05-004538PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Real Estate vs. Fadel F. Elbadramany Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

Summary: Respondent was convicted of grand theft, a crime related to his profession.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS )

REGULATION, DIVISION )

OF REAL ESTATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Case No. 05 - 453 8 PL

vs. )

)

FADEL F. ELBADRAMANY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on Octo ber 27 , 200 6 , a formal

hearing was held in this case . The hearing commenced at 10:00

a.m. C.T. at the Washington Correctional Institution, I.N.S.

Courtroom, 4555 Sam Mitchell Drive, Chipley, Florida . Auth ority

for conducting the hearing is set forth in Sections 120.569 and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes (200 6 ). The hearing was hel d b efore

Charles C. Ada ms, Administrative Law Judge.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: S. N. Persaud , Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

D ivision of Real Estate

Hurston Building, North Tower

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 801

Orlando , Florida 32 801

For Respondent: Fadel F. Elbadramany V21541, pro se

Washington Correctional Institution

4555 Sam Mitchell Drive

Chipley, Florida 3 2428

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses

held by Respondent as a real estate broker, license s numbers

3000807, 3000808, and 300092222 , and as a real estate instructor,

license number 32195, for alleged violatio ns of Section

4 7 5. 25 (1)( f ) , (n) and (p) , Florida Statutes (200 4 )?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 17, 200 5 , the acting division director , o f the

Division of Real Estate signed an A mended A dministrative

C omplaint , in which Petitioner accused Respondent i n three

separate counts of violating the statutory provisions referred to

before.

The allegations in the A mended A dmi nistrative C omplaint were

that:

* * *

5. On or about February 14, 2005 , Respondent

was found guilty of the cri me of Grand Theft

Over Twenty Thousand Dollars. A copy of the

court document is attached hereto,

incorporated herein and made a part hereof by

reference as Administrative Complaint Exhibit

1.

6. On or about February 14, 2005 , Respondent

was committed to the Department of

Corrections and sent to a state prison for a

term of 15 years.

7. Respondent failed to timely notify

Petitioner of the conviction.

COUNT I

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is

guilty of having been convicted or found

guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo

contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a

crime which directly relates to the

activities of a licensed real estate sales

associate or that involves moral turpitude or

fraudulent or dishonest dealing in volition

of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes .

COUNT II

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is

guilty of being confined in a state or

federal prison thereby being in violation of

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

COUNT III

Based upon the foregoing, Re spondent is

guilty of not having informed the Florida

Real Estate Commission in writing within

thirty (30) days of having pled guilty or

having been convicted of a felony and,

therefore, is in violation of Section

475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes .

Respondent through his counsel Steven W. Johnson, Esquire,

filed Respondent 's Answer to Amended Administrative Complaint and

Request for Formal Hearing. By the answer Respondent contested

as disputed issues of material fact the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 to the Amended Administrative Complaint ,

as well as the legal conclusions reached in relation to Counts I

through III. The basis for the disputed issues of fact and law

was "because the alleged conviction and sentence are on appe al."

Respondent in writing denied "that a conviction not yet final

subjects him to discipline. The appeal is being filed as of

November 21, 2005 ." Finally, Respondent denied in writing that

"the plea on appeal is final, and denies he is obligated to

not ify the FREC and demands strict proof thereof." The request

for hearing referred to Subsection 120.57(2), Florida Statutes ,

neverthel e ss referring to that provision as a request for formal

hearing before an ad ministrative l aw j udge . Under those

circumsta nces the Petitioner forwarded the case to the Division

of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for conduct of a formal

proceeding in accordance with Section s 120.5 69 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes . That request was received by DOAH on

December 14, 2005 , and th e case was assigned as DOAH Case No.

05 - 4538PL, before the present administrative law judge .

Attorney Johnson moved to withdraw as counsel for

Respondent . On January 26, 2006 , an order was entered allowing

the withdrawal. The February 20, 2006 hearing date that had been

scheduled remained in effect.

On January 30, 2006 , Respondent 's motion for continuance was

filed. On February 13, 2006 , the motion was granted. The case

was reset to be heard on April 6, 2006 .

On March 27, 2006 , Petitioner filed a motion for summary

final order and/or motion to relinquish jurisdiction.

