Findings Of Fact The facts here involved were not in dispute. Prior to February, 1973 Respondent, Michael L. Whitman, had a listing on the acreage here involved. On February 26, 1973 Gifford Realty Company procured a buyer for this property and an Option to Purchase was executed. (Exhibit1). This agreement provided that sellers would pay Whitman, for services rendered, a commission of 10 percent of the purchase price and Whitman was to divide the commission equally with Gifford. Thereafter on April 27, 1973 the sellers and buyers entered into an agreement (Exhibit 2) to transfer the property from seller to buyer upon terms and conditions similar to the option, which terms and conditions are contained in Exhibit 2. One condition of the agreement, not relevant to the issues here involved, was that the buyer would be able to have the property rezoned to RPF- 15, which would allow multi-family dwellings to be erected thereon. When application for rezoning request for multi-family dwellings. After general agreement between all parties the Agreement to Purchase the property was assigned to Pinellas County. On December 11, 1973 the original sellers and buyers executed an additional agreement (Exhibit 3) which modified Exhibit 2 respecting zoning, approved the assignment of the contract to the county, and provided for closing after August 1, 1974 but no later than August 7, 1974. In the Agreement (Exhibit 5) between the original buyers and the county, the purchase of the property was contingent upon the county acquiring federal funds. When it subsequently became evident that federal funds could not be obtained the county elected to purchase the property in accordance with the terms of the original agreement a modified by the time of closing as contained in Exhibit 3. During the period in 1974 prior to August, some question arose whether or not the county would purchase the property without the benefit of federal funds, and when the county representative proceeded to the scheduled closing on August 7, 1974, the sellers did not appear. After changes of breach of contract were exchanged between the sellers and the county the closing of the transaction occurred on September 4, 1974. The sale price of the property was $792,4000 and the commission due thereon was $79,240. Unbeknownst to Gifford, Whitman had agreed with the sellers to accept $20,000 case at closing and a promissory note for the remaining $59,240 of the commission payable over a five-year period. Following the closing Respondent Whitman forwarded to Gifford $10,000 and a copy of the promissory note payable to Whitman executed by the sellers. Gifford demanded payment of his full share of the commission ($39,620) forthwith. Alternatively he demanded that his share of the commission be paid in full fro the proceeds of the promissory note prior to Whitman receiving any commission. When these demands were rebuffed Gifford engaged an attorney who proposed litigation. When the first annual installment on the note was due and paid to Whitman, Gifford demanded his share (Exhibit 9). By this time Whitman, too, had engaged the services of an attorney who advised Whitman to withhold disbursement of the note payment received until Gifford agreed to settle the dispute other than by litigation.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device in a real estate transaction in violation of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes. Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked or suspended or whether the Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered real estate salesperson who holds license no. 0098090. He was employed as a "listing solicitor" by World Wide Property Services, Inc., a registered real estate broker (now dissolved) for about a month, from December, 1975 to January, 1976, soliciting listings for real estate in Florida. The solicitation was by telephone nationwide except Florida Seymour L. Rottman was President of World Wide Property Services, Inc. and Lee Small was Vice President of the corporation during the time Respondent was employed. The purpose of World Wide Property Services, Inc. was to secure listings of and purchasers for various Florida properties. Mr. Rottman subpoenaed witness for Petitioner at subject hearing. During Respondent's period of employment he and Mr. Small were in charge of hiring salesmen for the company and hired Respondent. Respondent was employed to obtain listings by telephone from property owners who lived out of state but owned Florida property. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out of state land owner picked from a list of prospects and inquire if he or she would be interested in selling their property at a higher price than it had been purchased for. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as a "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing the property, his or her name was provided to World Wide Property Services, Inc. who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell the property. Enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to World Wide Property Services, Inc. which would be credited against a 10 percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, the corporation agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring and cateloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that the property would be "analyzed", comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price baked on recent sales of neighboring property and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the curse of the calls to prospects Respondent advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States and that bona fide efforts would be made to sell the property. She represented herself as a salesman for that organization. After the promotional literature was sent to the prospect, the salesmen including Respondent, made what was called a "drive" call to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls Respondent had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee was $325. The salesmen received approximately one-third of the fee, about $100 per listing. The salesmen, including Respondent, telephoned the prospects and then read from the script entitled "front" and "drive". The instructions from the broker was to stay within the script but Respondent was not monitored at all times. During the course of operation of less than a year World Wide Property Services, Inc. secured about 200 listings and grossed approximately $80,000 to $90,000 in the "advance fee" listings, but no sales were made. Respondent said he visited the properties World Wide Property Services, Inc. had for sale in Florida and that most of it was salable. Respondent testified that he read from the script heretofore referred to as "front" and "drive" but varied it from time to time. He was aware of articles stating foreign investors were interested in buying Florida property and thought it entirely possible. Respondent did not attempt to make sales inasmuch as it was not the job for which he was employed. Petitioner contends: that while a salesman for World Wide Property Services, Inc. Respondent solicited and obtained listings by telephone of property owners and that as an inducement to list the property, falsely represented that the property could be sold for a price far in excess of its purchase price; that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property and that it would be listed nationally and internationally and that the company had foreign investors wanting to purchase United States property; that Respondent solicited Frank Austin, a number of times by telephone and induced him to send to World Wide Property Services, Inc. $285.00 claiming Mr. Austin's property bought for $4,700 could be sold for $14,000 `but that no offer to purchase was ever made. Respondent contends: that he never misrepresented or fraudulently represented anything to any client; induced any potential customer to get his money and that the property was mostly salable.
Recommendation Reprimand the Respondent in writing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Clifford C. Woodard 231 Roxboro East Longwood, Florida 32750
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the previously unclaimed property held by Respondent in the form of cash realized from the sale of 24 shares of AT&T.
Findings Of Fact Originally residents of New Hampshire, the now-deceased Flora and William Keniston vacationed annually in Tampa. During their visits, they became good friends with Herman Ortmann. At some point, Mr. Ortmann suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Keniston that they share his home with him--rent-free--during their annual September-to-April stay in Florida. The Kenistons accepted his suggestion and, for five or six winters, occupied Mr. Ortmann's home, which is located at 3102 Paul Avenue. Mr. Ortmann died on March 8, 1966. In his will, Mr. Ortmann left five dollars to his son and the residue of his estate to Petitioner, who was his cousin. On December 19, 1966, Petitioner, as executrix of Mr. Ortmann's estate, conveyed all interest in the Paul Avenue property to Mr. Keniston for $5500. On the same date, Mr. Keniston conveyed the fee simple interest in the Paul Avenue property, subject to a life estate in himself, to Petitioner and her husband. After the sale of the Paul Avenue property, Petitioner helped the Kenistons, who did not have a car, with many chores, such as taking them to buy groceries, attend church, and get hair cuts. On November 15, 1975, Mr. Keniston died. Following Mr. Keniston's death, Petitioner helped Mrs. Keniston, who no longer had a legal interest in the Paul Avenue property, find a new residence in a home shared by several unrelated adults of similar age. Petitioner testified that Mrs. Keniston lived several years in this home; however, her death certificate states that she died on October 4, 1976-- less than one year after the death of her husband. By operation of law, Petitioner and her husband acquired the fee simple interest in the Paul Avenue residence upon Mr. Keniston's death, and Petitioner remains in the house today. When Mrs. Keniston moved from the Paul Avenue property, she handed Petitioner two certificates evidencing ownership of 12 shares, each, in American Telephone and Telegraph Company (ATT). Mrs. Keniston instructed Petitioner to use these stock certificates to pay for Mrs. Keniston's funeral and "keep the rest." However, Mrs. Keniston, who was the sole registered owner of both certificates, never executed any instrument transferring an interest in these certificates to Petitioner. After delivering the certificates to Petitioner, Mrs. Keniston continued to receive and cash her monthly dividend checks of approximately $28. After Mrs. Keniston's death, Petitioner bought her a casket and paid for the funeral, at a total cost of about $3000. Petitioner retained the original stock certificates, but, after obtaining legal advice, determined that the she could not sell the certificates due to the absence of an assignment. Petitioner did not file a claim against the