Recommendation Based on the foregoing stipulated facts and conclusions of law as found above, I recommend that the Defendant be issued a private written reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Randolph, Esquire Randolph & Randolph P. O. Box 1546 209 West Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 33494 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, SA Lee was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate salesperson, having been issued license number SL-0640485 on July 15, 1996. Further, Respondent SA Lee was a real estate salesperson in association with Respondent Realty, a real estate broker corporation. At all times material hereto, Respondent SE Lee was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number BK-0594787. Further, Respondent SE Lee was the qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Realty. At all times material hereto, Respondent Realty was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker corporation, having been issued license number CQ-0272573. In 1996, Brian Mulally (buyer) wanted to buy certain residential property located at 4397 Vicliff Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Maryann Duchesne and Margaret Reppucci were the sellers of the property. Medallion Realty was the listing broker for the property. Paula Castro was the real estate salesperson representing Medallion Realty. The sellers authorized Medallion Realty and Ms. Castro to represent them, to be their agents in the sale of their property. Respondent SA Lee, as sales agent for Respondent Realty, notified the buyer that she was not representing him. The buyer knew at all times that Respondent SA Lee was not his representative in the purchase of the property. In a "Disclosure" document dated September 4, 1996, the buyer acknowledged that Respondent SA Lee was not representing him and that the sellers were compensating Respondent SA Lee.1 The sellers did not authorize Respondent SA Lee to represent them in the sale of their property and were not aware of the Disclosure document. Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were not representing the sellers or the buyer. However, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were working together with Medallion Realty in the sale of the property and that Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were sub-agents of Medallion Realty.2 The buyer and sellers executed a Contract for Sale and Purchase (Contract) of the property, with the buyer executing the Contract on September 30, 1996, and the sellers on October 1, 1996. The effective date of the Contract was October 1, 1996. The Contract provided, among other things, that Respondent Realty would hold deposits in escrow; that the buyer's first deposit would be $100; that the buyer's second deposit of $1,900 would be made within five days of October 1, 1996; that, within five days of October 1, 1996, the buyer would make application for a mortgage loan; that, within 15 days of October 1, 1996, the buyer would obtain a written commitment for a mortgage loan; that the closing date was October 31, 1996; and that Medallion Realty and Respondent Realty were the listing broker and cooperating broker, respectively. The buyer was to obtain the money for the second deposit from a family member. He had planned a trip around the time of the execution of the Contract, during which he would obtain the money for the second deposit. When the buyer returned from his trip, he did not have the money for the second deposit. The buyer informed Respondent SA Lee of his failure to return with the money for the second deposit. Shortly thereafter, Respondent SA Lee and Ms. Castro had a telephone conversation regarding the property. During their conversation, Respondent SA Lee informed Ms. Castro that the buyer had not made the second deposit but that he was still going to obtain the money for the second deposit. The disclosure to the sellers' agent, Ms. Castro, of the buyer's failure to remit the second deposit was before the due date for the deposit, which was on or before October 6, 1996. Ms. Castro continued to make inquiries to Respondent SA Lee as to the payment of the second deposit by the buyer. Respondent SA Lee informed Ms. Castro that she was trying to get the deposit from the buyer who was advising her (Respondent SA Lee) that he was getting the money for the deposit. Ms. Castro was continuously aware that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit to Respondent SA Lee. Respondent SA Lee and Ms. Castro wanted the real estate transaction to proceed. Respondent SA Lee's communication with the sellers was through Ms. Castro. Respondent SA Lee did not have access to a telephone number for the sellers. The sellers obtained the services of a closing agent, who was also their attorney. On or about October 11, 1996, approximately five days after the due date for the second deposit, the sellers' attorney, acting as closing agent, contacted Ms. Castro regarding the second deposit. Ms. Castro informed the sellers' attorney that she would contact Respondent SA Lee and get back with her (the sellers' attorney). On or about October 15, 1996, approximately nine days after the due date for the second deposit, the sellers' attorney, in her role as the closing agent, contacted Respondent SA Lee and requested an escrow letter regarding the second deposit. Obtaining the escrow letter would allow the beginning of the preparation of the closing documents. Respondent SA Lee informed the sellers' attorney that she would contact Ms. Castro and that Ms. Castro would in turn contact the sellers' attorney. Respondent SA Lee contacted Ms. Castro. No escrow letter was forwarded to the sellers' closing agent because no second deposit had been made by the buyer. Even without the escrow letter, the closing agent began the preparation of the closing documents. Thereafter, the sellers' attorney, acting as closing agent, contacted Respondent SA Lee several times regarding the remittance of the second deposit, but Respondent SA Lee never gave the sellers' closing agent a forthright response; Respondent SA Lee never informed the sellers' closing agent that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit.3 Respondent continued to communicate with Ms. Castro regarding the second deposit. The sellers' closing agent was not informed until around October 28 or 29, 1996, that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit. Other problems, regarding the real estate transaction, in addition to the remittance of the second deposit, erupted between the buyer and the sellers. At that time Ms. Castro allowed the sellers' attorney to step-in and handle all matters regarding