09-005890PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Real Estate vs. Arif Zaheer And Vista Horizon Realty, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, April 13, 2010.

Summary: Respondents received funds from clients for a downpayment on commercial property. Not all the funds were placed in escrow, and some of the funds were not returned to clients when requested.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 09-5890PL

)

ARIF ZAHEER AND VISTA HORIZON )

REALTY, INC., )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

on February 19, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, before Susan B.

Harrell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division

of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jennifer Leigh Blakeman, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-801

Orlando, Florida 32801

For Respondent Arif Zaheer:

Daniel Villazon, Esquire

Daniel Villazon, P.A.

1420 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 200

Celebration, Florida 34747

For Respondent Vista Horizon Realty, Inc.:

(No appearance)

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in this case are whether Respondents, Arif

Zaheer and Vista Horizon Realty, Inc., violated Subsections

Florida Statutes (2007), 1 and Florida Administrative Code

Rule 61J2-14.011; whether Respondent Arif Zaheer violated

Subsection 455.227(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.009; and, if so, what

discipline should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 14, 2009, Petitioner, Department of Business and

Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department),

filed administrative complaints against Respondents, Arif Zaheer

(Mr. Zaheer) and Vista Horizon Realty, Inc. (Vista Horizon

Realty), and Martin W. Burnstein (Mr. Burnstein). The cases

were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on

October 26, 2009, for assignment to an Administrative Law Judge

to conduct the final hearing.

The cases were consolidated for final hearing. The

Department and Mr. Burnstein settled the complaint against

Mr. Burnstein, and the file of the Division of Administrative

Hearings involving Mr. Burnstein was closed.

At the final hearing, official recognition was taken of

Subsections 455.227(1)(n), 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1.,

and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61J2-14.009, 61J2-14.010,

and 61J2-14.011.

At the final hearing, the Department called the following

witnesses: Nimisha Patel, Martin Burnstein, Rajendra N. Patel,

Arif Zaheer, and Vinay N. Patel. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1

through 28 were admitted in evidence. Mr. Zaheer testified in

his own behalf. Respondent Zaheer’s Composite Exhibit 1 and

Exhibit 2 were admitted in evidence. Respondent Vista Horizon

Realty did not present any witnesses or submit any exhibits.

The two-volume Transcript was filed on March 10, 2010. At

the final hearing, the Department and Mr. Zaheer agreed to file

their proposed recommended orders within 20 days of the filing

of the Transcript. The Department and Mr. Zaheer timely filed

their Proposed Recommended Orders, which have been considered in

the preparation of this Recommended Order. No post-hearing

submission was filed by Vista Horizon Realty.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department is the state agency charged with the

responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints

against licensed real estate brokers and broker associates in

Florida pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and

475, Florida Statutes.

2. On June 13, 2003, Vista Horizon Realty, trading as

Re/Max Vista, 2 became licensed as a Florida real estate

brokerage, having been issued license CQ-1016846. The license

is current through September 30, 2011.

3. Mr. Burnstein was the qualifying licensed broker for

Vista Horizon Realty at all times material to this proceeding.

4. Mr. Zaheer was issued broker license BK-3049559 and, at

all times material to this proceeding, was a broker sales

associate for and part owner of Vista Horizon Realty.

5. In September 2007, Raj Patel was working as a sales

associate at Vista Horizon Realty. His brother, Dr. Vinay Patel

(Dr. Patel), and sister-in-law, Nimisha Patel (Ms. Patel), were

looking for some investment property in Florida. Raj Patel

found a shopping center located at 1310 Ridgewood Avenue,

Daytona Beach, Florida, that was for sale and advised Dr. Patel

of the availability of the property. Dr. and Ms. Patel (the

Patels) expressed an interest in the Ridgewood Avenue property.

6. Because Raj Patel had little experience in commercial

property transactions, Mr. Zaheer became involved and was the

broker for the transaction.

