The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the "formal hearing," and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October of 2000, a licensed real estate sales associate in the State of Florida, holding license number 695252. He is currently associated with AAA Realty, Inc., a broker corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida. From March 1, 2001, through June 26, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Allen Real Estate, Inc. (Allen), a broker corporation doing business in St. Lucie County, Florida. From June 27, 2001, through August 13, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Realty Unlimited, Inc. (Unlimited), a broker corporation (affiliated with GMAC Real Estate) with offices in Port St. Lucie and Stuart, Florida. Unlimited is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, owned by Kevin Schevers, a Florida-licensed real estate broker. Gary Sprauer is a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate. He is currently associated with Unlimited. Like Respondent, Mr. Sprauer began his association with Unlimited on June 27, 2001, immediately after having worked for Allen. Respondent and Mr. Sprauer worked as "partners" at both Allen and Unlimited. They had an understanding that the commissions they each earned would be "split 50-50" between them. On February 7, 2001, Allen, through the efforts of Respondent and Mr. Sprauer, obtained an exclusive listing contract (Listing Contract) giving it, for the period of a year, the "exclusive right to sell," in a representative capacity, commercial property located at 3800 South Federal Highway that was owned by Vincent and Renee Piazza (Piazza Property). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Listing Contract addressed the subjects of "compensation," "cooperation with other brokers," and "dispute resolution," respectively, and provided, in pertinent part as follows as follows: COMPENSATION: Seller will compensate Broker as specified below for procuring a buyer who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property or any interest in the Property on the terms of this Agreement or on any other terms acceptable to Seller. Seller will pay Broker as follows (plus applicable sales tax): 8% of the total purchase price or $15,000 maximum, no later than the date of closing specified in the sales contract. However closing is not a prerequisite for Broker's fee being earned. * * * (d) Broker's fee is due in the following circumstances: (1) If any interest in the Property is transferred . . . , regardless of whether the buyer is secured by Broker, Seller or any other person. * * * COOPERATION WITH OTHER BROKERS: Broker's office policy is to cooperate with all other brokers except when not in the Seller's best interest, and to offer compensation to: Buyer's agents, who represent the interest of the buyer and not the interest of Seller in a transaction, even if compensated by Seller or Broker Nonrepresentatives Transaction brokers. None of the above (if this box is checked, the Property cannot be placed in the MLS). * * * 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: This Agreement will be construed under Florida law. All controversies, claim and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be settled by first attempting mediation under the rules of the American Arbitration Association or other mediator agreed upon by the parties. . . . Shortly after they left the employ of Allen and began working for Unlimited, Respondent and Mr. Sprauer showed Nicholas Damiano the Piazza Property. Mr. Damiano thereafter made a written offer to purchase the Piazza Property, which the Piazzas accepted, in writing, on July 4, 2001. The sales price was $165,000.00. Mr. Damiano put down a $10,000.00 deposit, which, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the contract between Mr. Damiano and the Piazzas (Sales Contract), was "held in escrow by [Unlimited]." The obligations of Unlimited, as escrow agent, were described in paragraph 6 of the Sales Contract, which provided as follows: ESCROW. Buyer and Seller authorize GMAC, Realty Unlimited Telephone: . . . Facsimile: . . . Address: . . . to receive funds and other items and, subject to clearance, disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Escrow Agent will deposit all funds received in a non- interest bearing account. If Escrow Agent receives conflicting demands or has a good faith doubt as to Escrow Agent's duties or liabilities under this Contract, he/she may hold the subject matter of the escrow until the parties mutually agree to its disbursement or until issuance of a court order or decision of arbitrator determining the parties' rights regarding the escrow or deposit the subject matter of the escrow with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the dispute. Upon notifying the parties of such action, Escrow Agent will be released from all liability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow. If a licensed real estate broker, Escrow Agent will comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In any suit or arbitration in which Escrow Agent is made a party because of acting as agent hereunder or interpleads the subject matter of the escrow, Escrow Agent will recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at all levels, with such fees and costs to be paid from the escrowed funds or equivalent and charged and awarded as court or other costs in favor of the prevailing party. The parties agree that Escrow Agent will not be liable to any person for misdelivery to Buyer or Seller of escrowed items, unless the misdelivery is due to Escrow Agent's willful breach of this Contract or gross negligence. Paragraph 12 of the Sales Contract addressed the subject of "brokers" and provided as follows: BROKERS. Neither Buyer nor Seller has utilized the services of, or for any other reason owes compensation to, a licensed real estate broker other than: Listing Broker: Allen Real Estate, Inc. who is a transaction broker and who will be compensated by x Seller _ Buyer _ both parties pursuant to x a listing agreement _ other (specify) Cooperating Broker: GMAC Realty Unlimited who is a transaction broker who will compensated by _ Buyer x Seller _ both parties pursuant to _ an MLS or other offer of compensation to a cooperating broker _ other (specify) (collectively referred to as "Broker") in connection with any act relating to the Property, included but not limited to, inquiries, introductions, consultations and negotiations resulting in this transaction. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify and hold Broker harmless from and against losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees at all levels, and from liability to any person, arising from (1) compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this Paragraph, (2) enforcement action to collect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10, (3) any duty accepted by Broker at the request of Buyer or Seller, which duty is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475, F.S., as amended, or (4) recommendations of or services provided and expenses incurred by any third party whom Broker refers, recommends or retains for or on behalf of Buyer or Seller. The Damiano/Piazza transaction was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2001. At the request of the Piazzas, the closing was rescheduled for August 7, 2001. A few days before August 7, 2001, Mr. Sprauer asked Respondent "where the closing was going to take place" and "what title company" would be handling the matter. Respondent replied that the closing was "going to be delayed again because Mr. Damiano . . . was going to have to have some type of cancer surgery." It turned out that the closing was not "delayed again." It took place on August 7, 2001. At the closing were Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, Respondent, and the closing agent from the title company, First American Title Insurance Company (First American).3 Neither Mr. Schevers, nor Mr. Sprauer, was in attendance. Mr. Sprauer did not even know that the closing was taking place. He was under the impression, based on what Respondent had told him, that the closing had been postponed. Had he not been misinformed, he would have attended the closing. Respondent did not contact Mr. Sprauer following the closing to let him know that, in fact, the closing had occurred. Mr. Schevers, on the other hand, was made aware that closing would be held on August 7, 2001. He was unable to attend because he had "prior commitments." It was Respondent who informed Mr. Schevers of the August 7, 2001, closing date. The morning of August 7, 2001, Respondent went to Unlimited's Stuart office and asked Mr. Schevers for the $10,000.00 Unlimited was holding in escrow in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction, explaining that he needed it for the closing that was going to be held later that day. Before complying with Respondent's request, Mr. Schevers contacted First American and asked that he be faxed a copy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement (HUD Statement) that First American had prepared for the closing. As requested, First American faxed a copy of the HUD Statement to Mr. Schevers. Upon reviewing the document, Mr. Schevers "immediately noticed that [it indicated that] the entire commission [of $7,000.00] was going to Allen." Mr. Schevers "then proceeded to call First American" and asked why Unlimited was not "reflected on this settlement statement." Mr. Schevers was told that a First American representative "would get right on it and get back to [him]." Mr. Schevers did not wait to hear back from First American before handing an "escrow check" in the amount of $10,000.00 to Respondent. He instructed Respondent, however, to "not give anybody this check unless that statement [the HUD Statement] [was] changed and reflect[ed] [Unlimited's]" share of the commission earned from the sale of the Piazza Property. He further directed Respondent to telephone him if this change was not made. Respondent did not follow the instructions Mr. Schevers had given him. He delivered the $10,000.00 "escrow check" to the closing agent at the closing, even though the HUD Statement had not been changed to reflect Unlimited's sharing of the commission. At no time during the closing did Mr. Schevers receive a telephone call from Respondent. According to the HUD Statement that Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, and the closing