the transaction. The evidence indicates that this change occurred sometime between October 15 and October 30, 1996. When the sellers' attorney began to handle all matters regarding the real estate transaction, Respondent SA Lee should have, but did not, inform the sellers' attorney that the buyer had not remitted the money for the second deposit. The second deposit was eventually remitted by the buyer on or about October 30, 1996. The buyer forwarded the money directly to the sellers' attorney per Respondent SA Lee's instructions. For several reasons, including the buyer's failure to timely remit the second deposit, the closing did not occur on October 31, 1996, as provided in the Contract. The closing on the property occurred on November 27, 1996. Sometime after the closing of the real estate transaction, Respondent SE Lee ceased to be the qualifying broker for Respondent Realty. Sharon E. Lee became the qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Realty. No evidence was presented by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) as to Respondent SE Lee's failure to properly supervise the activities of Respondent SA Lee or Respondent Realty. No evidence was presented as to whether Respondent SA Lee or Respondent Realty had a history of disciplinary action taken against them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order and therein: Dismiss Count III against Stephen E. Lee. Find Sherry Ann Lee guilty of Counts I and II. Find C. Mist Realty, Inc. guilty of Count IV. Impose upon Sherry Ann Lee an administrative fine of $1,000, payable under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate, and the completion of a 45-hour post-licensure course. Reprimand C. Mist Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 16th day of June, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Ralph A. Call, held real estate broker's license number 0012490 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. Respondent was active broker for a real estate firm located at 1648 Periwinkle Way, Sanibel Island, Florida. At an undisclosed time Respondent purchased Apartment 503, Sandlefoot Condominiums, located on Sanibel Island and later sold it to Eric and Enid Winson. As part of the purchase price, Call agreed to take back two unsecured notes totaling $43,211.73. In February, 1979, the Winsons listed the condominium through Respondent's office. It was agreed that Respondent would obtain all or partial satisfaction of the notes from the proceeds of the sale. On or about March 9, 1979, the Winsons entered into a contract to sell Wolf and Marie Fudikar the condominium for a price of $107,000. Under the terms of the contract, the buyers gave Respondent a $10,690 cash deposit to be held in escrow pending the completion of the sale. The contract also required the sellers to deliver a marketable title to the property. A closing date was set for on or before June 21, 1979. The buyers were represented by Henry Norton, an attorney in Miami, Florida, who was given power of attorney since the Fudikars resided in West Germany. By mutual agreement of the parties, they verbally agreed to change the closing date to Friday, July 20, 1979. It was understood that the buyers would wire the money from Switzerland to Norton in Miami, who would then wire the money to a representative of Gulf Abstract Company in Fort Myers, in whose offices the closing was to be held. When no money was received, a representative of Gulf Abstract telephoned Norton that afternoon end was advised that Norton had not received the money from his clients and could not close. Respondent construed the failure of the buyers to close on that date as a possible breach of the contract. A written standard title insurance binder was issued by Gulf Abstract for the July 20 closing. Although this commitment did not insure marketability, a representative of the firm could not recall any material exclusions or exceptions set out in the policy. The following Monday or Tuesday after the scheduled July 20 closing, a local lending institution filed a lis pendens on the property and instituted a suit against the sellers for defaulting on another debt. Because of this cloud on the title, and other problems which arose, the buyers then reneged on their agreement since no marketable title could be furnished by the sellers. After the sale fell through, both the buyers and sellers made claims for the deposit, each alleging that the other had breached the contract. Upon the advice of counsel, Respondent refused to return the deposit to the buyers since he could also be held liable to the sellers. Respondent finally contacted the Board's District Office in Fort Myers at a later undisclosed time seeking advice on what to do. He was told to call Tallahassee to get an opinion. He then made several telephone calls and wrote letters to various Department representatives or attorneys on December 4, 1980, January 17, 1981, February 19, 1981 and February 28, 1981 requesting that a disbursement order be issued. On March 17, 1981, the Board of Real Estate issued an escrow disbursement order and held, inter alia, that under the terms of the contract closing was to occur no later than June 21, 1979, that no written modification of the terms regarding closing was made, that the sellers were unable to deliver clear title by June 21, and that because of this no contract for sale existed between the parties, and the buyers were not obligated to perform it accordingly ordered Call to disburse the deposit to the buyers. The order also noted that the Order ". . .(did) not provide (Call) with any immunity to any civil liability." On March 31, 1981, Call wrote the Board the following letter: Please be advised that I wish to appeal your decision because it was not based upon actual facts. Please forward to me any form you may have available for this purpose. I am willing and prepared to appear in person for cross examination if necessary, to get the true facts before your board. Please advise. Yours very truly, /s/ Ralph A. Call Counsel for the Board responded by letter on April 17, 1981, stating that "since the contract for sale was between the Fudickars (sic) and the Winsons, (Call was) not entitled to appeal the Escrow Disbursement Order. . ." and further that the "true facts" had already been presented. Upon the advice of his attorney, Call did not comply with the order for fear of liability to the sellers if the deposit was given to the buyers. On March 16, 1982, one day prior to the final hearing, Call obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $10,690 made payable to Norton who represented the buyers. During the entire controversy the deposit remained in Call's escrow account. There is no allegation that Call misused the funds or otherwise improperly dealt with the money while the dispute ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Ralph A. Call, be found guilty as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint and be given a public reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1982.
