The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Florida Real Estate Commission may deny Petitioner’s application for a license as a real estate sales associate, and, if so, whether it is appropriate to do so based on the underlying facts.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is the state agency charged with licensing real estate sales associates in Florida. See § 475.161, Fla. Stat. On January 21, 2016, Petitioner applied to the Commission for a license as a real estate sales associate. In her application, Petitioner dutifully divulged that on December 12, 2002, the Commission revoked her real estate broker’s license. On August 16, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Deny notifying Petitioner that it denied her application for a sales associate license. The Commission denied Petitioner’s application based on its finding that Petitioner’s broker’s license was previously revoked by the Commission in 2002. At the final hearing, Petitioner explained the circumstances that led to her broker’s license revocation. In 2000, a Commission investigator audited her real estate trust account. The audit uncovered information that Petitioner failed to timely transfer a $1,000 deposit and properly reconcile her escrow account. Petitioner disclosed that a sales contract she was handling required the buyers to deposit $1,000 with her as the broker. The sale fell through, and the buyers did not close on the house. In May, 2000, the buyers demanded Petitioner transfer the deposit within 15 business days. Petitioner, however, did not forward the deposit out of her escrow account until four months later in September 2000. Based on this incident, the Commission alleged that Petitioner failed to account for delivered funds; failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions; failed to take corrective action to balance her escrow account; and filed a false report in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)e, 475.25(1)(l), 475.25(1)(b) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.012(2). Based on the charges, the Commission ordered Petitioner’s real estate broker’s license permanently revoked. Petitioner stressed that she did not steal the buyers’ money. Her mistake was in not timely transferring the deposit from her trust account. Petitioner asserted that she simply lost track of the funds. At the final hearing, Petitioner accepted full responsibility for her mismanagement. At the final hearing, Petitioner expressed that she first entered the Florida real estate industry in 1982 when she became a licensed real estate sales associate. In 1987, she obtained her broker's license. She subsequently purchased a Century 21 franchise. She conducted her real estate business until 2002 when her broker’s license was revoked. Petitioner explained that she is not seeking another broker’s license from the Commission. Instead, she is just applying for another sales associate license. Petitioner described the difference between a sales associate and a broker.5/ Petitioner stated that a sales associate works directly under, and is supervised by, a broker. The sales associate interacts with prospective buyers and sellers, negotiates sales prices, and accompanies clients to closings. Regarding financial transactions, however, the broker, not the sales associate, processes all funds related to a real estate sale. The broker, not the sales associate, transfers funds into and out of escrow accounts. In other words, the error Petitioner committed as a broker in 2000 could not happen again if she was granted a sales associate license. Petitioner further testified that during the time she worked as a sales associate, she was involved in the sale of approximately 100 houses. Petitioner represented that she never received any complaints or criticisms from any of her clients. Petitioner relayed that she became motivated to return to the real estate business following her husband’s death in 2015. Petitioner expressed that she was very good at selling houses. Real estate is her passion. She voiced that she eats, sleeps, walks, and talks real estate. Despite her misstep in 2000, Petitioner declared that she is a very honest and hardworking person. She just wants another chance to work in the profession that she loves. Currently, Petitioner works for a charitable organization. She helps administer and manage the charity’s finances. Petitioner represented that she has never failed to meet her financial responsibilities. She has always accounted for all of the funds for which she is entrusted (approximately $8 million since she began working for the charity over 20 years ago). No evidence indicates that Petitioner has committed any crimes or violated any laws since her broker’s license was revoked in 2002. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented three witnesses who testified in favor of her receiving a sales associate license. All three witnesses proclaimed that Petitioner is trustworthy, of good character, maintains high moral values, and is spiritually strong. The witnesses, who know Petitioner both personally and professionally, opined that she is honest, truthful, and has an excellent reputation for fair dealing. All three witnesses declared that the public would not be endangered if the Commission granted Petitioner’s application for licensure. Petitioner also produced six letters of support. These letters assert that Petitioner is an honorable and trustworthy person. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence provides the Commission sufficient legal grounds to deny Petitioner’s application. Consequently, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing that she is entitled to a license as a real estate sales associate. However, as discussed below, Petitioner demonstrated that she is rehabilitated from the incident which led to the revocation of her broker’s license in 2002. Therefore, the Commission may, in its discretion, grant Petitioner’s application (with restrictions) pursuant to sections 475.25(1) and 455.227(2)(f).