agent signed at the closing, Allen received a commission of $7,000.00 "from seller's funds at settlement." The document makes no mention of any other commission having been paid as part of the closing. On or about August 9, 2001, Respondent received a "commission check" from Allen. The check was made payable to Respondent and was in the amount of $3,000.00. Under the "DOLLARS" line on the check, the following was typed: 4200 Total Comm[4] 1200 ADVANCE[5] Typed next to "MEMO" on the bottom left hand corner of the check was "DAMIANO-PIAZZA 165,000 S&L." It has not been shown that the "commission check" Respondent received from Allen was for anything other than the commission Allen owed Respondent for services performed when Respondent was still employed by Allen. Mr. Schevers' consent to Respondent's receiving this $3,000.00 "commission check" was neither sought nor given. Less than a week after the closing, having spotted Mr. Damiano mowing grass on a vacant lot that Mr. Damiano owned, Mr. Sprauer walked up to him and asked "how his surgery [had gone]." Mr. Damiano "acted very surprised [like] he didn't know what [Mr. Sprauer] was talking about." Mr. Damiano's reaction to his inquiry led Mr. Sprauer to believe "that the closing had probably taken place." He "immediately contacted [Mr. Schevers] and asked him to check into it." Mr. Schevers subsequently learned from First American that Allen "had gotten all of the [commission] check" at the closing. Mr. Schevers then telephoned Respondent. This was the first communication he had had with Respondent since before the closing. Respondent told Mr. Schevers that "he got the check" and "he would be right over with it." Respondent, however, did not keep his promise. After his telephone conversation with Respondent, Mr. Schevers discovered that Allen "had cut [Respondent] a check and [Respondent] had gone immediately and deposited it." This discovery prompted Mr. Schevers to place another telephone call to Respondent. This telephone conversation ended with Mr. Schevers telling Respondent "he was terminated." Mr. Schevers thereafter notified Petitioner in writing that Respondent was no longer associated with Unlimited. He also filed with Petitioner a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction. Mr. Schevers had expected Unlimited to receive, for the role it played in the Damiano/Piazza transaction, "50 percent of the total commission," or $3,500.00, in accordance with the provisions of the "multiple listing service for St. Lucie County."6 He holds Respondent responsible, at least in part, for Unlimited's not receiving these monies.7 At the time of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, Unlimited had contracts with its sales associates which provided that the associates would receive "70 percent of the net" of any commission Unlimited earned as a result of the associates' efforts. Had Unlimited received a commission as a result of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, it would have "split" it with Respondent and Mr. Sprauer as required by the contracts it had with them.8
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in the instant case in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate broker, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate broker in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent, license number 0325134, was issued to him in care of Zorcorp Builders, Inc., 2208 Buena Vista Boulevard, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. Respondent is also a licensed general contractor. Both his real estate business and his contracting business are operated out of his residence. On August 13, 1998, Dawn Luchik, an investigator employed by Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's real estate offices. As part of her inspection, Ms. Luchik audited Respondent's escrow account. 1/ As of August 13, 1998, Respondent's escrow account contained the sum of $8,909.76. Ms. Luchik determined that the total trust liability was $8,140.00, which included a bank charge in the amount of $7.46. Deducting the total trust liability and the bank charge from the amount in the account revealed an overage in the escrow account in the amount of $769.76. Respondent testified that the overage represented earned commissions that he left in the escrow account in an effort to keep enough money in the account to avoid bank charges. Those earned commissions constituted Respondent's personal or brokerage business funds. Rule 61J2-14.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: A broker is authorized to place and maintain up to $200 of personal or brokerage business funds in the escrow account for the purpose of opening the account, keeping the account open, and/or paying for ordinary services. Respondent testified that he was unaware of Rule 61J2- 14.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, before Ms. Luchik's inspection. After he learned of that Rule, Respondent immediately withdrew the sum of $600 from his escrow account, leaving an overage of less than $200. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent reconciled his escrow account on a regular basis. Ms. Luchik testified that she found no evidence that Respondent attempted to reconcile his escrow account on a monthly basis. Respondent testified that he used a very simple method to reconcile his escrow account each month, but he conceded that his method did not comply with the requirements imposed by Petitioner. 2/ Respondent's testimony established that he failed to properly reconcile his escrow account on a monthly basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that an administrative fine in the amount of $250 be imposed for each Count (for a total fine of $500), and that Respondent's licensure be placed on probation for a period of six months for each violation, to run concurrently. It is further RECOMMENDED that as a condition of probation, Respondent be required to complete an appropriate continuing education course in escrow account management. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2000
The Issue The issues in these two cases are whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints, by (1) failing to return a rental deposit to a potential tenant; (2) serving as the qualifying broker for Friendly International Realty, Inc. (“Friendly”), but failing to actively supervise Friendly’s operations and/or sales associates; failing to preserve Friendly’s transaction records and escrow account documents; and (4) acting in a manner that constitutes culpable negligence or a breach of trust. If there was a violation, an additional issue would be what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency that regulates the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. King is a licensed real estate broker registered with the Department (license numbers BK 3203595, 3261628, 3293588, 3306619, 3335771, 3354773, and 3363985). Ms. King is registered with the Department as the qualifying broker for 16 brokerages located throughout the state of Florida. At all times relevant to this case, Ms. King’s registered address with the Department was 4430 Park Boulevard North, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Friendly International Realty, LLC Friendly was a Florida licensed real estate corporation, holding license number CQ 1040825. Records reflect that James Berthelot was the registered agent for Friendly at the time of incorporation, June 2011. At all times relevant, Mr. Berthelot was a licensed Real Estate Sales Associate (license number SL 3226474) registered with Friendly. In May 2014, Respondent drafted and entered into a Limited Qualifying Broker Agreement (“Broker Agreement”) with Friendly and its owner, Ivania De La Rocha.2/ Friendly and Ms. King entered into the Broker Agreement, “in order to comply with the requirements of the Florida Department of [Business and] Professional Regulation.” Under the terms of the Broker Agreement, Respondent was not paid by Friendly per transaction. Rather, Respondent agreed to serve as the “Corporate Broker of Record” in exchange for a payment of $300 a month “as a flat fee for any and all real estate business conducted by [Friendly].” The Broker Agreement also provided for a “late fee” penalty if Friendly was delinquent in this monthly payment. Section 1.1 of the Broker Agreement outlined Respondent’s duties to Friendly, requiring her to: (1) keep her and Friendly’s licenses active and in good standing under Florida law; (2) keep her other business interests separate from those involving Friendly’s interests; and (3) provide Friendly notice of any governmental inquiry involving her serving as Friendly’s broker. There was no mention in the Broker Agreement of either Respondent’s or Friendly’s responsibilities regarding oversight of transactions, training for sales associates, or day-to-day operations. Regarding document retention, the Broker Agreement provided: Section 9.0 AUDIT & REVIEW RIGHT: Broker shall have the right to enter [Friendly’s] offices upon reasonable advance written notice to verify compliance with the real estate laws of the State of Florida. There was no evidence that Ms. King ever provided Friendly with the kind of notice described in section 9.0 of the Broker Agreement. Although the Broker Agreement did not prohibit Friendly from holding funds or assets on behalf of third parties, section 10.0 (Miscellaneous) explicitly prohibited Friendly from operating an escrow account. (g) Escrow and Ernest Money Accounts. [Friendly] shall not be permitted to hold any escrow account(s). On July 31, 2014, Ms. King was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, as “manager” of Friendly. Ms. King was the qualifying broker for Friendly (license number BK3303898) from August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2015, and November 4, 2015, through January 13, 2016.3/ During the time Ms. King served as the qualifying broker, Friendly operated from a number of addresses in Miami- Dade County, including 11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 292, Miami, Florida 33181; and 2132 Northeast 123rd Street, Miami, Florida 33181. The office door of the Friendly office located on Northeast 123rd Street was painted in large letters, “FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY” and “ALICIA KING” painted underneath. At the hearing, when asked about Friendly’s address, Ms. King could only confirm that when she became the broker the office was “on Biscayne.” The Biscayne