Findings Of Fact During the period March-May, 1983, Petitioner shipped eggs to Respondent at invoice price of $31,062.53 for which payment in the amount of $15,448.82 was received, leaving a balance due of $15,487.81 (Exhibit 1). No evidence was submitted that the eggs sold to Respondent from Petitioner's facility at Balm, Florida, were not produced in Florida. Petitioner agreed to reduce the amount due by $177 on Invoice 1741 dated 4/21/83 because 20 cases of large Grade A eggs were not on invoice submitted to Respondent. Respondent withdrew the allegation in the amended Answer respecting the $.04 overcharge per dozen after producing no evidence to substantiate this claim. Respondent's primary claim is that in June and July of 1983 it returned eggs to Petitioner for which Respondent had paid because these eggs were bad and that Respondent should have been granted credit totaling $2,397.77 for these eggs. Petitioner acknowledged that Respondent had returned some eggs but claimed these eggs were in different cartons than in which shipped, that they had been held by Respondent for some time before they were returned, and that credit was not given for eggs returned under those circumstances.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact: At all times material to this proceeding, Mrs. Bashant held a Florida real estate salesperson license, number 0551150, which was involuntarily inactive. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Bashant held a Florida real estate broker license, number 0419768, which was involuntarily inactive. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Bashant was the broker of record for The Real Estate Group, Inc., a corporation which was no longer in business and which had no escrow accounts. The corporation's license to do business as a real estate agency has been inactive since May 12, 1993. Florida's Department of State, Division of Corporations, administratively dissolved the corporation on August 13, 1993. On December 8, 1993, Mr. Bashant executed a written offer to purchase a house belonging to John and Carolyn DelPrete (Sellers). The Bashants wanted to buy the house, located at 194 North East Blairwood Terrace, Jensen Beach, Martin County, Florida, as their personal residence. Mr. Bashant gave the written offer to Stacy Mathias (Mathias), who was the Sellers' exclusive listing agent. The offer called for an initial cash deposit of $1,000 and an additional payment of $9,000 in the form of a promissory note, payable at closing. The $1,000 cash deposit was to be held in trust by the Real Estate Group, Inc. This first offer reflects that the buyers rather than the sellers would pay for title insurance. Mr. Bashant never intended to make a $1,000 cash deposit in any escrow account or to make and deliver a $9,000 promissory note at closing. Instead, he only intended to execute and deliver a $10,000 promissory note at closing. He executed a $10,000 promissory note but did not deliver it to anyone until he gave it to his attorney in January of 1994. Sometime between December 8, 1993 and December 14, 1993, Mathias presented the offer to the Sellers. They would not agree to accept the $9,000 promissory note at closing. The Sellers also wanted to make certain other changes and additions to the contract. Mathias prepared a second draft of the original offer which required an initial cash deposit of $1,000 to be held in escrow by The Real Estate Group, Inc. It also required an additional $9,000 cash deposit to be placed in escrow within ten (10) days after the effective date of the contract. The second draft of the offer did not include any language referring to a promissory note payable at closing. In the second draft, seller was responsible for providing title insurance. After receiving the second draft of the contract, the Bashants added and initialed a change in paragraph II(b) stating that a $9,000 promissory note would be paid at closing. The Bashants also made and initialed three other changes: (a) They added the master bedroom bedspread to the list of personalty in paragraph I(c); (b) They added "+ or -" to the finance amount in paragraph II(e); and (c) They added "+ or -" to the finance amount in IV(a). The Bashants signed and returned the contract to Mathias. They did not date their signatures. Mathias presented the contract to the Sellers who initialed the changes in paragraphs II(e) and IV(a). However, the Sellers struck through the language adding the master bedroom bedspread in paragraph I(c) and the promissory note language in paragraph II(b). The Sellers changed the party responsible for providing title insurance to buyer rather than seller and changed the time for acceptance from December 14, 1993 to December 15, 1993. On December 14, 1993, the Sellers initialed their changes and deletions, signed the contact, and returned it to Mathias. Mathias called Mr. Bashant on the telephone to discuss each of the changes. She specifically told Mr. Bashant that the Sellers would not accept a promissory note at closing. Mr. Bashant responded that he had no problem eliminating the promissory note language because he had just sold some cars and had the money to make the cash deposits. He agreed to initial the changes and pick up the contract. On December 15, 1993, Mathias delivered the contract to the Bashants. They initialed the change crossing out the bedspread in paragraph I(c). They did not initial the change eliminating the promissory note language in paragraph II(b), the change requiring the buyer to pay for title insurance in paragraph V, or the change setting December 15, 1993, as the time for acceptance in paragraph III. The Bashants added and initialed a provision requiring the Seller to pay $500 towards the cost of the title insurance in paragraph V. On December 16, 1993, the Bashants returned the contract to Mathias. Mathias told the Sellers about the last change requiring them to pay $500 towards title insurance. The Sellers would not agree to this provision. Therefore, Mathias agreed to pay $500 towards the cost of the title insurance to save the sale. With that understanding, the Sellers initialed the final change in the title insurance provision. Mathias never reduced to writing the agreement that she would pay $500 towards the cost of title insurance; however, she informed Mr. Bashant of her responsibility