Whether the mortgage broker registration of Respondents William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.; Hughes, William H. d/b/a William H. Hughes, a sole proprietorship; and William H. Hughes, individually, should be disciplined pursuant to Section 494.0041 F.S., and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.Conviction of perjury is grounds for discip. (even revocation) w/o being part of mortgage transaction, but here, lesser penalty was w/in guidelines.

The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as an associated person with Great Western Financial Securities Corporation should be granted or denied.Application for licensure as associated person must be denied where applicant no longer has employment relationship with a dealer or investment adviser.

The Respondents have been charged with multiple violations of Chapter 494, (1987), the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to the act. The violations, described in an amended administrative complaint dated April 16, 1990, are as follows: Rule 3D-40.006(5), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to issue a statement signed by both parties, when receiving a deposit on a mortgage loan, regarding disposition of the deposit and other matters. Section 494.08(10), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(2), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to provide a written statement with a summary of limits and conditions for recovery from the Mortgage Broker Guaranty Fund. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.008(1), F.A.C.: Respondents assessed fees for credit reports, phone calls, appraisals and courier services, which fees were not supported by the files. Section 494.055(1)(0), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(4), F.A.C.: The department had to issue a subpoena for compensation records. Section 494.055(1)(g) and (p), and Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Borrowers were required to pay higher closing costs than were disclosed on the good faith estimate form. Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Respondents failed to secure executed modified mortgage loan applications from the borrowers or to return excess monies to the borrowers. Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(1), F.A.C.: Respondents accepted deposits from loan applicants but failed to obtain executed mortgage broker agreements which would disclose the cost of the loans. Sections 494.055(1)(b) and (g), and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c), and (4), F.S.: Respondents failed to disclose that they would retain both origination fees and discount points as their compensation, and failed to disclose compensation received from the lender in addition to brokerage fees assessed the borrowers on the closing statements. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S., Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c) and (4), F.S.: Respondents collected a servicing release fee from the borrowers when the Respondents were not the lender, and failed to disclose the collection. Section 494.055(1)(e), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(b)(a), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account.Falling short of fraud, respondent made a series of errors as mort. broker which constituted technical violations of statutes and rules $1000 fine and 1year probation

The issues for consideration in this hearing were whether Ms. Henderson acted as a mortgage broker during the periods as alleged in the Cease and Desist Order filed herein; and whether the Department properly denied Ms. Henderson's application for registration as an associated person.Unlicensed individual who performed all functions of a mortgage broker had to be licensed. Her being subject to a C&D order for that supports denial of license

The issues in the case are whether Respondent's real estate broker's license had been revoked when he applied for a mortgage broker's license and whether Respondent falsely answered certain questions on his application for a mortgage broker's license.Revocation of mortgage broker's license after division of real estate revoked salesperson's license for breach of trust - respondent failed to disclose

Respondent mortgage license is revoked because respondent knowingly made misstatements of fact on his mortgage license application.

Mortgage broker who failed to keep adequate records to use proper good faith estimate form resulting in higher costs and to maintain escrow account all misconduct

Claim of ownership to $8644 in small bills in car trunk beside 100 lbs of marijuana to which petitioner denied ownership--REJECTED

The following issues are presented for disposition in this proceeding: The effect, if any, of the repeal of Section 494.05, F.S. prior to the filing of the administrative complaint. Whether Respondent committed the violations of Chapter 494, F.S., with which he is charged. What disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondents mortgage broker's license.Prosecution not barred by repeal of statute when statute was reenacted revocation not stayed by pendancy of bankruptcy proceeding.

This proceeding commenced upon the Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Petitioners pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Respondent filed an Answer and requested an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioners and Respondent entered into a Prehearing Stipulation identifying the issues of fact to be litigated as (1) whether or not the actions of the Department of Banking and Finance were substantially justified, and (2) whether or not it would be unjust to award attorneys' fees against the Department. The issues of law identified by the Parties were (1) if the actions of the Department of Banking and Finance were not substantially justified, should the attorneys' fees and costs be apportioned between DOAH Case No. 86-1553 and DOAH Case NO. 86-1336, and (2) whether or not Monica Iles and Robert Iles are "small business parties." The Prehearing Stipulation also contains six paragraphs of facts that are admitted by all parties. At the hearing all parties presented testimony and exhibits and following the hearing a transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Hearing Officer. Thereafter, all parties filed proposed orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all findings proposed by all parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Final Order.Department had reasonable basis in both law and fact and was substantially justified therefore, award of attorney fees and costs must be denied.