Findings Of Fact At the time of CMNI's application, Mr. Giunta was president of CMNI and, as such, exercised primary control over the day-to-day activities of CMNI (Tr.12). Mr. Giunta is also the president of Christian Investors Network, Inc. (CINI), and exercised similar control over the activities of that corporation (Tr. 11-12). Mr. Giunta, CMNI, and CINI have never been licensed as mortgage brokers by the Department (Tr. 12-13). CINI, with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Giunta, placed advertisements in the St. Petersburg Times (Tr. 13). One such advertisement appeared in St. Petersburg Times edition of April 20, 1986, under the heading "Loan Information." That advertisement stated "Major Real Estate Financing" and "Residential Real Estate." (Exhibit 1). Sometime in the middle of 1986, Paul Mark called Mr. Giunta in response to an advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times. Mr. Mark was seeking a mortgage loan or loans to build several houses on real estate he owned and so informed Mr. Giunta, who indicated to Mr. Mark that he could arrange a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark (Tr. 28-29). Messrs. Mark and Giunta met shortly after the telephone call. Mr. Mark handed Mr. Giunta a package of documents including a site plan, survey, credit information and a completed mortgage loan application. Mr. Giunta again stated that he would have no problem arranging a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark and requested a fee for such service in the amount of $300.00 (Tr. 30-31). After the meeting, Mr. Mark sent to Mr. Giunta a check made out to Mr. Giunta in the amount of $300.00, together with a letter dated July 16, 1986, confirming that Mr. Giunta would secure mortgage financing (Tr. 31-33); Exhibit 3). In October of 1986, Clifford Clark called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance a certain parcel of property owned by Mr. Clark. Mr. Giunta stated that he could arrange mortgage financing for Mr. Clark at an interest rate of approximately ten percent (Tr. 48-49). After the telephone contact, Messrs. Clark and Giunta met and Mr. Giunta had Mr. Clark fill out a residential loan application (Exhibit 7). Mr. Clark provided Mr. Giunta with originals of his deed to the property and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta indicated that he could obtain mortgage financing for Mr. Clark and requested a fee of $250.00, whereupon Mr. Clark gave Mr. Giunta a check for that amount (Tr. 49-51). In early 1986, Robert Miraglia called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a second mortgage. Mr. Giunta arranged to meet with Mr. Miraglia to discuss the requested loan. In August of 1986, Russell Foreman contacted Gerald Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance his home (Exhibit 5). On August 26, 1986, Mr. Foreman met with Mr. Giunta and at Mr. Giunta's request gave him copies of his deed, a survey of the lot, the mortgages to be satisfied and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta assured Mr. Foreman that there would be no problem in obtaining a mortgage loan and requested a fee of $200.00. Mr. Foreman wrote a check for that amount and gave it to Mr. Giunta (Exhibit 5). Mr. Giunta never informed Messrs. Mark, Clark, Miraglia and Foreman that he was not a licensed mortgage broker. In approximately April of 1986, Mr. Giunta met with Mr. Arthur M. James, Area Financial Manager for the Department's Tampa Regional Field Office. At that meeting, Mr. James explained to Mr. Giunta that he could not offer to arrange or negotiate mortgage loans on behalf of clients and collect a fee for such service without first becoming licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker (Tr. 84). At some point prior to May 8, 1986, Mr. Giunta was contacted by the Department and informed of the statutes and regulations applicable to advertising his services in the area of real estate financing (Exhibit 2; Tr. 23-24). At some point in 1987, CMNI, with the knowledge and approval of Giunta, listed "Christian Mortgage Network, Inc." in the yellow pages of a local telephone book under the heading of "Mortgages." (Exhibit 1; Tr. 15).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, including the duty to sanction those licensed under the Mortgage Brokerage Act (the Act) for violations of the Act. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Joan N. Harnagel (Ms. Harnagel), was a registered mortgage broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. HA 517383319. There was no evidence that Ms. Harnagel's registration has been previously disciplined by Petitioner. Respondent Meridian Mortgage Group, Inc. (Meridian) first became a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida in September, 1988, with Respondent Joan N. Harnagel (Ms. Harnagel) serving as its vice-president and principal mortgage broker. Between September, 1988, and August, 1992, Meridian was a mortgage brokerage business in the State of Florida and held license No.HB 880000176-00. Meridian has held no active license as a Florida mortgage broker since August, 1992. There was no evidence that Meridian's registration has been previously disciplined by Petitioner. In September 1988, Meridian bought a Florida mortgage brokerage company named Bay Pointe Mortgage. At the time of this purchase, Ms. Harnagel was the principal mortgage broker and was responsible for the daily operations of Bay Pointe as its general manager. Upon Meridian's purchase of Bay Pointe, Ms. Harnagel served as Meridian's principal mortgage broker in Florida and continued her responsibility for the daily operation of Meridian's activities in Florida. Until July 15, 1989, Ms. Harnagel had no ownership interest in Meridian. The owners of Meridian between September 1988 and July 15, 1989, were Majorie Mohr and Larry Mohr of Carmel, Indiana. On July 15, 1989, Ms. Harnagel assumed ownership of Meridian and continued to serve as its principal mortgage broker and general manager responsible for daily operations. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Ms. Harnagel was the principal mortgage broker of Meridian and was responsible for its daily operations, which included the hiring and firing of employees, the ordering of appraisals and credit reports for customers, and the preparation of good faith estimates. Petitioner conducted an examination of the Respondents Harnagel and Meridian for the period inclusive of January 1, 1989, through April 30, 1990. As a result of the investigation, Petitioner prepared and forwarded to Respondents a report of its investigation. Subsequently thereto, Petitioner prepared and served on Respondents an "Administrative Complaint, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Intent to Revoke Licenses and Notice of Rights" which is the charging document for this proceeding. 1/ PAR PLUS VIOLATIONS There is a difference between a mortgage broker's origination fee and a lender's discount fee. A mortgage broker's origination fee is a fee charged by the mortgage broker for finding a loan for the applicant. A discount fee is a fee charged by the lender to a borrower for doing the paperwork on a loan and is usually expressed as a percentage of the amount borrowed. A discount may be considered as prepaid interest to the lender to cover the lender's expenses in making the loan. In the typical transaction that does not involve "par plus", the mortgage broker's origination fee is paid to the mortgage broker by the borrower at closing either by separate check or out of the proceeds of the closing. A "par plus" transaction is one in which the mortgage broker's origination fee is paid to the mortgage broker by the lender instead of by the borrower. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is a composite exhibit and pertains to a transaction involving borrowers Oscar and Arlene Carlsen. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is a composite exhibit and pertains to a transaction involving borrowers J. Richard and Sara Pooler. The first page of each exhibit is the good faith estimate that was completed by Ms. Harnagel. The good faith estimate is normally given to a borrower when the borrower first comes to the mortgage broker's office and applies for a loan. The purpose of the good faith estimate is to make full disclosure of what fees are going to be charged to the borrower. The second and third pages of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 constitute the Settlement Statements for each transaction and was prepared by the respective closing agents for these transactions. The Settlement Statement should reflect all costs that were paid by the buyer and the seller in the transaction being financed. The Carlsen transaction was a "par plus" transaction since Meridian's mortgage brokerage fee was paid by the lender. The Pooler transaction was also a "par plus" transaction since Meridian's mortgage brokerage fee was paid by the lender. By failing to respond to requests for admissions, Respondents admitted 2/ that in the Carlsen transaction and in the Pooler transaction neither Meridian nor Ms. Harnagel disclosed to the borrowers Meridian's participation in a "par plus" program. Both the Carlsen and the Pooler transactions closed in December 1989. ESCROW FUND VIOLATIONS - RESIDENTIAL 3/ Respondents received the following sums from the following borrowers on the following dates: BORROWER AMOUNT DATE K. Carrol $525.00 06-07-89 R. Williams $400.00 11-28-89 J. Gentile $270.00 06-30-89 C. Saffer $270.00 05-15-89 J. Mark $270.00 02-22-89 G. Norton $275.00 07-14-89 F. Sloss $275.00 03-02-89 W. Nachman $275.00 02-27-89 E. Ward $270.00 04-26-89 H. Rosen $310.00 04-24-89 J. Morris $825.00 06-30-89 S. Lewis $270.00 03-24-89 E. Fuller $485.00 05-01-89 G. Fleming $270.00 03-30-89 J. Bishop $270.00 03-28-89 P. Bifulco $270.00 04-10-89 E. Zulueta $270.00 05-26-89 L. MacCalister $325.00 06-21-89 T. Nangle $275.00 01-26-89 I. Rybicki $270.00 03-31-89 I. Rybicki $275.00 03-07-89 The foregoing sums were received by Respondents from borrowers to pay for credit reports and appraisals. Respondents should have placed these funds in the escrow account Meridian maintained at Sun Bank. Instead of being used for the intended purpose, these funds were placed in Meridian's operating account at Sun Bank and were used to pay Meridian's overhead. At all times pertinent hereto Respondent Harnagel was the principal mortgage broker for Meridian and knew that these sums were not being placed in escrow, knew that the funds should have been placed in escrow, and knew that these funds were not being expended for credit reports and appraisal reports. Ms. Harnagel asserts that the practice of placing these funds in Meridian's operating account was dictated by Meridian's out-of-state owners. Ms. Harnagel knew this practice violated the Mortgage Brokerage Act and asserts that she repeatedly informed the Mohrs of this problem. Notwithstanding her acknowledged violation of the Act, she continued to collect these fees and continued to place these fees in Meridian's operating account. The great majority of these transactions occurred prior to Ms. Harnagel assuming ownership of Meridian on July 15, 1989. As a result of these practices, Meridian became indebted to at least two appraisal companies, Duffy and Associates (Duffy) and Diamond Realty and Appraisal Company (Diamond). Neither appraisal company had been fully repaid as of the time of the formal hearing. Duffy and Associates is owed a total of $4,000 by Respondents for work that was performed on the order of Respondents. At least six of the appraisals for which Duffy has not been paid were ordered after Ms. Harnagel assumed ownership of Meridian. In each of these transactions Respondents collected the amount necessary to pay for the appraisal, but, instead of paying for the appraisals, spent the amounts as part of the operating account on overhead expenses. Ms. Harnagel paid Diamond the sum of $1,500 as partial payment of the accumulated debt to Diamond. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondents owed Diamond the sum of $1,675 plus interest and attorney's fees. THE COMMERCIAL LENDER: VICTORY ENTERPRISES TRUST The proposed lender for each of the four commercial transactions at issue in this proceeding was an entity referred to as "Victory Enterprises Trust". The principals of this trust were Thomas Telford, Harold McDonnard, Harold Meridon, and a man identified as Mr. Carpenter. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION ONE: GOLDEN HILLS Golden Hills is one of the four commercial projects that was at issue in this proceeding. A group of individuals including Robert Hastings, Doug Ollenberger, and Jeffery Kollenkark formed a partnership to purchase, refurbish, and develop a golf course and its surrounding property known as Golden Hills. This partnership, initially known as EBBCO Partnership and later incorporated under the name of Fore Golf Management, Inc., discussed with Ms. Harnagel the financing that would be required for the project. Ms. Harnagel suggested to this borrower a possible joint venture with a potential lender, the Victory Enterprises Trust, and requested a deposit in the amount of $12,000. Ms. Harnagel did not identify her lender to the borrower. This borrower deposited with Meridian the sum of $12,000 on or about September 28, 1989, with conditions that may be summarized as follows: The money was to be placed in Meridian's escrow account. The money was to be "100 percent refundable" if the joint venture partner did not fund the project or if terms of funding were not acceptable. Signatures from both parties to the joint venture would be required to release the funds from escrow. This money was not to be considered an application fee, but as a deposit for closing costs of the proposed joint venture. Any funds remaining were to be returned to Fore Golf Management, Inc. At no time did the Golden Hills borrowers authorize Ms. Harnagel to remove any of the funds from her trust account. On October 2, 1989, Ms. Harnagel wrote Robert Hastings a letter that included the following: Friday, September 29, 1989, Sun Bank received the Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00) and deposited in MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. TRUST ACCOUNT. These monies are used for prudent expenses needed to bring FORE GOLF MANAGEMENT, INC. an acceptable commitment. THE MONIES ARE REFUNDABLE if the commitment is not acceptable. (Emphasis in the original) On February 1, 1990, Mr. Hastings wrote Ms. Harnagel a letter that included the following: ... For about five months we have been attempting to put together a deal on Golden Hills. You have had our $12,000.00 since 9/29/89. To date no commitment has been brought to us. We do not mind continuing to try, but we do not wish to continue with this indefinitely. It is our wish that you suggest a time frame within which the project is completed and funded, or unless extended in writing by both parties, all agreements are null and void and all monies are refunded. On March 3, 1991, the Golden Hills borrowers demanded that Respondents return the $12,000 deposit, noting that the Golden Hills property had been sold to another entity approximately six months previously and that no commitment from Respondents or their lender had been forthcoming. Thereafter, the Golden Hills borrowers sent Dr. Kollenkark to Florida from California in an effort to collect the deposit from Respondents. On March 11, 1991, Ms. Harnagel wrote to Dr. Kollenkark a letter that provided, in part, as follows: The Trust does not want to return the monies as they felt they bought a commitment but that you were unable to obtain a viable contract. As I have said to you when we were told in December, 1990 that Golden Hills had definitely been sold. I told you that I would pay the $13,000 and get the money through the legal department. The reference to the Trust in Ms. Harnagel's letter of March 11, 1991, is to the Victory Enterprises Trust. The reference to the sum of $13,000 was an error and should have been $12,000. There was no evidence as to whether the deposit was transferred from Meridian's trust account to the proposed lender as implied by the letter of March 11, 1991. Ms. Harnagel testified that the money was transferred to Meridian's operating account and expended on Meridian's operating expenses. Ms. Harnagel admitted that the sum deposited by the Golden Hills borrowers should be refunded, but that she has been unable to do so. Her position that using the money to fund her operating expenses was authorized by the agreement with the Golden Hills borrowers is rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Although the record establishes that Ms. Harnagel expended considerable time and effort to secure funding for the Golden Hills borrowers, the record is equally clear that she was not entitled to use the deposit to fund her overhead expenses. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION TWO: GENESIS CORPORATION The second commercial transaction involved the funding of two hotel projects with the Genesis Corporation as Respondents' borrower. By letter dated December 15, 1989, the Genesis Corporation deposited with Meridian the sum of $1,500. Paragraph two of the transmittal letter is as follows: 2. The Funding must be to Genesis Corp. satisfaction. The Application Fee of $1,500. is refundable, if Genesis Corp. is not Completely Satisfied with the Funding. The principals of Genesis Corporation did not provide certain financial statements requested by Respondents. Consequently, Respondents were unable to secure financing for the two hotel projects. After the request for the financial statements was made, Respondents did not hear further from the Genesis Corporation. Respondents expended the deposit made by the Genesis Corporation for its operating expenses. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION THREE: RIVER RUN The third commercial transaction involved River Run Limited Partnership (River Run), which proposed to develop a golf course in North Carolina. As part of the transaction, Meridian required the borrower to pay an advance fee of $10,000.00 to be placed in Meridian's trust account. This deposit was subject to the following conditions: The deposited fee may be used by the lender (an unidentified trust) or by MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. in conjunction with the lender to conduct an inspection of the property and for other prudent and reasonable expenses necessary to bring the BORROWER an acceptable loan commitment. For all monies spent a full accounting of such expenses will be made to BORROWER. If no loan commitment is offered within fifteen (15) days of the last signature date of this agreement, the entire application fee will be refunded unless otherwise agreed to by both parties to this agreement. Should an offer be made by the lender that, for any reason, is unacceptable to the BORROWER, the BORROWER shall have the right to reject such an offer and the entire application fee shall be refunded to the BORROWER. In such an event, the BORROWER shall be obligated to notify MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. within five (5) working days of receipt of such offer that the offer is rejected, otherwise the deposited funds will be forfeited and will become the property of MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. The foregoing agreement between Meridian and River Run was extended so that Meridian was given until November 15, 1989, to obtain the financing. The $10,000 deposit to Meridian was paid on behalf of River Run by Nate Bowman. No financing for River Run was secured by Respondents. Mr. Bowman demanded a refund of the deposit and subsequently obtained judgment against Respondents for the $10,000 deposit. As of the formal hearing, Respondents had not satisfied the Bowman judgment or otherwise refunded the deposit to River Run. Ms. Harnagel asserted that the following circumstances were the reason that the River Run transaction did not close: The trust that was to be the lender asked for financial statements that were not provided. There was a lawsuit between certain of the partners of River Run. A financial officer would not relinquish certain tax returns for one of the partners of River Run. There was a concern about River Run's ability to repay the money. Ms. Harnagel stated that of the $10,000 that was deposited into Meridian's trust account, she only retained the sum of $3,500 and that the balance went to the lending trust. The $3,500 that was retained by Ms. Harnagel was expended. There was no accounting for these expenditures. Likewise, there was no accounting for the sums paid to the lending trust. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION FOUR: CHAPEL HILL The fourth commercial transaction involved a group of borrowers represented by Michael Grdina, an attorney in Ohio, who desired to obtain financing for the construction of a series of projects that will be referred to as the Chapel Hill complex. Subsequent to a telephone conversation between Mr. Grdina and Ms. Harnagel, Ms. Harnagel sent a letter dated November 16, 1989. This letter reflected that Respondents represented a Trust and that the Trust was interested in participating in a joint venture with Mr. Grdina's clients. The letter contained certain requirements imposed by the Trust and provided, in part, as follows: A Seventy-Five Hundred ($7,500.00) application fee be placed in MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. TRUST ACCOUNT. These monies are used for prudent expenses needed to bring Chapel Hill Commerce Center an acceptable commitment. If the commitment is not acceptable the monies are refundable. In response to that letter of November 16, 1989, Mr. Grdina wrote Ms. Harnagel a letter on behalf of his clients and enclosed a check for the sum of $7,500. Mr. Grdina's letter became the agreement between the parties as to the status of the $7,500 deposit paid to Respondents by Mr. Grdina. That letter omitted the language in Ms. Harnagel's letter of November 16, 1989, pertaining to the use of the deposit "for prudent business expenses". Mr. Grdina's letter of December 1, 1989, provided, in part, as follows: By wire transfer to Meridian's trust account the entities [Mr. Grdina's clients] have placed with you a Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) refundable good faith deposit. If an entity accepts a proposal for funding from sources identified by you, and such entity does not close the transaction for reason other than the fault of the lender, the good faith deposit will be forfeited as liquidated damages for expenses and fees incurred in the transaction. The initial agreement between Harnagel and Grdina contemplated that Harnagel's Trust would provide financing for Grdina's clients. By letter dated February 23, 1990, Mr. Grdina accepted the offer that the transaction be modified so that the Trust would secure 100 percent of the loan by a lending institution by depositing with the lending institution certificates of deposit. As additional consideration to the Trust, the Trust would become entitled to 25 percent equity participation in the construction project. The letter of February 23, 1990, did not modify the status of the deposit paid by Mr. Grdina on behalf of his clients. The loan to Mr. Grdina's clients did not close because the lending institution with whom Ms. Harnagel and Victory Trust dealt would not fund the loan. Thereafter, Mr. Grdina demanded return of the $7,500 deposit. As of the date of the formal hearing, that deposit has not been refunded. Although Ms. Harnagel argues that she was entitled to keep the deposit, that argument is without merit since none of the conditions precedent to her entitlement to the deposit occurred. CUSTOMER OVERCHARGE Respondents admitted that two customers were charged brokerage fees, origination fees, and/or discount fees which were greater than those disclosed on the Good Faith Estimates. On the Morris transaction, a fee of $450.80 was estimated, but the fee actually assessed at closing was $2,240, an overcharge of $1,790. On the Rosen transaction a fee of $1,773 was estimated, but the actual fee assessed was $1,871.50, for an overcharge of $98.50. Both overcharges resulted from charges imposed by a lending institution and neither overcharge resulted in inappropriate payments to Respondents. WALL STREET JOURNAL ADVERTISEMENT Respondents placed an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal on February 16, 1990. This advertisement did not contain the address of Meridian as required by law. The deletion of Meridian's address was the fault of the Wall Street Journal. INVESTIGATION OF LENDING SOURCE Ms. Harnagel testified without contradiction that she made efforts to verify the reliability of the Victory Enterprises Trust and its principals. She learned of this potential lender through an advertisement the Trust had placed in the Miami Herald. Neither the Trust or the principals were required to be licensed in Florida. Her efforts included having her attorney and her bank officer make inquiries to verify the reliability of the proposed lender. Petitioner argues that Respondents should have made further inquiry after the loan to the Golden Hills borrowers was not forthcoming from this lender. Petitioner has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents breached any standards imposed upon them to investigate the reliability of lenders so as to prove that Respondents are incompetent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that all licenses and registrations issued either to Joan N. Harnagel or Meridian Mortgage Group, Inc., be revoked. It is further recommended that an administrative fine be imposed against Joan N. Harnagel in the amount of $25,000. It is further recommended that a separate administrative fine be imposed against Meridian Mortgage Group, Inc., in the amount of $25,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1993.
Findings Of Fact 1. Prior to September 1, 1986, mortgage brokers in Florida who worked for several companies were issued separate licenses for each company. P. Ex. 10, P. The Respondent, Dennis C. Young, had several such licenses, the first having been issued on March 26, 1982. Id., P. 9. Prior to September 1, 1986, mortgage broker's licenses were issued for only one year and expired annually on August 31st. P. Ex. 10, P. 9-10. During the period from September 1, 1985, through August 31, 1986, the Respondent had only one mortgage broker license HA 0006667 as an additional broker for American Financial Consultants of Central Florida. R. Ex. 1, P. Ex. 10, P. 10-11. That license expired on August 31, 1986. Id. at P. 14. On January 22, 1986, the Respondent applied to the Petitioner, the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, for registration as a mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. P. Ex. 7. This application was for a license with Southern States Mortgage Company. P. Ex. 10, P. 12. On April 18, 1986, Petitioner denied the application of the Respondent for registration as a mortgage broker. The basis of the denial was a finding by the Petitioned of a number of statutory violations by the Respondent as a mortgage broker for American Financial Consultants of Central Florida. P. Ex. 10, P. 13. On July 11, 1986, or shortly thereafter, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that his request for a formal administrative hearing with respect to the denial of his application for registration as a mortgage broker was denied because not timely filed, and advised the Respondent that he had thirty days from July 11, 1986, in which to file an appeal, if he so desired, to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The Respondent contacted the attorney for the petitioner. The attorney for the petitioner in fact told the Respondent that he could reapply for a license, and if his application was again denied, the Respondent could then seek a formal administrative hearing and judicial review. The Respondent was also told that the petitioner would not forego or abate the final order denying the application, but was advised to "let sit" the final order denying his January 22, 1986, application. T. 100. The Respondent did not file a judicial appeal from the July 11, 1986, order. During the period from September 1, 1986, to November 12, 1987, the Respondent was not a licensed mortgage broker licensed by the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance. P. Ex. 6, P. Ex. 10, P. 15. Between January 22, 1986, and June 12, 1987, the Respondent did not file any application with the Petit loner for licensure as a mortgage broker. P. Ex. 10, p. 15. In about December, 1986, the Respondent was hired by Independence One Mortgage Corporation as a builder's loan representative for a builder that Independence One Mortgage Corporation was then servicing. The builder was building and selling homes in the Williamsburg subdivision. T. 33, 35-37, 64. The Respondent's office was located at the building site. Independence One Mortgage Corporation hired the Respondent to offer to the clients of the builder the type of mortgage that Independence One Mortgage Corporation was then offering, and in so doing, to handle all aspects of negotiating mortgage loan commitments, from initial interview, making quotes of daily mortgage rates to the builder's customers, and following up on the application from the beginning to closing of the mortgage. T. 37. The Respondent told Independence One Mortgage Corporation that he held a current valid mortgage broker's license with Investor's Home Mortgage Company and showed the agent of Independence One a "license" that the Respondent claimed was his and was then valid. T. 37. This statement was untrue. The agent for Independence One Mortgage Corporation who hired the Respondent had known the Respondent several years earlier as an aggressive mortgage solicitor. T. 36 Independence One Mortgage Corporation thought that the Respondent then held a valid mortgage broker's license, and would not have hired the Respondent if he had not represented that he was a licensed mortgage broker. T. 37-38. While employed by Independence One Mortgage Corporation, the Respondent negotiated mortgage loans. He quoted mortgage rates to prospective borrowers, received and processed applications from prospective borrowers, prepared good faith estimates of settlement charges, and closed mortgage loans. T. 42-56, 96-97; P. Exs. 1, 2, 4, and 5. During his employment with Independence One Mortgage Corporation, the Respondent negotiated over 40 mortgage loans. T. 55. From December, 1986, to May, 1987, the Respondent was paid a salary by Independence One Mortgage Corporation. In May, 1987, due to a lack of mortgage demand, Independence One placed the Respondent on a commission basis only. About two weeks later, the Respondent resigned his employment with Independence One. T. 55-57, 65-66. At about the same time, Independence One Mortgage Corporation learned that the Respondent did not have a valid mortgage broker's license. T. 57-59. On June 12, 1987, the Respondent filed another application for licensure as a mortgage broker. P. Ex. 9. In answer to question number 6, which asked whether he had ever had his license "denied, suspended or revoked," he answered no. This answer was not true. P. Ex. 10, P. 16. The Respondent testified that he answered question number 6 in the negative because he thought that he would be afforded a right to contest the previous denial of his application if the new application was denied. At the time that the Respondent stated in his application that he had never had a license previously denied, the Respondent knew that statement was not true. He knew that he might again reapply and in such reapplication contest the basis for denial, but he also knew that the denial of the first application was final and that he had lost his right to appeal. See findings of-fact 5 through 8. If the Respondent had answered yes to question 6, he was required by the application form to identify the agency that denied the application for licensure and to provide the names of the complaining parties. P. Ex. 9. By failing to truthfully answer question 6, the Respondent failed to notify the Petitioner of the existence of the prior dispute concerning his licensure. This was a material misstatement of fact. If the Respondent had been candidly pursuing the option of making a second application in order to gain another appeal right, he would have candidly disclosed to the Petitioner in his second application that a prior application had been denied. In that manner, the Respondent would have laid the issue squarely on the table. By answering no to question 6, the Respondent affirmatively sought to mislead the Petitioner so that the prior basis of denial might not become the basis for denial of the second application. The Petitioner