Findings Of Fact The Respondent, at all times material to this matter, has been registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On or about April 3, 1978, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, entered a judgment and commitment order which adjudicated the Respondent guilty of the offense of shoplifting on a military reservation in violation of Section 812.022, Florida Statutes. The Respondent pled guilty to the offense, and the adjudication was based upon her plea. A short sentence was imposed, the execution of which was suspended; a fine was imposed; and she was placed on supervised probation for a period of two years, with several special conditions of probation. The Respondent was directed to undergo psychiatric or psychological care and counselling. The Respondent is being supervised in her probation by Larry Burris, a Federal Probation Officer. Officer Burris testified on her behalf at the hearing. The Respondent had never been in any serious trouble prior to the incidents giving rise to the shoplifting charges, and she has been cooperative during the period of her probation. The expiration date of her probation is April, 1980, but it is possible that she will be released from probation before that date. The Respondent has undergone psychiatric care and treatment during her probation. Reports from her physician indicate that she has confronted serious emotional difficulties that she had, that her condition has improved, and that she will soon be released from psychiatric care. The Respondent is not presently working as a real estate salesman.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Ann Croasdell is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesperson. More specifically, since her license was previously disciplined, the question is whether,"... because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient... " it appears the interest of the public and investors will not be endangered by the granting of registration.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 29, 1987, Ann Croasdell filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. She revealed in response to question #14 that her Florida broker's license had been revoked in March, 1984. Ms. Croasdell's broker's license was disciplined in two cases, heard on the same day, before the Florida Real Estate Commission. In case no. 0021233, DOAH no. 82-1673, she was charged with, and found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and suspended Ms. Croasdell's broker's license for three years. In case no. 0020990, DOAH no. 82-1672, Ms. Croasdell was charged with and found guilty of dishonesty, breach of trust and conspiring with another person engaged in such conduct, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, except as to penalty, and revoked her real estate broker's license. In both cases the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the orders Per Curiam, and issued its mandates on March 9, 1984. Ms. Croasdell's disciplinary actions arose out of dealings with William Young, later known as the "multi-lock burglar." In DOAH case #82-1672, it was found that Ms. Croasdell was a willing accomplice with Young in a series of burglaries in which access was gained through use of the multi-lock boxes used by realtors to show homes for sale. Golf clubs and towels were stolen. Ms. Croasdell assisted in the investigation leading to young's conviction and she was never arrested nor charged with a criminal violation. In DOAH case #82-1673, the Hearing Officer found Ms. Croasdell made application, and obtained a second mortgage loan in her own name on property that she had previously conveyed to William Young. She misrepresented to the mortgage company the true owner of the property. Ms. Croasdell is a reformed alcoholic. She characterizes herself as an alcoholic drinker between 1974 and March 1984. She now participates actively in Alcoholics Anonymous, attends meetings several days a week and sponsors other women alcoholics. She works with the AA Hot Line and a halfway house for women alcoholics. She is employed part-time teaching real-estate related courses at a technical school. She is also attending college, with some support in the form of tuition and books from the Florida Division of vocational Rehabilitation. Respondent presented no evidence to controvert Ms. Croasdell's credible testimony of her complete rehabilitation. She freely admits her wrongdoing in the referenced disciplinary cases. She attributes the wrongs to a fear of William Young and to her alcoholism. During the proceedings before the Commission in 1982 and 1983, she did not admit her alcoholism as she was still in the throes of the disease. Ms. Croasdell's evidence is corroborated in approximately seventeen letters of reference and commendation from her counsellors, former students, employers and business associates. Ann Croasdell held her real estate license between 1978 and 1984. Prior to that, she was employed by various state agencies, including five years with the Florida Real Estate Commission as an administrative assistant and acting and assistant director. With her license she opened a real estate school and built an active business. Her real love is teaching real estate students. She believes she has a gift for this vocation and can make a contribution to the profession. Ms. Croasdell is 47 years old, divorced, with three children. Her account of her life before and after the activities leading to the loss of her license lends credence to the theory that her behavior was an aberration peculiar to her relationship with Young and to the final stages of her alcoholism. The Commission's letter of intended denial is not in evidence; however, at the brief proceeding before the Commission in May, 1987, the unanimous vote of the members was based upon the expressed concern that insufficient time had passed. While the discipline in one case (#82-1673) was a three-year suspension, the Board rejected the Hearing Officer's recommendation for a five year suspension in case #82-1672, in favor of revocation. According to the findings in the disciplinary cases, the wrongful conduct took place primarily in 1979 and 1980. The Appellate Court mandates were issued in 1984, and Ms. Croasdell has been un-licensed for almost four years. Additional time would serve no purpose other than further assurance that a relapse will not occur.
