Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent Ronald E. Clampitt is the President of Respondent Action Mortgage Corporation and is the person designated to act on behalf of said corporation under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Action Mortgage Corporation currently holds a mortgage brokerage license. The individual mortgage broker license issued to respondent Clampitt expired on August 31, 1980, and has not been renewed. Respondent Joseph W. Langford currently holds a license as a mortgage solicitor for and on behalf of Home Mortgage Investment Corporation. His prior individual mortgage broker license expired on August 31, 1980, and has not been renewed. COUNT I The respondents were counter codefendants in a civil suit filed in the Circuit Court of Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of the Florida in and for Pinellas County, which case was numbered 78-12033-18 and styled Action Mortgage Corporation, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Denture Services, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants. On February 8, 1980, a Final Judgment was entered in that proceeding by Circuit Court Judge David Seth Walker. Judge Walker found, as a matter of fact, that a limited confidential/fiduciary relationship existed between Langford and the counter-plaintiffs, and opined that certain activities on the part of the individual counter-defendants were "bedecked with the badge of fraud." The Court, inter alis, awarded the counter-plaintiffs Final Judgment in the nominal sum of $1.00, plus costs. It was noted that the claim of the counter-plaintiffs for punitive damages had previously been denied. Subsequent to the Final Judgment enteed in Case No. 78-12033-18, the counter-plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rehearing on the matter of punitive damages, since the Court had noted in its Final Judgment that the activities of the counter-defendants were "bedecked with the badge of fraud." The counter- defendants (respondents herein) also moved the Court to alter or amend its Final Judgment so as to remove the fraud language quoted above. By Order filed on March 10, 1980, both motions were denied by Judge Walker. Judge Walker's deposition was taken on August 22, 1980, and was received into evidence in this proceeding as petitioner's Exhibit 9. Referring to the language in the Final Judgment "bedecked with the badge of fraud," Judge Walker makes the following comments: "I do not interpret that as a finding of fraud absolute, but just that there were indicia of fraud." (p.4) "But I did not consider this to be an absolute finding of fraud. I think I mentioned that on one of the motions that the counter-plaintiffs made to reconsider the judgment of $1.00 or the refusal to grant punitive damages. I reiterated at that hearing that I found that it was an indicia, but I did not go so far in my own mind as to specifically find fraud." (p. 4) "If I had wanted to find specifically that they were in fact guilty of fraud, I would have said as much. The phrase, in my mind, 'bedecked with a badge of fraud,' is meant to suggest the indicia of fraud. Fraud is a legal conclusion that must be based upon several legally accepted circumstances. And in law school we learned the term, 'badges of fraud.' But a badge of fraud does not per se constitute fraud. I didn't feel that I needed to go too deeply in the questions, because of my finding that the counter-plaintiffs had not in fact suffered any real damage." (pp. 7 and 8) "I listed a certain series of circmustances and activities which had taken place, rather specifically. And I found that these activities and circumstances were bedecked by the badge of fraud which is admittedly a little bit flowery for normal language, but that's what I said. I did not specifically find fraud. Fraud always carries with it the badges of fraud in and of it- self does not collaterally, and on the other hand mean that fraud exists. I did not go that far in this particular judgment. I did not feel I had to." (pp. 18 and 19) "I did not feel that it was necessary for the Court to delve into the ultimate determination of fraud." (p. 20) "I do not perceive that my final judgment made an absolute finding of fraud. Again, the phrase, 'badge of fraud,' simply menas to me an indicia of fraud, and I'm confortable with the finding that that indicia is there. But as far as a finding of fraud is concerned, I did not proceed to that point, and it's not there." (pp. 20 and 21) COUNT II In 1978, Dorothy L. Jones and Byron A. Jones were the owners of real property located at 2656 Granada Circle East in St. Petersburg, Florida. The first mortgage on that property held by Molten, Allen and Williams, Inc. or the Mortgage Corporation of the South, was in default and a foreclosure action, and is pendens against the property had been filed. The monthly mortgage payments were approximately $225. At that time, Dorothy Jones was separated from her husband, lived in the home with her five minor children and was having financial difficulties. Having seen a newspaper advertisement, Dorothy Jones contacted the Respondents in an effort to obtain a second mortgage or additional funds with which to pay her debts and preserve her homestead. Neither of the Respondents agreed to make a second mortgage loan to Mrs. Jones. Instead, they agreed to make an outright purchase of the Jones's residence and lease the property back to Dorothy Jones at a monthly payment which approximated her prior monthly mortgage payment. The lease payments were later increased to $275 per month due to the loss of homestead exemption on the property. It was Mrs. Jones' understanding that she would be given the opportunity to repurchase the home at less than fair market value though she may have to pay a down payment and higher monthly payments. No appraisal was