7. On September 20, 2007, the Patels submitted an offer to

purchase the Ridgewood Avenue property for $1,750,000. The

offer provided that two deposits of $25,000 each would be

required. On September 20, 2007, the Patels wired $50,000 to

Vista Horizon Realty’s bank account ending in 4599, which is an

operating account. The $50,000 represented a deposit on the

Ridgewood Avenue property. The Patels were under the impression

that the $50,000 would be placed in an escrow account. The

$50,000 was never placed in an escrow account.

8. On October 2, 2007, the Patels and Ridgewood Retail

Shoppes, LLC (the Seller), executed a commercial contract for

the purchase of the Ridgewood Avenue property for $1,750,000.

The contract called for a $25,000 deposit, which was to be held

in escrow by the listing broker, Prudential CRES Commercial Real

Estate. The contract also called for another deposit of

$62,500, which was to be made at an unspecified later date. The

contract showed that part of the purchase price would come from

mortgages in the amount of $1,312,500. The balance to close was

listed as $350,000.

9. On October 11, 2007, the Patels made an application for

a loan of $1,575,000 to finance the purchase of the Ridgewood

Avenue property. The loan application indicated that Mr. Zaheer

was the interviewer for the application and that he took the

information by telephone.

10. On November 1, 2007, Ms. Patel sent a check to Vista

Horizon Realty for $37,500. The Patels thought that this money

was to be placed in escrow. However, the money was used to pay

costs associated with processing the loan application.

11. On November 1, 2007, the Patels and the Seller entered

into another contract for the purchase of the Ridgewood Avenue

property. The total purchase price was $1,750,000. The

contract called for a $25,000 deposit, which was to be held in

escrow by Vista Horizon Realty. An additional deposit of

$62,500 was to be made within 46 days of the effective date of

the contract. The amount of the purchase price to be financed

was $1,312,500, and the amount to close was listed as $350,000.

The difference between the contract amount and the amount to be

financed was $437,500.

12. On November 26, 2007, Ms. Patel sent a check to Vista

Horizon Realty for $25,000 as a deposit on the Ridgewood Avenue

Property. The Patels thought that this money would be placed in

an escrow account.

13. Mr. Zaheer sent a letter dated December 29, 2007, on

letterhead of Vista Horizon Realty, stating, “I would like to

thank you for choosing me to be your personal REALTOR®. I

appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you.” Mr. Zaheer

also enclosed his business card, showing that he was a

broker/owner of Vista Horizon Realty.

14. In January 2008, Mr. Zaheer told the Patels that the

bank wanted to see the remainder of the cash money that the

Patels would be using to pay for the Ridgewood Avenue property.

On January 9, 2008, the Patels wired $325,000 to the account of

Vista Horizon Realty. It was the Patels’ understanding that the

$325,000 would be placed in an escrow account.

15. The deposits which the Patels made from September 2007

through January 2008 totaled $437,000. Based on the November 1,

2007, contract, the amount of cash that the Patels would need

for the purchase of the Ridgewood Avenue property was $437,000.

The rest of the purchase price was to be financed.

16. In January 2008, the Patels became concerned that they

did not have a receipt for the moneys which they had placed with

Vista Horizon Realty and requested Mr. Zaheer to give them

something in writing showing that the money had been received

for the purchase of the property. On January 23, 2008, an email

was sent from the email address of Arif Zaheer to the Patels.

The email stated that the email came from Mr. Zaheer.

17. The email stated that the purchase price was

$1,850,000 plus an additional $74,000, which would stay with

Vista Horizon Realty to run the building, bringing the total

price at closing to $1,998,000. The email further showed that

the amount of money to be borrowed was $1,240,000 from Lehman

and $140,000 from the Seller. Further, the email stated that

the following amounts had been received by Vista Horizon Realty:

$50,000; $37,500; $25,000; and $325,000. These amounts total

$437,000. The email stated that the cash balance needed to

close was $180,000. No explanation was given at the final

hearing why the purchase price and the amount to be financed had

changed from the amounts stated in the November 2007 contract.