Recommendation It is, hereby Recommended: That the Commission enter its Final Order granting the application of Ann Croasdell for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The parties stipulated on the record that the issues for determination in this proceeding are: Whether the crime of manslaughter for which Ms. Antel was convicted is a crime of moral turpitude, and Whether sufficient rehabilitation has taken place since the crime was committed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Donna Antel, submitted her application for license as a real estate salesperson on August 1, 1966. In that application she revealed information regarding conviction of a crime. In December 1982, Donna Antel moved to Florida with her husband, to start a new life after a series of business, financial and personal problems in New York State. Shortly afterwards, it became obvious that the problems also moved with them--the ex-wife began harassing them and the husband's children came to stay, causing severe financial and emotional stress on the relationship. In August 1983, Ms. Antel sat in the bedroom with a rifle, contemplating suicide. He husband walked in, and she shot him. She was tried for 1st degree murder. On December 14, 1984, she was convicted of manslaughter in a jury trial, in Brevard County, Florida. Ms. Antel was sentenced to ten years in prison; she served eleven months in prison and six months on a work release program. On May 6, 1986, she was released on parole. After release from prison, Ms. Antel received psychological counseling and has completed her course of therapy. She has committed no parole violations and is due to be fully released sometime in 1993. For the six months proceeding the final hearing Ms. Antel was employed as an assistant property manager.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 20th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent. Adopted in Paragraph #1. Adopted in Paragraph #1. Adopted in Paragraph #3 Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #2. Adopted in paragraph #2 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #3. Petitioner's post-hearing submittals were filed on July 15, 1987, well after the established deadline. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Vincent W. Howard, Jr., Esquire Howard & Reyes, Charter 210 North Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Florida Development and Sales Corporation (FDS) at all times here involved was a registered real estate corporate broker. Lawrence F. Taylor, at all times here involved, was a registered real estate broker and an Active Firm Member for FDS and Universal Realmark, Inc. Michael W. Levine, at all times here involved, was a registered real estate salesman for Universal Realmark, Inc., corporate broker. Florida Development and Sales was a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Realmark, Inc. The two corporations occupied the same offices, had the same corporate officers, and used the same telephone numbers. Correspondence went out from either corporation on FDS stationery, and all employees of both corporations were paid by check drawn on FDS account. FDS entered into a non-exclusive brokerage agreement on August 2, 1971 (Exhibit 5) with Lake Lucie Estates, Inc., the owner of unimproved land it desired to sell in 1 1/4 acre tracts. Pursuant to said agreement the broker advertised and sold, generally by agreement or contract for deed and generally to out-of-state buyers, these 1 1/4 acre tracts. In 1973 Universal Realmark, Inc. acquired all of the stock of FDS and accepted the obligations of FDS under supplemental agreement dated May 23, 1973 (Exhibit 6). The brokerage agreement above referred to was undisturbed. By order dated May 6, 1974 the Commissioner of Securities, State of Missouri ordered St. Lucie Estates, Inc., and FDS, their representatives, inter alia, to cease and desist the offer and/or sale in Missouri of any agreement for deed securities. Chapter 409, Laws of Missouri, contain the Missouri Uniform Securities Act. Therein security, in 409.401(1), is defined to mean any contract or bond for the sale of any interest in real estate on deferred payments or on installment plans when such real estate is not situated in this state Section 409.201 makes it unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale securities in Missouri without being registered to do so and Section 409.301 makes it unlawful for any person to offer or sell any security in Missouri unless: (1) The security is registered, or (2) The security or transaction is exempted under Section 409.402. Pursuant to these and other provisions of the securities law the cease and desist order was issued and served by certified mail on Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. and FDS. Section 409.410 of the Missouri Statutes provides that any person who has been personally served with a cease and desist order and thereafter willfully violates same shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three year, or both. The Act further provides for personal service upon an out-of-state violator of the act by serving the commissioner who sends notice of the service to the out-of-state violator. Here the Respondents acknowledged receipt of the cease and desist order. Subsequent to the receipt of the Missouri cease and desist order Levine negotiated agreement for deeds with