Boulevard address is the one listed on the Broker Agreement. At the hearing, Ms. King was wrong about when the Friendly office had moved from the Biscayne Boulevard to the Northeast 123rd Street location, insisting it was over the Christmas holidays in 2015. Records establish Friendly moved from the Biscayne Boulevard location to the Northeast 123rd Street location sometime between April and July 2014. In January 2016, Ms. King believed the office was still on Biscayne Boulevard. In reality, it had been over a year since the office had relocated to that location. At the hearing, when asked by her own counsel how many transactions a month Friendly handled, Ms. King replied, “That’s hard to say. It was not many at all. Ten, maybe.” Respondent could not give the exact number of employees or sales associates affiliated with Friendly; when asked, she stated she could not remember the exact amount, but knew it was “very limited.” Respondent did not have any agreements or documentation related to how many sales associates were registered under her broker’s license. Respondent could not name any other sales associates affiliated with Friendly while she was the qualifying broker, except for Mr. Berthelot. While she was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Respondent did not perform any of the training for the sales associates at Friendly. Respondent did not have any face-to-face meetings with any Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have phone or e-mail contact with any of the Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have copies of any forms, handbooks, reports or files related to Friendly. All of these documents were in paper form and kept in the Friendly office. Respondent had no access or signatory authority for any of Friendly’s bank accounts. Natalie James was a registered real estate sales associate affiliated with Friendly for approximately five months, from November 2015 through March 2016. Ms. James worked out of the Friendly office and was physically present at the office at least three or four times a week. Ms. James was involved in several rentals and one sales transaction while at Friendly. For each transaction she assembled a file, which was kept in the Friendly office. For rental transactions, Ms. James would negotiate and facilitate lease agreements. When she represented potential tenants, she received deposit funds that she deposited with Friendly. Ms. James attended meetings at Friendly; Ms. King was not present at any of them. Ms. James never had any telephonic, electronic, personal, or other contact with Respondent. While at Friendly, neither Mr. Berthelot nor any of Ms. James’ co-workers mentioned Ms. King to Ms. James. Although Ms. King’s name was on the door of Friendly’s office, Ms. James was unaware Ms. King was Friendly’s broker. There was conflicting testimony as to how often Respondent visited the Friendly office. Ms. King’s testimony at the hearing was at odds with the Department’s evidence and testimony regarding this issue. Ms. King insisted that while she was Friendly’s broker, she would travel from Pinellas Park to the Friendly office once or twice a week. This was not believable for a number of reasons. First, had Ms. King visited Friendly’s office as often as she stated, she would have known about the change in location; she did not. Second, Ms. King could not give one concrete date or detail about her travels to the Friendly office. Third, and most compelling, was the testimony of Ms. James (who worked at Friendly for at least two months while Ms. King was its broker) that she had never seen, communicated with, or heard mention of Ms. King while at Friendly. Ms. James’ unbiased and compelling testimony alone supports a finding that Ms. King did not visit the Friendly office as frequently as she indicated. Ms. King was aware that Friendly and Mr. Berthelot provided rental or “tenant placement” services.4/ Friendly collected security deposits and other move-in funds from potential renters and held them in an escrow account. Ms. King was not aware Friendly had an escrow account until January 2016 when she was contacted by the Department in an unrelated case. On January 13, 2016, Respondent resigned with the Department as the qualifying broker for Friendly effective that same day. On January 14, 2016, Respondent filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for operating an escrow account and collecting deposit funds without her knowledge. Facts Related to the Viton Case In November 2015, during the time Ms. King was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Christian Viton signed a lease agreement to rent an apartment located in Miami at 460 Northeast 82nd Terrace, Unit 8 (“Viton transaction”). The Viton lease agreement listed Friendly as the holder of the deposit monies and required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds to the owner of the property. Pursuant to the terms of the Viton lease agreement, Mr. Viton remitted an initial deposit of $500, and received a written receipt from Friendly dated November 2, 2015. Mr. Viton gave Friendly a second deposit of $380, and received a written receipt dated November 4, 2015. Mr. Viton never moved into the apartment and demanded a refund of his deposit from Friendly. On December 8, 2015, Friendly issued a check to Mr. Viton in the amount of $530. Three days later, Friendly issued a stop-payment order on the $530 check to Mr. Viton. On February 29, 2016, Mr. Viton filed a complaint with the Department seeking a return of the $880 he had given to Friendly. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation into Mr. Viton’s complaint and contacted Respondent. Upon learning about the Viton complaint, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot who admitted Friendly had stopped payment on the $530 refund check, but had reissued the full amount of the deposit to a third-party not named on the lease. There is no evidence Mr. Viton ever received a refund of his $880 deposit. Facts Related to Dorestant Case In June 2015, during the time Ms. King served as Friendly’s qualifying broker, Cindy Dorestant entered into a lease agreement to rent a condominium located at 1540 West 191 Street, Unit 110 (“Dorestant transaction”). In the lease, Friendly was listed as the “broker” and holder of the deposit; TIR Prime Properties (“TIR”) was listed as the owner’s agent. The Dorestant lease agreement required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Pursuant to the terms of the Dorestant lease agreement, Ms. Dorestant gave Friendly $1,050 as an initial deposit, and received a written receipt dated June 24, 2015. In late July 2015, Ms. Dorestant contacted TIR’s property manager and sales agent to ask for information about the status of her move into the condominium. TIR explained to Ms. Dorestant that Friendly had not conveyed any of monies collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Both Ms. Dorestant and TIR attempted to contact Friendly, but Friendly was non-responsive. The TIR sales associate relayed this information to TIR’s broker, Mariano Saal, who in turn tried to reach Friendly to resolve the issue. Eventually, TIR was told by Mr. Berthelot that Friendly would release the move-in funds to TIR and that Mr. Berthelot would schedule the move-in. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly, nor did Mr. Berthelot facilitate Ms. Dorestant’s move into the condominium. On August 31, 2015, Mr. Saal contacted Mr. Berthelot and informed him that if TIR did not receive the move-in funds for the Dorestant transaction by 5:00 p.m. that day, it would be required to find another tenant. Ms. Dorestant did not move into the condominium and demanded a refund from Friendly and TIR. On September 14, 2015, Mr. Saal sent an e-mail to what he believed was Respondent’s address, demanding the $1,050 from Friendly because it considered Ms. Dorestant’s failure to move into the property a default of the lease agreement. Respondent, however, did not have access to Friendly’s e-mails. The e-mail was also sent to Mr. Berthelot, and Ms. De La Rocha. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly for the Dorestant transaction. After discovering she could not move into the condominium because Friendly had not transferred the deposit to TIR, Ms. Dorestant demanded a refund of her deposit monies from Friendly. She did not receive it. On February 10, 2016, Mariano Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, filed a complaint against Mr. Berthelot and Friendly with the Department regarding the Dorestant transaction. Ms. Dorestant initially did not receive a refund from Friendly and, therefore, filed a police report against Mr. Berthelot and sued him in small claims court. Eventually, Mr. Berthelot refunded Ms. Dorestant her deposit monies. Department Investigations of Friendly Upon receiving the Viton complaint, the Department assigned the case (DPBR Case No. 2016018731) to Erik Lluy, an Investigator Specialist II in the Miami field office. Similarly, on or around the same time the Department received the Dorestant complaint; it was also assigned to Mr. Lluy (DPBR Case No. 2016018069). On April 25, 2016, Mr. Lluy officially notified Ms. King of each of the complaints. On May 25, 2016, the Department transferred both the Viton and Dorestant complaints from Mr. Lluy to Percylla Kennedy. Ms. King provided a written response to both complaints via e-mail to Mr. Lluy on May 26, 2016. At that time, Mr. Lluy indicated the case had been transferred to Ms. Kennedy and copied Ms. Kennedy on the response. Ms. Kennedy was familiar with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. In January 5, 2016, she had conducted an investigation of Friendly in an unrelated complaint filed against Friendly by Borys Bilan (“Bilan complaint”). As part of the investigation into the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy arrived at the Friendly office address registered with the Department on Biscayne Boulevard to conduct an official office inspection. When she arrived, however, she found the office vacant. As a result, that same day Ms. Kennedy contacted the registered qualifying broker for Friendly–-Ms. King-–by phone. During that call, Ms. Kennedy asked Ms. King where Friendly’s office was located, but Ms. King did not know. Eventually, Ms. Kennedy determined the Friendly office had relocated to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Ms. Kennedy testified that during this call, Ms. King admitted to her that she had not