18. On March 19, 2008, the Seller and the Patels entered

into an addendum to the contract dated November 1, 2007. The

addendum provided that the $25,000 deposit was non-refundable;

changed the purchase price to $1,600,000; showed the total

mortgages at $1,280,000; and showed the balance needed to close

as $295,000.

19. Sometime in May 2008, Mr. Zaheer and Mr. Burnstein

discovered that the $25,000 which the Patels deposited with

Vista Horizon Realty in November 2007 had not been placed in the

escrow account. Based on this discovery, $25,000 was

transferred to the escrow account. Mr. Burnstein was unaware

the $25,000, as well as the other deposits, had been received by

Vista Horizon Realty.

20. On June 11, 2008, Vista Horizon Realty sent a check

for the $25,000 deposit to the Seller. The Patels had failed to

secure financing within the time frames set forth in the

addendum to the purchase contract. The Patels were not advised

that the deposit had been sent to the Seller.

21. In August 2008, the Patels, who thought that the sale

of the Ridgewood Avenue property was still active, contacted

Vista Horizon Realty to find out why they had not gotten any

information on the transaction. The Patels were advised that

the Ridgewood Avenue property had been sold to another buyer.

22. The Patels requested that their money be returned, and

Mr. Zaheer advised them that they would need to sign a Release

and Cancellation of Contract for Sale and Purchase prior to the

release of the escrow amount to the Patels. On August 22, 2008,

the Patels signed a Release and Cancellation of Contract for

Sale and Purchase, releasing the Seller, Prudential CRES

Commercial Real Estate, and Vista Horizon Realty from all

liability and instructing the escrow agent to disburse “all

escrow” to Divany Patel.

23. Mr. Zaheer and Vista Horizon Realty returned $20,000

of the money which the Patels had given them. To date none of

the other moneys which the Patels sent to Vista Horizon Realty

at the request of Mr. Zaheer have been returned. None of the

funds, other than the $25,000 deposit made in November 2007,

were ever placed in an escrow account.

24. Mr. Zaheer readily admits that the Patels are owed

money, but Mr. Zaheer contends that the Patels gave him the

money as part of an investment scheme or that the Patels loaned

him or Vista Horizon Realty the money. Mr. Zaheer’s testimony

is not credible. There is no contract showing that Mr. Zaheer

and the Patels were trying to form a business or that the Patels

loaned him or Vista Horizon Realty the money. Mr. Zaheer used

the money to operate Vista Horizon Realty, which is owned by Mr.

Zaheer and his wife.

25. The $437,000, which the Patels sent to Vista Horizon

Realty at the request of Mr. Zaheer, was for the down payment on

the Ridgewood Avenue property. The Patels got an equity line of

credit on their home in order to get the needed funds.

Additionally, Mr. Patel collected funds from his retirement

account and other accounts to fund the downpayment.

26. The cost of investigation for the investigation of the

case relating to Mr. Zaheer is $775.50. The cost for the

investigation of the case relating to Vista Horizon Realty is

$181.50.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

27. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2009).

28. The Department has the burden to establish the

allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and

convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v.

Osborne Stern and Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996).

29. The Department has alleged that both Respondents

violated the following subsections of Subsection 475.25(1),

Florida Statutes:

(1) The commission may deny an application

for licensure, registration, or permit, or

renewal thereof; may place a licensee,

registrant, or permittee on probation; may

suspend a license, registration, or permit

for a period not exceeding 10 years; may

revoke a license, registration, or permit;

may impose an administrative fine not to

exceed $5,000 for each count or separate

offense; and may issue a reprimand, and any

or all of the foregoing, if it finds that

the licensee, registrant, permittee, or

applicant:

* * *

(b) Has been guilty of fraud,

misrepresentation, concealment, false

promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing

by trick, scheme, or device, culpable

negligence, or breach of trust in any

business transaction in this state or any

other state, nation, or territory; has

violated a duty imposed upon her or him by

law or by the terms of a listing contract,

written, oral, express, or implied, in a

real estate transaction; has aided,

assisted, or conspired with any other person

engaged in any such misconduct and in

furtherance thereof; or has formed an

intent, design, or scheme to engage in any

such misconduct and committed an overt act

in furtherance of such intent, design, or

scheme. It is immaterial to the guilt of

the licensee that the victim or intended

victim of the misconduct has sustained no

damage or loss; that the damage or loss has

been settled and paid after discovery of the

misconduct; or that such victim or intended

victim was a customer or a person in

confidential relation with the licensee or

was an identified member of the general

public.