estate of Mrs. Keniston for reimbursement of the $3000, and Petitioner has not otherwise been reimbursed for these expenses. Petitioner has retained the original stock certificates. At some point, ATT transferred either the stock-- presumably by replacement stock certificates--or its cash equivalent to Respondent as unclaimed property; the value of the property at the time of the transfer was $1154.70. If ATT transferred the stock to Respondent, Respondent has since sold it. Either way, Respondent maintains the cash derived from the sale of the ATT stock in a noninterest-bearing account. Due to periodic payments received since its transfer to Respondent-- probably dividend payments earned prior to Respondent's sale of the stock--the current value of the account is $3081.04 (Account). Mrs. Keniston died intestate. By Order of Summary Administration entered May 24, 2000, the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Probate Division, ordered an immediate distribution among four persons of Mrs. Keniston's assets, which consist of the Account. The order states that all interested persons were served with notice of the hearing or waived notice of the hearing, even though neither Petitioner nor Respondent seems to have received notice of the hearing. The order acknowledges that Respondent holds the Account and authorizes persons holding any property of the decedent to transfer it, pursuant to the order. On June 16, 2000, the representative of the four heirs named in the probate order filed with Respondent a claim of ownership of the Account. On June 1, 2000, Petitioner filed with Respondent a claim of ownership of the Account. Determining that Mrs. Keniston was the actual owner of the Account, Respondent concluded that her four heirs were entitled to the Account. On May 8, 2001, Respondent filed with the probate court a Motion to Vacate Order and Reopen Summary Administration. The probate court had not taken any additional action by the time of the final hearing in this case.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order awarding the Account to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Robert F. Milligan Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level 09 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Denise Douglas Qualified Representative 2616 Jetton Avenue Tampa, Florida 33629 Staci A. Bienvenu Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Linda Dunphy, Esquire Post Office Box 16008 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue, is entitled to documentary stamp tax in accordance with Section 201.02, Florida Statutes, in the amount of $326.10 and penalty in the like amount of $326.10 in accordance with Section 201.17, Florida Statutes, for a transaction between Petitioners in an assignment of interest of Gallagher's of Miami, Inc., to the Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners were the stockholders of Gallagher's of Miami, Inc. Among the assets of Gallagher's of Miami, Inc., were the rights under a sublease undertaken between B.G.L. Corporation and Gallagher's of Miami, Inc. dated September 25, 1976 and recorded in Official Record Book 5663, at page 261 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. This sublease was an amendment to a sublease which was dated June 1, 1976, recorded in Official Record Book 4768, Page 176 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, between B.G.L. Corporation, a Florida corporation as lessor, and KSJ Corporation, a Florida corporation as lessee. One of the conditions of Gallagher's lease obligation was responsibility for the payment of a mortgage dated May 1, 1965, recorded in Official Record Book 4592, at Page 161, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, from KSJ Corporation, a Florida corporation to Joseph Z. Lipsky and Evalyn Lipsky, as amended by agreement dated August 30, 1965 between KSJ Corporation and Joseph Z. Lipsky and Evalyn Lipsky. Pursuant to a plan of liquidation of Gallagher's of Miami, Inc. that corporation executed and delivered to Petitioners an assignment of the lessee's interest in the aforementioned lease to which Gallagher's of Miami, Inc. was a party. The assignment of lease can be found as Exhibit A to the Petition filed by the Petitioners. The contents of such assignment are found to be fact. By letters of July 30, 1975 and March 10, 1975, the Respondent indicated its intention to assess tax in the amount of $326.10 upon the document representing the assignment between Gallagher's of Miami, Inc. and the Petitioners. The amount of documentary stamp tax was premised on the aforementioned mortgage which at the time of the proposed assessment was valued at $108,750. In addition the Respondent indicated its intention to impose a penalty in a like amount of $326.10. The assignment was in fact executed, pursuant to a plan of liquidation, which plan is shown as Petitioners' Exhibit C attached to the petition. The Petitioners' Exhibit C is established as fact. Petitioners in receiving the assignment in liquidation of Gallagher's of Miami, Inc. received such assignment in proportion to their stock holdings in that corporation. The assessments of $326.10 for documentary stamp tax and $326.10 in penalty on such assessment, and the challenge to the assessments are the subject matter in this cause. Subsequent to the assignment of leases and agreement between Gallagher's of Miami, Inc. and the Petitioners a further assignment was made between the Petitioners and Stan-Mil, Inc. of the same property which took place on December 16, 1974.