been to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent testified she did not tell Ms. Kennedy this and as proof insisted that the January call was inconsequential and “a very short call.” The undersigned rejects Respondent’s version of events and finds Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and report regarding the January 2016 interview more reliable. First, although Ms. King describes the conversation as occurring on January 7, 2016, both Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and the Inspection Report establish the conversation occurred on January 5, 2016. Second, Respondent’s characterization of the call as inconsequential contradicts her own May 26, 2016, written response to the Department in which Ms. King outlines a number of substantive issues discussed during this phone conversation, including: the nature of Friendly’s practice, whether Friendly had an escrow account, the type of payment accepted by Friendly, and the address of Friendly’s office. After speaking with Ms. King about the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy conducted the inspection at Friendly’s Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent was not present when Investigator Kennedy conducted the office inspection. Ms. Kennedy then e-mailed the Office Inspection form to Respondent. As a result of the January 5, 2016, phone conversation with Ms. Kennedy, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot about the Bilan complaint. On January 13, 2016, Mr. Berthelot provided Ms. King with the transaction file related to the Bilan complaint. When Ms. King reviewed the lease agreement, she realized that Friendly was holding deposit funds in escrow. As a result, on December 13, 2016, Ms. King filed a resignation letter with the Department explaining she was no longer the qualifying broker for Friendly. Ms. King did not ask Mr. Berthelot or anyone else at Friendly for any other transaction records at this time, nor did she make any effort to review any of Friendly’s transaction files to determine whether Friendly had obtained other deposit funds or conducted other transactions similar to the one that was the subject of the Bilan complaint. After having knowledge of the Bilan complaint and transaction, and suspecting Friendly had been operating an escrow account, Ms. King made no immediate effort to access the operating or escrow bank accounts or reconcile the escrow account. After resigning as Friendly’s qualifying broker with the Department, Ms. King filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for unlicensed activity involving an escrow deposit.5/ Despite no longer being Friendly’s qualifying broker, on January 21, 2016, Ms. King executed and sent back to Ms. Kennedy the Inspection Report related to the Bilan complaint. Five months later, on or around May 25, 2016, Ms. Kennedy notified Ms. King she was taking over the investigation into the Viton and Dorestant cases. Ms. Kennedy testified that as part of her investigation into the Viton and Dorestant complaints, she interviewed Respondent again. Respondent denies she was interviewed by Ms. Kennedy regarding the Viton and Dorestant complaints, and instead insists she was only interviewed in January 2016 in connection with the Bilan complaint. Ms. King testified she believed Ms. Kennedy lied about interviewing her more than once because Ms. Kennedy was “lazy.” The undersigned rejects this assertion. Ms. Kennedy’s testimony was specific, knowledgeable, and credible, unlike Ms. King’s testimony, which was intentionally vague. Moreover, Ms. Kennedy specifically attributes her findings to specific sources such as Ms. King’s written response, her interview with Ms. King relating to the Viton and Dorestant transactions, and to her previous conversation with Ms. King during the Bilan investigation. The citations to information gleaned from the January 5, 2016, call were marked by the following sub-note. SUBJECT was previously interviewed by this Investigator in January 2016 for the unrelated complaint and was unaware that FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY LLC had moved from license location 11900 Biscayne Blvd.[,] Suite 292 Miami, FL 33181 to 2132 NE 123ST[,] Miami, FL 33181 (See Ex. 9). At that time, SUBJECT was unable to provide the transaction file. Ms. Kennedy would have no reason to fabricate the source of the conclusions she reached in her report or the number of times she contacted Ms. King. Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Viton complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Mr. Viton and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016. In this report, Ms. Kennedy determined that on February 25, 2016, Friendly issued a check in the amount of $875 to a person who was not listed on either the lease agreement, the receipts Friendly issued to Mr. Viton, or any other paperwork. Similarly, Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Dorestant complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Ms. Dorestant and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016, indicating Ms. Dorestant did eventually receive a refund. During the course of the Viton investigation, Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Viton transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. During the course of the Dorestant investigation Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Dorestant transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. Professional Standards Mr. Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, testified he had served as a broker for approximately ten years. As TIR’s qualifying broker, he kept the documentation related to the transactions handled by TIR’s six sales associates. The testimony of the TIR sales associate and property manager established that they relied on Mr. Saal for advice and to resolve issues. For example, when Ms. Dorestant began contacting TIR’s sales associate and property manager regarding the move-in and then for a refund of her deposit, the sales associate went to Mr. Saal to discuss the situation. Mr. Saal then attempted to resolve the issue by attempting to communicate with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in brokerages, reviewed the Department’s investigative files and reports relating to the Viton and Dorestant complaints, as well as applicable Florida Statutes and rules. Mr. Trafton’s testimony and report established that in Florida the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to others. Petitioner showed that Mr. Viton was entitled to a refund of his deposit from Friendly and that Respondent erred in not ensuring he received this refund. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. “Active supervision” is not defined by statute or rule, but by usual and customary practices exercised statewide. “Active supervision” requires a broker to: have regular communications with all sales associates, not just communicating when there is a complaint; be aware of problems, issues and procedures in the office and among sales associates; have access to and signatory power on all operating and escrow accounts; hold regular scheduled office/sales meetings; conduct in–person training meetings; provide guidance and advice for sales associates; be intimately involved in how transaction forms and other documents are stored and retrieved; and be available to provide advice and direction on short notice. In other words, a broker should set the tone at the brokerage by overseeing her sales associates’ conduct of transactions. Ms. King failed to manage, direct, and control her real estate sales associate, Mr. Berthelot, to the standard expected of a qualifying broker in both the Viton and Dorestant transactions, if not all of Friendly’s transactions. She did not actively supervise Mr. Berthelot as a sales associate. Mr. Trafton also testified that a broker, not the brokerage, is ultimately responsible for preserving transaction files, forms related to transactions, and other related documents. Although less certain than Mr. Trafton about whether a broker or the brokerage firm is responsible for preservation of transaction files, Mr. Saal testified “the broker is responsible for the . . . transactions. It’s [the broker’s] client at the end of the day.” Ms. King failed to preserve accounts and records relating to Friendly’s accounts, the files related to the Viton and Dorestant rental transactions, or any other documents related to Friendly. Petitioner also clearly established that Respondent was guilty of either “culpable negligence” or “breach of trust” in the Viton or Dorestant transaction. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Viton complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,625.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Dorestant complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,608.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Case No. 17-3989 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint in the Viton case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling $2,500 ($500 fine per count for Counts I, II and III; and $1,000 fine for Count IV). Imposing license suspension for a total period of nine months (one-month suspensions each for Counts I, II, and III; and a six-month suspension for Count IV). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,625.25. Case No. 17-3961 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint in the Dorestant case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling of $2,000 ($500 fine per count for Counts I and II; and $1,000 fine for Count III). Imposing license suspension for a total period of eight months to be imposed consecutive to the suspension in Case No. 17-3989 (one-month suspensions each for Counts I and II; and a six-month suspension for Count III). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,608.75. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. David B.C. Yeomans, Jr., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0163386. During times material, Respondent was the qualifying broker for G & A Realty and Investments, Inc., a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. 