* * *

(d)1. Has failed to account or deliver to

any person, including a licensee under this

chapter, at the time which has been agreed

upon or is required by law or, in the

absence of a fixed time, upon demand of the

person entitled to such accounting and

delivery, any personal property such as

money, fund, deposit, check, draft, abstract

of title, mortgage, conveyance, lease, or

other document or thing of value, including

a share of a real estate commission if a

civil judgment relating to the practice of

the licensee's profession has been obtained

against the licensee and said judgment has

not been satisfied in accordance with the

terms of the judgment within a reasonable

time, or any secret or illegal profit, or

any divisible share or portion thereof,

which has come into the licensee's hands and

which is not the licensee's property or

which the licensee is not in law or equity

entitled to retain under the circumstances.

However, if the licensee, in good faith,

entertains doubt as to what person is

entitled to the accounting and delivery of

the escrowed property, or if conflicting

demands have been made upon the licensee for

the escrowed property, which property she or

he still maintains in her or his escrow or

trust account, the licensee shall promptly

notify the commission of such doubts or

conflicting demands and shall promptly:

a. Request that the commission issue an

escrow disbursement order determining who is

entitled to the escrowed property;

b. With the consent of all parties, submit

the matter to arbitration;

c. By interpleader or otherwise, seek

adjudication of the matter by a court; or

d. With the written consent of all parties,

submit the matter to mediation. The

department may conduct mediation or may

contract with public or private entities for

mediation services. However, the mediation

process must be successfully completed

within 90 days following the last demand or

the licensee shall promptly employ one of

the other escape procedures contained in

this section. Payment for mediation will be

as agreed to in writing by the parties. The

department may adopt rules to implement this

section.

If the licensee promptly employs one of the

escape procedures contained herein and

abides by the order or judgment resulting

therefrom, no administrative complaint may

be filed against the licensee for failure to

account for, deliver, or maintain the

escrowed property. Under certain

circumstances, which the commission shall

set forth by rule, a licensee may disburse

property from the licensee's escrow account

without notifying the commission or

employing one of the procedures listed in

sub-subparagraphs a.-d. If the buyer of a

residential condominium unit delivers to a

licensee written notice of the buyer's

intent to cancel the contract for sale and

purchase, as authorized by s. 718.503, or if

the buyer of real property in good faith

fails to satisfy the terms in the financing

clause of a contract for sale and purchase,

the licensee may return the escrowed

property to the purchaser without notifying

the commission or initiating any of the

procedures listed in sub-subparagraphs a.-d.

* * *

(e) Has violated any of the provisions of

this chapter or any lawful order or rule

made or issued under the provisions of this

chapter or chapter 455.

* * *

(k) Has failed, if a broker, to immediately

place, upon receipt, any money, fund,

deposit, check, or draft entrusted to her or

him by any person dealing with her or him as

a broker in escrow with a title company,

banking institution, credit union, or

savings and loan association located and

doing business in this state, or to deposit

such funds in a trust or escrow account

maintained by her or him with some bank,

credit union, or savings and loan

association located and doing business in

this state, wherein the funds shall be kept

until disbursement thereof is properly

authorized; or has failed, if a sales

associate, to immediately place with her or

his registered employer any money, fund,

deposit, check, or draft entrusted to her or

him by any person dealing with her or him as

agent of the registered employer. The

commission shall establish rules to provide

for records to be maintained by the broker

and the manner in which such deposits shall

be made. A broker may place and maintain up

to $5,000 of personal or brokerage funds in

the broker's property management escrow

account and up to $1,000 of personal or

brokerage funds in the broker's sales escrow

account. A broker shall be provided a

reasonable amount of time to correct escrow

errors if there is no shortage of funds and

such errors pose no significant threat to

economically harm the public. It is the

intent of the Legislature that, in the event

of legal proceedings concerning a broker's

escrow account, the disbursement of escrowed

funds not be delayed due to any dispute over

the personal or brokerage funds that may be

present in the escrow account.