Recommendation It is recommended that the assessment of documentary stamp tax under 201.02 F.S. in the amount of $326.10 and the penalty in the amount of $326.10, as a penalty pursuant to 201.17 F.S. be set aside. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Lewis M. Kanner, Esquire Williams, Salomon, Kanner & Damian 1003 DuPont Building 169 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Caroline C. Mueller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the decision to award the bid for Parcel No. 93S101, State Road 84 Spur, was in accordance with the governing rules and statutes or was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact In October of 1993 the Respondent declared that a spur property located at State Road 84 (the subject matter of these proceedings) was a surplus parcel. Such property is comprised of two identifiable tracts identified in this record as parcel 101-A and parcel 101-B. The Respondent utilizes a manual entitled "Disposal of Surplus Real Property" as its guide for the procedures used to comply with statutory and rule provisions regarding the disposal of surplus parcels. Since 1993 the Department has made several attempts to market the spur property. Such attempts included offering parcel 101-A to the Petitioner for no consideration. As recently as October of 2000 the Department offered the spur property to the Petitioner at no cost. The offer did include some conditions but same did not materially affect whether or not Davie would or could accept the transfer. For whatever reasons, the Petitioner did not accept the offer. Subsequently, the Respondent withdrew the offer in writing. Additionally, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that it intended to make the spur property (both parcels) available to the public through the competitive bid process. It was contemplated that the bid process would allow any person from the public to competitively place bids for the subject property. Nevertheless, the Petitioner was advised that it would be given an opportunity to acquire the property. A letter of February 7, 2001, from the Department to the Petitioner advised the town of its right to acquire the property but did not in any manner prohibit or prevent the Town of Davie from bidding on the spur property. In fact, the Petitioner did not bid on the subject property. Further, the Petitioner did not and does not intend to purchase the subject property. The only way the Intervenor seeks to acquire the property is without cost. The Petitioner had actual knowledge of the Department's intention of making the property available through competitive bid. The Town of Davie did nothing to oppose the bid process. On May 30, 2001, the spur properties were advertised for competitive bidding with sealed bids to be opened by the Department on June 14, 2001. On June 21, 2001, the Town of Davie by and through its town administrator contacted the Department in order to exercise the town's right of refusal on the property. Accordingly, on June 25, 2001, the Respondent posted a notice stating it would reject all bids. On July 12, 2001, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that it had ten days to exercise its right to purchase the property. In connection with the proposed sale the Department offered the property to the Town of Davie at the approved appraised value of $1.9 million. The Petitioner made no counter-offer. Instead, on July 27, 2001, the Town of Davie responded to the offer stating it would accept the parcel for a public purpose for no consideration. Thereafter, the Respondent posted a "Revised Bid Tabulation" indicating it would award the spur property to the highest responsive bidder, the Intervenor. The Petitioner has not proposed to pay for the spur property. The Petitioner did not have an appraisal of the spur property prepared. The Petitioner did not bid on the spur property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order confirming the award of the spur property to the Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael T. Burke, Esquire Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke & George, P.A. 790 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 400 Post Office Box 030220 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33303-0220 Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Respondent David Henry Charnack was connected with Property Resale Service, Inc., as a registered real estate salesman, from April 17, 1974, to March 7, 1975.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, is now and was at all times alleged, a registered real estate broker, and from January 31, 1974, to January 7, 1975, an active firm member of International Land Services Chartered, Inc., a registered corporate broker, and was acting in that capacity. Whether or not from January 31, 1974, to January 7, 1975, the Respondent, in the capacity of active firm member of International Land Services Chartered, Inc., solicited by telephone and mail, property owners nationwide, on the subject of their real property interest in the State of Florida, to obtain a fee in return for a listing to sell property; by representing and holding out to the property owners that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property so listed with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Whether or not the representation holding out that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property listed with international Land Services Chartered, Inc., was false and was known to be false when made. Whether or not property owners acted in reliance of the comments by Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, and listed their property for sale with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and paid a listing fee. Whether or not the solicitation of property owners nationwide was wholly a scheme to fraudulently secure money from the public, i.e., the advance listing fees, for reason that no bona fide effort was made to sell the properties so listed with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Whether or not by reason of the foregoing, the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or devise, or breach of trust in a business transaction in this state; and has violated the duty imposed upon him by law or the terms of a listing contract in a real estate transaction; and has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in said misconduct and has committed an overt act in furtherance of such intent, design, or scheme in violation of 5475.25(1)(a), F.S. Whether or not for the reason of the foregoing factual allegations set forth above, the Respondent is guilty of a conduct of practices which show that he is so dishonest and untruthful that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors and those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation may not safely be entrusted to him, all in violation of 5475.25(3), F.S.