On March 29, 2006 , Respondent moved for a continuance of the

April 6, 2006 hearing . A t the time he was relocated from

Washington Correctional Institution to the Volusia County Jai l.

The hearing was not held on April 6, 2006 . A telephone

conference was held on that date to discuss Petitioner 's motion

for summary final order and /or motion to relinquish jurisdiction .

Respondent was granted additional time to file a written response

to th ose motion s .

On April 7, 2006 , the motion for summary final order and /or

motion to relinquish jurisdiction were renewed.

On April 7, 2006 , an order was entered confirming the

cancellation of the April 6, 2006 hearing date , affording

Respondent the opportunity to file a written response to

Petitioner 's pending motion s and reminding the parties that the

case would be relinquished or a new hearing date established on

or before May 5, 2006 .

On April 28, 2006 , Respondent filed his response to the

moti on for summary final order and/or motion to relinquish

jurisdiction .

On May 3, 2006 , an order was entered denying the motion for

summary final order and/or motion to relinquish jurisdiction .

The hearing was reset to be heard on August 2 2 , 2006 .

On Aug ust 3, 2006 , Petitioner moved to continue the hearing

scheduled for August 2 2 , 2006 .

On August 17, 2006 , an order was entered granting a

continuance and rescheduling the case to be heard on October 27,

2006 .

Consistent with the expectations of the Janu ary 4, 2006 ,

order of prehea r ing instructions, on October 19, 2006 , Petitioner

provided a one - party proposed pre - hearing statement "no later

than five days before the final hearing." On that date

Petitioner noticed the f i ling of proposed hearing Exhibits

numbered 1 through 5. The unilateral response to the prehearing

order referred to Petitioner 's proposed hearing Exhibit numbered

6 , which was noticed for filing on October 2 3, 2006 . T he

unilateral response to the prehearing order noted that Petitioner

di d not intend to call witnesses at the final hearing , with the

exception of the possibility that the Respondent might be called

to testify. This unilateral submission was served on Respondent

at his address within the Washington Correctional Institution .

On October 24, 2006 , Petitioner filed a notice of official

recognition, a request that the a dministrative l aw j udge take

official notice of the Petitioner 's Exhibits numbered 1 through

6.

Based upon logistical issues within the Washington

Correctiona l Institution , Respondent did not receive Petitioner 's

Exhibits numbered 1 through 6 prior to the final hearing,

notwithstanding the effort by Petitioner to provide those

materials.

On October 25, 200 6 , Respondent filed a " M otion to D ismiss

(or ) to Conti nue . . . A fter Compliance ." The motion referred to

FBPR Case Nos. 2001531392, 2002200194 7, 2002001154, and

2001532739 that are associated with the Amended Administrative

Complaint . Those same FBPR case numbers had been associated with

the Administrative Complaint in a prior case before DOAH . That

case was DOAH Case No. 03 - 2037PL. By the motion to dismiss

Respondent suggested that the aforementioned FBPR case numbers

had been closed by disposition in DOAH Case No. 03 - 2037PL.

The motion asked for inform ation concerning statutes and

rules. The motion referred to a lack of access on the part of

Respondent to the statutes and rules or a list of witnesses

associated with the case. The motion argued that the Petitioner

had not complied with the prehearing i nstructions entered

January 4, 2006 . Respondent in his motion referred to a

condition in his spine and nerve injury to his back that crippled

him and caused paralysis in his function and mobility and the

pendency of a doctor's appointment to address his c ondition on

October 23, 2006 .

In anticipation of oral argument on the Respondent 's M otion

to D ismiss (or ) to C ontinue . . . A fter C ompliance, certain

documents were obtained from the docket in DOAH Case No.

03 - 2037PL and brought to the hearing to be used by the

administrative law judge and the parties. Among those documents

was the Administrative Complaint that had the same F BPR Case

numbers as the present Amended Administrative Complaint .

However, t he original Administrative Complaint had differ ent

allegations set forth , as eviden ced in ALJ Exhibit numbered 2 .

The earlier Administrative Complaint alleged in pertinent part:

* * *

3. The last licenses issued were as a broker

at AAA Realty of Florida Comm. Real Estate

Pro perties/Investments, Inc., 132 S. Atlantic

Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 and at

AAA Realty of Florida Coastal Properties,

Inc., 132 S. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach,

Florida 32118.