and he expressed no objection. The contract was contingent on the Bashants obtaining financing and being able to construct a 15' by 30' pool on the property. As of December 16, 1993, Mathias and the Sellers assumed that the contract was bilateral. Mathias never specifically asked the Bashants to initial the deleted promissory note language, the change in the time for acceptance, or the change in the party responsible for providing title insurance. Mr. Bashant told Mathias he would provide her with copies of the checks that he had deposited in escrow. He did nothing to correct the false impression that he had made the cash deposits. Sometime during December of 1993, the Sellers returned a cash deposit to potential buyers who had a preexisting right of first refusal to buy the Sellers' home. The record does not reveal a specific reason for the couple's decision not to exercise their option to purchase the Sellers' home. On December 23, 1993, Mrs. Bashant took several members of her family to see the Sellers' home. Mr. Bashant was not present at the time they made the visit. Shortly after January 1, 1994, the Bashants picked up a survey of the Seller's home from Mathias's office. The Bashants needed the survey to assist them in determining whether they could construct a 15' by 30' pool on the property. On January 4, 1994, Mr. Bashant faxed a message to Mathias stating that the pool could not be built as suggested by the Sellers because of a 25' buffer on the back side of the property. The message stated that Mr. Bashant would check on alternatives but that he wanted Mathias to be aware of the problem. Mr. Bashant also asked Mathias to send him a copy of the "bilateral contract." On or before January 5, 1994, Mathias talked to Mr. Bashant who said he would pick up a copy of the "bilateral contract" and give her a copy of the checks he had deposited in escrow. Later that day, a friend of the Bashants, Al Fontaine, picked up a copy of the contract for Mr. Bashant. Mr. Fontaine informed Mathias that he did not have the deposit check copies but that Mr. Bashant would furnish them. On January 13, 1994, Mr. Bashant told Mathias he would apply to the county for a variance to construct the pool. Mathias informed Mr. Bashant that another real estate agent, Carol Pierson, had clients who were interested in buying the property. Mr. Bashant replied that he was willing to step aside if someone else wanted to purchase the property. Carol Pierson took her clients to view the house. These clients were former prospective buyers who had recently received a settlement and were interested in purchasing a home immediately. They knew about the contract between the Bashants and the Sellers. Either no one ever informed the prospective buyers that the Bashants were willing to step aside or they were not interested in buying the house. In any event, they never made an offer. On January 19, 1994, Mathias sent Mr. Bashant a letter informing him that the prospective buyers had not made an offer. She assumed Mr. Bashant was working on the variance for the pool and reminded him that he had not produced copies of the checks deposited in escrow. On January 22, 1994, Mathias sent Mr. Bashant another letter demanding evidence that he had deposited the funds into the escrow account. Mathias advised Mr. Bashant that she intended to file a complaint with the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) failing the production of such evidence. On January 24, 1994, Mathias received a letter from Mr. Bashant stating that he understood the contract to be void when Carol Pierson's clients viewed the house. He informed Mathias of his attorney's opinion that the contract was null and void because of certain dates and signatures. Mr. Bashant enclosed a copy of a letter from Coral Gables Federal denying approval of the loan due to insufficient income. On January 27, 1994, the Sellers' attorney sent letters to the Bashants and The Real Estate Group, Inc., demanding a closing date or $10,000. On February 8, 1994, the Bashants' attorney responded claiming that contract contingencies had not been met and that the parties never agreed to the form of deposit. After Mathias filed a complaint with the Commission, Jonathan Platt, Petitioner's investigator, called the Bashants. He spoke with Mrs. Bashant who referred him to her husband. Mr. Bashant admitted that The Real Estate Group, Inc., was inactive and that naming it as the escrow agent was his mistake. He admitted that he had not deposited any funds in escrow. The record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that the Sellers lost potential buyers as a result of dealing with the Bashants. For some unspecified reason, one couple declined to exercise their option to buy and requested a refund of their deposit; however, no one contacted this couple when it became apparent that the sale to the Bashants would not close. Carol Pierson's clients looked at the house but, for some unknown reason, did not make an offer. Mathias never told Ms. Pierson that her clients could not make an offer or that the Bashants were willing to step aside. 34 During the period from December 16, 1993 through January 24, 1994, Mr. Bashant misrepresented and concealed his intentions concerning the contract. He never intended to deposit funds in escrow but he let Mathias believe he had made the deposits. The contract was improperly executed because the parties had not agreed in writing on the form of the escrow deposits. However, Mr. Bashant knowingly made false promises and operated under false pretenses by telling Mathias he would furnish her with copies of checks that did not exist. Mrs. Bashant signed the contract but never had any discussions with Mathias concerning the terms. There is no record evidence that Mrs. Bashant was aware of or participated in her husband's representations and promises to Mathias. On May 31, 1991, the Commission entered a final order against Mr. Bashant and the Real Estate Group, Inc. The Commission reprimanded Mr. Bashant's license, fined him, and placed him on one (1) year of probation for violation of Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1989). The basis of this disciplinary action included Mr. Bashant's failure to maintain trust funds and depositing and intermingling personal funds with trust funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that: (1) Respondent Diana L. Bashant is not guilty of violating any Florida statute; and (2) Respondent Gregory J. Bashant is guilty of violating Sections 475.24(1)(b) and 475.24(1)(o), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Commission require Respondent Gregory J. Bashant to pay an administrative fine of $2,000 and revoke his license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of December,1994. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 19th day of December 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact (FOF) submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted in FOF 1-2 except for subordinate information. 3-4. Accepted in FOF 4-5 except for subordinate information. 5. Accepted in FOF 3. 6-7. Accepted as modified in FOF 6. Accepted in FOF 7-8. Accepted in FOF 11 except as to placement in sequence of events 10-13. Accepted in substance in FOF 12-16. 14-25. Accepted in substance in FOF 19-32. Rejected. Accepted as modified in FOF 34. Accepted in FOF 36. Considered as an argument concerning the credibility of a witness. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted in FOF 1-2. Accepted in substance in FOF 4-5. Accepted as subordinate information. There is no competent substantial evidence that Mr. Bashant ever presented a copy of Respondent's Exhibit 1 to Mathias. Rejected; no persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted in FOF 3. Accepted as subordinate information. Accept that Mr. Bashant prepared Petitioner's Exhibit 1 in FOF 4-5; balance of proposed finding not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 9-13. Accepted in substance in FOF 8-13. Accepted in FOF 22-23. Accepted in substance in FOF 20. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in substance in FOF 24-25. Accepted in substance in FOF 24-25 except there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence that Mr. Bashant disclosed a financial problem at that time. 19-20. Accepted in substance in FOF 24-25. 21-22. Accepted in FOF 28 except for accuracy of January 29 date. Accepted in FOF 30. Accepted in FOF 35. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 North West 2nd Avenue, N607 Miami, Florida 33128 William D. Anderson, Esquire Anderson & Galante Post Office Box 288 Stuart, Florida 34995 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent Martha M. Bustillo is a real estate broker licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0401092. At all times material hereto, she has been the qualifying broker for Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc. Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., is a real estate brokerage corporation licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0237551. At no time material hereto has Respondent Olga Venedicto been licensed in the State of Florida as either a real estate broker or as a real estate salesperson. In July of 1992 Thomas F. Sevilla contacted Virmar Investments, looking for a house to buy. Olga Venedicto took his phone call and told him that she would help him. Sevilla went to Venedicto's "office" at Virmar Investment and began working with her. Venedicto gave Sevilla her business card which represented that she is the vice president of Virmar Investments, Inc., and carries the notation "registered real estate brokers." In addition to giving him her card which carried her name, Virmar's name, and the word "brokers" in the plural form rather than the singular form, Venedicto specifically told Sevilla that she was a broker. Venedicto and Bustillo took Sevilla to see a house which he decided to buy. He gave Venedicto his check for $2,000 as a deposit and instructed her and Bustillo to make an offer on that house. Venedicto told him she would put the money in Virmar's escrow account. Instead, the money was deposited in Virmar's operating account. Sevilla did not buy that house, and Venedicto and Bustillo took him to see a second house. Sevilla decided not to make an offer on that house and asked Venedicto to refund his money. It took a month before Sevilla received a check from Venedicto. Although the check was marked "deposit return," the check was not written from Virmar's account but rather was a check from a Mega Group Corp. for only $1,675. When Sevilla attempted to cash that check, it was dishonored three times, with the notation "N. S. F." Finally, the check was honored by the bank. Sevilla had expected to receive his entire $2,000 deposit. Neither Venedicto nor Bustillo had ever told him in advance that they would keep part of his money. Although Respondents' attorney during the final hearing implied that his clients may have kept part of Sevilla's money to pay for a survey and credit report, Sevilla had not agreed in advance to pay for a credit report, and no evidence was offered as to what house Sevilla might have purchased a survey on or for what reason. Further, neither Venedicto nor Bustillo gave him a copy of any survey or credit report nor was he ever shown one or advised that either would be obtained. When Sevilla inquired as to why he was reimbursed the lesser amount, only then did Venedicto tell him that Respondents were keeping part of his money for a credit report. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar authorized and assisted Venedicto in her performance of acts and services requiring licensure as a salesperson relative to the transaction with Sevilla. Rita and Carlos Benitez listed their house for sale with Pedro Realty. Gladys Diaz was the listing agent at Pedro Realty. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto brought Carlos Martinez and his wife to look at the Benitez house. Gladys Diaz was present at the time. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto subsequently came to Diaz' office and presented to Diaz and Carlos Benitez an offer on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Martinez. Respondent Venedicto represented herself to be a realtor and Respondent Bustillo to be Venedicto's partner and broker. Respondent Venedicto discussed the contract and price with Diaz and Benitez while Respondent Bustillo observed Venedicto's presentation. The offer had previously been signed on behalf of Respondent Virmar by Respondent Venedicto who represented to Diaz that the signature on the offer was that of Respondent Venedicto. Mr. Benitez signed the document, and Diaz then took the offer to Mrs. Benitez to obtain her signature. Mrs. Benitez also signed the offer, thereby completing the contract. Thereafter, delays ensued because Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were not in a financial position to be able to purchase the home. Respondent Venedicto contacted Mrs. Benitez and attempted to re-negotiate the contract. During those negotiations which were not successful, Respondent Venedicto represented herself to Mrs. Benitez as being a licensed real estate agent. In response to Mrs. Benitez' inquiries, Respondent Venedicto gave Benitez her business card carrying the names of Venedicto and Virmar and