Findings Of Fact From January 31, 1974, to January 7, 1975, the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, was an active firm member of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and was acting in the capacity of registered corporate broker. He was a holder of certificate number 0133731 during that time sequence. That license was held with the Florida Real Estate Commission, the Petitioner. Beginning with January 31, 1974, and continuing to the present, Kenneth Kasha was also the holder of what is now certificate number 0046189, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission by Kenneth Kasha as real estate broker to trade as Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During the tenure of his affiliation with International Land Services Chartered, Inc., from January 31, 1974, to January 7, 1975, Kenneth Kasha was the Secretary of that corporation. (The facts of his Iicensure by the Petitioner and his affiliation with the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., are more completely described in the Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 10, admitted into evidence.) In the pendancy of his service for the above-mentioned corporation, Kenneth Kasha was involved in the advertising of properties which had been solicited from out-of-state owners who owned land in the State of Florida. His involvement in this advertising is established by the Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. Through this exhibit it is demonstrated that the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., was advertising with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. More specifically, the invoices in the exhibit have assigned reference numbers which correspond to the advertising sheet which was placed with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. These sheets would show a number of listings of property which had been solicited from out-of-state owners who had paid a fee for the right to have their properties listed through International Land Services Chartered, Inc., who in turn advertised in National Multiple Listing, Inc. The circulation of those listings may he traced by taking the reference number in the left margin on the individual listing sheet of National Multiple Listing, Inc., found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, and comparing this with the certificates of circulation which are Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 12, and which have a comparable reference number affixed. By doing this, it can be seen that the circulation of the individual listing sheets by National Multiple Listing, Inc., numbered as many as 2,500 contacts. An examination of the advertising done through National Multiple Listing, Inc., demonstrates that a potential purchaser could not determine the exact location of the land. At best that purchaser could locate the subdivision and development, municipality and/or county and state and the general size of the tracts of land. Some of the property does not have a purchase price. Therefore, the quality of the advertising that was done is somewhat suspect. At the time the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., was billed, it was in the name of Kenneth Kasha, who tendered payment in behalf of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Moreover, when the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., had signed an agreement with National Multiple Listing, Inc., to have the latter corporation do the advertising for International, it had signed in the person of Kenneth Kasha and took effect on March 1, 1974. The period of the contract was for one year and this is shown by Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. A further understanding of Kenneth Kasha's involvement with the listings of out-of-state owners of Florida property through International Land Services Chartered, Inc., may be found in the testimony of Marvin Rothstein. Roths to in worked for the corporation approximately 3 or 4 weeks full time and then part time and in total obtained 10 or 15 listings for the benefit of the corporation. Mr. Rothstein described the technique for listing the out-of-state owners of Florida property with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. (These listings have been referred to as "advance fee" listings, and will be so referenced in the balance of this Recommended Order.) Mr. Rothstein had seen an advertisement in the paper placed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc., advertising for the employment of real estate salesmen. He answered that advertisement and was interviewed by Kenneth Kasha for a job with the subject corporation. Kasha explained to Rothstein that his duties would be to contact people by phone and find out if they would like to have their property listed. There were 4 or 5 other salesmen involved in International Land Services Chartered, Inc's, employ whose function it was to make the contacts and solicit listings. The salesmen worked in the evening hours 3 or 4 hours a night and would call the out-of-state owners and ask if they wanted to list their property with the corporation, International Land Services Chartered, Inc. The corporation had given the salesmen so-called lead cards to contact the people. (The office in which the salesmen were ,working was a very small office with 5 or 6 