performed on the property. The closing of the transaction took place at a title company, independent of the Respondents. Mrs. Jones understood that she was signing a deed to the property and other documents transferring title to Respondents. The property was purchased by the Respondents in February of 1978 for $23,656.54 and the transfer was made subject to the mortgage to Molten, Allen and Williams, Inc., in the amount of $21,848.44. No funds were paid to Mr. or Mrs. Jones at the time of closing. During the months which followed, Dorothy Jones fell far behind in her lease payments to the Respondents. In May of 1979, Respondent Langford notified Mrs. Jones that the property owners had elected to sell the property in the near future, and advised her to contact his office if she was still interested in purchasing the property. In July of 1979, Dorothy Jones filed a Complaint against the Respondents in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County seeking a declaratory decree as to her rights under the aforementioned deed, lease and oral agreement to repurchase the property. (Civil No. 79-7307-17). Mrs. Jones was represented by an attorney in that action. By Order filed on July 29, 1980, the Circuit Court approved the terms and conditions of a Stipulation entered into by the Respondents and Mrs. Jones whereby Mrs. Jones was given the opportunity to purchase the subject property from the Respondents for $32,000 within 90 days, and was also required to pay back rental payments to the Respondents. For some reason not clear from the evidence adduced in the proceeding, Mrs. Jones did not repurchase the property from the Respondents. By Final Judgment filed on October 15, 1980, Mrs. Jones' claim against the Respondents was dismissed with prejudice and Respondents were awarded a judgment against Mrs. Jones in the amount of $2,887.50. Apparently, an eviction action in the County Court for Pinellas County resulted in the award of possession of the home to the Respondents. Mrs. Jones vacated the subject property in October of 1980. In April of 1981, Respondents sold the subject property to Harold and Peralita Odlam for a purchase price of $41,7000. COUNT III Respondent Clampitt was licensed as an individual mortgage broker for the years 1978 and 1979. His 1979 license expired on August 31, 1979, as did the license of Action Mortgage Corporation. Mr. Clampitt made an attempt to renew his individual mortgage broker license on October 16, 1979. The renewal license for Action Mortgage Corporation also bears the date of October 16, 1979. During the period of time between August 31, 1979 (the date upon which his individual mortgage broker license expired) and October 16, 1979 (the date upon which said renewal license was issued), respondent, Clampitt, as an individual mortgage broker, received at least three mortgage brokerage fees or commissions. A broker is considered to be licensed by the petitioner when a completed application form accompanied by the correct fee is received by the petitioner. It is the petitioner's practice to mail out renewal application to its approximately 6,500 licensees on July 15 of each year with the request that they be returned by August 15. All licenses expire on August 31 and are reissued for the following year to be effective from September 1 to August 31. Those applications which are received by the petitioner after August 31 bear a different license date. The correct amount to be remitted for the renewal of respondent Clampitt's individual license was $125-- a $75 license fee and a $50 guaranty fund fee. The $190 check received by the petitioner from the respondent on or before August 31, 1979, was accompanied by three renewal application cards. The petitioner did not apply $125 of the $190 to the renewal of respondent Clampitt's individual license because petitioner could not ascertain how the respondent desired to have the funds applied. Although a small minority of licensees do not renew their licenses in a timely fashion, it is not the practice of the petitioner to directly notify a licensee that his license has expired. Respondent Clampitt did hold a license with an effective date of September 13, 1979, as an additional broker for Fickling and Walker, Inc. in Winter Park, Florida. Under this license, respondent Clampitt would have no authority to act individually or on behalf of anyone other than Fickling and Walker, Inc. COUNT IV Respondent Clampitt arranged for a loan to a Mr. and Mrs. Fink. When examining the respondent's books, petitioner's financial examiner was unable to account for an apparent overcharge of $13.80 for credit life insurance on the loan. The examiner did not examine the loan closing documents with regard to this transaction. The evidence establishes that there had been a clerical error in the respondent's office concerning this transaction, that the cost of the credit life insurance had been miscalculated and that respondent Clampitt was entitled to the $13.80. COUNT V It is the practice of the respondent Clampitt to interview his clients over the telephone, look at the involved property and then, if he agrees to make a loan, send the client to a title insurance company to sign the necessary papers. These papers include a loan closing statement, the required RESPA statement and a recision notice which allows the customer to cancel the transaction within 72 hours without cost or obligation. Thereafter, generally five to seven days later, the customer returns to the title company to receive the loan proceeds. Respondent Clampitt does not take deposits and most often does not even meet this clients on a face-to-face basis. All borrower disclosures and rights required by law are provided respondent's clients by the title insurance company.