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Florida Real Estate Commission has the legal authority to deny Petitioner’s application for licensure. However, based on the underlying facts in this matter, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for a license as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact At all times referred to in these findings of fact, Carlson was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued License Number 0187184. The last license issued was as a salesman, c/o Pauls Real Estate and Investments, Inc., 441 East Shore Drive, Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515. From October 13, 1982, to June 28, 1983, Carlson was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of corporate real estate broker Alliance Real Estate, Inc. of which Nicholas G. Mastro was a qualifying broker and officer. During her employment, Carlson was employed to solicit and obtain landlords and tenants in connection with the rental property management brokerage business of Alliance Real Estate, Inc. Carlson worked out of Alliance's Clearwater Beach office, ten miles from the main office on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater. Generally, Alliance's official policy was that the originals of property listings, property management agreements and rental agreements were to be maintained at the main office, with work copies filed at the Beach office. Correspondence and miscellaneous property management papers, such as invoices, frequently are maintained exclusively at the Beach office. Funds were to be deposited into, and checks were to be written out of, Alliance's operating account by Alliance's staff at the main office. However, due to the distance between the main office and the Beach office, it was inefficient and inconvenient for Carlson to follow the official policies and procedures. Instead, Carlson began using her own personal bank account as a conduit for funds flowing to and from Alliance (including brokerage fees to Alliance). She also ceased following the procedure for maintaining certain original papers at the main office and even began maintaining files at her home. Alliance knew or should have known that Carlson was using her personal bank account as a conduit for Alliance funds. Alliance's ledgers showed these transactions, and Alliance's bookkeeper wrote reimbursement checks to Carlson for some of them. Since Ronald Lohr, Alliance's qualifying broker with supervisory responsibility over the Beach office, did not testify, the evidence did not preclude the possibility that he had actual or constructive knowledge of this deviation from official policy. Regarding Carlson's maintenance of files (including original papers normally kept at the main office) at her house, Alliance did not have actual or constructive knowledge of this deviation from official policy. Rather, Alliance's minimal supervision of the Beach office gave Carlson the opportunity to deviate from that official policy without detection. Through the combined effect of these circumstances, Carlson was able to operate as a salesman for Alliance in connection with the following transactions while concealing the transactions from her employer and wrongfully retaining brokerage commissions which properly should have been paid over to Alliance. At the conclusion of these transactions (except one), Carlson "pitched" her file on it. In February, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $1,000.00 as rental payments from William Russ, as a tenant, for the rental of Unite 908, Clearwater Point Condominium, 830 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater Beach, Florida owned by Bernhardt Elsen. In March, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $680 from Carl Dotterman, as a tenant, for the rental of Elsen's condominium. Notwithstanding that Carlson had received $1,680, Carlson advised Bernhardt Elsen that she had only received $1,600. Carlson disbursed $1,513.30 to Bernhardt Elsen, calculated as $1,600, minus $160 being a 10 percent management fee, plus $73.39 as reimbursement for payment of an electric bill. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Russ and Dotterman rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Elsen rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In February and March, 1983, Carlson negotiated for her son Martin Carlson, as tenant, and Dr. Rolando Perez, as owner, for the rental of Unit 207, Commodore Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Dr. Rolando Perez. Rent was to be $800. Carlson, for her son, paid Dr. Rolando Perez $720 calculated as $800 minus $80 being a 10 percent management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Carlson rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Perez rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In April, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $500 as rental payment from a Mr. and Mrs. Scalise, as tenants, for the period April 9, 1983, to April 15, 1983, for the rental of Unit 701, Sailmaster Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Anthony and Jeanette Eman. On or about April 14, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained a $100 rental deposit from Mr. and Mrs. Scalise for the rental of Eman's condominium for a period in 1984. On or about April 15, 1983, Carlson disbursed to Mr. and Mrs. Eman the $100 deposit and $200 of the $500 rental payment with $300 thereof being retained by Carlson as a management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Scalise rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Eman rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In January and February, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $2,400 as rental payments from Ernest Pfau, as a tenant, for the rental of Unit 605, Shipmaster Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Joseph Seta. Carlson disbursed to Joseph Seta $2,160 calculated as $2,400 minus $240 being a 10 percent management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Pfau rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Eifert rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. On or about June 7, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained a $100 rental deposit from Lawrence Augostino, as a tenant, for the rental of Unit 706, 450 Gulf Blvd., South Building, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Dr. Donald F. Eifert. Carlson was to hold the deposit until she was able to obtain a listing on the rental property. While waiting for a listing on the Eifert property, Alliance, through Mr. Mastro, became aware of one of Carlson's "secret clients," Mr. Elsen, and confronted Carlson about it. In response to Mastro's demand, she retrieved the entire Elsen file from her home. When Mastro learned about a second "secret client," Dr. Perez, a short time later, Mastro immediately terminated Carlson from her employment on June 15, 1983. Carlson did not advise Alliance of the Augostino deposit and was not able to get a good address for Augostino to return the deposit before she left the Clearwater area to go to Michigan for a month. Carlson collected and received the Augostino deposit in her own name. She engaged in the Eifert rental property management activities without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. As previously alluded to, Carlson produced evidence of having used her personal checking account as a conduit for funds flowing between Alliance and its customers (including brokerage fees payable to Alliance) with the actual or constructive knowledge of Lohr and Alliance's bookkeeper. But Carlson was unable to produce any similar evidence (such as Alliance's ledgers or her