4. Respondent used his corporation to

purchase a motel.

5. Res pondent began co nv erting the motel to

condominium units.

6. Respondent marketed the units.

7. Respondent facilitated a sales and

purchase contract with Arthur Peloso, Sr.,

(Buyer 1)

8. Buyer 1 delivered a $10,000 deposit to

Respondent .

9. The contract provided that deposits would

be placed in escrow with Attorney Ronald N.

Johnson.

10. Respondent did not place the deposit in

escrow with Attorney Ronald N. Johnson.

11. Respondent orchestrated a fake closing

of the transaction.

12. At the fake closing, Buyer paid

Respondent $58,334.74.

13 . There was no transfer of ownership of

the property at the closing.

The Administrative Complaint referred in Counts I, III, V,

VII, and IX to alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(b),

Flor ida Statutes , and in Counts II, IV, VI, VIII and X , it

referred to alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida

Statutes . Other allegations of material fact were set forth in

describing various alleged buyers or purchasers in the several

transact ions. The Section 475.25(1)( b ), Florida Statutes ,

allegations state s :

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is

guilty of fraud, misrepresentation,

concealment, false promises, dishonest

dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable

negligence, or breach o f trust in any

business transaction in violation of Section

475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes .

The Section 475.25(1)(d) 1 , Florida Statutes , allegations state s :

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is

guilty of failure to account or deliver funds

in violation of Section 475.(1)(d)1., Florida

Statutes .

What is important is that the original Administrative Complaint

is distinct, and unrelated to allegations in the Amended

Administrative Complaint . Its disposition has no bearing on the

outcome of the present case. DOAH Case No. 03 - 2037PL was

eventually closed before DOAH by an Order Relinquishing

Jurisdiction , in response to Petitioner 's motion . That motion

referred to the Petitioner 's lack of sufficient evidence to

proceed against Respondent and th e unavailability of essential

witnesses. The m otion to r elinquish i s ALJ Exhibit number ed 6.

The Order Closing File i s ALJ Exhibit numbered 8.

In relation to the reference in the motion to dismiss (or )

to continue made by Respondent in the present c ase and the

significance of the closure in DOAH Case No. 03 - 2037PL, ALJ

Exhibits numbered 1 through 8 were admitted with the parties

retaining copies of those exhibits. The ALJ Exhibits admitted in

consideration of the motion to dismiss or to continue, co ncerning

DOAH Case No. 03 - 2037PL were ALJ Exhibit numbered 1, the May 29,

2003 letter referring the case from the Petitioner to DOAH; ALJ

Exhibit numbered 2 , the original Administrative Complaint , as

described in this discussion; ALJ Exhibit numbered 3 , an

amendment to a motion to hold the case in abeyance; ALJ Exhibit

numbered 4 , an order granting continuance and placing the case in

abeyance; ALJ Exhibit numbered 5, Petitioner 's motion to abate;

ALJ Exhibit numbered 6, Petitioner 's motion to relinquish

ju risdiction; ALJ Exhibit numbered 7, Respondent 's motion to

continue ; and ALJ Exhibit numbered 8, the order closing the file

in DOAH Case No. 03 - 2037PL.

Other argument was entertained on Respondent 's motion. The

case was not dismissed and no continuance wa s granted as

reflected in the hearing transcript . In denying the motion to

dismiss particular attention was paid to the dissimilarity

between the allegations set forth in the original Administrative

Complaint signed November 20, 2002 , and the Amended

Admi nistrative Complaint , which forms the basis in DOAH Case No.

05 - 4538PL. The case proceeded to a hearing on the merits, it

appearing that the Respondent was physically able and capable of

proceeding.

Petitioner relied on its previously - filed E xhibits num bered

1 through 6 as the basis for its case. Those exhibits were

provided to Respondent at the hearing for his review. They were

in turn: Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, certification of the

licensing history by the Petitioner in relation to Respondent ;

Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2, court information in the case

State of Florida v. Fadel Fawzi Elbadramany , in the Circuit Court

Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Florida ,

Division 41, Case No. 2001 - 36519CFAES, as certified, that had

been attached as an exhibit to the A mended Administrative

Complaint served on Respondent , in which he had filed an answer

through his counsel; Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3, a copy of

the statutory information at Sections 475.25 and 812.014, Florida

Stat utes ( 2005 ); Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4, case law from

appellate court decisions and recommended orders from DOAH;

Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5, Fadel Elbadramany, Appellant vs.