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Administrative Charges and Complaint filed on March 23, 1981, against Joseph W. Langford be DISMISSED; The Administrative Charges and Complaint filed on February 3, 1981, against Action Mortgage Corporation be DISMISSED; Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Charges and Complaint filed against Ronald E. Clampitt on February 3, 1981, be DISMISSED; and Respondent Ronald E. Clampitt be found guilty of accepting fees at a time when his individual license had expired, but, because of the unintentional violation of the pertinent statutory provisions, no disciplinary action be imposed for this offense. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter W. Wood Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John C. Dew and Jay Emory Wood Harris, Barrett and Dew Post Office Drawer 1441 600 Florida National Bank Building St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an applicant to register as a securities salesman with Realty Income Securities, Inc., said application having been submitted to the Division of Securities on February 2, 1975 and is currently pending (Testimony of Dove). During the period of approximately February through - September, 1973, Respondent, a registered mortgage broker, was employed by Financial Resources Corporation of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in the sale of promissory notes secured ostensibly by first mortgages upon land located in Highlands County, Florida. These notes and security documents were issued by Equitable Development Corporation of Miami Beach, Florida. The notes were payable to "investors" at 14 percent interest per year, payable monthly for several years at which time the full principal balance would become due. The mortgage deeds recited that Equitable Development Corporation held the land which secured the notes in fee simple, free and clear of all encumbrances except real estate taxes. The mortgage deeds further recited that Equitable reserved the right to convey the land to a purchaser under an installment land contract subject to the lien of the mortgage and would deliver to the National Industrial Bank of Miami, an escrow agent, a copy of any such agreement for deed and a quit-claim deed which would be held in escrow. They also provided a procedure by which under any default of Equitable, the escrow agent would deliver the escrow documents to the investor (Testimony of Dove, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). Respondent's association with Financial Resources Corporation came about as a result of a visit by Mr. Robert Rinehart, President of the firm, who explained the mortgage sales program to him and stated that the security instruments were indeed first mortgages. Additionally, Rinehart supplied Respondent with brochures, letters, and documents containing questions and answers concerning the program and the protection afforded thereby to investors. Respondent personally viewed the property in question at Highland Park Estates and observed that over a hundred homes had been constructed which were of a value from $14,000 to $40,000. He also observed that docks had been built on the lake in the project area and that almost all of the roads had been paved. He was shown the MIA appraisal on the property which stated that Rinehart's representations as to property values were accurate. Equitable further represented to him that the notes in question were exempt securities in that they came within the provisions of Section 517.06(7), F.S., concerning the issuance or sale of notes secured by a specific lien upon real property created by mortgage or security agreement. In fact, Respondent became so convinced of the merits of these transactions that he had his mother invest twenty thousand dollars in the program (Testimony of Respondent, Watts; Respondent's Exhibits 1,2). In September 1973, Respondent formed Florida Income Resources Corporation, a mortgage brokerage firm. He did not sell any of the Equitable notes for a period of some months and, prior to commencing sale of them through his firm in the Spring of 1974, his attorney looked over the various aspects of the Equitable program and advised him that everything seemed "open and above board." Respondent thereafter on April 9 and August 1, 1974 sold to William H. Mott secured promissory notes of Equitable Development Corporation in the amounts of $2,000 and $2,250 respectively (Testimony of Respondent, Zawadsky; Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). During the period of these sales, letters of Albert George Segal, attorney, were being sent to investors advising them that he had examined the title to the real property purchased and that it was free and clear of encumbrances and constituted valid first mortgages (Respondent's Exhibit 3, Stipulation). Administrative proceedings were brought against Respondent by the Division of Finance involving sales of the notes in question resulting in a settlement by stipulation whereby Respondent did not acknowledge any wrongdoing, but agreed to a suspension of his mortgage broker's registration for two years. Respondent's firm secured no appraisals or title searches on the property involved in the sales to Mott (Testimony of Respondent).
Recommendation That the allegations be dismissed and that Respondent Edgar A Dove be registered as a securities salesman if he otherwise meets the qualifications set forth in Section 517.12, Florida Statutes and Chapter 3E-30, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 H. Gordon Brown, P.A. 301 W. Camino Gardens Boulevard Suite B P.O. Box 1079 Boca Raton, Florida 33432