construes the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as mandating that a license be issued if not denied within ninety days from the filing of the application. P. Ex. 10, pp. 20-23. During the period in which the June 12, 1987, application was pending, the Petitioner did not independently verify the answers to questions on the license application, and assumed that the answer to question 6 was correct. P. Ex. 10, pp. 16 and 20. Had it known that the Respondent had previously been denied a mortgage broker's license, the Petitioner would have denied the application of June 12, 1987, for a material misrepresentation of facts. P. Ex. 10, P. 23. For these reasons, and since the ninety day period had expired, the Petitioner issued mortgage broker license HA 261088342 to the Respondent on November 12, 1987. P. Ex. 6. In July, 1987, Colony First Mortgage Corporation was looking for a branch manager for its Mount Dora, Florida, office. The company wanted a branch manager who held a mortgage broker's license to solicit business, as well as to hire and supervise other loan officers. T. 25. The Respondent applied for the job, and Colony First Mortgage Corporation asked for his mortgage broker's license. T. 93. The Respondent told Colony First Mortgage Corporation that he had a mortgage broker's license. T. 26. This statement was untrue. In July, 1987, the Respondent was employed by Colony First Mortgage Corporation as a branch manager in the Mount Dora, Florida, office. T. 24-25, 59-60. Colony First Mortgage paid the Respondent a salary with an override of the branch's mortgage loan production. It was also possible for the Respondent to have been paid a small commission for mortgage loans that he might personally have solicited, but there is no evidence in the record (one way or the other) that any commissions were ever paid or not paid. T. 26, 28. The Petitioner requires that licensed mortgage brokers who change employment file an "application for endorsement" to change the registration of that license to the new employment. T. 72# At some time shortly before August 11, 1987, the Respondent filed with the Petitioner an "application for endorsement" for endorsement of a mortgage broker's license to work for Colony First Mortgage Corporation. P. Ex. 8. Colony First Mortgage Corporation required the Respondent to file this application as a condition of the Respondent's employment. The application bears the signature of a William D. Tharpe, dated August 11, 1987, representing himself as the principal broker for the Respondent, and stating that the Respondent was employed on July 6, 1987, as a mortgage broker. The Respondent submitted the application for endorsement 50 that he would be licensed as a mortgage broker working as a mortgage broker for Colony First Mortgage Corporation. The Respondent characterized his own activity at Colony First Mortgage as operation as a mortgage broker for Colony First Mortgage. T. 10. But he denied that he personally solicited loans, T. 109, and characterized his work as supervision of loan officers, who did solicit and negotiate mortgage loans. T. 109-111. In his employment at Colony First Mortgage, the Respondent hired staff, since all prior staff had left, and trained and supervised loan officers. T. 110-111. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally solicited or negotiated mortgage loans. Toward the end of October, 1987, Colony First Mortgage learned that the Respondent did not have a mortgage broker's license. The company removed the Respondent from his manager's position and subsequently terminated his employment. T. 27# Directly under the heading of the Respondent's application for endorsement is the statement: "Use this form only if currently licensed." Two lines under that statement is the following statement in bold print: "CURRENT LICENSE MUST BE RETURNED WITH THIS APPLICATION." The Respondent signed the form and stated in part I of the form that he had license number HA 001637. Another license number appears above the first number, and is HA 0016329. P. Ex. 8. The application for endorsement is used only if the applicant has a current license. Neither license number was a valid license currently or previously held by the Respondent. Thus, the representation on the application for endorsement, P. Ex. 8, as to license numbers was untrue. T. 114. The Respondent admits placing the first number on the form and denies placing the second number on the form. The Respondent asserts that the first number he placed on the form was his guess as to the correct number, and that he thought the petitioner would correct it if it were incorrect. He further asserts that he represented that he was licensed because he thought that since he had reapplied, the prior denial of licensure was still a pending issue, and that he could rely on earlier licenses that had expired. He further stated that he intended the number to represent the number of one of his earlier licenses. T. 115. The Respondent did hold license number HA 0016329, which expired on August 31, 1985, and license number HA 0006667, which expired on August 31, 1986. R. Ex. 1 and 2. It is credible that the Respondent was trying to use one of his expired license numbers, notably, the one that expired on August 31, 1985, HB 0016329, which is similar to the number he used, HA 001637. But it is not credible that the Respondent thought that he was "currently licensed" as required by the form. The Respondent knew that his prior licenses expired automatically each year. T. 116. He knew that his January 22, 1986, application had been denied. He knew he was not currently licensed. T. 102. He only had pending an application for a license, and had no currently active license number. Thus, it is concluded that the Respondent knew that he did not have a valid license number when he placed the number HA 001637 on the application for endorsement. This was a material misstatement of fact. See findings of fact 38, 39, and 47. The Respondent denies that he placed the second license number HA 0016329 upon the application. The second series of numbers is written in larger script than the first one. While there are some similarities in some of the numbers compared to other numbers written by the Respondent on the application (the 6 is the same as the 6 in the Respondent's social security number and telephone number, the 2 is the same as the first 2 in the telephone number), there is insufficient evidence in this record to conclude that the Respondent placed the second license number on the application. P. Ex. 8. The Petitioner relied upon the statements in the application for endorsement, P. Ex. 8, when it issued the mortgage broker's license to the Respondent on November 12, 1987. p. Ex. 10, P. 20.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter its final order finding that Dennis C. Young committed the violations described above and revoking license number HA 261088342 issued to him on November 1, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2273 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact in this appendix are adopted as additional findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 1. The phrase "due to fiat of operation of law" is a conclusion of law, not fact. 2, 5, 6, 7, 22, 23, 39, 46 (second sentence) 49, 50, and 55. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 14 (first sentence). The fact that a witness "testified" in a certain way is not a relevant finding of fact. The subject matter of the Respondent's testimony, that he in fact filed another application in May or June of 1986, is rejected as not proven by credible evidence. The Department had no evidence of any application between January 22, 1986, and June 12, 1987. The testimony of the Respondent on this point was not supported by a copy of the alleged application. Due to the Respondent's evasiveness as to other material points at issue in this case, the testimony of the Respondent is rejected as not credible and unsupported. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 1.C. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. 1.E. While these proposed findings of fact are true, they are irrelevant. A "mortgage broker" is defined by law (section 494.02(3), F1a. Stat.) to include any person, who for compensation or gain, "directly or indirectly" "negotiates" "a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment." The relevant issue is what the Respondent in fact did, not what the titles on the form said. 1.F-H. These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the credible evidence. 2.D.and G. A "mortgage broker" is defined by law (section 494.02(3), Fla. Stat.) to include any person, who for compensation or gain, "directly or indirectly" "negotiates" "a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment." As discussed in the conclusions of law, the Respondent indirectly negotiated mortgage loans through his supervision of loan officers at Colony First Mortgage Corporation. 2.F. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. See P. Ex. 8. 3.A.1-3. The Respondent admitted that Mr. Berkowitz told him to "let sit" the denial of his January 22, 1986, application, and the Respondent admitted that Mr. Berkowitz, on behalf of the Petitioner, would not abate or forgo the decision of denial. T. 100. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent knew that his application had been denied. This, coupled with receipt of P. Ex. 7, makes any contrary belief not credible. 3.B.4. There was intent to deceive. The Respondent knew he was not currently licensed. He knew the earlier license (the one which he tried to place by number on application) had expired. He knew that his last application had been finally denied. He only had a pending application (June 12, 1987), and had no decision on that yet. The Respondent told Colony First Mortgage Corporation that he was currently licensed. If the Respondent had no intent to deceive, he would have clearly mentioned on the application for endorsement the denial of his January 22, 1986, application, and his theory of the continued "existence" of his expired license. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dennis C. Young 4050 Gallagher Loop Post Office Box 771 Casselberry, Florida 32707 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Dave Taylor (“Taylor) alleges that various purported “statements” which he attributes to Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) constitute rules-by-definition that were not adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, titled “Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending.” As such, it is responsible for regulating all persons, including mortgage brokers and lenders, licensed under that chapter. Taylor is licensed under Chapter 494 as a mortgage broker and as a “continuing education school.” His firm, Florida Compliance Specialists, Inc., provides consulting services to Chapter 494 licensees. The present dispute stems from amendments to Chapter 494 that the legislature enacted during the 2001 regular session. See Ch. 2001-228, Laws of Florida. These amendments were contained in a bill (CS/HB 455) approved by the governor on June 13, 2001, and became effective on October 1, 2001; they created a new position called “principal representative.” As defined by the legislature, the term “principal representative” means “an individual who operates the business operations of a licensee under part III.” Section 494.001(29), Florida Statutes (2001) (emphasis added).4 This statutory definition is amplified in a mandate that requires all licensees (and applicants) to designate a “principal representative who exercises control of the licensee’s business[.]” Sections 494.0061(8) and 494.0062(11), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). Notably, the terms “operates” and “exercises control of” are not defined. As mentioned, the statute requires all licensees and applicants to designate a PR. Although PRs do not engage in a licensed occupation (i.e. there is no PR license), an individual appointed to the post of PR after October 1, 2001, must satisfy certain educational and testing requirements (the details of which are not important here), and the designating lender must submit documents showing that its PRD has complied with those requirements.5 After the governor signed CS/HB 455 into law but before the amended statutes took effect, the Department began making rules to implement the new provisions. Before long, proposed rules were published in the August 31, 2001, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. One provision of these proposed rules instructed that “[a]n individual can only be a principal representative for one [lender].” This “one lender to a PR” proposal did not implement an explicit statutory directive but arose from the Department’s then-prevailing interpretation of the statutory description of a PR as one who “operates” and “exercises control of” the lender’s business. Further illuminating the Department’s understanding of these terms were the Designation forms that it proposed to adopt, wherein the PRD was required to acknowledge that he or she would be “in full charge, control, and supervision of the [lender’s] business.” A person, the Department reasoned, could be “in full charge,” etc., of but one company at a time. In the course of rulemaking, however, the Department receded from its original interpretation. As a result, revised proposed rules——from which the bright line, “one lender to a PR” directive had been deleted——were published in the October 5, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly.6 An amended Designation, which unlike earlier versions lacked language requiring a PRD to confirm (with his or her signature) having “full charge, control, and supervision” of the applicant’s or licensee’s business, was proposed as well.7 By the end of January 2002, the Department’s proposed rules relating to PRs had been adopted and, at the time of this Final Order, were among the agency’s duly promulgated, existing rules. See Rule 3D-40.242, Florida Administrative Code. Although the Department does not presently have a bright line rule or policy that flatly forbids an individual from serving simultaneously as PR to more than one licensee, the Department continues to be skeptical that a dual designee can effectively perform, for more than one lender at a time, the responsibilities that it believes inhere in the office of PR. Accordingly, whenever a lender or applicant nominates an XPR for PR, the Department without exception subjects that lender’s Designation to stricter scrutiny than would be given if its PRD were not an XPR. (Indeed, if the PRD is not an XPR, then the Department presumes that he or she will be able to carry out the duties of a PR and hence makes no inquiry as to how the PRD will function as PR.) The first outward manifestations of the Department’s internal decision to scrutinize any Designation in which an applicant’s PRD is an XPR emerged in late November 2001 after the agency had received four separate applications naming Taylor as PR.8 As the Department had discovered upon review of these four applications, Taylor was already serving as PR to an existing licensee. This situation had given rise to a dilemma for which the Department was not fully prepared, as evidenced by a November 26, 2001, e-mail message from an agency attorney to the responsible policy makers in which she (the attorney) had advised that: There are two pending applications in which there are no deficiencies and we need to decide how will [sic] we will proceed since we took out the language in the rule that specifically stated an individual could only be a PR for one company at a time. Let me know what times you would be available [for a meeting to decide what to do]. The Department quickly decided what to do. Between November 27 and November 29, 2001, the Department issued four nearly identical letters, one sent by certified mail to each applicant who had chosen Taylor as its PR, which provided, in pertinent part: We are in receipt of your company’s application to become licensed as a mortgage lender in the State of Florida. A review of the application materials indicates that [applicant’s name] has designated Dave Taylor at [address] as the company’s Principal Representative. [The next four paragraphs quote Sections 494.001(29); 494.0062(11); 494.0062(1)(f); and 494.0062(12), Florida Statutes, which pertain to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (c) A material misstatement of fact on an initial or renewal application.[9] Dave Taylor has already been designated as a principal representative for another licensed lender under part III of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Please advise in detail how Mr. Taylor will operate and exercise control over your business.[10] We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. On or about November 30, 2001, the Department created a new deficiency code, DF 416, the description of which is “principal representative is designated to more than one entity.” This is an active deficiency code and is used consistently as a “red flag” on all applications to which it applies. When an application is tagged with a DF 416, the applicant is sent a letter in the form of the letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. This letter will hereafter be referred to as the “DF 416 Inquiry Letter.”11 It is important to emphasize that all applicants whose PRD is an XPR are sent the DF 416 Inquiry Letter, without exception.12 It is undisputed that Taylor has met all of the educational and testing requirements necessary to serve as a PR, and that the Department has no objection, based on facts and circumstances unique to Taylor, to Taylor’s being a lender’s PR. (In fact, he is presently a PR to one lender,13 under a designation to which the Department, consistent with its policy and practice of making no inquiry concerning PRDs who are not XPRs, raised no objection.) The Department’s concern about Taylor’s having been designated a PR by more than one company is indistinguishable from the concern that it expresses regarding all dual designees. This is why, although the contents of the DF 416 Inquiry Letter were developed to resolve a problem that specifically involved Taylor and his clients, the Department decided (and was able) to implement its Taylor-made solution on a generally applicable basis by sending the DF 416 Inquiry Letter to all applicants whose PRD is a dual designee. Each of the four applicants that had designated Taylor as its PR declined the Department’s November 2001 invitation to submit detailed information regarding the manner in which Taylor would operate and control the licensed business. Each applicant chose, instead, to designate someone else as PR. Thus, whatever advantages or considerations Taylor expected to receive in exchange for serving as these lenders’ PR were lost; the Department’s letters (the letters that became the form for the DF 416 Inquiry Letter) were the proximate cause of that loss, in that but for the letters, the lenders would not summarily have severed their respective business relationships with Taylor. After deciding how to deal with applicants whose PRDs are XPRs, the Department turned its attention to the dual designees of existing licensees. This was, in a sense, a bigger problem because, in their respective Designations, more than 50 licensees had selected an individual for PR who was a dual designee. Beginning around December 12, 2001, the Department sent all these lenders a letter similar to the DF 416 Inquiry Letter. This letter stated: We are in receipt of the principal representative designation forms for the following companies: [lender’s names]. A review of the principal representative forms indicates that [PRD’s name and address] has been designated the Principal Representative for both companies. [The next two paragraphs quote statutory provisions pertaining to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(p) state as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (p) Failure to comply with, or violations of, any other provision of ss. 494.001-494.0077. Please advise in detail how you will operate and exercise control over both of the above- mentioned businesses. We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 14 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. This form letter will be referred to as the “Compliance Inquiry Letter.” The evidence is unequivocal that the Department has sent, and plans to send, the Compliance Inquiry Letter to all licensees whose Designation names a person determined to be a dual designee, without exception.14 Taylor’s Description of the Alleged Rules-by-Definition In his petition, as required by Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Taylor described the alleged rules-by- definition. Here, in his words, are the Department’s alleged statements: Only one person can realistically “operate the business operations” of a licensee and “exercise control over the licensee’s business.” Therefore, only one individual shall prima facie be designated as principal representative for only one mortgage lender. The above rule shall not apply, however, to mortgage lenders which the Department deems to be “grand-fathered” i.e., such companies who designated their principal representative on or prior to October 1, 2001, the effective date of the statutory amendments. In such instances, an individual will be permitted multiple designations without further departmental scrutiny or inquiry as to how that individual will “operate” or “exercise control over each business.”