The resolution of such charge came when the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere. Thereafter the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years and was directed to pay court costs and restitution. The court withheld adjudication and the Respondent successfully completed all conditions of the probation. At the time of the foregoing plea the Respondent was represented by counsel, was apprised of his rights regarding the charge pending against him, had no prior convictions, and was approximately 19 years of age with satisfactory mental health. The record of the Respondent’s plea and the conditions of his probation have not been sealed nor expunged. The Respondent did not deny the factual allegations in the underlying criminal matter. That is, he has not alleged that the charge of grand theft was untrue. He has asserted that he believed the record would not appear on a background check and that, therefore, he unintentionally failed to disclose the criminal record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy P. Campiglia, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Thomas Payne, Esquire 3780 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33134 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