The Issue Whether Assertive Mortgage LLC’s (“Assertive Mortgage”) application for a mortgage broker license should be granted.1 1 Unless stated otherwise, all statutory references shall be to the 2020 version of the Florida Statutes. See generally McClosky v. Dep’t of Fin. Serv., 115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the entire record of this proceeding, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: OFR is the state agency responsible for regulating mortgage brokering, mortgage lending, and loan origination.8 Toshia Glover became a Florida-licensed mortgage broker in 1999, and she became licensed in Florida and Georgia as a mortgage loan originator in 2000. At some point after 2003, she obtained a Florida real estate broker’s license. In 2006, Ms. Glover became a Georgia-licensed mortgage broker. Ms. Glover operated a mortgage broker company called A+ Loans from 2005 until September of 2008. The economic downturn that occurred in 2008 decimated her real estate and loan origination businesses and forced her to discontinue operations. 7 Pages 9 and 10 of the Transcript erroneously attribute comments by Petitioner’s counsel to counsel for Respondent. 8 Prior to 2010, OFR issued mortgage broker licenses to individuals and businesses. Since 2010, OFR has issued loan originator licenses to individuals and mortgage broker licenses to businesses. Therefore, the individual mortgage broker license is the historical equivalent of the current loan originator license. Section 494.001(18), Florida Statutes, defines a “loan originator” as “an individual who, directly or indirectly, solicits or offers to solicit a mortgage loan, accepts or offers to accept an application for a mortgage loan, negotiates or offers to negotiate the terms or conditions of a new or existing mortgage loan on behalf of a borrower or lender, or negotiates or offers to negotiate the sale of an existing mortgage loan to a noninstitutional investor for compensation or gain.” Ms. Glover moved to Georgia from Florida during the fourth quarter of 2008, and sustained herself by doing odd jobs. Ms. Parrish estimates that she earned less than $10,000 in 2009. In February of 2009, OFR unsuccessfully attempted to personally serve an Administrative Complaint on Toshia Glover alleging that A+ Loans and Ms. Glover, as the principal broker of A+ Loans, received improper compensation of $1,530 and $600. Those allegations amounted to violations of sections 494.0038(1)(a) and (1)(b)1. Florida Statutes (2005 and 2006), and rule 69V-40.008(1). In March and April of 2009, OFR published notice of the Administrative Complaint in the Sun-Sentinel daily newspaper. After Ms. Glover and A+ Loans did not respond to the Administrative Complaint, OFR issued a “Default Final Order and Notice of Rights” (“the Default Final Order”) on April 22, 2009, immediately revoking Ms. Glover’s mortgage broker license and imposing a $7,000 administrative fine for which Ms. Glover and A+ Loans were jointly and severally liable. Ms. Glover and A+ Loans were also required to refund a total of $2,130 to one or more borrowers. Ms. Glover married her current husband on December 12, 2012, and has not used her maiden name since. She will hereinafter be referred to as Ms. Parrish. Ms. Parrish owns Assertive Mortgage. In September of 2020, Ms. Parrish, on behalf of Assertive Mortgage, filed an application with OFR for licensure as a mortgage broker. The application identified Ms. Parrish as Assertive Mortgage’s president and qualifying individual. Ms. Parrish is the owner and president of Assertive Mortgage. OFR determined that Assertive Mortgage’s application could not be granted because the Default Final Order had revoked Ms. Parrish’s mortgage broker license.
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, P.A. Suite 206 1882 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308 For Respondent: Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Fletcher Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation issue a final order denying Assertive Mortgage, LLC’s, application for a mortgage broker license. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2021. H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, P.A. Suite 206 1882 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Russell C. Weigel, Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Fletcher Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Anthony Cammarata, General Counsel Office of Financial Regulation The Fletcher Building, Suite 118 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0370
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Fleming 1653 Bass Avenue Seville, Florida 32191 Robert H. Schott, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Post Office Box 8050 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8050 Alex Hager, Acting Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Office is the state agency responsible for regulating mortgage brokerage and mortgage lending and for licensing mortgage brokers. §§ 494.0011(1); 494.0033(2), Fla. Stat. License revocation and criminal prosecution The Office's predecessor, the Department of Banking and Finance ("Department"), issued a mortgage broker's license to Mrs. Comas in 1997. Mrs. Comas worked as a mortgage broker with Miami Mortgage Lenders until 1999, when she left her employment with that company after she was involved in what will be referred to as "the Sipple transaction." The Department initiated disciplinary action against Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license, and, because Mrs. Comas stipulated to the material facts of the Sipple transaction, an informal administrative hearing was held before a hearing officer appointed by the Department. The Department entered a final order revoking Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license on June 25, 2001, which was upheld on appear by the Third District Court of Appeal in Comas v. Department of Banking and Finance, 820 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The material facts of the Sipple transaction and the basis for the revocation of Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license