30. The Department has alleged that both Respondents

violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.011, which

provides:

A broker who receives a deposit shall not

have any right to or lien upon said deposit,

except upon the written agreement or order

of the depositor so long as the depositor or

depositor’s legal representative has sole

control of said deposit, until the

transaction involved has been closed, and no

person has any claim except the party

ultimately to receive the same, in which

case the broker may deduct the agreed

commission unless the amount or time of

payment is disputed. In case of a dispute

as to the amount of the commission, or the

time of payment, the broker may retain only

the amount of the claim in said account and

in trust, until the dispute is settled by

agreement, arbitration, mediation or court

proceedings, as provided in Section

475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. A

depositor has the right to demand return of

a deposit until such time as another party

has acquired some interest or equity,

subject to the right to make an express

agreement to compensate the broker for time

and expense incurred prior to a demand for

the return of the deposit; and such right to

demand return of the deposit shall again

accrue upon a breach by the other party to

the contract or agreement under which it is

held, or the expiration of the time fixed or

a reasonable time, for performance of the

things necessary to establish the exclusive

right of such other party to said deposit.

A broker shall not deliver the deposit to

the other party to the transaction until

such transaction is closed, except as

otherwise directed or agreed to specifically

by the depositor. The interested parties

involved, other than the broker, may by

express agreement, alter the disposal of the

deposit, but the burden shall be on the

broker to establish good faith in the matter

if such agreement is to the broker’s

advantage. The broker shall recognize and

comply with the joint directions of said

parties in such cases, except where the

parties act in bad faith with intent to

deprive the broker of a commission, in which

case the broker shall proceed as provided in

Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.

31. The Department has alleged that Mr. Zaheer violated

Subsection 455.227(1)(n), Florida Statutes, which provides that

“exercising influence on the patient or client for the purpose

of financial gain of the licensee or a third party” subjects a

licensee to disciplinary action.

32. The Department has alleged that Mr. Zaheer has

violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.009, which

provides:

Every sales associate who receives any

deposit, as defined in Rule 61J2-14.008,

Florida Administrative Code, shall deliver

the same to the broker or employer no later

than the end of the next business day

following receipt of the item to be

deposited. Saturday, Sundays and legal

holidays shall not be construed as business

days. Receipt by a sales associate or any

other representative of the brokerage firm

constitutes receipt by the broker for

purposes of paragraph 61J2-14.008(1)(d),

Florida Administrative Code

33. The Department has established by clear and convincing

evidence that Mr. Zaheer and Vista Horizon Realty violated

Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud

and a breach of trust. Mr. Zaheer, as broker and owner of Vista

Horizon Realty, requested that the Patels deposit money for

payment of the purchase price of the Ridgewood Avenue property,

when Mr. Zaheer had no intention of placing the money in an

escrow account to be used toward the purchase of the Ridgewood

Avenue property. Mr. Zaheer and Vista Horizon Realty used the

money to operate Vista Horizon Realty.

34. The Department has established by clear and convincing

evidence that Mr. Zaheer and Vista Horizon Realty violated

Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. The Patels

requested that their deposit money be returned, and Mr. Zaheer

and Vista Horizon Realty, with the exception of $20,000, failed

to return the money to them. No evidence was presented that

there is a dispute as to the amount owed and none of the actions

set forth in Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1.a. through d., Florida

Statutes, have been taken to determine the amount of money in

dispute. Mr. Zaheer readily admits that the Patels are owed

money but disputes that the money owed was involved in the

Ridgewood Avenue property transaction.