1/ From approximately April 1985 to December 1985, Respondent Yeomans was the president and qualifying broker for G & A. Wilfredo Gonzalez, a licensed real estate salesman and Alberto Aranda were each 50 percent shareholders of G & A. Wilfredo Gonzalez, while licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of G & A, solicited and obtained a client, Alfredo Susi, who made an offer to purchase a commercial property in Dade County, Florida. In connection with the offer, Alfredo Susi entrusted a $10,000 earnest money deposit with Wilfredo Gonzalez to be held in trust in G & A's escrow account. The seller rejected Susi's offer to purchase whereupon Alfredo Susi made demands upon Gonzalez for return of the earnest money deposit. Wilfredo Gonzalez attempted to return the earnest money deposit entrusted by Susi via check dated November 18, 1985 drawn on G & A's escrow account. Upon presentation of the subject check by Susi, it was returned unpaid due to non-sufficient funds. Alfredo Susi has been unable to obtain a refund of the deposit submitted to Gonzalez. Wilfredo Gonzalez used the deposit presented by Susi and did not apprise Respondent Yeomans of what or how he intended to dispose of Susi's deposit. Alfredo Susi had no dealing with Respondent Yeomans and in fact testified and it is found herein, that Susi's dealings in this transaction, were exclusively with Wilfredo Gonzalez. Tony Figueredo, a former salesman with G & A, is familiar with the brokerage acts and services performed by Respondent Yeomans and Wilfredo Gonzalez. During his employment with G & A, Figueredo had no dealing with Respondent Yeonans and in fact gave all escrow monies to Wilfredo Gonzalez. Carolyn Miller, the president and broker for Rite Way, Realtors, an area brokerage entity, is familiar with the customs and practices in the Dade County area brokerage operations. Ms. Miller considered it a broker's responsibility to supervise all salesman and to review escrow deposits and corresponding accounts approximately bimonthly. Theodore J. Pappas, Board Chairman for Keyes Realtors, a major real estate brokerage entity in Dade County, also considered it the broker's responsibility to place escrow accounts into the care and custody of a secretary and not the salesman. Mr. Pappas considered that in order to insure that funds were not misappropriated, checks and balances and intensive training programs would have to be installed to minimize the risk of misappropriation of escrow deposits. Mr. Pappas conceded however that it was difficult to protect against dishonest salesman. Respondent Yeomans has been a salesman for approximately eleven years and during that time, he has been a broker for ten of those eleven years. During approximately mid 1984, Respondent Yeomans entered into a six (6) month agreement with G & A to be the qualifying broker and to attempt to sell a large tract of land listed by Context Realty in Marion County (Ocala). When Respondent agreed to become the qualifying broker for G & A Respondent was a signator to the escrow account for G & A Realty. Sometime subsequent to Respondent qualifying as broker for G & A, Wilfredo Gonzalez changed the escrow account and Respondent Yeomans was unfamiliar with that fact. Respondent Yeomans first became aware of Susi's complaint during late 1985 or early 1986. Respondent Yeomans was not a signator on the escrow account where Wilfredo Gonzalez placed the escrow deposit entrusted by Alfredo Susi. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) During approximately November, 1986, Respondent Yeomans made it known to the officers at G & A that he was withdrawing his license from G & A and attempted to get G & A's officers to effect the change. When this did not occur by December, 1986, Respondent Yeomans effectuated the change himself and terminated his affiliation with G & A. During the time when Respondent was the qualifying agent for G & A, there were approximately four employees and little activity to review in the way of overseeing real estate salespersons. During this period, Respondent Yeomans reviewed the escrow account for G & A that he was aware of. During the time that Respondent Yeomans was qualifying broker for G & A, he was primarily involved in the undeveloped acreage owned by Context Realty and other REO listed property of G & A. During the period when Respondent Yeomans was qualifying agent for G & A, Wilfredo Gonzalez spent approximately 95 percent of his time managing rental property that he (Gonzalez) owned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 9th day of June, 1987.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate should be denied on the ground set forth in the Florida Real Estate Commission's April 24, 2007, Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is 26 years old. He lives in Orlando and works as a server at Hue, an upscale restaurant located in downtown Orlando. Hue is owned by Urban Life Management, a company that owns several restaurants and a real estate brokerage company. Petitioner also serves as an office manager at the real estate office, and would work as a sales associate in that office after obtaining his license. On or about August 28, 2006, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate sales associate with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Division"). On that application, he answered in the affirmative to question number one in the Background Information section. Question number one states, in pertinent part, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to, even if you received a withhold of adjudication"? By letter to Petitioner, dated September 8, 2006, the Division requested additional information from Petitioner regarding his answer to question number one. In response, Petitioner submitted documentation showing that he had been convicted in November 2002 of trafficking in amphetamine, particularly MDMA (ecstasy), in violation of Subsection 893.135(1)(f), Florida Statutes, a first degree felony. Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 90 days, followed by 18 months of probation. Petitioner successfully completed his probation on July 14, 2004. At the time of his offense, Petitioner was a 20-year old student at the University of Central Florida ("UCF"). On August 19, 2001, Petitioner acted as the middleman in a drug transaction, delivering 5,000 ecstasy pills to a purchaser for $41,250.00. Petitioner expected to receive about $5,000 for his participation in the deal. However, the prospective buyer of the pills was a confidential police informant, and Petitioner was arrested. As a consequence of his guilty plea, Petitioner was expelled from UCF. Subsequent to his arrest, Petitioner cooperated with law enforcement authorities by acting as a confidential source. Petitioner's extensive cooperation led to a greatly reduced sentence based on the recommendations of law enforcement officials. The drug trafficking conviction is Petitioner's only criminal offense. Petitioner currently works two jobs. He works as a server at Hue in the evening and as office manager for the real estate company during the day. Both of Petitioner's supervisors testified in support of Petitioner's application. Neal Barton is the general manager of Hue and has been Petitioner's direct supervisor at the restaurant since hiring him in August 2002. Mr. Barton testified that Petitioner disclosed his criminal record at the time he was hired. Mr. Barton testified that Petitioner is an exemplary employee, honest, reliable, and dedicated. Mr. Barton relies on Petitioner to train other servers, and to check their work. Lisa Gould is Petitioner's supervisor at the real estate company. She has worked with Petitioner for approximately five months, and testified that Petitioner disclosed his criminal record to her. Ms. Gould testified that Petitioner is honest and hardworking. She would not hesitate to use Petitioner as a sales associate under her broker's license. Craig Ustler, the president and owner of the companies that employ Petitioner, testified in support of Petitioner's application. Mr. Ustler is a real estate broker and appraiser, and testified that he would not hesitate to hire Petitioner as a sales associate. In addition to working, Petitioner pursued higher education after serving his time in jail. In May 2004, he received his Associate in Arts degree from Valencia Community College. He then re-applied to UCF, and was admitted subject to disciplinary probation for his entire enrollment. As part of the readmission process, Petitioner was required to participate in therapy with Laura Riddle, a professional training consultant and "life coach." Ms. Riddle submitted a letter of support for Petitioner, in which she described him as honest, and a man of integrity and strong moral character. Petitioner graduated from UCF with a degree in finance on May 4, 2007. Petitioner attributed his criminal conduct to growing up in an environment of substance abuse that led him into a period of drug dependence. At the time of his arrest, Petitioner was an ecstasy user. Petitioner completed a six- month program at the Center for Drug Free Living in Orlando, as well as an aftercare program, and credibly testified that he has not used drugs since his arrest in August 2001. Petitioner's license application was considered by the Commission at its meeting on March 21, 2007. Petitioner appeared at the Commission meeting and responded to questions from members of the Commission. The Commission voted at the meeting to deny Petitioner's license application. The denial was memorialized in a Notice of Intent to Deny dated April 24, 2007. The grounds for denial listed in the Notice of Intent to Deny included Petitioner's criminal record, as revealed in the license application; the recent nature of Petitioner's criminal offenses; and the fact that Petitioner is a convicted felon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 7th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1020 Verona Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Nancy S. Terrel Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Poul Hornsleth, Chairman Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulations 400 W. Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Richard Shindler has been a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0395044. The last license issued was as a salesman with Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0223589. At all times material hereto, Mark H. Adler was licensed and operated as the qualifying broker and officer of Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. Adler's license is currently under suspension by agreement with Petitioner as a result of the activities complained of in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. At no time has Respondent Shindler been a director or officer of Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shindler has been the sales manager for Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. As the sales manager, Respondent Shindler sometimes helped other salesmen structure financing and helped them with other problems. Respondent Shindler was not responsible for the collection of funds from individual salesmen. Each individual salesman was responsible for collecting funds from any real estate transaction and giving those funds to Respondent Global's bookkeeper for deposit. As sales manager, Shindler was a signatory on the escrow account in order to make disbursements for small transactions mainly involving rental properties. In addition, Respondent Shindler was responsible for the hiring and firing of office personnel. However, he had no control over the contracts of other salesmen. On March 13, 1989, Respondent Shindler, as a private purchaser, made two purchase offers for two pieces of property owned by the same sellers. The purchase offers were for $115,000 and $80,000, respectively, and required that Respondent Shindler place $6,000 and $5,000, respectively, into Respondent Global's escrow account as a deposit on the purchase of the properties. Respondent Global and real estate broker Jay Hirsch were to receive commissions on the sale of the properties. Those offers to purchase disclosed in writing that Respondent Shindler was also a licensed real estate salesman. Although both offers to purchase were accepted by the sellers, the transactions involving the purchase of these properties did not close due to Respondent Shindler's inability to obtain financing, which was a contingency of the contracts. In October, 1989, demands for the release of the escrowed monies were made by the sellers and by the sellers' broker Jay Hirsch. They made demand upon Respondent Global's attorney. Additionally, Jay Hirsch made demand on Mark Adler by telephone and then by demand letter to Adler, who, as the qualifying broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for the release of the escrowed funds. Subsequent to the demands made by the sellers and their broker, Respondent Global filed a complaint for interpleader. The escrowed deposits were eventually disbursed pursuant to a settlement among the parties claiming an interest in the escrowed deposits. In March, 1990, Petitioner began an investigation of the Respondents and Adler. Investigators Castro and Rehm both participated in the investigation. Investigator Castro believed Respondent Shindler to be the office manager of Respondent Global. During the initial interview with Respondent Shindler, he produced records which indicated that a deposit of $14,265.69 had been made on January 13, 1989, into Respondent Global's escrow account. This check had been given by Respondent Shindler to Global's bookkeeper for deposit. This deposit represented proceeds from the sale of property owned by Respondent Shindler's brother Paul, and was placed in escrow in anticipation of the offers to purchase made by Respondent Shindler on the two properties involved in this cause. Investigator Rehm examined the escrow account bank records and determined that for a two-month period the escrow account balance had dropped below the minimum $11,000 balance required by the two contracts in question herein alone. Initially, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank where the escrow account was maintained had represented that it had debited the escrow account as a result of a lien placed on that account by the Internal Revenue Service. Upon further investigation, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank itself had withdrawn $3,200 from Global's escrow account to cover a shortage in Respondent Global's operating account. At all times material hereto, both Adler and Respondent Shindler were signatories on the escrow account. As part of its investigation, Petitioner served a subpoena on Maria Aguerra, Respondent Global's bookkeeper, requesting from Adler, or Respondent Shindler, or the custodian of records for Respondent Global Real Estate, all contracts, leases, agreements, monthly bank statements, deposit slips, and cancelled checks for all accounts for the period of January 1, 1989, through March 22, 1990. Some of the requested documents were initially unavailable because they had previously been sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Although Adler testified that he was initially unaware that a subpoena had been served, he was given a 30-day extension to produce the records when he met with investigators Castro and Rehm on May 1, 1990. Although Adler had both the responsibility for and control over the records of Respondent Global, he was not fully familiar with the records, and the bookkeeping was in disarray. At all times material hereto, Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for operating the Global office, for overseeing Global's escrow account, for reviewing contracts, and for being aware of the day-to-day events in the Global office. In addition, as the broker, Adler was required to be an officer of the corporation, to be a signatory on the escrow account, to have prepared and to sign the monthly escrow account reconciliations, and to respond to Petitioner if there were complaints or requests for production of documents. Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, did not reconcile and sign escrow account statements on a monthly basis since he was not aware of the requirement that he do so. However, Adler did testify that he was aware of his responsibility for escrowed funds. At no time did Respondent Shindler have the responsibility to maintain Global's escrow account or to reconcile the escrow account on a monthly basis. At no time did Respondent Shindler represent that he was the broker for Respondent Global or that he was a broker. Respondent Shindler did not state to investigator Rehm that he was acting as the broker for Global or that Adler had simply lent Adler's license to Shindler to use. At no time did Adler and Respondent Shindler enter into an agreement whereby Shindler would act as the broker for Global using Adler's broker's license, and Adler was never paid any monies for any use of his broker's license. Adler testified that his involvement with Global's business had declined as he had pursued his growing interest in performing appraisals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Dismissing Counts II, III, VII, VIII, and IX of the Administrative Complaint filed herein; Finding Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., guilty of the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint; and Ordering Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., to pay a fine in the amount of $500 by a date certain. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 20th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4522 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7-9, 11-12c, 13, 14, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 17 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12d has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The transcript of proceedings, together with Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 3, 5, and 8-14 and Respondents' Exhibit numbered 1 which were admitted in evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate - Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 - One Datran Center Miami, Florida 33156 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether either Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes,1/ regulating real estate sales associates, as alleged in the administrative complaints, and if so, what sanctions are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission, created within the Department, is the entity charged with regulating real estate brokers, schools, and sales associates in the State of Florida. The Division of Real Estate is charged with providing all services to the commission under chapters 475 and 455, Florida Statutes, including recordkeeping services, examination services, investigative services, and legal services. In 2006, Ms. Linda Fiorello and Ms. Catherine Lichtman, associates at another brokerage, decided to open up their own real estate business, with each owning a fifty-percent share. They created Luxury Realty Partners, Inc. (“the corporation”), a licensed real estate corporation in the State of Florida. While Ms. Lichtman was initially the qualifying broker, she soon stepped down from that position and a series of other individuals served as brokers for the corporation. Neither Ms. Fiorello nor Ms. Lichtman was licensed as a real estate broker at any time relevant to the Administrative Complaints. The corporation sold, exchanged, or leased real property other than property which it owned and it was not an owner-developer. On April 23, 2010, Mr. Brian Davis was added as the sole officer and director of the corporation, and he became the qualifying broker. At all times material to the complaints, Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman were licensed as real estate sales associates in the State of Florida, Ms. Fiorello having been issued license number 659087 and Ms. Lichtman having been issued license number 3170761. They worked together at the corporation, nominally under the direction, control, and management of Mr. Davis. The corporation did not maintain an escrow account. Mr. Davis did not manage any of the corporation’s bank accounts. He was not a signatory on the operating account. He did not collect brokerage commissions or distribute them to sales associates. He testified he went into the office “maybe once, once or twice a month.” When he agreed to become the qualifying broker for the corporation, he did not even know all of the names of the agents he was supposed to be responsible for. Mr. Davis stated: Well, basically, I was just doing a favor and I was – I put my license there until one of the other two could get their Broker’s license. I was just really stepping in for a short term to – to fill the time frame until one of them could get their Brokerage license, and I didn’t go on any management or any other books or anything of that nature. As Ms. Patty Ashford, one of the sales associates testified, Mr. Davis was seldom in the office. Ms. Ashford would turn in her contracts to Ms. Fiorello or Ms. Lichtman, who would review them. Ms. Ashford testified that her commission checks were then paid by checks signed by Ms. Lichtman. In