cancelled checks) in response to the absence of any Alliance corporate records indicating that Carlson paid any of the brokerage fees generated in the foregoing transactions over to Alliance. Carlson's self-serving and vague testimony that she did not owe Alliance any money was insufficient in this respect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order suspending respondent's license for two (2) years for violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32002 Bruce M. Harlan, Esquire 110 Turner Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of fraud in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of having failed to account and deliver trust funds in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of having failed to immediately place upon receipt deposits received in trust and to maintain said trust funds in the real estate brokerage trust account until disbursement thereof was properly authorized in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of having failed to make available to the Petitioner or its authorized representative all bank statements for all escrow accounts including cancel led checks, all check books and pending contracts and all documents pertaining to all escrow accounts and for having failed to make available such books and accounts to the Petitioner or its authorized representative at a reasonable time during regular business hours, as required by Rule 21V-14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of having failed or refused to appear at the time and place designated on the Subpoena Duces Tecum, served October 10, 1988, with respect to an official investigation of alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120,455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0125817 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a broker with a business address of 1605 Main Street. Suite 810, Sarasota, Florida 34236 and a home address of 3409 Prudence Drive, Sarasota, Florida 34235. From on or about November, 1984 to on or about May, 1988, the Respondent was employed by the Boathouse on Longboat, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, to sell condominium boat storage berths for the limited partnership in which Respondent was a limited partner. On April 15, 1988, Harold Kornhaus, made a offer to purchase a storage space in the amount of $19,500.00. The offer by Harold Kornhaus was not for a specific size storage berth but the berth was to be a specific size. An agent of the Respondent named Michael Tewksbury took the offer from Harold Kornhaus and stated he was obligated to present the offer to the Respondent. The Kornhaus offer was delivered to the Respondent who never presented it to the general partner, Barry R. Lewis. The Respondent changed the Kornhaus offer by changing the first page and indicating another seller, named Currier but otherwise left all other pages as drawn by Tewksbury. The Respondent represented individual limited partners at the expense of the partnership entity by having one of the limited partners, Currier, purchase a storage space at a reduced amount and then reselling that space at a profit to a purchaser, Kornhaus. The Respondent and /or his agent Tewksbury handled the transaction, and received a commission. In another transaction involving the Huntsman to Bradt contract written on April 28, 1988, the Respondent wrote an escrow check at closing on April 28, for $1,950.00, which check was dishonored due to insufficient funds on account. Herbert Jacobs, chairman of Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., of Florida, a renter of space at the Boathouse of Longboat, decided to buy a storage space for his company. The Respondent arranged to sell a storage space to William Pettibon, who was a limited partner. The contract selling William Pettibon a storage space was written on February 1, 1988, for storage space #2325. On April 1, 1988, the Respondent arranged to sell Pettibon's unit #2325 to Herbert Jacobs, chairman of Ajax Paving Industries, Inc. On April 28, 1988, the limited partnership records show the bank balance in the Respondent's escrow account should have been $44,436 when in fact there was a negative balance of $1,120.82. Naples Federal Savings and Loan Association loaned approximately $987,500.00 to the limited partnership. One of the conditions of the loan was that Respondent's escrow account pertaining to all sales contracts, deposits, etc., for the limited partnership be placed with Naples Federal. On February 26, 1987, Respondent wrote a letter to William T. Kirtley, attorney for the limited partnership, and stated that the total balance in the Boathouse escrow account was $82, 109.85. The Respondent could not make a proper accounting of his escrow account on that date, and misrepresented to Mr. Kirtley that he had in excess of $80,000 in his escrow account. On December 22, 1987, the Respondent wrote check No. 151 from the escrow account to Mr. Edward Lerian "Larry" Ay, Jr., in the amount of $11,500. Mr. Ay was a contracted buyer of a boat storage unit and had made a personal loan to the Respondent in the amount of $10,000 in December, 1986. The $11,500 check from the Respondent to Mr. Ay was repayment of the loan, plus $1,500 in interest. Mr. Ay thought that he was loaning money to the Boathouse of Longboat, Ltd., the limited partnership, but such was not the case. The Respondent had no valid reason for writing Mr. Ay a check from the escrow account. The Respondent did not have the prior consent of the general partner for either the loan or the use of escrowed funds. On October 27, 1987, Respondent wrote two checks from the escrow account to David Buyher in respective amounts of $5,317.50 and $187.50. The checks represented repayment of a loan, with interest, made to Respondent by Buyher in 1986. Respondent was without authority to use escrow funds for said purposes. On February 26, 1988, the Respondent wrote check number 203 from the limited partnership escrow account in the amount of $616.73 to the "Mountain Chalet" in Snowmass Village, Colorado. The funds were used for the personal lodging and other services of the Respondent and was done without authority. On March 28, 1988, Respondent wrote check No. 236 in the amount of $10,873.11 to himself. On April 28, 1988 Respondent wrote check No. 258 in the amount of $14,600 also to himself. The two checks referred to above were used to obtain cashiers checks to be used at real estate closings. Respondent was fired as the real estate broker for the Boathouse of Longboat, Ltd., in May, 1988. In August and September, 1988, during Petitioner's investigation, several appointments were made with the Respondent to review the Respondent's escrow account which appointments the Respondent cancelled. On the day of the fifth appointment, the Respondent called and cancelled. The Respondent stated he would not permit the account