the notation "registered real estate brokers." As to the portion of the transaction involving Mrs. Benitez, all of her contact with the three Respondents in this cause was with Respondent Venedicto. Venedicto gave Benitez advice regarding proceeding with the sale and handled the negotiations. Prior to September 24, 1992, Hector F. Sehweret, an investigator for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, requested that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar produce certain records for inspection by him. He spoke with Respondent Bustillo on a number of occasions to no avail. He offered to give her time to gather the records if necessary, but she never did. On September 24, 1992, he served Respondent Bustillo with a subpoena for those records. She still failed to produce them. Thereafter, she would not return his phone calls, and when he came to the office of Virmar Investments, Respondent Bustillo would hide from him. Neither Respondent Bustillo nor Respondent Virmar have ever produced the records subpoenaed. Further, no explanation has been given for the failure of Respondents Bustillo and Virmar to produce their records. Although the attorney for Respondents implied during the final hearing that the records may have been destroyed by Hurricane Andrew, there is no evidence to support that implication; rather, the evidence is uncontroverted that the building housing the real estate office of Respondents Virmar and Bustillo was not damaged by Hurricane Andrew. Ileana Hernandez is a realtor and a mortgage broker licensed in the State of Florida. She met Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto during a real estate transaction. In November of 1991 Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto contacted Hernandez regarding obtaining money in exchange for a second mortgage on certain real property. At the time, Respondents did not tell Hernandez the identity of the owner of the property, but Hernandez was given the address of the property and was advised that the market value of the property was approximately $79,000. Hernandez was subsequently advised that Respondent Venedicto (a/k/a Olga Bichara) was the owner of the property. It was agreed that Respondent Venedicto would execute and record the promissory note and mortgage in the amount of $15,500. Hernandez, who knew that Respondent Bustillo was the president of Terra Title, gave her a personal check payable to Terra Title in the amount of $15,000 on November 26, 1991. Respondent Venedicto, who had promised Hernandez that the promissory note and second mortgage would be recorded, never recorded those documents. Further, Respondents never delivered the original copy of the promissory note and mortgage to Hernandez despite her repeated demands. Hernandez later discovered that Respondent Venedicto was not the sole owner of the property which she had attempted to mortgage but jointly owned the property with her son. Accordingly, Respondent Venedicto's signature would not be sufficient to perfect a mortgage on the property. Hernandez also discovered that the mortgage, represented by Bustillo and Venedicto to be a second mortgage, was not. There were already two mortgages on the property. Had Hernandez known the true ownership and the true encumbrances on the property, she would not have loaned Venedicto the $15,000 because that raised the total amount of mortgages on the property to be in excess of the value of the property. Three checks which were subsequently written by Respondent Bustillo from the operating accounts of Respondent Virmar and of Mega Group Corp. were dishonored by the bank with the notation "N. S. F." As a result of those checks, Hernandez obtained default final judgments against Respondent Virmar and against Mega Group Corp., which final judgments are still unsatisfied. Prior to that time, however, Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo approached Hernandez regarding their need to borrow $35,000 to be re-paid in 30 days in conjunction with some real estate development in which Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo were involved. Respondent Venedicto and Respondent Bustillo each individually represented that Hernandez would have her money back in 30 days. Respondent Bustillo told Hernandez that Respondent Venedicto was in business with Bustillo and was selling real estate in Mexico. Bustillo asked Hernandez to make the check payable to Bustillo's company Terra Title. Hernandez went to the offices of Respondent Virmar and handed her personal check made payable to Terra Title to Respondent Venedicto. When the 30 days had passed with no payments to Hernandez, she went to Virmar Investments and made Respondent Venedicto sign a promissory note for $35,000. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Hernandez had recovered only $15,000 of the $35,000 loan made to Respondent Venedicto and had recovered only the principal amount of the money supposed to have been secured by a second mortgage on real property. Hernandez is still owed $20,000 in principal alone.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the license of Respondent Martha M. Bustillo, revoking the license of Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., and requiring Respondent Olga Venedicto to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days from the entry of the Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3328, 93-3329, and 93-3330 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-18, 20-29, and 31-33 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 30 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 25, 26, 28, 37, 42, 49-52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 69, 71, and 73 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 6, 11-17, 19-22, 30- 36, 43, 46-48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 67 and 68 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 10, 23, 29, 61, 64, 65, 70, 72, and 75 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 24, 27, 38-41, 44, and 45 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 59, 66, 74, and 76-78 are rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Ofer M. Amir, Esquire Amir & Associates, P.A. 8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 500 Plantation, Florida 33324 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Vickie Ann Hay is, and at all times material to this case was, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license #1483791. The most recent license was issued as a broker-salesman to AAIM Realty Group, Inc., 38 Homestead Road, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936-6646. In or about March of 1990, Respondent Hay, while