were set out by the district court in Comas, which quoted the Final Order with approval, as follows: "Appellant's conduct in altering a customer check, depositing it in her personal account, and later writing a letter to the customer on company letterhead falsely stating that the funds were in the hands of the title company jeopardized not only the customer, but also her employer and the title company. This conduct violates the numerous statutory provisions referenced in the Final Order, casts considerable doubt on either Appellant's competence, integrity, or both, and clearly warrants license revocation." Criminal charges were filed against Mrs. Comas as a result of her actions in the Sipple transaction. The information filed against Mrs. Comas, and all counts thereof, was dismissed by order of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in April 2002. Denials of applications for licensure as a mortgage broker subsequent to revocation In October 2002, Mrs. Comas applied for licensure as a mortgage broker. The Office notified her that it intended to deny her application in a Notice of Denial dated March 17, 2003. Mrs. Comas requested an administrative hearing, and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 03-1738. A recommended order was entered on September 30, 2003, in which the administrative law judge found that Mrs. Comas failed to establish that she was rehabilitated and recommended that Mrs. Comas's application be denied. The Office entered a final order in which it adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order, and denied Mrs. Comas's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. Among the findings of fact made in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 and adopted in the Office's Final Order was a finding that Mrs. Comas had failed to make restitution to the owner of Miami Mortgage Lenders, who had paid Ms. Sipple the monies that Mrs. Comas had improperly deposited in her personal account. On March 10, 2006, Mrs. Comas again applied to the Office for licensure as a mortgage broker. In a Notice of Denial of Application dated November 9, 2006, the Office notified Mrs. Comas that it intended to deny her application. Mrs. Comas did not request an administrative hearing, and the Office entered a final order denying the application on December 18, 2006. The Office incorporated into the final order the factual bases set forth in the November 9, 2006, Notice of Denial of Application, which were virtually identical to the factual bases set forth in paragraphs a. through d. of the Notice of Denial at issue herein. RPM Lenders, Inc. and related companies In 1997, Mrs. Comas and her husband, Rolando Comas, founded RPM Lenders, Inc. ("RPM Lenders"). Mrs. Comas worked as a mortgage broker with RPM Lenders from the time she left her employment at Miami Mortgage Lenders in 1999 until her mortgage broker's license was revoked in 2001. Mrs. Comas continued working for RPM Lenders after her mortgage broker's license was revoked in 2001.2 RPM Lenders shared office space with RPM Systems, a computer company which set up computer networks and distributed computers, and it also shared office space with RPM Loans and Realty, which was created in 1999 or 2000 to handle real estate transactions. On or about December 29, 2003, Mr. Comas and Mrs. Comas, on behalf of RPM Lenders, signed a Stipulation and Consent that was incorporated into a final order entered by the Office on December 30, 2003. In the Stipulation and Consent, it was recited that Mrs. Comas was the sole owner and president of RPM Lenders until May 14, 2003. In paragraph 6.1.1 of the Stipulation and Consent, Mrs. Comas agreed that she would "not become a mortgage broker, principal broker, principal representative, owner, officer or director of R.P.M. Lenders, Inc." From 2004 through April 17, 2008, Mrs. Comas was the corporate secretary for RPM Lenders until it ceased business in 2007, when its name was changed to ROC Lenders, Inc. ROC Lenders, Inc., never did any business, but Mrs. Comas nonetheless continued to serve as that company's corporate secretary until her name was deleted as the corporate secretary pursuant to a filing with the Florida Secretary of State dated April 17, 2008.3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mrs. Comas managed RPM Lenders, RPM Loans and Realty, and RPM Systems. Her title with RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty was "Finance Manager," and her duties included the general daily management responsibilities of an office manager, such as ensuring that office equipment was repaired and maintained and ordering office supplies, as well as duties that included customer support, marketing and advertising, developing and implementing quality control procedures, preparing financial statements, handing accounts receivable and accounts payable, reconciling all bank accounts, reviewing all funded files, and attending all of the closings. Mrs. Comas was paid a management fee for her services as Financial Manager and Office Manager for RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty. In providing customer support for RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty, Mrs. Comas responded to customer complaints on behalf of the brokers employed by those companies, reviewing files and attempting to resolve problems and disagreements between customers and brokers. RPM Loans and Realty was created in 1999 or 2000 "for realty purposes," and Mrs. Comas began working with RPM Loans and Realty as a real estate associate beginning in March 1999. Mrs. Comas continued to work with RPM Loans and Realty both as manager and as a real estate associate up to the time of the final hearing.4 Rehabilitation As part of her practice as a real estate associate, Mrs. Comas accepts deposits from buyers and transmits them to title companies.5 