to be reviewed without a subpoena. On or about October 10, 1988, the Respondent was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum commanding him to produce for inspection and copying at 1605 Main Street, Suite 810, Sarasota, Florida 34236 on October 10, 1988, at 10:00 a.m., for the Department of Professional Regulation "all bank statements for all escrow accounts including cancelled checks from September 1, 1987 to the present time. All checks books and pending contracts and all other documents appertaining to all escrow accounts." Respondent did not comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum on October 10, 1988. On or about October 14, 1988, a Subpoena Duces Tecum was properly served on Thomas E. Finley, First Vice President or the Custodian of Records, Naples Federal Savings and Loan Association, 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Naples, Florida 33941-3004 commanding that such Custodian of Records appear at the Petitioner's Office of Investigative Services on October 18, 1988, at 11:00 a.m., and have with him "all bank statements and checks from June 1, 1987, through June 30, 1988, appertaining to the escrow account of Michael H. Diffley, account number 1600070019531." Naples Federal Savings and Loan Association provided the May 31, 1988, statement of Respondent's aforementioned account.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a Final Order which finds as follows: Respondent Michael H. Diffley guilty of fraud, violating the provisions of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Respondent Michael H. Diffley guilty of having failed to account and deliver funds, violating the provisions of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent Michael H. Diffley guilty of having failed to maintain funds in trust, violating the provisions of Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes; Respondent Michael H. Diffley guilty of violating the provisions of Rule 21V-14.012, Florida Administrative Code, for having failed to preserve and make available to the Department account records kept in accord with good accounting prac- tices, and therefore guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes; and Respondent Michael H. Diffley guilty of having violated Subsection 475.42(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by having failed to appear at the time and place required by subpoena, and therefore violated Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Final Order entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the Respondent's real estate license for the above- stated violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Final Order entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for each of five (5) counts of the Administrative Complaint for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 39- accepted in substance, except for paragraph 5 which is rejected as unnecessary and paragraph 31 which is in the nature of argument. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 - rejected as argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32302 Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire 423 Country Club Drive Winter Park, FL 32789 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: Respondent, Frank Fogliano, is now and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license numbers 0249363 and 0247571. The last licenses issued were as a broker with Interval Sales, Co., Inc., 606 North U.S. 1, Fort Pierce, Florida, and with Treasure Coast Business Consultants, Inc., 100 Avenue A, Fort Pierce, Florida. Respondent, Robert Jon Casazza, is now and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0379594. The last license issued was as a salesman with Interval Sales Co., Inc., (hereinafter Interval Sales) 606 North U.S. 1, Fort Pierce. Respondent, Interval Sales and Publishing, Inc. is now and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0246183. The last license issued was placed in limbo on January 29, 1987, when Respondent Fogliano, the qualifying broker, gave notice that he would no longer be associated with the corporation. From September 8, 1986, to January 29, 1987, Respondent Frank Fogliano was licensed and operating as the sole qualifying broker for Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing. From October 1, 1986, to January 29, 1987, Respondent Casazza was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of Respondent, Interval Sales and Publishing. At all times alleged herein, Respondents Fogliano and Casazza held a one-third interest each in Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing. From August 8, 1986, through March 11, 1987, the Respondents have been engaged in the business of offering for sale condominium timeshare units owned by individual unit owners. Respondents Fogliano and Casazza believed that the only effective way to stimulate buyer interest in the resale of timeshare units was through a marketing program and through the creation of lead generations. Conventional real estate operations will not normally list and sell timeshare units offered by individual unit owners. In an attempt to develop a viable program for the resale of timeshare units, Respondents Fogliano and Casazza formed two separate companies, Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing, and Interval Sales. Interval Sales and Publishing was formed for the purpose of marketing timeshare units and Interval Sales was formed for the purpose of obtaining listings and effecting the resale of the timeshare units. Respondent Fogliano was the qualifying broker for both corporations. Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing was conceived by Casazza and Fogliano as a marketing organization with the purpose of obtaining lead generations through the use of promotional devices such as vacations, cruises and social functions. Respondents believed that face-to-face sales presentations were the most effective way of attempting to resell timeshare units. From August 8, 1986 through March 11, 1987, Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing mailed thousands of postcards and other publications to individual timeshare unit owners. The letters advised the timeshare unit owners that Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing had a timeshare resale program available and needed additional units in its "sales" inventory. When interested timeshare unit owners called the toll-free number listed on the mailings, they were advised that Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing would assist them in the resale of their units for a $199.00 promotional fee. After interested owners entered the program, their "listing" was given either to Interval Sales or Respondent Fogliano as real estate broker. The $199.00 fee went directly to Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing. Approximately 1,000 individual time share unit owners entered the program and paid Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing, the $199.00 fee. Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing informed the timeshare owners that the $199 fee was for the purpose of paying the expenses of advertising, promotion, and giving of gifts to prospective purchasers. In an attempt to lure potential buyers and create a market for the resale of the timeshare units, Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing offered mini-vacations, gifts, cruises and sponsored social events. In addition, Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing contracted with various companies such as Vacation Time and Vacation International that would provide potential buyers in exchange for a fee and the opportunity to use the offered timeshare units as part of vacation package plans. The promotional activities of Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing resulted in approximately five to eight hundred prospective buyers visiting the various units. The prospective buyers were then given sales presentations by real estate sales personnel employed by Interval Sales. The $199 fee was not placed into an escrow or trust account maintained by Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing. The money was deposited into a bank account maintained by Respondent Fogliano as "real estate broker" and then delivered to Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing. Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing maintained a staff of approximately eight employees, including two secretaries. In addition, Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing employed the services of Larry Meadow, a certified public accountant who kept an accounting of all of the funds which came and went through the company. All of the funds obtained by Respondent Interval Sales & Publishing were expended on promotional activities, advertising, office expenses and salaries. Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing expended the money without having provided a formal accounting to the owners or to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondents Fogliano and Casazza were aware of the advance fee provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (discussed in Conclusions of Law Section) but did not consider the fees received by Interval Sales and Publishing to be advance fees as contemplated by the statutes because they were used for "marketing." Effective January 29, 1987, Fogliano terminated his licensing status with Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing but continued to hold a one-third interest in the company. Thereafter, Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing and Respondent Casazza continued with business as usual in the marketing of the timeshare units, i.e., soliciting $199 promotional fees from timeshare owners and attempting to create a cadre of interested buyers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: An administrative fine of $3,000 be assessed against Respondent Interval Sales and Publishing, Inc. and the present suspension of license be continued until thirty days after the date of the Final Order. An administrative fine of $2,000 be assessed against Respondent Frank Fogliano and the present suspension of license be continued until thirty days after the date of the Final Order. An administrative fine of $1,000 be assessed against Respondent Robert Jon Casazza and the present suspension of license be continued until thirty days after the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 10th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2585 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Addressed in Conclusions of Law Section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 10, matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 17, matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Addressed in Conclusions of Law Section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 16. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael J. Garavaglia, Esquire 3111 Cardinal Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In May 1988, he was working as a broker-salesman with G.V. Stewart, Inc., a corporate real estate broker whose active broker is G.V. Stewart. On April 20, 1989, Respondent submitted a Contract for Sale and Purchase to the University of South Florida Credit Union who was attempting to sell a house at 2412 Elm Street in Tampa, Florida, which the seller had acquired in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. This offer reflected a purchase price of $25,000 with a deposit of $100 (Exhibit 2). The president of the seller rejected the offer by striking out the $25,000 and $100 figures and made a counter offer to sell the property for $29,000 with a $2000 deposit (Exhibit 2). On May 9, 1989, Respondent submitted a new contract for sale and purchase for this same property which offer reflected an offering price of $27,000 with a deposit of $2000 held in escrow by G.V. Stewart (Exhibit 3). This offer, as did Exhibit 2, bore what purported to be the signature of William P. Murphy as buyer and G. Stewart as escrow agent. In fact, neither Murphy nor Stewart signed either Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3, and neither was aware the offers had been made at the time they were submitted to the seller. This offer was accepted by the seller. This property was an open listing with no brokerage firm having an exclusive agreement with the owner to sell the property. Stewart's firm had been notified by the seller that the property was for sale. Respondent had worked with Stewart for upwards of ten years and had frequently signed Stewart's name on contracts, which practice was condoned by Stewart. Respondent had sold several parcels of property to Murphy, an attorney in Tampa, on contracts signed by him in the name of Murphy, which signatures were subsequently ratified by Murphy. Respondent considers Murphy to be a Class A customer for whom he obtained a deposit only after the offer was accepted by the seller and Murphy confirmed a desire to purchase. Respondent has followed this procedure in selling property to Murphy for a considerable period of time and saw nothing wrong with this practice. At present, Respondent is the active broker at his own real estate firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that William H. McCoy's license as a real estate broker be suspended for one year. However, if before the expiration of the year's suspension Respondent can prove, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Commission, that he fully understands the duty owed by a broker to the seller and the elements of a valid contract, the remaining portion of the suspension be set aside. ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Alexander, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley 400 West Robinson Street General Counsel Orlando, Florida 32802 Department of Professional Regulation William H. McCoy 1940 North Monroe Street 4002 South Pocahontas Avenue Suite 60 Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tampa Florida 33610 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now and was at all times material to this action a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0064475. Respondent operated his own real estate brokerage firm under his license. The firm was located in Niceville, Florida. In addition to his real estate brokerage business Respondent maintained and managed his personal real estate investments. Several of these personal investments included rental property which Respondent would later sell. One such piece of property was located at 104 Perdido Circle, Niceville, Florida, and is the property involved in this action. Prior to July 6, 1985, the Respondent, as seller and not as a broker, advertised for sale the Perdido property. Sometime around July 6, 1985, Robert L. Mitchell and June F. Mitchell looked at the Perdido property. Frank Ray, a salesman for John Brooks Realty, an unrelated real estate firm showed the property to the Mitchells. They liked the property and wanted to buy it. Frank Ray made arrangements for himself and the Mitchells to meet with Respondent in order to discuss the terms of the potential purchase contract. They met on July 6, 1985. The meeting lasted approximately an hour to an hour and a half. During the lengthy meeting Respondent went over the purchase terms contained in the contract of sale. The Mitchells main concern was to have immediate occupancy of the house. Special terms were developed for renting the property. At some point during the meeting the down payment came under discussion. Originally, the Mitchells had planned on a $1500 down payment which was acceptable to Respondent. However, as the meeting progressed the Mitchells decided they would like to reduce the amount of the down payment. Respondent informed the Mitchells that the only way he could decrease the $1500 down payment was to make the money a non-refundable option payment. Respondent then marked out the $1500 down payment figure contained in the purchase contract and inserted a $1200 figure. Respondent concurrently added the language "option payment" next to the $1200 figure. The remainder of the contract was discussed and the Mitchells signed the amended document. The Mitchells then wrote a check to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $1200. The note section of the check the Mitchells wrote contained the language "house down payment." The exact discussion on the down payment/option is not clear. What is clear from the evidence is that neither party had a meeting of the minds over what the $1200 check was. The Mitchells being very inexperienced in real estate thought it was a down payment. Although it is doubtful the Mitchells understood the legal meaning of the term "down payment." Respondent thought it was a non- refundable option payment. Absolutely no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Respondent was demonstrated. Likewise, there was no evidence that Respondent in any way used his knowledge or expertise in the real estate market improperly. The final result of the negotiations was that the Mitchells had entered into what on its face purports to be a rental contract with an option to buy. However, since there was no meeting of the minds over the option, the option was eventually unenforceable. Since there was no meeting of the minds regarding the $1200 the money was not properly escrowable property. In essence the $1200 was neither a down payment nor an option payment. This lack of escrowability is borne out by the sales contract which calls for another escrow agent. 1/ The Mitchells took possession of the property for approximately three months. The Mitchells failed to obtain financing. The contract was conditioned upon the Mitchells obtaining financing, and the transaction failed to close. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the down payment/option money. When the dispute could not be resolved by the parties, the Mitchells filed a lawsuit against Nevin H. Nordal demanding a refund of the $1200 "house down payment." As a result of the Mitchell's lawsuit the County Court, in Okaloosa County, Florida, Summary Claims Division, by Amended Final Judgment dated January 20, 1987, awarded the sum of $1,028,87. The judgment figure is the balance of the $1200 after deduction of a counterclaim of $171.13 for cleaning the house after the Mitchells evacuated the property. Additionally, the Respondent was required to pay costs in the sum of $57 for a total of $1,087.87 due the Mitchells. The judgment amount is bearing interest at a rate of 12 percent per annum. The County Court judgment contains no findings of fact as to the Judge's reasoning on the judgment award. The Mitchells have repeatedly demanded of the Respondent that he pay the judgment. He has repeatedly refused to pay the judgment. Respondent did account to the Mitchells for the money when he told them he had deposited the check and had spent the funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint failed against Respondent, Nevin H. Nordal, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1989.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondent violated section 475.125(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate professionals pursuant to section 20.125 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a real estate associate licensed with All Pro Realty Co., Volusia County, Inc., d/b/a RE/MAX All Pro Realty, a real estate corporation (All Pro). Respondent's license number is 3051505. Respondent's broker at All Pro was Robert Millward. Respondent was the listing agent for a property located at 3301 Tropical Terrace, Deland, Florida (the Tropical Terrace property). Respondent specialized in handling the sale of foreclosure properties. The Tropical Terrace property was a foreclosure property, and was owned by Premier Asset Services (Premier). Sales for bank-owned properties such as the Tropical Terrace property that Respondent handled were different from most real estate transactions. For example, offers were communicated to Respondent, whether verbally with written follow-up, by fax or e-mail, or by a conventional real estate sales contract. If no offer was currently pending for a piece of property, the data related to the offer would be entered into a dedicated electronic communication system, referred to as the portal, for consideration by the seller. If the property was already under contract, the listing agent could not communicate any further offers on the property. It was not unusual for the potential buyer to receive no response if this was the case. If there were no