Did Respondents offer for sale, sell, or receive money from the sale of, preneed funeral service and merchandise contracts without possession of a valid certificate of authority? Did Respondents fail to submit preneed contract forms and trust agreement forms to the Department of Banking and Finance (Department) or the Board of Funeral and Cemetery Services (Board) for approval before using such forms, and did such forms meet the statutory requirements? Did Respondent, Robert E. Romaine, individually, offer for sale, sell or execute preneed contracts on behalf of Romaine- Sarasota Funeral home without first being registered as a preneed sales agent? Did Respondents violate Section 497.433, Florida Statutes, by making misrepresentations and false statements that would constitute unfair methods of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice as defined in Section 497.445(1),(2), and (4), Florida Statutes?Respondents violated statutes when they contracted to provide funeral services and merchandise in the future without a valid certificate of authority.
The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted.Application for licensure as a mortgage broker after criminal convictions granted due to rehabilitation, passage of time & subsequent good character.
The issue is whether the Application for Registration as an Associated Person filed by Petitioner should be granted.Registration denied due to prior discipline by washington. Department argument that filing of federal tax lien showed unworthiness rejected as over broad.
The issue is whether respondents should cease and desist certain activities and whether they should have penalties imposed for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint.Securities dealer and associated perosn violated cited rules and statutes.
The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties filed against them, and, if so, what action should be taken against them, if any.Operations and literature of catalog shopping club violated statutes regu- lating credit service organizations, loan brokers and retail installment sales
Whether or not Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Brauer & Associates, Inc., and as an investment adviser of G.G. Brauer & Associates, Inc. should be approved.Whether petitioner's application for registration as an associated person and an investment advisor should be approved.
Whether or not Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person with a securities firm should be granted.Whether petitioner's application for registration as an associated person with a securities firm should be approved.
The issues are whether, pursuant to section 559.929(3), Florida Statutes (2019), Petitioner has been injured by the fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, financial failure, or any other violation of chapter 559, part XI, by Respondent Travbuzz, Inc. (Respondent), for prearranged travel services and, if so, the extent to which Respondent is indebted to Petitioner on account of the injury.Seller of travel indebted to consumer for purchase price of train tour of India that was cancelled due to Covid, because seller's contract with consumer calls for refund, which excludes $75 item omitted from consumer's claim filed with Department.
Whether the loan originator license issued to Respondent should be: annulled because it was issued by mistake; or (b) revoked because Respondent failed to disclose adverse credit history and a prior name under which she had held a mortgage broker license that had been revoked. A separate issue concerns whether Respondent should be fined; and if so, how much.1Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that there were grounds for revoking and/or annulling Respondent's license.
Whether Assertive Mortgage LLC’s (“Assertive Mortgage”) application for a mortgage broker license should be granted.1 1 Unless stated otherwise, all statutory references shall be to the 2020 version of the Florida Statutes. See generally McClosky v. Dep’t of Fin. Serv., 115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Via a Notice of Intent to Deny dated December 30, 2020, the Office of Financial Regulation (“OFR”) provided notice that it intended to deny Assertive Mortgage’s application for mortgage broker licensure. In support thereof, OFR alleged that Assertive Mortgage failed to disclose in its application that the loan originator license of its sole owner, Toshia Parrish, had been revoked in 2009. Section 494.00321(5), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that OFR “shall deny a license if any of the applicant’s control persons has had a loan originator license, or its equivalent, revoked in any jurisdiction.”Section 494.00321(5), Florida Statutes, required that the application at issue be denied.