licensed and operating as a real estate salesman in the employ of C. Bagins First, Inc., was contacted by Vicki Wright, daughter of Respondent Regas. Ms. Wright told Respondent Hay that Ms. Wright had referred buyers interested in purchasing numerous vacant lots. During March and April of 1990, Respondent Hay used her father's name as a "straw buyer" and prepared approximately 173 contractual offers to purchase vacant lots from various owners at various prices. The offers recited that the "straw buyer' had placed in escrow a $100 deposit with Fleetwood Title Corporation with each offer to purchase. There were no such deposits made. Some of the offers were accepted verbally and others were accepted in writing by the sellers. With 173 offers being made, there should have been a total escrow deposit of $17,300 made in connection with the offers to purchase. There were no deposits made. Respondent Hay knew or should have known that no deposits were made. Respondent Hay failed to properly advise the sellers and other real estate licensees, at the time the offers to purchase were presented, that the deposits had not been made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order reprimanding Respondent Vickie Ann Hay, placing the licensee on probation for a period of one year, imposing a fine of $1,000, and requiring Respondent Hay to complete a 45 hour salesman's postlicensing course. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 2nd day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent Vickie Ann Hay did not file a proposed recommended order. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order, except as follows: 3. At hearing, the Petitioner amended the allegation to state that Ms. Wright "referred" buyers interested in purchasing the lots. 6-7. Rejected, irrelevant. The allegations related to Respondent Regas were severed and are not relevant to this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 (407) 423-6134 Ms. Vickie Ann Hay 811 Fireside Court Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936 (813) 368-6444 Robert L. Ratliff, III, Esq. 2359 Periwinkle Way Sanibel Island, Florida 33957
The Issue An Administrative complaint dated April 13, 1999, alleges that Respondent Mr. Stevens violated several provisions of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, when he failed to return an earnest money deposit to a buyer after being directed to do so by the seller, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The issues in this proceeding are whether Mr. Stevens committed the violation and if so what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Collie E. Stevens, has been licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate broker since 1986. Prior to that year he was licensed as a real estate salesperson in Florida. In 1996 Mr. Stevens represented the seller, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in the sale of a home in Orange County, Florida. On October 1, 1996, Doris Wright executed an Offer to Purchase and Contract of Sale for the home. When she signed the contract Ms. Wright gave the broker, Mr. Stevens, a check for $675.00 as an earnest money deposit. Mr. Stevens deposited the check into his escrow account. Later, in October or November 1996, Ms. Wright withdrew her offer to purchase the property. The VA regional office provided a notice to Mr. Stevens dated November 20, 1996, directing him to return the earnest money deposit to Ms. Wright. Mr. Stevens never returned the money to Ms. Wright although she made several requests through his secretary and made several attempts to contact him directly. Mr. Stevens alleges that he is entitled to retain at least $250.00 of the $675.00 deposit because that was the mortgage company's fee for processing Ms. Wright's mortgage application. Mr. Stevens claims that Ms. Wright authorized him to pay that fee on her behalf when she was not in town; Ms. Wright does not dispute that claim. Mr. Stevens also argues that he should be entitled to the remainder of the deposit money because Ms. Wright cancelled a listing agreement for him to sell her house. Ms. Wright disputes this claim and Mr. Stevens did not produce any contract or document evidencing such an agreement. During the pendancy of his dispute with Ms. Wright over entitlement to the deposit Mr. Stevens never notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of the dispute nor did he submit the matter to arbitration, mediation, or any court. Mr. Stevens insists that he could have worked out his differences with Ms. Wright and that he was always willing to give her $425.00, left after deducting $250.00 for the processing fee from the $675.00 deposit. In 1996, in another case, Mr. Stevens was disciplined by the Florida Real Estate Commission for culpable negligence or breach of trust, failure to give notice of his representation of a party, failure to maintain trust funds in an escrow account, and failure to preserve and make available brokerage records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order finding that Collie E. Stevens is guilty of a violation of Sections 475.25(1)(d)1. and 475.25(1)(0), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that the Florida Real Estate Commission suspend his license for two years and require him to complete a 7-hour escrow management course and a 60-hour post-licensure course, and that he pay the costs associated with this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 19th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea D. Perkins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 308N Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Collie E. Stevens Son Set Free Realty, Inc. 2294 North U.S. One Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent met Sibley Dennis Carpenter, Jr. (Carpenter) in 1974 or 1975, in connection with a land sale that is not otherwise relevant to this matter. In the summer of 1975, Carpenter asked respondent for assistance in obtaining financing for another, separate land transaction. On that occasion, Carpenter furnished respondent an unaudited, personal financial statement, prepared by an accounting firm, which put the net worth of Carpenter and his wife at slightly less than a half million dollars. On November 19, 1975, respondent became affiliated with Dennis Carpenter Realty, Inc., as a real estate salesman. Because he had other irons in the fire, he only appeared at the office of Dennis Carpenter Realty, Inc., once every month or two. Not until the spring of the following year, after he had been licensed as a real estate broker, did respondent have access to the company's books. In November of 1975, respondent met one Charles