three purchasers in Missouri of Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. property. On one of these the purchaser's check was made payable to Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. and the checks for the other two were made payable to FDS. During his interrogation by the investigator, Levine acknowledged that he was aware of the cease and desist order at the time he negotiated the three agreements for deed. He obtained his list of people to call from the office, i.e. FDS/Universal Realmark. At the hearing Levine did not remember whether or not he was aware of the cease and desist order at the time he negotiated the Missouri contracts. He did remember receiving a commission on each sale by check drawn by FDS although he was registered as a salesman under Universal Realmark, Inc. As noted above Lake Lucie Estates had a brokerage agreement with FDS and no such agreement was ever negotiated with Universal Realmark. Lake Lucie Estates would have no objection to Universal Realmark selling its property. Respondent Taylor was the Active Firm Member of FDS and Universal Realmark. He was serving in that capacity with Universal Realmark when FDS was acquired. At the same time he operated his own real estate broker's office on Miami Beach, spending part of his time supervising the activities of each office. Taylor's initial statements to the investigator that he learned of the Missouri cease and desist order in June 1974 upon his return to the office from a stay in the hospital was repudiated at the hearing when he stated he learned of the Missouri order only a few hours before he talked to the investigator in October, 1974. Taylor also testified that he never authorized Levine to sell under his brokerage even though Taylor was the Active Firm Member of Universal Realmark and Levine was registered under the corporate broker, Universal Realmark. Taylor's main concern appeared to be to insure that the salesmen for these out-of-state land sales adhered to the script that had been prepared for them and from time to time he monitored their conversations. When he realized that the alleged violations of the real estate license law were being investigated he resigned from FDS and Universal Realmark because "they were violating my trust". When the requests for renewal of the FDS corporate broker's registration was submitted in September, 1974, Taylor signed same a Vice President of FDS and the Active Broker of the corporation.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and their demeanor while testifying, the following; relevant facts are found. Mitchell E. Verdell is registered with the Florida Board of Real Estate as a salesman. On or about July 17, 1978, the Respondent, Mitchell E. Verdell, filed with the then Florida Real Estate Commission, now Board of Real Estate, an application for registration as a Real Estate Salesman. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) On the Respondent's application for licensure, he failed to disclose that he had been arrested in Daytona Beach, Florida, on May 7, 1974, and tried for unlawful possession of marijuana. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance over five (5) grams for which he was place on probation for a period of two (2) years and an adjudication of guilt was withheld. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) Mitchell E. Verdell appeared and testified that his only witness, his probation officer, was ill and thus could not appear at the hearing. Mr. Verdell acknowledged his failure to disclose on his application for licensure with the Board the fact that he appeared in court on a charge of possession of a controlled substance. He also acknowledged the fact that he was placed on two (2) years probation. His probation officer, Bill Gross, advised Mr. Verdell with reference to his conviction and the manner in which he should handle it that since the judge withheld adjudication, he should never disclose it for a job when questions respecting his arrest were asked. He testified that he relied on Officer Gross, who bad been a probation officer for a few decades. (TR 9-10)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Mitchell E. Verdell's license to practice real estate as a salesman be REVOKED without prejudice to filing an application that is proper. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate Post Office Pox 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn Anderson, Esquire Post Office Pox 9159 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
The Issue The issue to determine in this matter is whether Petitioner Darryl Maurice Young’s application for real estate license should be denied for the reasons stated in Respondent Department of Business Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission’s (Commission), Notice of Intent to Deny, rendered April 5, 2018.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 2018, Mr. Young submitted a State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, Application for Sales Associate License, Form # DBPR RE 1. Background question 1, in Mr. Young’s application, asks, in part: Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction, or are you currently under criminal investigation? Mr. Young provided the following explanation for Background question 1: DUI Manslaughter Duval/Orlando, Florida 20 years in prison; 1 year probation May 3, 1997. Additionally, the Commission presented, through FDLE and court records, Mr. Young’s lengthy past criminal offenses and convictions, dating 2/07/1987 back to 1987: Petty theft with prior 2/17/1987 Petty theft 6/01/1987 Burglary (dismissed when pled to above charges) 11/04/1987 Petty theft (merchandise) 8/29/1988 Burglary Petty theft and prior jail offenses Convicted/committed to prison 10/26/1988 Petty theft with priors CA Medical Facility Sentence - 1 year, 4 months 1/02/1991 Petty theft with priors Sentence - 2 years, state prison 1/30/1991 Petty theft Sentence – state prison 3/26/1992 Petty theft with priors Sentence - state prison 8/10/1995 Shoplifting/petit theft Resisting merchant Convicted of both misdemeanors 6/18/1996 Aggravated assault with weapon Felony conviction 7/08/1996 Fraud – failure to deliver a hired vehicle Felony conviction 5/03/1997 Resisting officer with violence Felony conviction 7/22/1997 Violation of Probation (Fraud) Felony conviction 8/22/1997 Violation of Probation (DUI Manslaughter) Felony conviction 8/22/1997 Leaving the scene of an accident Felony conviction 7/13/1999 DUI Manslaughter DUI with serious bodily injury Felony conviction Sentence - 20 years, 5 months, and 7 days While in prison for the 20-plus year sentence for DUI Manslaughter, Mr. Young completed a substance abuse program, and a faith-based residential program. The Florida Department of Corrections discharged Mr. Young from supervision (probation) on April 25, 2016. Michelle Gordon testified that she has known Mr. Young since his release from prison, has had a friendly working relationship with Mr. Young, and that she shared a few culinary classes with him. She further testified that he was a helpful and nice person. Tracy Pray testified that she too has known Mr. Young since his release from prison, and that Mr. Young had assisted her in obtaining a food truck, and that they worked together for about two years. Ms. Pray testified that Mr. Young voluntarily helped her complete the paperwork for the food truck operation. Geneva Carter testified that she works for PRIDE Enterprises as a transition specialist. She testified that she helped Mr. Young gain some useful work experience while he was incarcerated. Ms. Carter further testified that she met with him briefly on two occasions after his release to help him make the transition from prison to working outside of prison. Petitioner failed to establish the following requirements for a real estate sales associate license: that he is honest, trustworthy, of good character, has a reputation for fair dealing, and he is competent and qualified to make real estate transactions and conduct negotiations with safety to investors and others. Petitioner also failed to overcome the disqualification for eligibility found in section 475.25(1)(f), which results from convictions to multiple crimes involving moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. Based on Mr. Young’s failure to appear and offer evidence, there is no evidentiary basis on which findings can be made that he satisfied the requirements for a real estate sales associate license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Commission issue a final order deny Mr. Young’s application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 31st day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent alleging a violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, through the entry of a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of vehicular homicide, a felony, as described in Section 782.071, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as a governmental agency in the State of Florida, licenses and regulates those persons who are engaged in real estate sales within Florida. The authority for this regulatory function may be found in Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and associated rules. Respondent has held a real estate salesman's license issued by the Petitioner during all relevant periods. On September 13, 1986, that license held by the Respondent was inactive. On October 13, 1986, Respondent activated his real estate salesman's license and it remained active at the point of final hearing. In October 1986, Respondent placed his real estate sales license with a real estate broker in Gainesville, Florida, Richard Fort Rogers. Richard Fort Rogers is the father of the Respondent. Respondent continues in his affiliation with his father's real estate brokerage operation. On September 13, 1987, Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. He was operating the motor vehicle in question and through that operation caused the death of Harold E. Thompson. Out of these circumstances, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of vehicular homicide. Section 782.071, Florida Statutes. This disposition is set forth in Petitioner's composite exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. The plea was by negotiation in the case The State of Florida vs. Richard Fort Rogers in the Circuit Court, for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Alachua County, Court, #86-3203-CF-A. The amended information to which the Petitioner pled dates from December 10, 1986. The negotiated plea was entered on February 2, 1987. On that same date the Court entered an order accepting the plea. For this offense, adjudication of guilt was withheld, the Respondent was given three years' probation, required to pay court costs and was screened for alcohol counseling. Following the disposition of his case, by correspondence of February 13, 1987, as received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on February 17, 1987, Respondent advised the Commission of his plea of nolo contendere to the charge of vehicular homicide.