State of Florida, Appellee , in the District Court of Appeal of

the Sta te of Florida , Fifth District, July Term 2006 , Case No.

5D05754, Decision filed August 8, 2006 , and a further decision in

that case before the appellate court on September 7, 2006 ; and

Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6, certification of records by the

Florid a Department of Corrections in relation to Respondent , D O C

No. V21541. Respondent objected to the admission of Petitioner's

e xhibits, emphasizing that the exhibits had been provided to him

at the time the hearing commen c ed. Recognizing the nature of

E xhi bits numbered 1, 2, 5, and 6 , they were admitted over

objection . T hey referred to his license history with the

Petitioner , the court case referred to in the A mended

Administrative Complaint , for which he was tried and found guilty

by jury and sentenced an d is incarcerated at the Washington

Correctional Institution , and from which he appealed, and

i nformation concerning his incarceration . Notwithstanding the

provision of this information at the time of the hearing and not

before , it is information not cons idered to be prejudicial to

Respondent , recognizing the nature of those exhibits , matters

about which he had some knowledge . By contrast , Petitioner's

Exhibit s numbered 3 and 4 were not admitted. However, t he

parties were reminded that inf or mation reflec ted in Petitioner's

Exhibit s numbered 3 and 4 could be u se d. Th e statutes referred

to in the Amended Administrative Complaint would be ex amined in

preparing a R ecommended O rder , with the prospect that some of the

cases that had been set out in Petitioner' s Exhibit numbered 4

might also be under consider ed . The parties were provided copies

of the Petitioner's e xhibits, to include those exhibits not

admitted.

Respondent had two exhibits marked for identification that

he withdrew.

On November 3 , 200 6 , a hearing transcript was filed. A

p roposed r ecommended order w as filed by Petitioner . Respondent

filed proposed findings of act and conclusions of law. The

submissions have been considered in preparing the Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Facts Alleg ed in the Amended Administrative Complaint

Uncontested by the Answer :

1. Petitioner is a state government licensing and

regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to

prosecute a dministrative c omplaint s pursuant to the laws of the

State of Florida , in particular Section 20.165 and C hapters 120,

455 and 475, Florida Statutes , and the rules promulgated pursuant

thereto.

2. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a

licensed Florida real estate b roker, issued license numb ers

30008 07, 3000808, and 3092222 , in accordance with Chapter 475 of

the Florida Statutes .

3. The last licenses issued were as a broker a t AAA Realty

of Florida Comm. Real Estate Prop erties/Investments, Inc., 132

South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 321 18, and at AAA

Realty of Florida International Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue,

Daytona Beach, Florida 32118.

4. Respondent is a licensed real estate instructor issued

license number 32195 with AAA College of Real Estate.

Additional Facts :

5 . More specifically concerning licenses issued to

Respondent as a real estate broker, from January 1, 2005 through

March 13, 2006 , Respondent was a broker doing business as AAA

Realty of Florida License No. BK3000807, a brokerage sole

proprietorship located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona

Beach, Florida 32118.

6. From January 1, 2005 to March 13, 2006 , Respondent was a

broker, License No. BK3092222 , affiliated with AAA Realty of

Florida International, Inc., License No. CQ0000000, a brokerage

corporation located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach,

Florida 32118 .

7. License No. BK3000808 expired March 31, 2004 .

8 . In State of Florida vs. Fadel Fawzi Elbadramany , in the

Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia

County, Divi sion 41, Case No. 2001 - 36519CFAES, the defendant,

Respondent here, was tried and found guilty by a jury of grand

theft of over $20,000 , an offense recognized in Subsection s

812.014(1) and (2) (b), Florida Statutes . On February 11, 2005 ,

an order of judgm ent was entered by Circuit Judge R. Michael

Hutcheson adjudicating the defendant in that cause, Respondent ,

in the present case , guilty of grand theft. On that same date an

order of sentence was entered against the defendant/ Respondent ,

by which he was co mmitted to the Department of Corrections to be

imprisoned for a term of 15 years , with credit for 105 days of

time served while incarcerated before the imposition of this

sentence. By separate order the defendant/ Respondent was

required to pay certain cha rges , costs and fees. That order was

entered on February 11, 2005 .

