The Issue Whether Respondent's license under Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty imposed for alleged violation of Section 83.49(2) and (3) , Florida Statutes, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause. Respondent Glyn G. Dean appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel and he was thereafter advised of his rights as a respondent in an administrative proceeding. He indicated that he understood such rights and desired to represent himself at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Glyn G. Dean owns and operates the Elegante Apartments, a five-unit apartment building located at 1040 NE 78th Road, Miami, Florida. Respondent holds a license issued by Petitioner to operate a public lodging establishment pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Dean, Teller) On January 28, 1978, Respondent rented Apartment 2 to George Tulloch and his wife on a weekly basis. Thereafter on April 1, 1978, Respondent and Tulloch entered into a lease of the apartment for a period of one year at a rental of $275 per month, including $25 a month as a "damage deposit." The lease provided that the lessee would pay for the cost of repairing all damage to the apartment caused by himself or his family and the cost of removing foreign substances from toilets and sinks. At no time did Respondent inform the lessee as to the manner in which he would hold the payments representing security deposits. Payments in the amount of $275 were made by Tulloch each month from April through October 1978. Thereafter, Tulloch paid as follows: November 30, 1978 - $250.00 December 8, 1978 - 80.00 December 24, 1978 - 50.00 January 23, 1979 - 170.00 February 19, 1979 - 75.00 March 10, 1979 - 100.00 (Testimony of B. Tulloch, Respondent, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In October 1978, there was a ceiling leak in the apartment which caused a bedroom and kitchen to sustain water damage. A section of the kitchen ceiling also fell and struck Mr. Tulloch who later instituted a claim against Respondent under the latter's insurance policy. (Testimony of Tulloch, Dean, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 4) The lessee vacated the apartment at the expiration of the lease on March 31, 1979. At that time, he did not provide Respondent with a forwarding address and it was not until late May that Respondent learned of the same. He thereafter sent a certified letter of his intention to make claim against the security deposit which was received by the lessee on May 28, 1979. He sent a further letter of June 22, 1979, which listed various costs for cleaning and damage to the apartment and reflected that after application of a total of $175 representing deposit payments made during the course of the year, Respondent was due $153 from Tulloch. After termination of the lease, she tenant paid Respondent $650 representing back rent due under the lease. Mrs. Tulloch denied at the hearing that she and her husband had caused any damage to the apartment. (Testimony of Dean, B. Tulloch, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-4, Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That Petitioner impose an administrative fine of $100 against Respondent Glyn G. Dean pursuant to Sections 83.49(7) and 509.261(2), Florida Statutes, for violation of Section 83.49(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dan Brown, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Glyn G. Dean 1040 NE 78th Road Miami, Florida 33138 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATIONS DIVISIONS OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS DIVISION OF HOTELS & RESTAURANTS, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-1625 H & R No. 23-1935H-3778 GLYN G. DEAN AND GRADY WILSON t/a ELEGANTE APARTMENTS, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On January 18, 1982, the First National Bank in Palm Beach submitted a remittance report of unclaimed money items to the Office of the Comptroller. It listed, as item 10, an account which had been maintained by Alberta Stephens in the amount of $663.33. Alberta Stephens filed a claim to that money on March 20, 1989. In the interim the First National Bank had been acquired by Southeast Bank. In processing the claim, the Department requested the bank to provide it with a copy of the signature control card for the account. Southeast Bank could not do so, because under its retention schedule, all banking records were destroyed seven years after the account had been closed by sending the money to the Comptroller with the remittance report of unclaimed money items on January 18, 1982. Ms. Stephens is an elderly black woman. She was unable to produce copies of any deposit receipts or checks demonstrating ownership of the account. At the time the account was opened, depositors were not required to give their social security number to banks, so there is no way to trace the account to Ms. Stephens from documentary evidence. Ms. Stephens did produce the testimony of Preston L. Tillman, a real estate broker in Palm Beach County. Ms. Stephens had purchased income property from Mr. Tillman. He collected the rent on that property on Ms. Stephens behalf. He personally took Ms. Stephens to the First National Bank in Palm Beach County so that she could open an account in which to deposit the rents. He was present at the bank when the account was opened by Ms. Stephens. Ultimately, Ms. Stephens sold the rental property, and Mr. Tillman had no more contact with her. The evidence in this case is rather sparse, due to the passage of time. The evidence does demonstrate that Ms. Stephens had an account at the bank, and that there is no conflicting claim to that deposit. The testimony of Mr. Tillman, that he took Ms. Stephens to the bank so that she could open an account there, is accepted as adequate independent evidence of Ms. Stephens' ownership of the account.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of Alberta Stephens to the $663.33 in unclaimed money items be upheld, and that the Comptroller deliver that money to Alberta Stephens. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of March, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 30th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Carroll, Esquire Post Office Box 31794 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420 Eric Mendelsohn, Esquire Department of Banking & Finance 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the posthearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: Respondent, Alfred Rifflard, Jr., during times material herein, was a licensed real estate broker-salesman and is the holder of license number 0338064. Respondent, Thomas L. Narog, during times material herein, was a licensed real estate salesman and is the holder of license number 0309097. On approximately May 24, 1982, Respondent Narog represented to John F. Wodalski that Respondent Rifflard, as an investor, was interested in purchasing certain real property owned by Wodalski. Based on discussions with seller Wodalski, Wodalski and Respondent Alfred Rifflard entered into a deposit receipt and contract for sale and purchase of the Wodalski property. The purchaser is listed on the deposit receipt contract as Alfred Rifflard and/or assigns." (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The negotiations for the sale of the subject property were conducted at the bar of a country club where both Respondent Naroq and seller Wodalski were employed. Respondent Rifflard was aware that the subject property had been on the market for approximately eighteen months. Seller Wodalski expressed (to Respondent Narog) disenchantment that he was unable to move the property as he had planned to purchase other properties with the proceeds received from the sale of the subject property. Respondent Narog attempted to sell the Wodalski property to enable him (Wodalski) to purchase the other property. During the negotiations for the sale of the subject property, Respondent Wodalski tendered a copy of his business card to seller Wodalski. That business card reflected that Respondent Rifflard was a licensed real estate salesman. Following the execution of the deposit receipt contract by Respondent Rifflard, Respondent Rifflard showed the property to approximately three prospective purchasers in an effort to sell the property prior to the purported closing date. Federal Land Title Corporation of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida was commissioned to handle the closing of the property from seller Wodalski to Respondent Rifflard and/or his assigns. This is confirmed by a letter dated August 19, 1982 to seller Wodalski wherein loan processor Kathy Bradley advised the seller that she expected to expedite the closing of the Wodalski property. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Upon receiving the above-referred letter from Federal Land Title Corporation, seller Wodalski demanded a tender of the $1,000 earnest money deposit which is referred to in the deposit receipt contract executed by Respondent Rifflard. At that time, Respondent Narog was told that no monies could be disbursed to him prior to closing. Seller Wodalski called off the closing based on his claim that another broker advised him that it was illegal for an undisclosed licensed real estate salesman to purchase property in his name. Based on the testimony of Respondents Rifflard and Narog including the testimony of the Petitioner's investigator, Anthony Nicola, who investigated the subject complaint, it is specifically found herein that the Respondents disclosed the fact that Rifflard was a licensed real estate salesman at the time the deposit receipt contract was executed herein. In making this finding, consideration was given to seller Wodalski's testimony to the effect that he was busy 2/ at the time that he entered the deposit receipt contract and that it was indeed possible that Respondent Rifflard tendered a business card to him at the time he entered the subject contract. Paragraph two of the deposit receipt contract reveals that the method of payment includes a $1,000 deposit, in the form of a note, which would be returned to the buyer at closing. It is undisputed by the Respondents that no earnest money deposit note in the amount of $1,000 was given the buyer's attorney to be held in trust until the closing was completed. The Respondents acknowledged that it was an error on their part to fail to execute the earnest money deposit as Respondent Rifflard agreed in the subject deposit receipt contract. Further, Respondent Rifflard urges that his failure to execute a note was an oversight on his part.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondents, Alfred Rifflard, Jr. and Thomas L. Narog, be privately reprimanded by the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, based on their failure to place in deposit, to be held in trust, a $1,000 earnest money deposit in connection with the transaction surrounding the deposit receipt and contract for sale and purchase entered into by Alfred Rifflard, Jr., as purchaser of certain real property owned by John Wodalski. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 31st day of January, 1984.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Aquatic Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate brokerage in the State of Florida, holding license number 0236839. That corporate broker has conducted an active practice since licensure in 1984 through the present time. The Respondent, Malcolm Lewis Hardy, is the sole stockholder of Aquatic Realty, Inc. and is the corporate president. He is also a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0407021. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, with regulating the entry of real estate brokers and salesmen into the profession of real estate sales and brokerage and with enforcing the practice standards for those licensed professionals embodied in Chapter 475. In approximately September 1985, Ann Carrigan notified the Petitioner that she was practicing under her Florida real estate sales license with Aquatic Realty, Inc. She began to work there as a real estate salesperson charged with management of Aquatic's rental management program. Her primary duties at times pertinent hereto, in April through August 1986, involved management of various rental properties for clients of the corporate brokerage including securing tenants for those properties. She left her employment with Aquatic Realty, Inc., in approximately August 1986. In approximately early May 1986, Ross D. Knight contacted Aquatic Realty, Inc., by telephone and was directed to Ms. Carrigan by the receptionist in Aquatic's office. Mr. Knight owned a house at 6601 