[Footnote omitted]. Except for “grand-fathered” companies, if an individual once designated principal representative by a mortgage lender is similarly designated principal representative by a separate mortgage lender, the Department based upon the agency statement recited in (a) above, will require the subsequent mortgage lender(s) (i.e., the lender(s) other than the one first designating that individual) to provide in writing a detailed explanation to the Department, subject to potential sanctions, describing how that individual will operate and exercise control over that second mortgage lender. The Department considers as a “licensing deficiency” any mortgage lender application or principal representative designation submitted to the Department where the individual designated as the mortgage lender’s principal representative has previously been and continues to be designated principal representative by another mortgage lender. The Department, based upon this “deficiency,” shall not deem the application(s) “complete” for purposes of section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Such application(s) shall be subjected to the licensing procedures set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) hereafter. In conformity with the agency statement set forth in (a) above, the Department will not undertake an inquiry of the principal representative designation submitted by the mortgage lender who first designated the individual as its’ principal representative. The Department will require mortgage lenders to provide the information referred to in section c above, through the use of a form, [i.e., the form letters attached as EXHIBITS “14”, “15”, & “16”, to this Petition]. Further, this form created for the purpose of soliciting information [not specifically required by statute or an existing rule] will require mortgage lenders to provide a response, specifically subject to announced sanctions, of details not otherwise required under the applicable statutes or rules. The Department, though requiring mortgage lenders to comply with the agency statements through the threat of announced sanctions, shall not provide to mortgage lenders or their designated principal representatives any clarifying or defining circumstances or criteria the Department will deem as acceptable——contractual or otherwise——for a person to be designated as principal representative for more than one mortgage lender. Any responses provided by such mortgage lenders in response to the Department’s written form shall be submitted by the applicant “at their peril.” Ultimate Factual Determinations In his just-quoted statements “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e,” Taylor described, with reasonable particularity, the essence of policies that, in fact, fall within the statutory definition of the term “rule.” Statement “a” describes (albeit somewhat imprecisely) a Departmental mindset, the view that a person is likely to have difficulty simultaneously serving more than one master as a PR; the last sentence of statement “d” accurately describes the Department’s related policy of not inquiring as to how a PRD who is not a dual designee will operate and control the lender’s business (because the agency presumes that a person will probably have no difficulty serving as PR to one lender at a time). Taken together, these views, in fact, constitute the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes.15 Taylor’s statement “c” and the third sentence of “d” (all of which, of course, he attributes to the Department) correctly describe, for the most part,16 the Department’s policy of requiring additional information from all licensees and applicants whose Designations nominate an XPR for the position of PR. This policy is plainly driven by the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes, and it leads, in turn, directly to statement “e.” Restated to conform to the evidence, statement “e” holds that the Department will send either the DF 416 Inquiry Letter or the Compliance Inquiry Letter, whichever is applicable, to any lender whose PRD is an XPR. It is the form letters——the DF 416 Inquiry Letter and the Compliance Inquiry Letter——that have emerged as the most visible, most readily identifiable unadopted rules of the Department, for they solicit information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. By the end of December 2001 at the latest, rulemaking was both feasible and practicable with regard to the above- described statements, but no effort was made to adopt them as rules. Thus, the Department failed timely to commence rulemaking with regard to these statements in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.17
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Law Office of H. Richard Bisbee 124 Salem Court, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2810 For Respondent: Cynthia K. Maynard, Esquire James H. Harris, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Melvin Haber applied for registration as a mortgage broker by filing an application for registration as a mortgage broker on December 20, 1976. On January 14, 1977, Petitioner issued to Respondent its Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for registration as a mortgage broker. The reasons for such denial were set forth in an accompanying document entitled "Administrative Charges and Complaint." Petitioner Division of Finance had determined that Respondent Melvin Haber did not meet the proper qualifications necessary to be licensed as a mortgage broker and that he had, through Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions provided by the Florida Statutes; and although he had stated otherwise on his application, Respondent in fact had been charged in a pending lawsuit with fraudulent and dishonest dealings; and had demonstrated a course of conduct which was negligent and or incompetent in the performance of acts for which he was required to hold a license. By letter dated January 19, 1977, to Mr. Joseph Ehrlich of the Comptroller's Office, Tallahassee, Florida, Petitioner received a request from the Respondent Melvin J. Haber in which he acknowledged receipt of his rejection for mortgage broker's license and stated, "I received notice today of my rejection for my mortgage broker's license. I would, therefore, withdraw my application and re- quest return of $75.00 as I will not answer the rejection as I can't afford an attorney at this time." A Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint was entered on February 11, 1977. The grounds are as follows: "1. The Department of Banking and Finance does not have jurisdiction over this Respondent. There is no jurisdiction in any administrative proceeding over this Respondent. There is no pending application for any mortgage broker's license by this Respondent. The application originally filed for the mortgage broker's license was withdrawn on January 19, 1977. A copy of the letter withdrawing application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proceedings are moot and would serve no useful purpose. Permitting this tribunal to proceed on a non-existent request for broker's license would deny to the Respondent due process of law, equal protection of the law, and his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions applicable thereto." On March 4, 1977, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Eugene J. Cella, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, requesting a hearing in this cause be set at the earliest practical date, and enclosed in the letter requesting a hearing was a copy of the Division of Finance's Administrative Complaint and a copy of the Respondent's Special Appearance to Dismiss the Complaint. A hearing was set for April 22, 1977, by notice of hearing dated March 30, 1977. A letter was sent by Irwin J. Block, Esquire, informing the attorney for the Petitioner that the Respondent "intends to permit the matter to proceed solely upon the written Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint heretofore filed." Evidence was submitted to show that between May 29, 1973 and continuing through November 25, 1976, Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation and Melvin Haber as Secretary/Treasurer charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowed fees or commissions in violation of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's application for registration as a mortgage broker indicated that Petitioner was not named in a pending lawsuit that charged him with any fraudulent or dishonest dealings. However, on August 5, 1976, a suit was filed in Dade County, Florida, which charged the Petitioner and others with fraud in violation of the Florida Securities Law. The application was filed by Respondent, was processed by Petitioner and a Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for Registration was filed together with Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction upon request of a party for a hearing once an application has been received and the Division has investigated and fully considered the application and issued its Notice of Intent to Deny and filed a Complaint on the applicant. In this cause the question of whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of fees also must be resolved. An orderly procedure to finalize the resolution of the issues is desirable and necessary. The Proposed Order filed by the Petitioner has been examined and considered by the Hearing Officer in the preparation of this order.
Recommendation Deny the application of applicant Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license. Refund the Seventy-Five Dollar ($75.00) fee Respondent paid upon filing the application. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Irwin J. Block, Esquire Fine, Jacobson, Block, Goldberg & Semet, P.A. 2401 Douglas Road Miami, Florida 33145