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, is eligible to sit for the Florida Real Estate Commission's licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and exhibits, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On or about July 26, 1981, Petitioner, Barbara A. Story, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. By letter dated September 28, 1981, Randy Schwartz, Respondent's counsel, advised Petitioner that the Respondent, at its duly noticed meeting of September 23, 1981, denied Petitioner's application for licensure. That letter recited that the specific reason for the Respondent's actions was baked on Petitioner's answer to question six (6) on the licensing application and her criminal record. In this regard, evidence reveals and Petitioner's application reflects that Petitioner was convicted in the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach), on September 8, 1978, of embezzlement of monies from a bank, in violation of Title XVIII, United States Code, 656. Petitioner was sentenced by the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins on that date, pursuant to the split-sentence provision of Title XVIII, United States Code, 3651, in that she was to be confined in a jail-type institution for a period of one (1) month, and thereafter, the remainder of the sentence of confinement [one (1) year] was suspended. Upon discharge from incarceration, Petitioner was to be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years under the special condition that she make restitution for the monies embezzled. Jurisdiction of that case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, and on March 29, 1982, Petitioner was terminated from probation supervision. Robert E. Lee, a chief U.S. probation officer, who supervised petitioner while she was under the supervision of the subject office as a probationer, indicates that Petitioner reflected a favorable attitude toward her probation officer, remained gainfully employed and abided by all the rules of probation. Petitioner has never been arrested since her conviction in 1978, and has received only one (1) traffic citation during December of 1981. Petitioner has been continuously employed since her conviction and is presently a secretary/receptionist where she is in charge of and controls office business for Mobile Craft Wood Products in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner has been in charge of processing cash sales for the past four (4) years. Petitioner is presently making restitution to the savings and loan association that she embezzled. Charles Demenzes, a realtor/broker who owns Demenzes Realty Inc., has known Petitioner approximately one (1) year. Mr. Demenzes spoke highly of Petitioner and was favorably impressed with her desire to become licensed as a real estate salesperson. Mr. Demenzes is hopeful that Petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to sit for the licensure examination such that she can join his sales force, if she successfully passes the examination. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner, having been convicted of the crime of embezzlement, which involves moral turpitude and therefore is ineligible to sit for the Respondent's licensure examination. In this regard, counsel for Respondent admits that the Board, when acting upon Petitioner's application for licensure, did not consider the fact that Petitioner has been released from probation supervision inasmuch as that factor did not exist at the time Petitioner made application for licensure. Character letters offered by Petitioner were highly complimentary of Petitioner's reputation and abilities as an employee. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1982, 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 13th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure and the regulation of the practice of real estate brokers and salesmen in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a licensee regulated by the Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, albeit, holding an inactive license at the present time. Such an inactive licensure status is a sufficient basis for Petitioner's jurisdiction. Boedy v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 433 So.2d 544, (1st DCA 1983). On or about March 7, 1986, the Respondent was convicted in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, of the crime of manslaughter and "DUI/manslaughter," for each of which two counts she was sentenced to a six year prison term which sentences were to run concurrently, with a five year probationary period after the sentences of incarceration were served. In March 1986, the Respondent was duly remitted to the custody of the Department of Corrections and incarcerated at the Women's Prison at Lowell, Florida, the hearing site. The Respondent was in a work release status and was about to transfer to a less restrictive custodial situation in Fort Lauderdale in the Department's work release program at the time of the hearing. She will work in this program in the community for a few months before her ultimate release. Her release will come much sooner than the original length of her sentence imposed by the Court because she has earned the maximum amount of "gain-time" and has been a model prisoner, thus not losing any gain time since the first day she was incarcerated. This incident arose on May 23, 1983, in Pinellas County when the Respondent was proceeding down a public roadway in her own motor vehicle after having ingested an indeterminate amount of alcoholic beverages. While she was driving, a deputy sheriff in a Sheriff's Department vehicle approached her from the rear, activated his siren and indicated that he intended apprehending her or at least stopping her car. The deputy's siren startled and distracted the Respondent and in the process of pulling over to the side of the road, which necessitated a lane change, she became involved in the auto accident which ultimately caused the death of Mr. Walter Heuston. She was charged with unlawfully causing the death of Mr. Heuston by the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor to an extent as to deprive her of full possession of her normal faculties and, in Count II of the criminal information, by her own act or culpable negligence, in driving a motor vehicle, without intent to murder, inflicting mortal wounds upon Walter Heuston, of which he died. The Respondent, at the hearing and repeatedly in the past, has displayed extreme remorse over this unfortunate turn of events and