pending offers on a property, the Seller, through use of the portal, would accept the offer, provide a counter-offer, or send the offer back for a "highest and best" offer. However, all transactions generated a generic counter-offer form with the final terms, even if the original offer was accepted. Any counter-offer would be sent to the buyer's agent for approval. If acceptable, the counter-offer would be initialed, and returned for submission to Premier. The documents required for submission were the FLA/BAR form, the counter-offer, an escrow check and a pre-qualification letter for financing purposes. Premier would not sign off on the purchase until the complete package was submitted. Once the complete package was reviewed, the asset manager for Premier would sign the contract and the entire packet would be returned to the seller's agent, either by fax or through the portal. Anthony Conklin wanted to purchase the Tropical Terrace property for investment purposes. He submitted an offer, through his realtor, Debbie Artzner, for $100,000, which was below the listed price for the property. Neither he nor his agent received any response to this offer. On March 11, 2009, Conklin signed another offer on the property for $105,000. Ms. Artzner faxed him the forms to sign and he faxed them back to her to submit to Respondent. Anthony Conklin did not sign the forms in her presence. There is some dispute as to whether the offer was actually forwarded to Respondent on March 11: Ms. Artzner says that she sent it by email but did not confirm that Respondent had received it. Ms. Artzner also stated that she would not have submitted an offer if there was an existing offer on the property. Respondent insists that there was in fact an existing offer on March 11 and denies receiving the Conklin offer. There is also no certainty that the exhibit identified as the March 11, 2009, offer and admitted as Petitioner's 2 is, in its entirety, the document that was actually signed by Mr. Conklin on that date. For example, the first page of the contract lists a price of $105,000, and has a deadline for acceptance of March 26, 2009. Pages one, four and five of the exhibit have no fax header on the bottom or top of the document, while pages two and three have two or three fax headers dated March 11, 2009, at the bottom of the document. The signature page, dated March 11, 2009, is page three. What remains unclear is whether the offer forwarded to Respondent for input in the portal resulting in a counter-offer that was accepted was the offer dated March 11, 2009, for $105,000, or was yet another offer for $108,000. In any event, on March 25, 2009, Premier issued a counter-offer for $108,000, and on March 26, 2009, the counter- offer was accepted. On March 31, 2009, Mr. Conklin wrote an escrow check for the purchase, and the documents necessary for Premier's asset manager's signature were uploaded to the portal. On April 6, 2009, the asset manager signed the contract and the entire package, including the FLA/BAR form, was returned for transmission to the Buyer, via the portal. The agreed-upon purchase price for the property was $108,000. At this point, the road to closing on the property became problematic. While Respondent claims there would have been no reason for her to not provide the entire package to the buyer's broker, Ms. Artzner claims that she did not receive it, and her testimony is credited. Multiple requests were made for a copy of the FLA/BAR form, which were not honored. When Ms. Artzner was unsuccessful in getting a copy of the form, which was needed for financing purposes, Mr. Conklin began calling Respondent directly. Respondent did not provide the form, but instead called Ms. Artzner's licensure into question. (Ms. Artzner, who testified on behalf of the Department, indicated that she has been licensed for 20 years.) No real basis for doubting her licensure was presented to justify such an accusation. This refusal to send the FLA/BAR form became a hurdle for completing the financing. After several attempts by both Mr. Conklin and Ms. Artzner, after approximately two weeks, a telephone conference call was arranged involving Mr. Conklin, Ms. Artzner, Respondent, and Andy Walker, who was assisting with the processing of Mr. Conklin's loan. According to Mr. Walker, Respondent remained unhelpful in providing documents when requested. Mr. Conklin and Respondent are like oil and water. Some evidence was presented to indicate the lack of the FLA/BAR form was not the only barrier to closing, but it certainly contributed to the delay. While Mr. Conklin should have worked through his realtor instead of calling Respondent directly, Respondent could have solved the document problem by simply forwarding a copy of the FLA/BAR form. Instead, she took the position that she had already provided it and did not need to do so again. At hearing, Respondent stated, "I don't want to sound arrogant or anything, but I really don't want to do anybody else's paperwork." Her testimony is consistent with the claims by others that she was uncooperative in getting the transaction ready to close, and it is so found. On April 30, 2009, Andy Walker received a fax that included a cover page and a copy of what purports to be the FLA/BAR contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). The document contains an offer price of $108,000, which while the ultimate price, is not the price Mr. Conklin claims was on the offer that was forwarded to Respondent. In addition, Mr. Conklin claims that the document contains a signature that purports to be his but is not. Mr. Conklin and the Department contend that Respondent forwarded this copy of the contract and that she knew or should have known that the signature on the document is not Mr. Conklin's. The fax sheet accompanying the document is from an establishment in Jacksonville called "The Retreat at St. Johns." The cover sheet indicates that it is addressed to "Conklin" at fax number 407-389-5111. However, there is no indication as to who sent the fax, and Respondent denies doing so. No persuasive evidence was submitted to demonstrate that Respondent was responsible for sending the fax or that she reviewed the signatures contained in the fax. While it is somewhat different from other examples of Mr. Conklin's signature in the documents, the differences are not so great that that they could not be attributed to the natural variances in a person's handwriting. Further, while the first five pages of Exhibit 4 have a fax header at the top indicating they were sent on April 30, 2009, the page with the disputed signature and the signature of the asset manager, Donna West, has no fax header. In short, no clear and convincing evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent was responsible for sending the fax. Further, no clear and convincing was presented to indicate that Mr. Conklin's signature contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 4 was forged or that Respondent had any involvement in crafting, reviewing, or transmitting Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Eventually, Mr. Conklin directed Ms. Artzner to prepare a new FLA/BAR contract with the agreed-upon purchase price in order to get the financing processed and approved. The transaction eventually closed and Mr. Conklin successfully purchased the property for the agreed-upon $108,000.