Pine Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. He wished to rent that house for six months to a particular type of tenant. It was Mr. Knight's practice to live at his home in Canada for approximately six months of a given year. No specific agreement was reached between Knight and Ms. Carrigan at the time of the telephone call as to any contractual terms for Aquatic's services in regard to the attempted rental of his property. Later in May 1986, Ms. Carrigan, on behalf of Aquatic Realty, entered into an oral agreement with Mr. Knight to rent his residential property for a period of six months to one Steve Dobbs, who had previously been approved by Mr. Knight as an acceptable tenant. Pursuant to this oral arrangement, Aquatic Realty, Inc., received ten percent of the rents collected as remuneration for its services. There was no other agreement established regarding how performance was to be rendered by Aquatic or how Aquatic would be compensated, should a tenant fail to perform obligatory terms of any rental agreement and consequently forfeit his or her deposit. Likewise, there was no agreement regarding which party would bear the expenses incurred for the maintenance of the property. The Knight agreement was made with very little formalization between Ms. Carrigan and Mr. Knight at the point in time she procured the tenant, Steve Dobbs. The actual payment term was based upon the brokerage disclosure statement contained in the Dobbs' lease agreement. Until that time, no contract existed between Aquatic Realty, Inc., and Mr. Knight. Since the property involved was the Knights' personal residence and since they wished to continue living in the property during the winter months when they were not in Canada, they were quite concerned about the quality of potential tenants for their property. In this connection, they were still living in the house in May 1986, when Mr. Dobbs signed his lease with Aquatic Realty, Inc., and they personally approved him as a tenant. The lease term ran from May 1986 through November 1986. Upon Dobbs' entering into his lease with Aquatic, he paid a $450 security deposit to Aquatic, which was placed in Aquatic's escrow account to be held throughout the term of the lease. Mr. Dobbs failed to perform the terms of his lease and was relieved of his contract concomitantly forfeiting his $450 deposit in June 1986. Ms. Carrigan informed Mr. Knight of the forfeiture by phone, since he was residing in Canada at the time. He did not demand payment of any monies at that time. He did not inquire when he could expect his portion of the deposit money or inquire concerning how the forfeited deposit would be apportioned. He merely requested that Ms. Carrigan attempt to secure a tenant for his house. There was no further discussion at this time of any contractual terms regarding Aquatic's services, should it find a new tenant for the Knight property. Ms. Carrigan accordingly continued to attempt to rent the property. When Mr. Knight had departed for Canada in June 1986, he left Ms. Carrigan a key to the house and a set of deposit slips for her to use to deposit his share of any rents collected from the Dobbs' lease into his bank account in Panama City. Up until early August when she terminated her employment with Respondent, Ms. Carrigan attempted to rent the property and would periodically inspect the property to ensure that it was maintained in appropriate condition. Ms. Carrigan was unable to secure a tenant because she could not arouse much interest in potential tenants in the six month lease term required by the Knights. The usual tenant in the Panama City Beach area is interested in short- term rentals on a weekly or monthly basis or alternatively a lease for a term of a year or more. In fact, the majority of tenants at that time of year in Panama City Beach are short-term lessees consisting mostly of tourists visiting the beach during the main tourist season. Potential tenants were further limited because of the Knights' restrictions on the type of lessee they desired. They did not want any short-term tenants nor tenants who might be wont to hold rowdy parties in their residence since they wanted the property maintained in good condition in view of their use of it for their personal residence for a significant portion of each year. They had communicated these desires and restrictions on the selection of potential tenants to Ms. Carrigan. She ceased her attempts to locate a tenant when she left the Respondents' employ in August 1986. She took with her the items that Aquatic would need in order to perform its agreement with Knight. She took the key and the bank deposit slips which had been left to her by Mr. Knight and did not inform either Respondent of her actions. Although she attempted to explain her retention of the key to the house, she did not explain her retention of the Knight account deposit slips. If she had not been intending to continue representing Knight, she had no use for either item. Mr. Knight was apparently aware that Ms. Carrigan had both the key and the deposit slips since he did not ask the Respondent to return them and went directly to Ms. Carrigan to obtain possession of them at a later time. Mr. Knight did not discuss his property or the contract terms with anyone but Ms. Carrigan during the pertinent rental period. Ms. Carrigan had not discussed the Knight agreement with Respondent Lewis Hardy and did not discuss it with him or Mr. Knight when she left Aquatic Realty. At no time were any discussions or negotiations held between Knight and Lewis Hardy. In fact, Knight and Hardy had never personally conferred or met until October 25, 1986. Mr. Hardy had no way to contact Mr. Knight since he refused to leave his phone number or an address where he could be reached. Mr. Hardy had no information on Mr. Knight in his office files because Ms. Carrigan had taken that information concerning the Knight transaction with her when she left the Respondents' employ. When Mr. Knight began calling just prior to October 25, 1986, Mr. Hardy began investigating as to who he was. He learned through his office receptionist that there had been a rental contract on the Knights' property which had been breached and that there was a forfeited deposit by the breaching tenant remaining in his escrow account under Knight's name. It was only at this time that he realized that Knight was entitled to a portion of that deposit. He, therefore, surmised what Mr. Knight had attempted to contact him about. He discovered that Aquatic did not have a property management agreement with Mr. Knight but only the pro forma agreement discussed earlier. Since he had no agreement in his records concerning the issue of a forfeited security deposit and believing that Aquatic was legally entitled to compensation for its services performed with regard to the Dobbs' lease, Mr. Hardy, in an attempt to be fair, decided to follow the accepted method of practice in the real estate industry in the Panama City area concerning the manner of distribution of forfeited deposits. Since he had no formal agreement or management contract with Mr. Knight, he felt it was reasonable to follow the accepted method of distribution of forfeited escrow funds outlined in the "Board of Realtors Exclusive Right of Sale Contract" prevailing in the industry in the Panama City area (see TR page 49). The method of distribution provided for in this standard contract called for an equal split of the forfeited deposit amount, which totalled $450. Thus, on October 25, 1986, Mr. Hardy wrote Mr. Knight an escrow account check for $225, which was one-half of the escrow security deposit forfeited by Mr. Dobbs. Respondent Hardy left the check in that amount with his receptionist for Mr. Knight to obtain if he should call concerning the check or come in the office. Mr. Knight came to Aquatic's office shortly thereafter and received the check and asked to speak to Mr. Hardy. This was the first and only contact between Knight and Mr. Hardy. Their meeting lasted less than five minutes, during which Mr. Hardy accounted to Mr. Knight for the deposit money and explained his reasons for the manner in which the funds were apportioned. He explained to Mr. Knight that, based upon the prevailing "Exclusive Right of Sale Contract," which was the basis for his decision, that he was entitled to keep one-half of the forfeited deposit and was therefore paying Mr. Knight the other half. Mr. Knight then inquired, "Is that the best you'll do?" Mr. Hardy replied, "Yes, I think it's fair," whereupon Mr. Knight made no objection to the accounting, took his check and left the office. At no point did he indicate that he felt the division of the funds was wrong or incorrect or that he was due more money. No demand for further accounting or additional funds was ever made and he gave Mr. Hardy no indication which would leave the Respondent with the impression that he was dissatisfied with the accounting. The testimony of Mr. Hardy regarding these facts was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Wiseman, who was present in the room during that meeting and established that he was in a position to hear the pertinent portions of the conversation. Mr. Knight cashed that check and received the proceeds therefrom and never again contacted Mr. Hardy.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents, Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc., be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Past Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Diane Cleavinger, Esquire 300 East 15th Street Panama City, Florida 32405 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a letter of admonition to Leroy Wilson clarifying his responsibilities and the maintenance of his financial affairs and proper business office when operating as a broker. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Henry Latimer, Esquire Mavrides and Latimer 5353 Southwest 40th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent, Loretta Woloszyk, failed to account for or deliver a security deposit received by her, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and whether or not Respondent derivatively violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that she is guilty of a breach of trust in a business transaction and, therefore, violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. Loretta Woloszyk, Respondent herein, is presently registered with the Board of Real Estate as a broker/salesperson. On or about April 15, 1977, Respondent Woloszyk entered into a deposit receipt contract executed with John F. and Jeannine M. Chrest as purchasers of a house owned by Respondent Woloszyk located at 210 North G Street, Lake Worth, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of said deposit receipt contract, John E. Knowles signed as broker for receipt of a $300 cash deposit from the Chrests as purchasers. On or about April 22, 1977, the $300 deposit was placed in the escrow account of Sunshine Estates, Inc., the corporate broker by which the Respondent was employed. The deposit receipt contract was contingent upon the buyer qualifying for a Veterans Administration (VA) mortgage loan in the amount of $26,900. The relevant portion of the contract provided as follows: VA Appraisal: It is expressly agreed that, notwithstanding any other provisions of this contract, the purchaser shall not incur any penalty by forfeiture of earnest money or otherwise be obligated to complete the purchase of the property described herein, if the contract price or cost exceeds the reasonable value of the property established by the Veterans Administration. The purchaser shall, however, have the privilege and option of proceeding with the consummation of this contract without regard to the amount of the reasonable value established by the Veterans Administration. By letter dated May 25, 1977, the Chrests were notified that the subject property was appraised at $18,750, and thus was not acceptable under the minimum property appraisal standards of the Veterans Administration. With this notification, John Chrest went to the offices of Sunshine Estates, Inc., and demanded a return of his $300 earnest money deposit. John E. Knowles, as broker in receipt of the Chrests' $300 deposit, returned the $300 deposit check to Respondent Woloszyk, who deducted $200 from the Chrests' $300 deposit based on a separate rental transaction with the Chrests on the same subject property. During the hearing, John Chrest testified that he contacted Respondent for purchase of her residence situated in Lake Worth Farms. Mr. Chrest agreed during cross-examination that he initially contacted Respondent to "buy or rent Respondent's residence". He also testified that upon receipt of the VA appraisal at an amount below the agreed upon purchase price of $26,900, he agreed to pay to Respondent rent in the amount of $150 plus a $50 security deposit, which amount was deducted from the Chrests' security deposit. The FHA-VA deposit receipt contract contains a special condition entered by and between the parties (Woloszyk and the Chrests) indicating that "Buyer will pay rental of $225 per month until closing, beginning on or before May 1, 1977. Buyer will honor rental agreement for Kenneth Johnson, tenant, from April 1, 1977, to March 31, 1978, or $80 per month rent." Based thereon, and on John F. Chrest' s admission that be agreed to the rental fee which was deducted from his deposit received by Respondent Woloszyk, the administrative charges alleged are without basis. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMEND: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED in its entirety. RECOMMEND this 6th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1979 COPIES FURNISHED: John Namey, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ms. Loretta Woloszyk 733 Husiingbird Way, Apt. #3 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
The Issue Is Respondent, Victoria D. Wiedle, guilty of failure to account for and deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent Wiedle was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number BK-0646846, and was principal broker of Escarosa Realty. Respondent's license is still active. Janice Marlene Christian is a realtor associate. She was an independent contractor with Escarosa Realty from December 1998 until April 1999. Accordingly, Respondent Wiedle was Ms. Christian's registered broker during this time. Ms. Beverly Lewis is the mother-in-law of Ms. Christian's brother. Ms. Lewis came to Ms. Christian in February 1999 because she was interested in looking for and purchasing a house. On February 16, 1999, Ms. Christian facilitated an Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement (the Agreement) on behalf of Escarosa Realty with Ms. Lewis. The Agreement was on a form created by Formulator, a software company. "Florida Association of Realtors" appears on the face of the document. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement reads in pertinent part: RETAINER: Upon final execution of this agreement, Buyer will pay to Broker a non- refundable retainer fee of $0 for Broker's services ("Retainer"). Accordingly, Respondent was not entitled to any money as a retainer fee for broker services pursuant to this agreement. The agreement was signed by Ms. Lewis, Ms. Christian, and Ms. Wiedle and became effective on February 16, 1999. The specified termination date of the agreement was August 17, 1999. On or about February 27, 1999, Ms. Christian tendered an offer to sellers on behalf of Ms. Lewis, for property located at 107 Poi Avenue in Santa Rosa County (subject property). Pursuant to this offer, Ms. Lewis gave a $500.00 check dated February 27, 1999, to Ms. Christian as earnest money. The check is made out as follows: "Escarosa Realty Inc. Escrow". Ms. Lewis wrote in the memo section of the check that the check was escrow money for 107 Poi Terrace. The $500.00 check was deposited in Escarosa Realty's escrow account on March 1, 1999. Respondent accounted for the $500.00 check on the March 1999 monthly reconciliation statement for Escarosa Realty. The seller of the subject property made a counter- offer for a higher price which Ms. Lewis rejected. The testimony differs as to what happened next. According to Ms. Christian, Ms. Christian spoke to Respondent sometime after Ms. Lewis rejected the counter-offer about refunding the escrow money to Ms. Lewis. According to Ms. Christian, Respondent informed her that she did not have to give the escrow money back to Ms. Lewis yet because she had the buyer broker agreement. Ms. Christian further asserts that she filled out a written request on March 16, 1999, on a form entitled "EMD Request," which means earnest money deposit request, and gave it to Respondent who again asserted that the $500.00 did not need to be returned at that time because of the buyer brokerage agreement. Ms. Christian's testimony is consistent with Ms. Lewis's. According to Ms. Lewis, she talked to Ms. Christian about getting a refund of the $500.00 shortly after she rejected the counter-offer. She and Ms. Christian discussed the EMD form. She initially agreed that Respondent could temporarily maintain the escrow funds. However, when Ms. Lewis discovered that the financing she was seeking through the rural development program would take several months, she decided she wanted the money returned. Ms. Christian ended her contract with Escarosa Realty effective April 14, 1999. Because Ms. Christian was no longer at Escarosa, Ms. Lewis contacted Respondent by telephone on or about April 21, 1999. Ms. Lewis informed Respondent about the purchase offer and rejection of the counter-offer for the subject property. According to Ms. Lewis, Respondent initially told her she would return the money to her in the mail. When she did not receive it, Ms. Lewis again called Respondent and was told that the $500.00 would not be returned because of the buyer brokerage agreement was still in place. Ms. Lewis asserts that Respondent never told her any request for a refund of the $500.00 had to be in writing. Ms. Lewis then went to the Escarosa Realty office. Ms. Weidle was not there but Elnora Alexander was there. Ms. Alexander was also a realtor associate who was an independent contractor with Escarosa Realty. Ms. Lewis explained to Ms. Alexander about the circumstances of the subject property and that she wanted her earnest money back. Ms. Alexander gave a copy of the buyer broker agreement to Ms. Lewis. After going to Escarosa Realty, Ms. Lewis had numerous other telephone conversations with Respondent about the money. Respondent denies any knowledge of the Poi Terrace failed transaction until she spoke to Ms. Lewis on the phone. She also denied ever receiving the EMD request from Ms. Christian. Respondent asserts that she repeatedly told Ms. Lewis that she would return the $500.00 if Ms. Lewis would only make a request in writing, but that Ms. Lewis refused. This assertion is not credible. It is inconceivable that after all of the efforts made by Ms. Lewis to get her $500.00 returned to her, that she would refuse to make a written request for the money. In any