short, Mr. Davis effectively provided no direction, control, or management of the activities of the corporation or its sales associates. In December of 2009, Ms. Jennie Pollio was living at 10861 Royal Palm Boulevard in Coral Springs, Florida (the property), a Section 8 property that she had been renting from Mr. Jimmy Laventure for about nine years. The property was in foreclosure. Ms. Pollio thought that she might be able to buy the property. She consulted Ms. Victoria Guante, a real estate sales associate with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc. Ms. Pollio knew Ms. Guante because they both had sons who played baseball on the same team. Ms. Guante told Ms. Pollio to get $40,000.00 in cashier’s checks and put it in escrow with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., so that she could make a strong offer and show that she really had the money. Although they were not produced as exhibits at hearing, Ms. Pollio testified that she signed a couple of different contracts for the property in early 2010. On or about April 29, 2010, Ms. Guante accompanied Ms. Pollio to the bank to get cashier’s checks. Ms. Pollio received five Bank of America cashier’s checks made out to “Luxury Partner Realty,” four in the amount of $9000.00, and one in the amount of $4000.00. Ms. Pollio understood that the property could be purchased for a total of $40,000.00, which included $37,000.00 for the property, and the balance in closing costs. The cashier’s checks were not given to a broker. Ms. Pollio gave the $40,000.00 to Ms. Fiorello as a deposit on the property when she met with her in the corporation office on State Road 7. Ms. Pollio made a copy of the cashier’s checks and Ms. Fiorello wrote a note on the bottom of the copy, “Received by Linda A. Fiorello for Luxury Escrow deposit on contract 10861 Royal Palm Blvd Coral Springs FL 33065” and gave it back to Ms. Pollio.2/ Although the payee name on the cashier’s checks was transposed, Ms. Pollio gave the checks to Ms. Fiorello as agent of the corporation as a deposit on the property, and Ms. Fiorello accepted the checks on behalf of the corporation for the same purpose. Ms. Fiorello did not advise Mr. Davis that the checks had been received. Instead, she deposited the checks in an account formerly belonging to Luxury Property Management, an entity unaffiliated with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc.3/ Luxury Property Management had never been a licensed real estate brokerage corporation, and was no longer in existence, as it had been dissolved. The account had never been properly closed. The account usually had a low balance. Just prior to the deposit of Ms. Pollio’s money, the balance was $10,415.15. Ms. Lichtman had no ownership or interest in Luxury Property Management, but she was aware of the account. The corporation did not have an escrow account, and the Luxury Property Management account was sometimes used to hold money “in escrow,” as Ms. Lichtman was aware. As he testified, Mr. Davis knew nothing about this account and did not authorize Ms. Fiorello to place Ms. Pollio’s deposit there. Ms. Fiorello’s contrary testimony that she told Mr. Davis of the transaction and had his authorization was not credible and is rejected. Ms. Guante was negotiating for the property on Ms. Pollio’s behalf. She testified: At that point the guy was asking (unintelligible) I think was sixty-five, and then we made the offer for $40,000.00. The guy came back and say “no,” and then we went back and make another offer for $50,000.00, and then by that time the guy still say “no.” And then her and I get into an argue because baseball game that don’t have nothing to do with the real estate and then she decided she don’t want me no more as her agent. Ms. Guante called Ms. Fiorello and told her that Ms. Pollio didn’t want to work with Ms. Guante anymore. Ms. Fiorello told Ms. Guante not to worry about it, that the corporation would handle the transaction for Ms. Pollio. On September 23, 2010, a check in the amount of $40,000.00 was written from the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account to Luxury Realty Partners. It is undisputed that the hand writing on the “amount” and “pay to the order of” lines on the check was that of Ms. Lichtman, while the signature on the check was that of Ms. Fiorello. This check, posted into the corporation’s operating account the same day, along with a check for $6000.00, left a balance of only $684.15 in the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account. The two sales associates gave completely different explanations for the check. Ms. Fiorello testified that she always left one or two signed checks locked in the office when she was out of town. She testified that only she and Ms. Lichtman had keys to the lock. Ms. Fiorello testified that without her knowledge, Ms. Lichtman had removed a signed check and filled in the top portion. She testified that although it was her account, she did not realize that the money had been removed until around May 2011, some eight months later.4/ On the other hand, Ms. Lichtman testified that on numerous occasions, the two associates would write out checks together, and that in this instance they discussed the transfer in connection with the opening of a Rapid Realty real estate office in New York which involved Ms. Fiorello’s son. Ms. Lichtman testified that she filled out the top portions of the check, and Ms. Fiorello then signed it. Ms. Lichtman testified that the $40,000.00 “represented monies coming back into Luxury Realty Partners from Rapid Realty.” Ms. Lichtman did not explain why funds from Rapid Realty to repay a loan from Luxury Realty Partners would have been deposited into the Luxury Property Management account, and records for the Luxury Property Management account do not reflect such deposits. On November 4, 2010, a little over a month later, Ms. Lichtman transferred $40,000.00 from the corporation operating account into an account for Chatty Cathy Enterprises, an account controlled by her, and inaccessible to Ms. Fiorello. Ms. Lichtman’s explanation for these transfers, that the $40,000.00 came from the New York real estate venture in repayment of a loan made from the corporation, was unpersuasive, and is rejected. First, the only documentary evidence of a loan made to the “start-up” was an unsigned half-page note dated April 30, 2010. That document indicated that an interest-free business loan in the amount of 25,000 would be made from the corporation to “Rapid Realty RVC and its owners” and that re- payment of the loan would be made in monthly payments to the corporation. No amount was specified for these payments. Similarly, there was no evidence of any repayment checks from Rapid Realty to Ms. Fiorello, Ms. Lichtman, or the corporation. A document dated November 5, 2010, purports to be a “formal release” of that loan. It states in part: The above stated note lists a dollar amount of $25,000 dollars which is inaccurate. The total balance of the loan was approximately $48,000 dollars that was loaned by Luxury Partners Realty (sic), Catherine A. Lichtman and Linda A. Fiorello. This is the formal dollar amount of the loan that is considered paid and satisfied in full. This release appears to be signed by Ms. Lichtman and Ms. Fiorello. Even assuming that the loan had been repaid in full by the New York venture (although no corporation account deposits indicate this), it is not credible that Ms. Lichtman believed she was personally entitled to a payment of $40,000.00 for repayment of a $48,000.00 loan made by the corporation. The spreadsheet of itemized expenses of the New York office and offered by Ms. Lichtman as proof of amounts loaned has no apparent correlation to a spreadsheet prepared by Ms. Lichtman purporting to show checks and cash amounts transferred to New York.5/ In January 2011, Ms. Teresa Ebech, the listing agent for the property with First United Realty, took another contract for the Royal Palm property to Ms. Pollio. This contract referenced a $40,000.00 deposit and listed “Luxury Property Mgt. Escrow” as the escrow. This contract indicated a total purchase price of $55,000.00, and called for a February 21, 2011, closing date. Ms. Pollio signed the contact. The closing did not occur. Ms. Pollio decided to stop trying to buy the property and get her money back. No other party ever acquired an interest or equity in the deposit. Ms. Pollio had difficulty getting in touch with Ms. Fiorello about getting her money back. When Ms. Pollio finally was able to ask Ms. Fiorello for a return of her deposit, Ms. Fiorello did not return it, but told Ms. Pollio that she should get it from Ms. Lichtman. On or about April 28, 2011, Ms. Pollio, with help from her friend, Ms. Joyce Watson, prepared a letter to cancel the contract. The letter noted that the $40,000.00 had been in escrow for over a year and stated that due to the inability of Luxury Realty Partners to close on the property, Ms. Pollio requested immediate return of the deposit. The letter was sent to Catherine Lichtman at the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., address. Ms. Lichtman’s testimony that she never received the letter is discredited. Ms. Ashford, another real estate sales associate at the corporation, had never met Ms. Pollio, but was in the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., office one day in May of 2011 when Ms. Pollio came in with her husband. Ms. Ashford testified: She came in with her husband pretty much screaming and yelling from the minute she stepped foot in the door. She was very angry, very upset. I looked at her and said, you know, Ma’am please calm down. She said I’m not calming down. She pointed at Cathy, she said she knows exactly why I’m f’in here. This has nothing to do with you. Ms. Lichtman asked Ms. Ashford to call her husband, which Ms. Ashford did, thinking this was unusual because he never had anything to do with what went on at the office. Ms. Pollio yelled at Ms. Lichtman, and Ms. Lichtman yelled back, each becoming more and more agitated. Ms. Lichtman then left the room and locked the door. The police were called, though Ms. Ashford was not sure if it was Ms. Pollio or her husband, or perhaps Ms. Lichtman’s husband, who called them. Ms. Ashford testified that when the police officer arrived, Ms. Lichtman lied and told him that her name was Victoria. The officer tried to calm both parties, and told them it was a civil matter. The police officer finally persuaded Ms. Pollio and her