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Law Offices of Robert J. Riggio, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-4922 Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In responding to question 14(a) of the application, Petitioner answered that his license, as a real estate broker, had been revoked for non-payment of an administrative fine. (Respondent's exhibit 1). Petitioner attached to his application a copy of a transcript of an administrative hearing held in DOAH Case No. 84-0981. A final order was entered in that case based on a stipulation wherein Petitioner agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 within 30 days of entry of the final order. Petitioner has not paid the administrative fine as he agreed. Petitioner admitted during hearing that he had not paid the fine and made an offer during the hearing herein to pay that fine in as much as he failed to pay it earlier since he did not have the wherewithal to pay the fine. Petitioner is now employed as a sales representative with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1/ Petitioner's license as a real estate broker was revoked by Respondent based on his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed in an earlier case (DOAH Case No. 86-145, Respondent's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this of 27th day of January, 1989. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1989.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent violated the real estate licensing law, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to account and deliver a deposit; failing to maintain a deposit in a real estate brokerage escrow account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; and/or being guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and/or breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0360741. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Consolidated American Realty Services, Inc., in Tampa, Florida. From June 6, 1983, through June 25, 1984, Respondent was licensed and operating as a real estate broker under the trade name, "Benjamin Realty," in Tampa, Florida. For sometime prior to June 2, 1984, Eileen Cumbie attempted to sell a lot owned by her located at 1102 26th Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On June 2, 1984, the Respondent contacted Ms. Cumbie and informed her that he had a client interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie informed the Respondent that as long as she netted a certain amount, she would be willing to sell the property. Ms. Cumbie allowed the Respondent to put together a contract for the sale of the lot. In connection therewith, the Respondent prepared a sales contract with Danilo Castellanos, as purchaser, and Eileen W. Cumbie, as seller, for the purchase and sale of the property. Pursuant to the purchase and sales agreement, the Respondent received in trust from Mr. Castellanos a $500 earnest money deposit via check dated June 2, 1984. On June 5, 1984, the Respondent deposited the check into his real estate brokerage account maintained at the Central Bank of Tampa, 2307 W. Rennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Castellanos entered into the contract for the benefit of his son and daughter-in-law who resided in New Jersey but were planning to relocate to the Tampa area. Mr. Castellanos' daughter-in-law went to look at the lot on June 10, 1984 and decided that she did not like the area in which it was located. The closing of the transaction was set for June 15, 1984. On approximately June 13, 1984, Mr. Castellanos' daughter- in-law informed the Respondent that they were no longer interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie was out of town during the time of the scheduled closing, but had prepared and signed all of the paperwork in advance. When she returned after June 15, 1984, she called Respondent to find out how the closing went. The Respondent informed her that the buyers failed to go through with the transaction. The contract provided in part as follows: ". . . If the buyer fails to perform this contract within the time specified herein, time being of the essence of this agreement, the deposit made by the buyer shall be disposed of in the following manner: To the Broker an amount equal to his earned commission, but not to exceed 1/2 of the deposit which shall discharge the sellers obligation to him for that service; remainder to the seller to be credited to him against his damages accrued by reason of the breach of contract. " After the transaction failed to close, Ms. Cumbie requested that Respondent give a portion of the deposit to her. The Respondent told Ms. Cumbie that he would give her the entire deposit because she had paid for the survey and a few other items to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Over the next several months, the Respondent, on several occasions, promised to deliver a check to Ms. Cumbie. However, the Respondent never delivered any such check to Ms. Cumbie. Because the Respondent failed to provide Ms. Cumbie with a share of the earnest money deposit, she initiated a civil action in the County Court of Hillsborough County. On October 15, 1985, Ms. Cumbie was awarded a final judgment in the amount of $250 against Respondent for her share of the forfeited earnest money deposit. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent had not satisfied the judgment and Ms. Cumbie had not received any proceeds from the forfeited earnest money deposit. Shortly after the transaction failed to close, the purchasers requested that the Respondent return the earnest money deposit to them. However, the Respondent informed them that they were not entitled to the return of the earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit was never returned to the purchasers. On July 31, 1984, the balance in Respondent's escrow account was $568.83. However, on September 1, 1984, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account fell to S18.83. From October 31, 1984 to January 1, 1986, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account remained $3.83.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the registration of Fortunato Benjamin- Pabon as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fortunato Benjamin-Pabon 2729 N. Ridgewood Avenue, #1 Tampa, Florida 33602 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