event, there is no dispute that Ms. Lewis made verbal requests to Respondent for the return of the escrow monies. Respondent Wiedle admits that Ms. Lewis requested the money over the telephone. Further, in an April 2, 2001 letter from Respondent to the Division of Real Estate, Respondent acknowledged that Ms. Lewis asked for a refund of the money in the beginning of May and again in early June of 1999. Clearly, if Respondent Wiedle had not previously been aware of the failed Poi Terrace transaction, she was made aware of it during the telephone conversations with Ms. Lewis. Notwithstanding Respondent's assertion that the reason she did not refund the $500.00 to Ms. Lewis was that the request was not in writing, it is clear from Respondent's testimony and from a letter she wrote to Mr. Clanton, Petitioner's investigator, that she believed the $500.00 was connected to the buyer brokerage agreement, not to any offer for purchase of property. In an undated letter from Respondent Wiedle to Mr. Clanton, Respondent wrote: Dear Mr. Clanton, This is in response to your letter dated August 17th, 1999. First Beverly A. Lewis was refunded her money on August 20, 1999 check #111. Second I would like to respond to her complaint. Beverly A. Lewis signed a Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement with EscaRosa Realty, Inc. on February 16th, 1999 with it to terminate on August 17th 1999. Beverly A. Lewis knew that her deposit was a refundable deposit after the agreement is expired not before. As the Broker of this company I had no contact with Beverly Lewis until the agent Marlene Christian was asked to leave the company. If there ever was a contract for her to purchase a house then her agent Marlene Christian never informed me of nor did she ever provide any such contract. The deposit was given to me with the Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement only. Nor did her agent Marlene ever fill out the EMD refund request form requesting a refund to be given to Beverly A. Lewis. However, The result would have been the same. I asked Beverly Lewis If she had changed her mind on purchasing a house she said no she was still going to buy a house but that she knew if she didn't buy her house through Marlene at her new company that Marlene would make life very hard on her. I told her I was sorry but that is the whole purpose in the contract was to secure your buyers from just going all over the place. . . .(emphasis supplied) Respondent refunded the $500.00 to Ms. Lewis on August 10, 1999. At hearing, Respondent volunteered that there was a previous complaint against her for failing to return money she held under a buyer brokerage agreement with a former client. In that instance, the Probable Cause Panel of the Florida Real Estate Commission found no probable cause but issued a letter of guidance to Respondent.1
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, the evidence of record and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent, Victoria D. Wiedle, guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that she failed to deliver escrow money upon demand, imposing a fine of $1,000.00, and placing Respondent Wiedle on probation for a period of two years. As conditions of probation, Respondent should be required to attend a continuing education course which addresses appropriate handling of escrow funds and be subject to periodic inspections and interviews by a Department of Business and Professional Regulation investigator. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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, 2002.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent has violated Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes; Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes; by being guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust; by allegedly failing to promptly deliver a deposit; by allegedly failing to maintain trust funds in a proper escrow account; by allegedly depositing or intermingling personal funds with trust funds or escrow funds; by operating as a broker without holding a valid, current license; and by failing to preserve and make available to the agency all books, records, and supporting documents and by allegedly failing to keep an accurate account of all trust-fund transactions.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practice of real estate brokers and salespersons licensed in the State of Florida. It has the duty to prosecute with Administrative Complaints any alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related laws and rules, involved in the licensure and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons. The Respondent, Richard Irwin Ray, is now and was, at all times pertinent to this case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He was issued license number 0423296, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to him was as a non-active broker, bearing an address of 10013 Calle de Celestino, Navarre, Florida 32566. The Respondent, at times pertinent hereto, was the licensed and qualifying broker for the now-defunct Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. for the period from October 31, 1985 to approximately November 6, 1989. The Respondent and Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. failed to renew their licenses on March 31, 1989, the expiration date. Instead, the licenses were renewed effective April 5, 1989; and the Respondent continued to do business as a real estate brokerage and broker for several months thereafter through and including the time in which the transaction at issue was entered into. On or about July 27, 1989, Richard Walker, a salesman working for the Respondent's brokerage firm, solicited and obtained an executed contract for the sale and purchase of certain real property owned by Myra Lee Philips, the seller, and Charles W. and Pamela S. Brannon, the proposed buyers. The buyers gave the salesman, Mr. Walker, a $500.00 earnest money deposit called for by the terms of the contract, which terms also provided that the earnest money deposit was to be held in escrow by Navarre Shores Realty, Inc., the Respondent's real estate brokerage firm. Mr. Walker maintains that he turned in the check or submitted it to the broker or to one of his representatives or to someone who was "running the office at the time". He does not recall to