Mrs. Comas's license as a real estate associate was current at the time of the final hearing, and it has never been the subject of disciplinary action. In a letter dated November 12, 2008, to Sherry Sipple, the person whose check Ms. Comas altered and deposited in her personal bank account, Mrs. Comas denied having altered the check, stating that her name was placed on the check by someone else. Mrs. Comas did not mention in the letter her depositing Ms. Sipple's check in her personal bank account, and Mrs. Comas blamed Ms. Sipple and Ms. Sipple's brother for what she called a "misunderstanding," stating that, because Ms. Sipple and Ms. Sipple's brother went to the closing on the subject property without Mrs. Comas, she was unable to deliver to the title company the money Ms. Sipple had entrusted to her. Mrs. Comas apologized to Ms. Sipple "for what happened," but then asked that she give Mrs. Comas's attorney a "statement of acceptance of this BIG MISUNDERSTANDING."6 Mrs. Comas telephoned Mark Mazis, her employer at Miami Mortgage Company, and apologized to him for "what happened."7 Mrs. Comas acknowledged in her testimony at the final hearing that she did something wrong, although she insisted that she did not intend to steal Ms. Sipple's money by placing it in her personal bank account but intended only to expedite Ms. Sipple's closing. Since her license was revoked in 2001, Mrs. Comas has contributed to charities and attends church approximately twice a month. Summary The Sipple transaction The evidence presented by the Office in the form of the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal in Comas v. Department of Banking and Finance establishes conclusively that, in 1999, Mrs. Comas committed fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or incompetence in a mortgage financing transaction; that Mrs. Comas failed to deliver funds to her customer that Mrs. Comas was not entitled to retain; and that Mrs. Comas misappropriated the customer's check by depositing it in her personal account. Untruthful testimony in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 The evidence presented by the Office is not sufficient to support a finding of fact that Mrs. Comas gave untruthful testimony in a previous administrative proceeding. In the Notice of Denial dated August 6, 2008, the Office stated as one of the factual grounds for its denial of Mrs. Comas's application for a mortgage broker's license that Mrs. Comas had testified untruthfully at the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 03- 1738. This allegation was apparently based on several findings of fact in the Recommended Order which were referenced in the Office's Proposed Recommended Order in the instant case, as follows: At the July 23, 24[, 2003] formal hearing three issues were litigated — Mrs. Comas’s claims about the circumstances of the Sipple transaction, Mrs. Comas’s claim that she had paid restitution, and her claim that she had apologized to the victims, Sherry Sipple (now Sherry Mercugliano) and Marc Mazis. (Exhibit Q) On these three claims, Mrs. Comas’s testimony conflicted with that of the victims. (Id.) The Administratively [sic] Law Judge weighed the conflicting testimony and determined: 18. Through the time of the hearing, Comas falsely claimed the transaction failed because Sipple was dissatisfied with the interest rate Comas was able to obtain. This testimony is rejected in favor of Sipple's much more convincing explanation that she rejected the balloon payment Comas proposed, insisting upon the fixed rate which she had required from the beginning. * * * 20. For all of the trouble Comas caused Sipple and Mazis, she has never apologized to them. Although Comas testified to the contrary on that point, her self- serving testimony is not credible. * * * 22. Taking into account the entire record, and having had the opportunity to view the demeanor, credibility, ability to perceive facts, knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the events to which they testified, and motive to testify, of each of the witnesses in close and stressful quarters, the conclusion is inescapable that the victims' version of events is entirely consistent with the truth. To the extent that victims' recollections or characterizations of material events differ from those of Comas and her witnesses, the testimony of the victims is credited. (Emphasis added.) (Id.) Consequently, Petitioner made false claims and testified untruthfully at the July 23-24, 2003 formal hearing. The discussions in the quoted paragraphs are not findings of fact regarding the truth or falsity of Mrs. Comas's testimony. Rather, the Administrative Law Judge was assessing the quality and quantity of the evidence presented by the parties as a predicate to making findings of fact regarding the issue of whether Mrs. Comas had established rehabilitation. The Administrative Law Judge's assessment that Mrs. Comas's testimony was not as credible or as persuasive as the conflicting testimony of other witnesses was an assessment of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses made by the Administrative Law Judge in order to determine which conflicting testimony and evidence is the more persuasive. Although the Administrative Law Judge included in paragraph 18 of the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 a statement that Mrs. Comas made a "false" claim in her testimony, it is clear from a reading of the entire paragraph that the Administrative Law Judge found Ms. Sipple's version of the events more credible. Indeed, an Administrative Law Judge would be acting improperly if he or she were to make a finding of fact that a party's or witness's testimony was untruthful or false because the truth or falsity of evidence is not at issue in an administrative proceeding. Such a finding would amount to a finding that