9 . In Fadel Elbadramany , Appellant, vs. State of Florida,

Appellee , in the District Court of Appeal of the State of

Florida , Fifth District, July term 2006 , Case No. 5D05 - 754

decision f iled August 8, 2006 , the court entered a per curium

affirmance. On September 27, 2006 , that court ordered "that

appellant's motion for rehearing, rehearing E n B anc and request

to issue a written opinion filed August 22, 2006 a nd Appellant's

S upplemental t o R equest to I ssue a W ritten O pinion , filed

September 18, 2006 are denied. "

10 . Respondent is presently confined in Washington

Correctional Institution where the final hearing was held. He is

inmate number V21541. His tentative release date from his

i mprisonment is October 26, 2019. His confinement is in relation

to the grand theft offense.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding in accordance w ith Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and

45 5 . 225(5) , Florida Statutes (200 6 ).

1 2 . Respondent is l icensed as a Florida Real Estate Broker

under license numbers BK3000807 and BK3 092222. He also holds a

license as a Florida real estate instructor under license number

32195.

1 3 . Petitioner intends to impose discipline against

Respondent 's licenses based upon the allegations set forth in

F BPR Case Nos. 2001531392, 20022001947, 2002001154, and

2001532739 , for reasons set forth in the Amended Administrative

Comp laint , signed October 17, 2005 .

14 . The factual allegations at issue in the Amended

Administrative Complaint ar e:

* * *

5. On or about February 14, 2005 , Respondent

was found guilty of the crime of Grand Theft

Over Twenty Th ousand Dollars. A copy of the

court document is attached hereto,

incorporated herein and made a part hereof

by reference as Administrative Complaint

Exhibit 1.

6. On or about February 14, 2005 , Respondent

was committed to the Department of

Correctio ns and sent to a state prison for a

term of 15 years.

7. Respondent failed to timely notify

Petitioner of the conviction.

As a result, Respondent is accused of violating several

provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes ( 2004 ).

15 . Count I to the Amended Administrative Complaint refers

to Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes ( 2004 ) , which states:

(1) The commission . . . may place a

licensee, . . . on probation; may suspend a

license, . . . for a period not exceeding 10

years; may revoke a license, . . . may impose

an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000

for each count or separate offen s e and may

issue a reprimand, and any or all of the

foregoing, if it finds the licensee . . . .

* * *

(f) Has been convicted or found guilty of,

or entered a plea of nolo contendere to,

regardless of adjudication, a crime in any

jurisdiction which directly relates to the

activities of a licensed broker or sales

associate, or involves moral turpitude o r

fraudulent or d ishonest dealing. The record

of a conviction certified or authenticated in

such form as to be admissible in evidence

under the laws of the State shall be

admissible as prima facie evidence of such

guilt.

16 . Count II of the Amended Administrative Com plaint refers

to Section 475.25(1)(n), Florida Statutes ( 2004 ) , which in

pertinent part allows discipline when a licensee:

* * *

(n) Is confined in any county jail;

postadjudication; is confined in any

state . . . prison . . .

17 . Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint

refers to Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes ( 2004 ) , which in

pertinent part describes possible discipline when a licensee:

(p) Has failed to inform the commission in

writing within 30 days af ter pleading guilty

or nolo contendere to, or being convicted or

found guilty of, any felony.

18 . The Amended Administrative Complaint refers to the

court determination in the criminal court case involv ing grand

theft. In particular it alludes to Sect ion 812.014(1) and

(2)(b), Florida Statutes ( 2004 ) , which states:

(1) A person commits theft if he or she

knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to

obtain or to use, the property of another

with intent to, either temporarily or

permanently:

(a) De prive the other person of a right to

the property or a benefit from the property.

(b) Appropriate the property to his or her

o wn use or to the use of any person not

entitled to the use of the property.

* * *

(2) (b) 1. I f the p roperty stolen is valued

at $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000;

* * *

the offender commits grand theft in the

second degree, punishable as a felony of the

second degree, as provided in s. 775.082, s.