whom he actually tendered the check when he received it; however, he recalls making a copy of the check and then making a copy of the check and the front page of the contract, with the check copy overlaid on it, which was the procedure in the office required by the Respondent in order that he could keep a record of sales transactions. In addition to Mr. Walker, the salesman, having no recollection of who, if anyone, he might have given the check to with the Respondent's brokerage firm, the Respondent has no recollection of receiving the check, ever seeing the check nor the manner or means by which the check was handled, as, for instance, whether it was deposited in his firm's escrow account or not. Mr. Charles Brannon, the proposed buyer in the subject transaction, testified that he executed a $500.00 earnest money deposit check in accordance with the terms of the contract referenced above and that the $500.00 check did clear his bank account; that is, it was paid upon being tendered to his bank. The Respondent maintains that he does not know the location of any records he might have, if any, related to this transaction and the subject earnest money deposit check. During the time in question immediately following the transaction date of July 27, 1989 and the time in November of 1989 when the Respondent closed his real estate office, the Respondent apparently had some disagreements with salespersons, including Mr. Walker. During this time period, the Respondent and his secretary, Ms. Galfano, learned that some client and sales transactions files were removed from the Respondent's brokerage office by Mr. Walker and others. Apparently, Ms. Galfano was able to retrieve some of the files; however, the Respondent was unable to, or in any event, failed to provide the Department's investigator, Mr. Bratton, with any records related to the subject transaction, including the escrow account records, which might have revealed whether the earnest money deposit check was deposited in the Respondent's escrow account or not, although the Respondent did advise Mr. Bratton by telephone on two occasions that he was endeavoring to have the bank prepare his escrow account records. The escrow account had been closed by Emerald Coast State Bank because service charges had been applied to it which resulted in its having a negative balance. This may mean that no $500.00 earnest money deposit check had been deposited in that account, and the Respondent does not know what happened to the check once the Brannons executed it and presumably gave it to Mr. Walker. He does not feel that it was ever placed in his escrow account, nor that he ever had any possession of it because the account was closed for having a negative balance due to the debiting of monthly service charges. In any event, the Respondent did not obtain and provide to the Petitioner the escrow account records. The Respondent stated in his testimony that if the buyers, the Brannons, could provide their bank records and produce the cancelled check involved, that would show how the check was cashed and, therefore, whether it was processed through his escrow account. The cancelled check was not produced and admitted into evidence at the hearing. Mr. Brannon, one of the buyers, merely testified that the check had cleared his bank and had been debited from his account upon which the check was written. Check number 3642 in evidence is the $500.00 check drawn on the account of Richard I. or Maryanne Ray, which is the check by which the Respondent paid the seller, Ms. Philips, the earnest money deposit funds which she was due because the transaction failed to close. A receipt for that check was issued to the Respondent by witness, Richard Walker, the Respondent's former salesman. The receipt indicates that the funds in question were received from R. Ray Construction, a/k/a Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. Mr. Walker did not adequately explain why he issued a receipt to the Respondent for the check drawn on his personal account and represented it as being from R. Ray Construction, a/k/a Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. He merely testified that he went to Mr. Ray, who "...was operating out of his personal account with his construction company. I did it because that's what he was known as at the time. OK. I did it in good faith." Mr. Walker does not have any knowledge concerning where the earnest money deposit check from the buyer, the Brannons, was actually deposited, nor whether the Respondent ever received it. Ms. Galfano was the secretary for Navarre Shores Realty, Inc., the Respondent's firm, at the time of the transaction in question and thereafter. Ms. Galfano established that Mr. Walker took some files from the office which contained sales contracts when the Respondent closed the office. She went to his home on a Sunday and persuaded him to give her back the records and took them back to the office. Ms. Galfano opined that certain files had been removed from the office by Mr. Walker because Mr. Walker was in a dispute at the time with one of the sales associates in the office. Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. had been experiencing internal problems with the associates disputing among themselves. In fact, the Respondent lost several associates from his firm due to internal dissension, presumably about credit for clients and contracts. It was because of this that the Respondent decided to close his office. At the time of the transaction between the Philips and the Brannons, Navarre Shores Realty, Inc., through Mr. Walker, had the listing on the property. Prior to that time, the Philips' property had been listed with Mr. Lou Jakes, also a sales associate with Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. The seller, Ms. Philips, later turned the listing over to Mr. Walker because she was upset with Mr. Jakes over upkeep not being properly done on the beach house in question. She called the off ice concerning this and happened to talk to Richard Walker, who persuaded her to change the listing from Lou Jakes over to him. Thus, the subject listing and transaction caused a dispute between Mr. Jakes and Mr. Walker, and Mr. Jakes left the firm as, later, did Mr. Walker. One of them apparently removed the subject records from the brokerage office. Since the transaction in question and the internal dissension in his