phones.) Mr. Rothstein described the contact with the out-of-state owners to be one to obtain a listing, in opposition to an effort to try and sell the property of the out-of-state owner. Mr. Kasha was the supervisor of the activities of the salesmen who were working at night. Through the Rothstein testimony, it is established that there was a script which the salesmen were called upon to follow. The salesmen would introduce themselves to the prospective landowner/client and ask if the landowner would be willing to list their property for resale. If the owner was interested, certain materials were mailed to the owner for their perusal, prior to any agreement for resale. The mailouts were made after positive responses that Mr. Rothstein would be given when he made his inquiry about listing the property. Mr. Rothstein is unfamiliar with the materials that were mailed out. He was never responsible for making a second contact with the parties initially solicited. He does know that a fee was charged for listing the property with International Land Services Chartered, Inc., and the purpose of the fee was explained to the parties to be for expenses for listing the property and for whatever other expenses that might be incurred by the corporation. Rothstein is unfamiliar with what the exact expenses would have been for the corporation to fulfill the functions of taking care of listings. To Rothstein's recollection, the amount of fee for listing was $25 or $50, that is the amount he would receive for obtaining a listing agreement with the out-of-state owner. He is not certain what the International Land Services Chartered, Inc., received as their portion of the listing fee. There was no agreement that Rothstein himself would be compensated by commission should the property be sold. Rothstein was also unfamiliar with the method which the corporation used to arrive at an asking price for the listed property. Rothstein was unaware of any appraisals that may have been done by the corporation during the tenure of his employment with the corporation. His knowledge of the advertising method was that there were multiple listings. These multiple listings would equate to the form of listings placed with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. One other matter that was discussed in the initial solicitation, was the fact that the possible purchasers of the land were constituted of foreign as well as domestic buyers. This comment was in connection with the overall statement that the owners were being solicited for a listing to bring about the resale of the property. Rothstein said that he did not know of any sales of the property during the time he worked for International Land Services Chartered, Inc. An examination of the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, which is a profit and loss statement for the period in question, indicates that income derived from the International Land Services Chartered, Inc.'s business activities far exceeded advertising and other expenses labeled as selling expenses. That document, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, does not indicate whether there was income derived from sources other than the "advance fee" listings. Moreover, there was no testimony given in the course of the hearing which would clearly identify the amount of money that was received from owners who desired the services of the "advance fee" listing. Finally, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate through competent evidence the true nature of the specific details of the follow-up written information which was submitted to the potential client once that client had been solicited in the initial contact phase. On balance there is insufficient testimony to prove that the solicitation of the property owners was a scheme to fraudulently secure money from the public through "advance fee" listings, or that no bona fide effort was made to sell the properties that were listed with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Consequently, the Petitioner has failed to show that the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device or breach of trust in a business transaction in this state; or that Kenneth Kasha has violated the duty imposed on him by law or the terms of listing contract in a real estate transaction, or that he has formed an intent, design or scheme to engage in said misconduct or has committed an overt act in furtherance of such intent, design, or scheme in violation of 475.25(I)(a), P.S. Furthermore, the Petitioner has failed to establish that Kenneth Kasha is guilty of a course of conduct or practice which shows that he is so dishonest and untruthful that the money, property, transactions, and rights of investors and those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation may not safely be entrusted to him, in violation of 475.25(3), P.S.
Recommendation It is Recommended that the Administrative Complaint brought against the Respondent, Kenneth Kasha, who is now licensed by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, under certificate number 0046189, as a real estate broker, he dismissed and set aside. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1973, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Louis Guttmann, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Kenneth Kasha Post Office Box 611238 North Miami, Florida 33161
