Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION vs. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, 76-002189RX (1976)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 76-002189RX Visitors: 4
Judges: KENNETH G. OERTEL
Agency: Department of Financial Services
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 1977
Summary: This matter was brought up for hearing before this division in Tallahassee, Florida, on the Amended Petition of METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, seeking an administrative determination of the validity of Rule 3D-40.12, Florida Administrative Code. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: H. Glenn Boggs, II For Respondent: William B. Corbett, Jr. The rule in question has been propounded by the Department of Banking and Finance and deals with recording and satisfa
More
76-2189.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-2189RX

) DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE ) OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Respondent. )

)


FINAL ORDER


This matter was brought up for hearing before this division in Tallahassee, Florida, on the Amended Petition of METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, seeking an administrative determination of the validity of Rule 3D-40.12, Florida Administrative Code.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: H. Glenn Boggs, II


For Respondent: William B. Corbett, Jr.


The rule in question has been propounded by the Department of Banking and Finance and deals with recording and satisfaction of certain mortgages. That rule states:


3D-40.12 Recording mortgages. When a mortgage is recorded and funds are not disbursed to the mortgagor, a satisfaction of said mortgage shall be given immediately.

Failure to do so will be considered a deceptive practice and subject the licensee to suspension or revocation of the license. Specific Authority 20.05(5), 494.07, F.S. Law

Implemented 494.08 F.S. History - New 9-29-75.


It is the position of the Petitioner that this rule lacks the specific statutory authority required for implementation of a rule by Section 120.54(6), Florida Statutes (1975), which was in effect at the time the rule was adopted. The Petitioner, therefore, claims that the above quoted rule is invalid.


After considering the above, and the position of the Respondent as set forth in its Amended Answer, it is the finding of the Hearing Officer that there are no disputed issues of fact or of law and upon the admission of the Respondent that the said rule is invalid,


IT IS ORDERED that said rule is invalid.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of January 1977 at Tallahassee, Florida.


KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675


COPIES FURNISHED:


William B. Corbett, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex

Tallahassee, Florida


H. Glenn Boggs, II

Bryant, Dickens, Franson & Miller 700 Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Ms. Liz Cloud Department of State

403 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302


Docket for Case No: 76-002189RX
Issue Date Proceedings
Jan. 20, 1977 Final Order. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 76-002189RX
Issue Date Document Summary
Jan. 20, 1977 DOAH Final Order Rule challenge must fail for not having statutory authority.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer