Leon FL and Federal regulation Lawyers | Melinda H Butler -- eLawyers

17-005444 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION vs PMF, INC., D/B/A PIONEER MORTGAGE FUNDING, AND SCOTT CUGNO (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 2017

The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.OFR established that Respondents violated various statutes and rules. Mortgage broker license suspended for six months and fine imposed.

16-004409 ALIETTE L. OLIVA vs OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 02, 2016

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has carried her burden of proving that her application for licensure in Florida as a loan originator should be granted.The Office had a sufficient ground to deny the Petitioner's application for a loan originator license, due to the revocation of a real estate salesperson license previously held by the Petitioner.

15-004335 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION vs FIRST SOLUTIONS, INC., D/B/A CREDIT ONE, AND ANDREW MANGINI (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 30, 2015

Whether Respondents acted as a loan broker by assessing or collecting advance fee payments from borrowers in violation of sections 687.14(4)(a) and (b) and 687.141(1), Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate penalty to be imposed against Respondents.OFR proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents acted as a loan broker by assessing or collecting advance fee payments from two borrowers. Recommended $10,000 fine and cease and desist order.

13-004484 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION vs CAPITAL CITY CHECK CASHING (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 20, 2013

Whether Respondent violated statutory and rule provisions relating to record-keeping requirements for licensed check cashers, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not comply with record-keeping requirements for check-cashing businesses during the examination period.

13-001227 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs EDEN SUPPLY, LLC ("EDEN SUPPLY") (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2013

The issue in this case is whether the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) against Eden Supply, LLC (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Evidence warrants revocation of caterer's license.

11-001088 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF INSURANCE AGENTS AND AGENCY SERVICES vs WESTON PROFESSIONAL TITLE GROUP, INC. (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 01, 2011

Whether Weston Professional Title Group, Inc. (Respondent) committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, V, VI, and VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.Tile agency was guilty of failing to disburse funds pursuant to HUD-1 settlement statement and failing to maintain surety. Allegations of fraud and incompetence were not proven.

09-005323PL DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs CLYDE JANNER HOLLIDAY, IV (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 2009

The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated Subsections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), and 626.611(13), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Wholesale brokers collected premiums from retail agents, but failed to remit the premiums to the insurance company or the program managers for the insurance company.

09-004714PL DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs CLYDE JANNER HOLLIDAY, III (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 27, 2009

The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated Subsections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), and 626.611(13), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Wholesale brokers collected premiums from retail agents, but failed to remit the premiums to the insurance company or the program managers for the insurance company.

17-001394 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION vs DEONARINE ENTERPRISE, INC., D/B/A 7 FOOD MART AND TORTILLERIA AND KELVIN DEONARINE (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 03, 2017

Melinda H Butler