husband to leave. Ms. Ashford testified as follows about the conversation that took place between Ms. Lichtman and Ms. Ashford after Ms. Pollio left: Q What did you say? A I asked her point blank what the hell was going on and she responded. Q What did she respond? A That yes, she had her money. The money was-– Q When you said her money. What-–what are talking about? A She had Jennie’s money. Q She-- A It was a deal, a transaction. “She came into our office with cash coming out of her boobs and I don’t have to give it back.” Were her words. Q Did you tell Cathy that she had to return the money? A Yes, I did. I said “Cathy, its escrow money, it doesn’t matter where she got it from,” and Cathy went on about “it’s illegal she’s a dancer, she’s on Section 8. I’m going to report it to the IRS. She thinks she buying a f’in house.” Ms. Lichtman’s admission to Ms. Ashford after Ms. Pollio left showed that Ms. Lichtman knew that she had money in her possession that had been given by Ms. Pollio to buy a house. Ms. Ashford testified that she was upset, as an agent with the corporation, about what appeared to be going on. She and Ms. Fiorello met with Mr. Davis in April of 2011. Ms. Fiorello told Mr. Davis that Ms. Lichtman had stolen funds. Mr. Davis reviewed the January contract that Ms. Fiorello gave him, and concluded that it didn’t make much sense. He had not given any authorization to place escrow funds into the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account. He did not have access to that account or to any of the corporation’s operating accounts to determine if money was missing. After the meeting, Mr. Davis asked Ms. Lichtman what she knew about the accusation. Ms. Lichtman denied that she took any money from an escrow account. Mr. Davis called the Florida Real Estate Commission and reported the incident. At some point, Ms. Lichtman advised Ms. Pollio that the cancellation letter was not sufficient, and provided Ms. Pollio with a “Release and Cancellation of Contract for Sale and Purchase” form. Mr. Laventura signed the form in June 2011, and Ms. Pollio signed the form when she returned it to Ms. Lichtman at the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., office. The form released Luxury Partner Realty from liability and indicated that the escrow agent should disburse all of the $40,000.00 deposit to Ms. Pollio. At the time of the final hearing, Ms. Pollio had yet to receive her $40,000.00 deposit back. The testimony and documentary evidence in this case clearly demonstrates a recurring and systematic disregard of the legal entities and procedures intended to provide structure and accountability to business and real estate transactions by both Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman. Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman employed a qualifying “broker” for the corporation, but intentionally assumed the responsibilities of that position themselves during the time relevant to the Administrative Complaints. In doing so, they each operated as a broker without being the holder of a valid and current active brokers’ license. No evidence was introduced at hearing to indicate that the professional license of either Ms. Fiorello or Ms. Lichtman has ever been previously subjected to discipline.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that final orders be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Finding Linda Fiorello in violation of sections 475.25(1)(k), 475.25(1)(d), 475.42(1)(d), 475.42(1)(a), 475.25(1)(b), and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00, reasonable costs, and revocation of her license to practice real estate; and Finding Catherine A. Lichtman in violation of section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $1000.00, reasonable costs, and revocation of her license to practice real estate. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2015.
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
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of issuing checks from his escrow account without sufficient funds so as to constitute culpable negligence, breach of trust, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; failing to reconcile escrow accounts, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J2-14.012, Florida Administrative Code; employing an unlicensed person, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(c), Florida Statutes; failing to maintain business records, in violation of Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes; and violating a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission by failing to pay a citation within the required time, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is guilty of any of these allegations, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent became a licensed real estate salesperson in 1987. The following year, he became a licensed real estate broker, and he has remained a broker continuously since that time. From September 30, 1996, through January 30, 2000, Respondent was the qualifying broker of Express Realty and Investments, Inc. (Express Realty). At no time relevant to this case was Novellete Faye Hanse a Florida-licensed real estate broker or real estate salesperson. At all relevant times, Ms. Hanse was the office manager of Express Realty. Respondent formed Express Realty in 1995. Respondent was the sole director and president. Ms. Hanse's son was an officer of Express Realty from the time of its formation. Respondent met Ms. Hanse in 1991. She informed Respondent that she was a licensed mortgage broker. Respondent and Ms. Hanse agreed in late 1991 to form a joint real estate/mortgage broker operation in a single office. However, when Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992, Respondent, who has been a licensed general contractor since 1978, engaged exclusively in construction until 1995. Respondent formed Express Realty to pursue the prior plan of a joint real estate/mortgage broker operation. The two businesses occupied an office building owned by Ms. Hanse, who did not charge Respondent's business any rent. The address was 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. Express Realty served as an escrow agent in a contract dated May 9, 1999, for the sale and purchase of real property located at 6360 Southwest 23rd Street in Miramar. In this capacity, Express Realty, held various funds in escrow for the closing. For the closing, Express Realty issued two checks payable to the closing agent, totaling $19,169.08, and drawn on its escrow account. The checks, which are dated July 15, 1999, and signed by Ms. Hanse, bear the name, "Express Realty & Investments, Inc. Escrow Account" and bear the address 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. The bank failed to pay these checks due to insufficient funds. After receiving a complaint that Express Realty had failed to produce these escrow funds at the closing, Petitioner's investigator conducted an audit of Respondent's escrow account. At the audit, which took place the day prior to the day scheduled, the investigator found Ms. Hanse, but not Respondent, at the Express Realty office. Despite repeated requests on and after the day of the office visit, the investigator could not obtain relevant records from Ms. Hanse or Respondent concerning the real estate transaction for which Express Realty had issued escrow checks with insufficient funds. On August 23, 1999, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued a citation to Respondent at 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. The citation was served on Respondent within one week of the date of issuance. The $100-citation was for the failure to give the required disclosure or notice in a real estate transaction. The citation gave Respondent 30 days to contest the citation or 60 days to pay the citation. After the deadline, the investigator contacted Respondent and asked him about the citation. Respondent stated that he had forgotten about it. When Respondent still failed to pay the citation, the investigator called again, and Respondent stated that he had mailed the money, but it had been returned due to a faulty address. Respondent paid the citation approximately four months after it had been served on him. Shortly after Respondent belatedly paid the citation, Petitioner received another complaint concerning a contract for the sale and purchase of real property located at 850 Southwest 9th Avenue in Hallandale. In this transaction, Ms. Hanse represented herself to be a licensed real estate broker, showed the property to prospects, and accepted $5000 in escrow on behalf of Express Realty. In July 2000, Petitioner's investigator conducted an audit of Express Realty's escrow account. Again, the investigator was unable to find any documents by which he could undertake an independent reconciliation of the account or otherwise document the role of Express Realty in the subject transaction. At the hearing, Respondent claimed that he was unaware that Ms. Hanse had been conducting real estate business without his authority in the name of Express Realty. Although he admitted that she was an employee of Express Realty, he disclaimed any knowledge that she had removed him from the escrow account and otherwise taken over the management of the real estate broker company. However, Respondent could not explain why, after his claimed discovery of these misdeeds in the summer of 1999, he did nothing to prevent Ms. Hanse from continuing to use Express Realty as the means by which to conduct unlicensed real estate activities, as she did a few months later. Under the circumstances, Petitioner proved that Respondent was at all times aware that Ms. Hanse was conducting unlicensed real estate activities through Express Realty.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I-IV and VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint, imposing a $5000 administrative fine, and suspending his license for three years; provided, however, if Respondent fails to pay the fine in full within 180 days of the final order, his license shall be revoked without further notice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Hisey, Deputy Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Dean Saunders, Chairperson Florida Real Estate Commission Division of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Carstarphen Watkins Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Wayne Wagie 11900 North Bayshore Drive, Unit No. 5 Miami, Florida 33181