775.083 or s. 775.084.

* * *

19 . Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this

disciplinary case. Proof sufficient to sustain the allegations

in the Amended Administrative Complaint must be by clear and

convincing evidence. See Department of Banking and Finance

Division of Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern

and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996) and Ferris v. Turlington , 510

So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). The term clear and convincing evidence

is explained in the case In re: Davey , 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla.

1994), quoting with approval from Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d

797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

20 . The Amended Administrative Complaint must provide

reasonable notice to Respondent of the conduct that would warrant

the imposition of discipline. See Cottrill v. Department of

I nsurance , 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

21 . The Amended Administrative Complaint did provide

reasonable notice to Respondent of the conduct that would warrant

the imposition of discipline.

22 . Concerning Count I, i t has been proven that Respondent

was tried and found guilty 1/ by a jury of violating Section

812.014(1) and (2)(b), Florida Statutes ( 2004 ), for which he was

adjudicated guilty. The theft directly relates to the activities

of Respondent in his position a s a licensed broker. That theft

also involves moral turpitude and affects all his licenses .

23 . In arriving at these conclusions, the penal nature of

this case is recognized and Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida

Statutes ( 2004 ), has been strictly construed in determining

whether a violation occurred. See State v. Pa ttishall , 99 Fla.

296 and 126 So. 147 (Fla. 1930), and Lester v. Department of

Professional and Occupational Regulation, State Board of Medical

Examiners , 348 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

2 4 . To decide whether the finding of guilt by the jury and

adjudication of guilt by the court for grand theft is related to

the practice of or the ability to practice real estate, that

inquiry has not been limited to the technical ability of

Respondent in h is business setting. If the crime relates to or

presents a danger to public welfare, as it did, that in itself

would be grounds to impose administrative discipline . See

Greenwald v. Department of Professional Regulation , 501 So. 2d

740 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987 ), rev . denied , 511 So. 2d 998, cert .

denied , 484 U.S. 986 (1987); Ashe v. Department of Business and

Professional Regulation , 467 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and

Rush v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Podiatry ,

448 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

2 5 . Grand theft involves moral turpitude by its nature.

See State ex rel v. Hollingsworth , 108 Fla. 607, 146 So. 2d 660

(Fla. 1933); Hamilton v. State , 447 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA

1984); Bruner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Boa rd of

Real Estate , 399 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) and Zemour, Inc. v.

Division of Beverage , 347 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

2 6 . The same grand theft that subjected Respondent 's

licenses to the aforementioned administrative discipline led to

h is confinement in state prison , thereby violating Section

4 75.25 (1)( n ), Florida Statutes ( 2004 ). This is the violation

alleged in Count II.

2 7 . No proof was offered to show that Respondent failed to

inform the real estate commission , in writing , that h e had been

convicted and adjudicated guilty of grand theft, a felony. It

has not been shown that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(p),

Florida Statutes ( 2004 ) , as alleged in Count III .

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the consideration of the facts fo und and the

conclusion s of law reached , it is

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered finding Respondent in

violation of Section 4 75.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes

( 2004 ), that Respondent did not violate Section 475.25(1)(p)

Florida Statutes ( 2004 ), and revoking the real estate broker

licenses and real estate instructor license held by Respondent .

DONE AND ENTERED this 20 th day of December , 2006, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 2 78 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 20 th day of December , 2006.

ENDNOTE

1 / At hearing Respondent commented that he would pursue other

appeals of his conviction . T o this point in time it has not been

shown that t he finding of guilt by the jury, a djudication of guilt

by the court and sentence have been overturned concerning the

grand theft, making it appropriate to proceed with the

administrative hearing leading to ultimate disposition in the

matter.

COPIES FURNISHED:

S. N. Persaud , Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

D ivision of Real Estate

Hurston Building, North Tower

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 801

Orlando , Florida 32 801

F. Elbadramany V21541, pro se

Washington Correctional Institution

455 5 Sam Mitchell Drive

Chipley, Florida 32428

Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee , Florida 32399 - 0792

Michael E. Murphy, Director

Division of Real Estate

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Hurston Building, North Tower

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 802

Orlando , Florida 32 801

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have t he 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.