The Issue 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.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Homesafe Mortgage Company (Homesafe), initially known as FMC Mortgage Company, a Florida corporation, was established on May 24, 1990, and has, since its inception, been owned by Orlando Monteagudo and his wife, Omaida. On September 16, 1990, Homesafe applied to respondent, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), for registration as a mortgage brokerage business under the provisions of Section 494.039, Florida Statutes (1989). Homesafe's application was approved, and its mortgage brokerage business license was issued on October 24, 1990. A few days after Homesafe was licensed, the assets of another corporation wholly owned by Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo, First Miami Investments Corporation (FMIC), discussed more fully infra, were transferred to it, and Homesafe assumed the mortgage business of FMIC. At that time, FMIC became idle, and ceased doing business. On October 1, 1991, a new law, the "Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending Act," Chapter 91-245, Laws of Florida, became effective, which substantially changed the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and required businesses desirous of engaging in activities as mortgage lenders to be licensed as such. The Act also required such licensure for entities engaged in the business of servicing loans, if they proposed to service loans for more than four months, whereas previously no license was required for such activity. As a consequence of the amendments to chapter 494, Homesafe filed a timely application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, that section provided: (1)(a) Any person in good standing who holds an active registration pursuant to former s. 494.039 . . . or any person who acted solely as a mortgage servicer on September 30, 1991, is eligible to apply to the department for a mortgage lender's license and is eligible for licensure if the applicant: 1. For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, has engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both . . . . (Emphasis added) And, Section 494.001(17), Florida Statutes, defined a "person" to mean "an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other group, however organized." Also pertinent to an evaluation of Homesafe's application by the Department was Rule 3D-40.202, Florida Administrative Code, which provided: Eligibility for Application for Mortgage Lender License Pursuant to the Saving Clause. A mortgage brokerage business licensee which changes their business entity, such as the incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, shall be deemed the same "person" as defined s. 494.001(17), FS., for the purpose of determining eligibility pursuant to s. 494.0065, FS., provided the applicant is owned by the same person(s) holding the same ownership interest as the mortgage brokerage business licensee prior to any change in the resulting business entity. By letter of April 13, 1992, the Department notified Homesafe of its intention to deny Homesafe's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." The basis for the Department's denial was it conclusion that Homesafe had not "engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both" for "at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, as required by the "Saving Clause," and that the provisions of Rule 3D-40.202 were not applicable to Homesafe's circumstances, such that credit for FMIC's activities could be accorded Homesafe. Subsequently, the Department amended its notice of denial to include, as an additional basis for denial, its contention that Homesafe violated the provisions of Section 494.0072(2)(k), Florida Statutes, by acting as a mortgage lender subsequent to October 1, 1991, without a current, active license. Homesafe filed a timely request for formal hearing and disputed the bases upon which the Department proposed to deny its application. Homesafe's activities and those of its predecessor in interest, FMIC Orlando Monteagudo, the chief executive officer and co-owner of Homesafe, has personally held an active license as a mortgage broker since 1984, and has, through various entities, been active in the mortgage brokerage business since that date, without unfavorable incident. On July 20, 1989, Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo became the sole owners of OJM Enterprises, Inc. (OJM), then known as The R & M Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, through a structured buy out from his former partners, with whom Monteagudo apparently felt strong dissatisfaction. OJM was the parent company of First Mortgage Corporation (FMMC) and First Miami Investment Corporation (FMIC), both Florida corporations. FMMC had been licensed as a mortgage brokerage business since at least March 14, 1986; however, neither OJM nor FMIC were ever so licensed. 2/ In September 1990, Monteagudo, out of a desire to further distance himself from his former associates, and on the advice of his accountant as to the best way to wrap up the affairs of OJM, FMMC and FMIC, contemplated the merger of OJM and FMMC into FMIC by September 30, 1990, and the transfer of their assets and mortgage brokerage business activities to Homesafe, which until that time had been largely inactive. In furtherance of such plan, Homesafe, as heretofore noted, on September 16, 1990, applied to the Department for registration as a mortgage brokerage business under the provisions of Section 494.039, Florida Statutes (1989). Homesafe's brokerage business license was issued on October 24, 1990. In the interim, a merger agreement was executed on September 29, 1990, on behalf of FMMC, FMIC and The R & M Group, Inc., whereby the parties agreed to merge The R & M Group, Inc., and FMMC into FMIC. [Use of the name "The R & M Group, Inc.," OJM's former name, was a mistake and would lead to a delay in filing with the Secretary of State as discussed infra.] Under the agreement, which was to have been effective September 30, 1990, FMIC would be the surviving entity, and "all the estate, property, rights, privileges, powers, franchises, and interests of each of the . . . corporations" would be vested in FMIC as the surviving corporation, without further act or deed. Considering the restructuring that was occurring, the proof is persuasive that at least by October 1, 1990, and more probably at some unidentifiable date shortly prior thereto, Homesafe began to service mortgage loans on behalf of FMIC. Thereafter, by October 30, 1990, following approval of its application for a mortgage brokerage business license, Homesafe received the assets of FMIC and assumed the mortgage brokerage business that had previously been operated through the corporate group, now FMIC. At that time, FMIC became idle and ceased doing business. Notwithstanding their efforts to effect a technical merger by September 30, 1990, the Secretary of State, by letter of January 4, 1991, rejected the merger agreement because The R & M Group, Inc., had changed its name on September 4, 1990, to OJM Enterprises, Inc. Accordingly, the parties were advised to correct their agreement to properly reflect the corporate parties if they desired the Secretary of State to accept such filing. Consequently, on January 14, 1991, the parties executed an amended merger agreement that properly reflected the corporate parties as FMMC, FMIC and OJM Enterprises, Inc. That agreement was duly filed with the Secretary of State on January 18, 1991, and FMIC became, technically, the surviving corporation that date. Under the terms of that agreement, as with the initial agreement, Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo, as the sole owners of OJM, became the sole owners of FMIC. The Department's Rule 3D-40.202 Pertinent to this case, Rule 3D-40.202, Florida Administrative Code, provides: Eligibility for Application for Mortgage Lender License Pursuant to the Saving Clause. A mortgage brokerage business licensee which changes their business entity, such as the incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, shall be deemed the same "person" as deemed in s. 494.001(17), FS., for the purpose of determining eligibility pursuant to s. 494.0065, FS., provided the applicant is owned by the same person(s) holding the same ownership interest as the mortgage brokerage business licensee prior to any change in the resulting business entity. Here, the Department and Homesafe disagree as to the proper interpretation of the foregoing provision. The intent of the rule, according to the Department, was to permit those who were licensed as a mortgage brokerage business prior to the adoption of the "Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending Act," Chapter 91-245, Laws of Florida, but were not a corporate entity, to qualify under the "Saving Clause." Notably, under the amendments to chapter 494, only corporations are eligible for licensure as a mortgage lender. See Section 494.0061, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department interprets the rule to apply only when there has been an actual change in the form of the business entity, through incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, and does not consider the rule applicable where, as here, a mere transfer of assets occurred between corporations. Contrasted with the Department's interpretation, Homesafe contends that the provisions of the rule are broad enough to cover the situation where, as here, the mortgage brokerage business of one corporation is assumed by another corporation, as long as the ownership interests remain the same. Under such interpretation, Homesafe and FMIC, the surviving corporation, would be considered the same "person" for purposes of determining eligibility under the "Saving Clause," and Homesafe could be credited, if necessary, with the time periods FMIC or its merged parts operated as a mortgage brokerage business to satisfy the "12-month" standard of the "Saving Clause." While Homesafe's interpretation may be a permissible interpretation of Rule 3D-40.202, so is the Department's. Indeed, the Department's interpretation of the rule is consistent with the intent of the rule and the doctrine of noscitur a sociis often applied as an aid to statutory construction. Under such circumstances, and for the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law, deference is accorded the agency's interpretation. Homesafe's activities subsequent to October 1, 1991 Pertinent to the Department's charge that Homesafe has acted as a mortgage lender subsequent to October 1, 1991, without a current, active license, the proof demonstrates that since October 1, 1991, Homesafe has made between 120-170 mortgage loans, sold those loans to investors, and thereafter serviced the majority of those loans. In response, Monteagudo retorts that Homesafe was entitled to licensure under the "Saving Clause," and that it was entitled to and needed to continue its business pending Department approval of its application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered approving Homesafe's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of April 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April 1993.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, (Department), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation and licensing of mortgage brokers in this state, and Respondent, Harriet Ijames, was a licensed mortgage broker. On February 17, 1989, Respondent entered into a Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department whereby she was placed on probation for 2 years for misconduct relating to the misappropriation of mortgage application fees, with the further requirement that she not act independently but under the supervision of a broker acceptable to the Department. On October 2, 1991, the Department filed a complaint against the Respondent alleging she had violated the terms of the prior Consent Order by conducting business as a mortgage broker without the requisite supervision. Thereafter, on April 29, 1992, Respondent entered into another Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department regarding the October, 1991 complaint by which she was again placed on probation conditioned upon her operating only under the supervision of an approved broker. This latter Order provided that any violation thereof would be automatic grounds for immediate and summary revocation of her license and also imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00. The Final Order incorporating that agreement was issued by the Department on July 13, 1992. In May, 1992, Respondent was contacted by Rhudine M. McGhee, a resident of Tampa, who had been referred to her by a mutual acquaintance. Mrs. McGhee indicated she was interested in purchasing another house. Somewhat later, Respondent contacted Mrs. McGhee and told her of a friend who had a house for sale. She also gave Mrs. McGhee the addresses of some other houses in the area which were for sale. Mrs. McGhee did not like any of them. Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker, and that she would have a real estate broker contact her. Respondent also offered to provide Mrs. McGhee with listings of Resolution Trust Corporation foreclosures in the desired price range. Some time later, the broker referred by Respondent showed Mrs. McGhee a house she liked and she signed a contract to buy it. In the interim, Respondent had taken a credit application from the McGhees over the phone and followed up with a visit to the McGhee home. On May 13, 1992, during the visit to the McGhee residence, Respondent had Mrs. McGhee sign a loan application. On that same visit, she solicited and received from Mrs. McGhee a check for $300.00, payable to the Respondent and subsequently endorsed and cashed by her, which reflected the check was the application fee for a loan. She specifically asked that the check be made to her, personally. When Mrs. McGhee asked Respondent about the check, she was told it would be credited to the purchase price at time of closing. This was not done and it was only later, after a complaint was filed with the Department, that Mr. Brigliadora, the mortgage broker with whom she was affiliated, repaid the fee from his company's funds. Though at hearing Respondent denied she took a loan application fee or that the check she received was for that purpose or bore any notation to that effect when received, Mrs. McGhee is quite certain she put that notation on the check at her husband's direction at the time she gave it to Respondent. Respondent claimed the check was for finding the house but Mr. McGhee specifically recalls Respondent indicating the check was to be an application fee to be credited against the purchase price. It is so found. On June 1, 1992, Respondent again returned to the McGhee home to have them sign a second loan application. This time Mr. McGhee was not at home and Respondent suggested to Mrs. McGhee that she sign her husband's name to the application. This was done. Respondent did not give the McGhees copies of the applications they signed but said she would bring them copies at a later date. This was never done. Though Respondent also denies soliciting the second application, her apparent signature appears on both application forms and it is found she did both solicit and sign the forms and the application fee check. The first application was for a loan of $80,000.00 at 8.5 percent. The second was for $36,000.00 at 8.625 percent. At the time of the solicitation, Respondent was employed by Frank Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker and owner of the Money Tree Mortgage Co. However, neither Respondent nor Mr. Brigliadora had notified the Department of their arrangement or obtained Departmental approval of the supervisory relationship. Clearly, Respondent knew the taking of an application fee, as the evidence indicates she did here, was inappropriate. Sometime in mid 1992, Respondent approached George Banks, a licensed mortgage broker in Tampa and owner of his own brokerage company, with a view toward working for him. In their conversation about that, they discussed the practice of application fees. Respondent indicated she wanted to take a fee of $200.00 to $300.00 up front, but Banks felt this was not proper, advised her so, and declined to accept her as a broker. Even when she claimed that other brokers took fees of this nature, he demurred, claiming he did not endorse the practice. Respondent worked for Mr. Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker, at his firm, Money Street Mortgage, for approximately 3 months during 1992. At the time she went to work for him, Respondent did not tell him she was under sanctions by the Department to have strict supervision and at no time did he agree to the Departmental supervision program. Mr. Brigliadora did not receive the $300.00 check Respondent obtained from the McGhees nor did he ever get the money it represented from the Respondent. It was only just before or at the closing on the property that he first became aware of the deposit. When he refunded the money to the McGhees, Respondent agreed to reimburse him but she never did. Normally, Money Street Mortgage does not take application fees on residential loans, and Mr. Brigliadora denies he ever approved or suggested to Respondent that she solicit them. When Respondent gave him the documentation on the McGhee loan application it did not include the required good faith estimate found in the brokerage agreement nor did the application form or any other document make the required disclosures. The application he got from Respondent does not constitute a brokerage agreement and Mr. Brigliadora never got one from the Respondent on this loan. What he received is no more than an application for a loan. Mr. James, the Department's Area Financial Manager, whose job includes the assignment of examiners and the review of investigations by examiners, knows Respondent as a licensed mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. He is aware of prior complaints received by the Department about the Respondent in the past. Two of them relate to the Final Orders previously mentioned herein. In the instant case, he recalls receiving a telephone call regarding a deposit of $300.00 given to Respondent and commenced an investigation into the incident. The current Administrative Complaint which resulted in this hearing was the outcome of that investigation. Based on his evaluation of the matters discovered in the investigation, he concluded that Respondent took a fee from a client without having a brokerage agreement with that client; failed to make the required full disclosure to a client; and misappropriated a fee which she received from a client; all of which are violations of various provisions of Chapter 494. In his official capacity with the Department, Mr. James had the duty to approve a supervisory mortgage broker for the Respondent as called for in the two prior Final Orders referred to previously herein. Neither Money Street Mortgage nor Mr. Brigliadora were submitted by Respondent for approval by the Department even though Respondent knew she was required to do so. Respondent claims she made it very clear to Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker. Nonetheless, Mrs. McGhee, she claims, insisted Respondent help her and offered to pay her for her efforts. Respondent claims that all Petitioner's witnesses lied about her and forged documents relating to her alleged activities. She denies she would ever cheat or disobey the rules because she knows she would lose her license if she did. Claiming she is well respected in the community, she asserts the Department did not thoroughly investigate the allegations against her and is, therefore, destroying her reputation over something which did not happen as alleged. Her assertions are not accepted, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case finding her guilty of the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein; revoking Harriett Ijames' license as a mortgage broker in Florida; and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa L. Elwell, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Harriett Ijames 8341 Paddlewheel Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact For the purposes of these proceedings, Jager Industries, Inc. and Castle Realty Ltd. are synonymous as Petitioner. Through name changes, Castle Realty Ltd. became Jager Industries, Inc. Under the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (Fund) which includes the duty to approve or deny applications for payment from the Fund, as set forth in Section 494.042, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, 1st Federated Realty Mortgage, Inc. (1st Federated) was licensed as a mortgage broker in this state pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license number HE 7896. On or about January 8, 1981, 1st Federated filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa, Division. Thereafter, on or about December 16, 1981, 1st Federated was dissolved. On January 29, 1985, the Department received a letter dated January 25, 1985, by regular mail, requesting payment from the Fund on behalf of Castle Realty Ltd. Attached to the letter was a final judgment entered on April 21, 1982, in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County against 1st Federated in the principal amount of $50,000 based upon a violation of Section 494.042(2)(d), Florida Statutes, a Writ of Execution returned unsatisfied and an Affidavit of Reasonable Search. Thereafter on May 17, 1987, the Department received by certified mail a copy of the Complaint filed against 1st Federated and supporting documents including a copy of the Master Loan Commitment, Affidavit and Acceptance of Service. Pursuant to the Master Loan Commitment, Castle Realty paid $50,000 to 1st Federated as a Master Commitment Fee in exchange for a promise by 1st Federated to fund up to $4,000,000 for individual condominium loans. The individual commitments and closing of loans were subject to the lender approving the borrower's credit; however, approvals could not be unreasonable withheld. Timely notice of the institution of the action by Petitioner against 1st Federated as required by s. 494.043(5), Florida Statutes (1985), was waived by Respondent. No evidence was submitted regarding the number of claims involving 1st Federated and the amount of those claims that have been paid by Respondent from the Fund. Accordingly, no recommendation is made regarding the amount of Petitioner's claim that may be paid from the Fund pursuant to the limitations contained in s. 494.044, Florida Statutes (1985). By Notice of Intent to Deny Payment from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund dated May 22, 1987, Respondent entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and denied Petitioner's claim. As grounds therefor, Respondent concluded that the 1985 and 1986 amendments to Chapter 494 were applicable in this case as those amendments were remedial or procedural in nature and should be given retrospective application. Thereafter, Petitioner requested formal proceedings by petition filed June 16, 1987, and this request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Comptroller's letter dated July 23, 1987.