office involving Mr. Walker and the other associate, the Respondent has had difficulty conversing with Mr. Walker because they are not on good terms. In summary, the evidence establishes at most that Mr. Walker received the earnest money deposit check from the buyers, the Brannons. It was not established that the Respondent ever received or became aware of the delivery of the earnest money deposit check to Mr. Walker. It was not established that it was ever deposited in any of the Respondent's or his corporation's accounts. It was established that the Respondent, partly out of a desire to avoid accusation of any illegality by the Petitioner, voluntarily paid the $500.00 to the seller out of his personal account, although he does not know or has no recollection that the money was ever received by him nor deposited in any of his accounts. The earnest money deposit check was not produced and placed into evidence, which could have shown in whose bank and account the check might have been deposited. Mr. Brannon only testified that the $500.00 check cleared and was debited from his account. It was established that the Respondent either has no records of his escrow account transactions with regard to this real estate transaction or is unaware of their location. It was likewise established, however, that upon request by Mr. Bratton, Petitioner's investigator, for copies of those records, the Respondent did not produce them. The Respondent maintains that he had requested that his banks provide a copy of his account records; however, as of the time of the hearing, he had not provided those to Mr. Bratton. It was also established that the Respondent and his brokerage firm were duly licensed at the time the transaction in question occurred and that some months later, in November of 1989, he closed his office and ceased doing business. It was established that his licensure expired on March 31, 1989 and that there was a six-day lapse of his licensure, with it being renewed on April 5, 1989. In November of 1990, on approximately November 6th, the buyers, the seller, and the Respondent signed a release of deposit agreement whereby the Respondent was to disburse $500.00 to the seller with regard to the subject transaction. See Exhibit 2 in evidence. On or about April 18, 1991, the Respondent made and delivered check number 3642, in the amount of $500.00, drawn on his personal checking account number 1322650, maintained at First National Bank of Santa Rosa, Milton, Florida, payable to Myra Lee Philips, who had been the seller in the subject transaction. Thus, in excess of five months elapsed between the time the Respondent agreed to disburse the $500.00 to Ms. Philips and the time he actually paid Ms. Philips the $500.00.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, finding that the Respondent, Richard Irwin Ray, has violated Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, by failing to promptly deliver a deposit; finding that he is guilty of having failed to preserve and make available to the Petitioner all books, records and supporting documents concerning trust-fund transactions in violation of Rule 21V-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that he be accorded the penalty for these violations of a written reprimand and a $250.00 fine. Concerning his violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and the consequent derivative violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by operating for six days without a license, it is recommended that due to this inadvertent, technical licensure lapse that no penalty be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 James Gillis, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Richard Irwin Ray 10013 Calle de Celestino Navarre, FL 32566
The Issue Whether the Department exceeded its grant of rule making authority in its proposed rule 3D-20.0023 or, alternatively, whether the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Martin Young Private Investigative Agency, Inc. (Martin-Young) is a private investigative agency actively participating in recovering unclaimed property for apparent owners who have assigned their claims to Martin-Young on a contingency basis. Interstate Asset Locators, Inc. (Interstate) is a competing private investigative agency engaged in the same business as the Petitioner, Martin- Young. The Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Department) is charged by Chapter 717, Florida Statutes, to receive unclaimed intangible property, to include monies, checks, drafts, deposits, interest, dividends, income, credit balances, customer overpayments, gift certificates, security deposits, refunds, credit memos, unpaid wages, unused airline tickets, unidentified remittances, amounts due and payable under the terms of insurance policies, and amounts distributable from trusts or custodial funds. On December 31, 1992, the Department gave notice of proposed rule making in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 18, No. 53, proposing a rule governing competing claims between creditors and apparent owners of unclaimed property. This rule was adopted pursuant to Section 717.138, Florida Statutes, and cites Sections 717.101(11), 717.124, and 717.126, Florida Statutes, as implementing sections of law. The proposed rule was the Department's response to a claim by Martin- Young for unclaimed property under an assignment from a named beneficiary of a life insurance policy, the proceeds of which have been delivered to the Department. Subsequent to the approval of Martin-Young's claim, Interstate filed a claim asserting competing claims of alleged judgment creditors to the same unclaimed property. The competing claims were referred to Paul C. Stadler, Jr., Assistant General Counsel of the Department, who suggested the need for a rule concerning competing claims of creditors to Randall Holland, the Director of the Division of Finance. Mr. Holland instructed Mr. Stadler to research Chapter 717, Florida Statutes, and to draft a rule. The draft rule was reviewed by Rex Pearce, Chief of the Bureau of Financial Staff Programs of the Division of Finance. Mr. Pearce reviewed the rule and made minor changes to its form, as presented by Mr. Stadler. Mr. Stadler drafted and promulgated a statement of facts and circumstances to support promulgation of the rule referencing Chapter 717, Florida Statutes, and case law.