35. The Department has established by clear and convincing

evidence that both Respondents violated Florida Administrative

Code Rule 61J2-14.009 and, therefore, violated Subsection

475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Mr. Zaheer and Vista Horizon

Realty received money from the Patels which was to be used for

the purchase of the Ridgewood Avenue property. Mr. Zaheer and

Vista Horizon Realty used a portion of the money from the Patels

to pay the operating expenses of Vista Horizon Realty without

the consent of the Patels.

36. The Department has established by clear and convincing

evidence that both Respondents violated Subsection 475.25(1)(k),

Florida Statutes. The $25,000 deposit which the Patels sent to

Vista Horizon Realty was not placed in an escrow account until

May 2008. Mr. Zaheer directed the Patels to send the remainder

of the money to secure the financing for the purchase of the

Ridgewood Avenue property as a show of good faith to the lending

institution. The remainder of the money which the Patels sent

to Vista Horizon Realty was never placed in an escrow account,

and Mr. Zaheer never intended that the funds be placed in an

escrow account.

37. The Department has established that Mr. Zaheer

violated Subsection 455.227(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by

exercising his influence over the Patels to get them to send

money to Vista Horizon Realty. He used the money for his

personal gain, to operate his realty company. The Patels

trusted him as their broker to put the deposits that were made

into an escrow account and to use the money for the purchase of

the Ridgewood Avenue property.

38. The Department has established by clear and convincing

evidence that Mr. Zaheer violated Florida Administrative Code

Rule 61J2-14.009 by failing to have the Patel’s deposits, other

than the $25,000 deposit, put in an escrow account. Although

Mr. Zaheer was not physically handed a deposit check, he knew

that the deposits were coming to Vista Horizon Realty and should

have been put in an escrow account. He instructed the Patels to

wire money to Vista Horizon Realty’s account; thus, he knew that

the money was going to be sent to the operating account.

Mr. Burnstein, the qualifying broker, was not made aware that

the Patels had made any deposits other than the $25,000 deposit;

therefore, he would not have known that the remainder of the

deposits should have been placed in escrow. Mr. Zaheer knew

that the money had been received by Vista Horizon Realty, but

never intended that the money be put in escrow, other than the

$25,000 deposit.

39. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-24.001 sets

forth the disciplinary guidelines to impose for violations of

Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Florida Administrative

Code Rule 61J2-24.001(3)(c) provides that the recommended

penalty for a violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida

Statutes, involving fraud is revocation, and the penalty for

breach of trust is an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000

and up to a one-year suspension. Discipline for a violation of

Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, ranges from a fine

not to exceed $5,000 and up to a five-year suspension. The

penalty for a violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e) is an eight-

year suspension to revocation and an administrative fine not to

exceed $5,000. The penalty for a violation of Subsection

475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, is an administrative fine not to

exceed $5,000 and a 90-day suspension to revocation.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding

that Mr. Zaheer violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b),

n),

Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61J2-

14.009 and 61J2-14.011; revoking his license; imposing a $5,000

administrative fine; and requiring the payment of costs in the

amount of $775.50.

It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding

that Vista Horizon Realty violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b),

475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida

Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.011;

revoking its license; imposing an administrative fine of $5,000;

and requiring the payment of costs in the amount of $181.50.

DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2010, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUSAN B. HARRELL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 13th day of April, 2010.

ENDNOTES

1/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

Statutes are to the 2007 version.

2/ Some of the exhibits and testimony refer to Re/Max Vista and

some of the exhibits and testimony refer to Vista Horizon

Realty. They are the same entity, and, for ease of reference,

this Recommended order will refer to Vista Horizon Realty.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Jennifer Leigh Blakeman, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-801

Orlando, Florida 32801

Daniel Villazon, Esquire

Daniel Villazon, P.A.

1420 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 200

Celebration, Florida 34747

Vista Horizon Realty, Inc.

2120 Whisper Lakes Boulevard

Orlando, Florida 32837

Reginald Dixon, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director

Division of Real Estate

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802N

Orlando, Florida 32801

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.