W. Van Cura, a hog farmer from Minnesota who expressed an interest in buying land in Florida, and referred Mr. Van Cura to Carpenter. Carpenter, possibly in the company of respondent, showed Mr. Van Cura certain real property belonging to Harvey H. Westphal and Margaret Westphal. Mr. Van Cura made an offer of one hundred fifteen thousand dollars ($115,000.00) for the property and deposited seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) with Carpenter towards the purchase price, as evidenced by a binder receipt and deposit, dated December 31, 1975, and signed by Carpenter. Respondent's exhibit No. 1. Carpenter presented the offer to the Westphals, who refused Mr. Van Cura's offer but made a counteroffer of one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000.00), by crossing out Mr. Van Cura's figures, substituting their own and signing their names. Both the offer and the counteroffer were "subject to receiving Federal Land Bank Loan of 70 percent of purchase price . . ." Van Cura told Carpenter he was unwilling to accept the Westphals' counteroffer. Carpenter persuaded respondent to buy the property himself, and, on January 6, 1976, Carpenter, respondent and Van Cura met in respondent's office. After some discussion, respondent drew two checks aggregating seventy- five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) to Van Cura's order. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 6. Van Cura executed a receipt, respondent's exhibit No. 2, reciting that he had received seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) from respondent. At the time of this transaction, Carpenter could not have refunded Van Cura's deposit from the escrow account of Dennis Carpenter Realty, Inc., because there were insufficient funds in the account. Unbeknownst to respondent, Carpenter had never deposited Van Cura's money in the escrow account. On January 30, 1976, Carpenter drew up a written offer on behalf of respondent to purchase the Westphal property for one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000.00). Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. The binder receipt and deposit recited that respondent "and or assigns" had deposited seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) with Carpenter in earnest money. Although the Westphals accepted this offer, the transaction never closed, for reasons which were not developed in the evidence. The Westphals never made demand for the seventy-five hundred dollar ($7,500.00) deposit, and respondent never got the money back from Carpenter. Respondent has since decided to "treat it . . . as a loan, or write it off." (R119) At no time did respondent relate to the Westphals the history of the earnest money deposit. In May of 1976, respondent was licensed as a real estate broker, and became secretary-treasurer of Dennis Carpenter Realty, Inc. Respondent and Carpenter agreed between themselves that the corporation should open an escrow account on which each could draw individually. This is reflected by a corporate resolution, dated May 4, 1976. Respondent's exhibit No. 7. Such an account was opened. When the first bank statement revealed to respondent that Carpenter had drawn improper checks against the escrow account, however, a second corporate resolution was drafted, dated July 23, 1976, respondent's exhibit No. 9, which authorized respondent, but not Carpenter, to draw against the escrow account.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. W. O. Birchfield, Esquire 3000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact Developers Diversified Services Limited, an Ohio limited partnership (DDS) , entered into negotiations with petitioners with a view toward acquiring certain property owned by petitioners in Pasco County (the Santos tract) for use as part of a shopping center site. It was understood on all sides that the Santos tract would he unsuitable for this purpose without another, contiguous parcel which was owned by a bank. As a result of these negotiations, on April 23, 1974, petitioner Bay Crest Plaza, Inc. executed a deed to the Santos tract in favor of DDS. Respondent's exhibit No. 2. Attached to this deed are stamps reflecting payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) and of documentary surtax in the amount of two hundred seventeen and one half dollars ($217.50). The remaining named petitioners executed a second deed to the same Santos tract in favor of DDS, on April 23, 1974. Respondent's exhibit No. 1. Attached to this deed are stamps reflecting payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of six hundred seventy-five dollars ($675.00) and of documentary surtax in the amount of two hundred forty-seven and one half dollars ($247.50). Both conveyances (of the same property) were subject to an outstanding mortgage in favor of Mr. and Mrs. James L. Stevens in the original amount of one hundred thirty-one thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($131,250.00). On April 25, 1974, DDS executed a purchase money mortgage to secure payment of a promissory note in the amount of two hundred six thousand three hundred two and sixty-nine hundredths dollars ($206,302.69) , in favor of petitioners. The mortgage provided that "there is and will be no personal liability of the mortgagor. Respondent's exhibit No. 3. The deeds executed by petitioners in favor of DDS anci DDS' mortgage in favor of petitioners were all recorded in Pasco County on August 12, 1974, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court. There is no issue in the present case with respect to taxes due on account of the recording of any of these instruments. When it became clear that the bank was unwilling to sell the parcel DDS sought to buy from it, DDS reconveyed the Santos tract to petitioners by deed dated November 11, 1974. The deed from DDS to petitioners was filed in Pasco County in the office of the clerk of the circuit court on December 27, 1974. Attached to this deed are stamps reflecting payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of thirty cents ($0.30) and of documentary surtax in the amount of fifty-five cents ($0.55). Thereafter, petitioners executed a satisfaction of the purchase money mortgage DDS had executed in favor of petitioners on April 25, 1974, and the satisfaction was filed in Pasco County in the office of the clerk of the circuit court on January 24, 1975.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's revised notice of proposed assessment be upheld. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank and Aniana Santos Frank and Ruby Johnson 36 Sandpiper Road Tampa, Florida 33609 Patricia S. Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