the party or witness had committed perjury, which cannot be litigated in an administrative forum but is, rather, subject to criminal prosecution. See Ch. 837, Fla. Stat. The Office's denials of Mrs. Comas's applications for licensure subsequent to the revocation of her license The evidence presented by the Office establishes that it denied Mrs. Comas's applications for licensure as a mortgage broker in 2003 and 2006. The 2003 denial was based on a Final Order in which the Office, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03- 1738, found that Mrs. Comas had failed to establish that she had rehabilitated herself since the license revocation. The 2006 denial referenced, among other grounds, the denial of her application for licensure in 2003 for fraud and dishonest dealing. The Office's denials of Mrs. Comas's previous applications for licensure cannot, however, serve as an independent basis for denial of the application at issue herein. Were the previous denials sufficient of themselves to provide a basis for denying Mrs. Comas's future applications, the Office could perpetuate the denial of Ms. Comas's future applications indefinitely without regard to any efforts of Mrs. Comas to prove herself entitled to licensure. Mrs. Comas's service as an officer of RPM Lenders The evidence presented by the Office is sufficient to establish that Mrs. Comas violated a final order of the Office by serving as an officer of RPM Lenders and its successor company, ROC Lenders, Inc., subsequent to signing a stipulation in December 2003 averring that she would not serve as a corporate officer of RPM Lenders. Mrs. Comas's role in responding customer complaints about the service provided by mortgage broker employed by RPM Lenders does not, however, rise to the level of acting as an officer of the corporation.8 Rehabilitation The evidence presented by Mrs. Comas is not sufficient to establish that she has rehabilitated herself in the 10 years that have elapsed since the Sipple transaction. Although she attends church and contributes to charities, she presented no evidence of any other community service. The lack of any disciplinary action against her real estate associate's license since it was issued is a factor in Mrs. Comas's favor, but she failed to present any evidence regarding the number of real estate transactions she handles, and it was, therefore, not possible to assess the frequency with which she handled the funds of others in the context of real estate transactions. Other than her testimony about the November 2008 conversation with Mr. Mazis, Mrs. Comas presented no evidence with respect to her apology to him or to any acknowledgment she made to him that she had acted improperly in the Sipple transaction. Mrs. Comas's letter of apology to Ms. Sipple consisted primarily of her attempts to cast her actions in the Sipple transaction in a light favorable to herself, to excuse her actions as efforts to assist Ms. Sipple, and to blame others, including Ms. Sipple, for the incident. Although Mrs. Comas expresses remorse for what happened, she does not accept responsibility for her actions.
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 denying the application of Marta Comas for licensure as a mortgage broker pursuant to Section 494.0033(4), Florida Statutes, for the acts specified in Section 494.0041(2)(b), (f), (h), (i), (j), (p), (q), and (u)2., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether petitioners are entitled to payment from the mortgage brokerage guaranty fund, and if so, in what amounts. A further issue is in what order of priority the claims should be paid. Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings filed in this cause, the following findings of fact are deter- mined:
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Evers & Associates, Inc. and Dovard J. Evers, its President, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, has charged and accepted fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions on the transactions set forth in the administrative complaint, Exhibit "A," in violation of Sec. 494.08(4), F.S., and thereby subjected the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of 494.05(1)(g), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Evers & Associates, Inc. through the parson of Dovard J. Evers, its President, was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, during the time period contemplated by the administrative complaint. Subsequent to the time of receiving the mortgage brokers-license, Dovard J. Evers, on behalf of Evers & Associates, Inc., entered into an agreement with several other parties to sell notes secured by mortgages on real estate. One of the agreements was with David Edstrom, of a corporation known as S.E.T., Inc., Mr. Edstrom being the President of said corporation, and the location of that corporation being in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A similar agreement was held with one Gary George of the Mortgage Consultants, Inc., Ocala, Florida. The agreement with Gary George involved a sale of mortgages for the benefit of the mortgagor, Washington Development Corporation. The third such agreement was with Phil Swan of Southeast Florida Corporation. The written conditions of the S.E.T., Inc. arrangement with Mr. Evers can be found in Respondent's Exhibits No. 2 through No. 5. Essentially, the arrangement was to have Mr. Evers, through Evers & Associates, act as a salesman for the benefit of S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan. Their agreement envisioned that Mr. Evers would be afforded a percentage discount varying from 14 percent to 16 percent of the amount of a mortgage loan which was a note secured by real estate. In actual , the contact was made between S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swam Mr. Evers for purposes of placing