The following RICO administrative actions are public records and were publicly published by the State of Hawaii Real Estate Commission. Keep it Kailua takes no responsibility for their correctness or accuracy. All inquiries regarding the administrative actions should be made to the State of Hawaii Real Estate Commission.
Powell W. Berger
Broker – RB 19708 and Two Wahines on the Beach, LLC
Broker – RB 18298
Case No: REC 2010-87-L
Dated 10/28/11
Allegations: Respondent Two Wahines on the Beach, LLC was formed on or about 1/26/04 with Respondent Berger and Susan B. Osborne listed on the Articles of Organization. Ms. Osborne was the principal broker of Respondent Two Wahines on the Beach, LLC until 11/9/07 when Respondent Berger became the principal Broker. On or about 3/30/07, the Real Estate Commission approved a Settlement Agreement Prior to Filing of Petition for Disciplinary Action in RICO Case No. REC 2006-115-L in which Respondents were Two Wahines on the Beach, LLC and Ms. Osborne. The case alleged Respondents managed and advertised property for transient vacation use on residential zoned property without a nonconforming use certificate. Respondent agreed to immediately cease and desist in offering and/or advertising rental properties for transient vacation use on residential zoned property without non-conforming use certificates for said properties. On or about 10/28/10, the Real Estate Commission approved a Settlement Agreement Prior to Filing of Petition for Disciplinary Action in RICO Case No. REC-2010-217-L in which respondent was Ms. Osborne. The case alleged, inter alia, that despite the settlement in RICO Case No. REC 2006-115-L, Ms. Osborne continued to offer and/or advertise property for transient vacation use on residential zoned property without nonconforming use certificates for said properties. As part of the settlement agreement, the real estate broker’s license of Ms. Osborne was revoked. Despite the settlement in RICO Case No. REC2006-115-L, Respondents Powell W. Berger and Two Wahines on the Beach, LLC continued to offer, advertise and rent property for transient vacation use on residential zoned property without nonconforming use certificates for said properties.
Sanction: Pay a $5,000.00 fine.
Violations: HRS §§467-14(1), (2), (3), (8), (20); HRS §§436B-19(2), (7), (12)
Susan B. Osborne
Broker – RB 18259
Case No: REC 2010-217-L
Dated 10/28/10
Allegations: On or about 3/30/07, the Commission approved a Settlement Agreement in RICO Case No. REC 2006-115-L, in which Respondent agreed to immediately cease and desist in offering and/or advertising rental properties for transient vacation use on residential zoned property without nonconforming use certificates for said properties. RICO alleges that, despite the above-referenced settlement agreement, Respondent continued to offer and/or advertise property for transient vacation use on residential zone property without nonconforming use certificates for said properties. RICO alleges that Respondent conducted real estate activity under a trade name that was not registered with the Commission and failed to comply with the rules regarding trust accounts.
Sanction: Voluntary license revocation.
Violations: HRS §§467-14(1), (3), (8), (20); HAR §§16-99-3(e), (g); HRS §§436B-19(2), (7), (12)
Peter D. Osborne
Broker – RB 12955
Case No: REC 2006-114-L
Dated 7/30/10
Allegations: In or around 2002, Respondent registered the domain names “bndhawaii.com” and “hawaiihomes.cc” with Network Solutions, LLC. The registration name for the above-referenced domain names with Network Solutions, LLC was changed from Respondent to “Hawaii’s 10 Best Vacation Rentals.” This web-site offered vacation rentals and list Respondent’s name, address and phone number. “Hawaii’s 10 Best Vacation Rentals” is not a registered trade name in the State of Hawaii and does not possess a real estate license. Respondent alleges that he is not affiliated with “Hawaii’s 10 Best Vacation Rentals.” Among the properties listed for rent were Respondent’s studio and house.
Sanction: Voluntary license revocation and pay a fine in the amount of $5,000.00
Violations: HRS § 436B-19(6); HRS §§46714(8), (20); HAR §16-99-3(b)
Settlement Agreement (Allegations/Sanction): The respondent does not admit to the allegations set forth by the Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO) and denies having violated any licensing law or rule. The respondent enters in a Settlement Agreement as a compromise of the claims and to conserve on the expense of proceeding with a hearing on the matter.
Disciplinary Action (Factual Findings/Order): The respondent is found to have violated the specific laws and rules cited, and the Commission approves the recommended order of the Hearings Officer.