freely acknowledges her fault in so conducting herself as to cause the death of another. As established by other witnesses, as well as by those, whose letters attesting to her good character were stipulated into evidence, she has used this experience and her time in prison to better herself. She has become quite active in a Christian organization for women and has enrolled in a theological seminary. In her course work with the seminary, she has earned the highest possible grades. Her pre-release counselor, Reverend Randolph, established that she is interested in growing and improving her life and remains very interested in her profession and in helping her community. The Respondent presently works at a community college as a civilian secretarial worker and has an exemplary record. At the correctional institution, she works in orienting inmates and counseling them to help them adjust to prison life and also works as a chaplain's aide. Similarly, Reverend Hubert Parr, the Respondent's minister, established that she is a member of his church and that he has had frequent contact with her in his Bible study teaching at the Lowell Prison. The Respondent has proven to him that she has grown a great deal as a responsible, caring person and is very repentant concerning the incident which resulted in her incarceration. He truly feels she aspires to be a model citizen in the future. He has substantial experience working as a chaplain and counselor for a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. He is convinced that the Respondent has conquered any alcohol problem she may have had and is convinced she has, and wishes to continue to, change her life for the better. The Respondent established that she had no prior alcohol problems of record and had no traffic citations for driving under the influence or even for speeding before the incident in question. She has conscientiously worked at her studies with the Luther Rice Seminary in Jacksonville and genuinely wants to help other people who may have alcohol or drug problems. She wishes to use her own unfortunate experience to the advantage of others by counseling persons with alcohol problems to help them avoid similar disastrous consequences. She presently works at the Central Florida Community College and has an excellent work record and numerous letters of recommendation. Her work site away from the correctional institution renders drugs and alcohol easily accessible, yet she has steadfastly avoided them and has been involved in no incident involving the purchase or use of alcohol or drugs in the course of her work experience away from the Lowell facility. She is in the honor unit at the Lowell facility, could "walk away" at any time and has chosen not to do so. She is in all respects a model prisoner, is contrite and remorseful concerning the reason for her imprisonment and genuinely appears to be trying to turn that tragic experience into a positive benefit in redirecting the course of her own life and in using that bad experience to help others who may have similar problems. Concerning the charge that she failed to timely inform the Petitioner of her incarceration or her conviction, she established that she wrote the Petitioner in early April 1986 and within thirty days after her conviction but apparently sent the letter to the wrong address in Orlando instead of to the appropriate address in Tallahassee. She never got an answer and during this time was still in the reception facility for a thirty day period during which she was in close custody and confinement. It was, therefore, difficult for her to obtain information about where to write to the Petitioner to inform them of her situation and, because of the emotional stress she was under at the time, she did not immediately write another letter upon failing to get an answer to the first one after a reasonable time. In any event, later that summer, in August 1986, she wrote a second letter to the Petitioner informing it of her situation and inquiring about her licensure status. This was answered by the Board and ultimately resulted in the instant prosecution. The Respondent was sentenced on March 7 and did not arrive at the Lowell Prison with a permanent address until March 21. She wrote the first letter in the second week of April. In view of the Respondent's obvious remorse concerning the unfortunate incident which resulted in her conviction and incarceration and the fact that she obviously wishes to better herself both spiritually and professionally, and has a genuine desire to help others overcome alcohol or drug problems and avoid similar consequences, it cannot be found that the Respondent's conviction of a felony and resultant incarceration is truly representative of her innate character and individual self-worth as that relates to her competence and trustworthiness to practice her profession as a realtor. The undersigned finds no evidence which would indicate that the public in the State of Florida, requiring the services of the Respondent as a realtor in the future, would be in any danger of becoming victims of dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent or similar reprehensible modes of practice by the Respondent. In consideration of the severe penalty the Respondent has already paid and is continuing to pay for the tragedy she is accountable for, it would be unjust to remove her right to practice her chosen means of livelihood through this proceeding.
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 a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission according the Respondent the penalty of a written reprimand. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of August 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 31st day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 June E. Dupee c/o Salvation Army 14 Northwest 14th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