notes that were for sale. The apparatus worked by having Mr. Evers contact mortgagees/investors who made a check payable to Evers & Associates for the full amount of the mortgage loan, whose price had been quoted by the intermediary; S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan. This amount was held in escrow until such time as the note and mortgage which secured the note could be drawn. The executed note and mortgage went directly to the third party mortgagee/investor without ever having the name of Mr. Evers or Evers & Associates, Inc., affixed to such documents. After this note and mortgage had been executed in behalf of the third party investor, Mr. Evers deducted a fee in favor of Evers & Associates, Inc., according to the percentage agreement with S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan and sent the balance of the money to S.E.T., Inc.; Washington Development Corporation through the person of Gary George and to Phil Swan of the Southeast Florida Corporation. The arrangement with Washington Development Corporation changed at a later date because Gary George was no longer involved and payments subsequent to his involvement were sent directly to Washington Development Corporation. The facts show that in the transactions found in Petitioner's Exhibit "A," the complaint, charges were made in behalf of Evers & Associates in the person of Mr. Evers which exceed the statutory allowance for fees and commissions in the amount stated in the column entitled overcharges. These overcharges are according to the percentage agreement between Mr. Evers and S.E.I., Inc., Gary George, and Phil Swan, minus adjustments made in behalf of the third party investor/mortgagee, as indicated in the testimony. This finding of facts, excludes the mortgage by M. Berkell which was stipulated between the parties as not being a matter for further consideration in the hearing. There was no evidence offered of the charge, if any, between S.E.T., Inc., Gary George, and Phil Swan in their dealings with their developer/mortgagors. At present the Respondent, Evers & Associates, Inc., and Dovard J. Evers, its President, have failed to renew the license in the current license period and, as of the moment of the hearing, have expressed no further interest in such renewal.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of Evers & Associates, Inc., by Dovard J Evers, its President, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Earl M. Barker, Esquire 218 East Forsythp Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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 The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents' mortgage brokerage licenses for the reasons set forth in the Order to Cease and Desist, Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights filed by Petitioner on January 18, 1989 (the "Administrative Complaint".) The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondents violated the following statutory and rule provisions: Section 494.055(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by charging borrowers closing costs that were in excess of the actual amount incurred by the mortgagor; Section 494.08(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D- 40.008(9), Florida Administrative Code, by charging excess brokerage fees; Section 494.055(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by engaging in deceit, misrepresentation, negligence or incompetence in mortgage financing transactions and for breach of the fiduciary duty of a broker as a result of the manner in which escrow accounts were handled; Section 494.055(1)(h), Florida Statutes, due to the misuse, misapplication or misappropriation of funds, mortgage documents or other property entrusted to Respondents as a result of the excess charges assessed to borrowers and the misuse of monies in the escrow accounts; Rule 3D- 40.006(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to maintain trust, servicing and escrow account records in accordance with good accounting practices; and Section 494.0393(2), Florida Statutes by failing to operate the company under the full charge, control and supervision of a principle who is a licensed mortgage broker.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent All States Mortgage and Investment Corporation ("All States Mortgage") was licensed by the Department as a mortgage brokerage company having been issued License Number HB-592582215. All States Mortgage had its principle place of business in Davie, Florida. All States Mortgage did not typically engage in traditional "mortgage broker functions." Instead, it generally worked with other mortgage brokers in providing funds for loans brought to All States Mortgage by other brokers. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, Lynn F. Smith ("Smith") was a licensed mortgage broker having been issued License Number HA-265-72-0045. Smith was the principle mortgage broker for All States Mortgage. Smith has been the principle mortgage broker for All States Mortgage since its inception and has been registered with the Department as a licensed mortgage broker since before a license was issued to All States Mortgage. In addition to being the principle broker for All States Mortgage, Smith was an officer and director of the company and had responsibility for the direction, control, operations and management of the company. In May of 1988, Respondents were affiliated with a licensed consumer finance company known as All States Finance Company. Currently, both All States Mortgage and All States Finance are inactive and an application has been filed to transfer the license of All States Mortgage to a new company known as All States Financial Services. As a result of an audit and examination conducted by the Department in May, 1988, it was determined that one client of All States Mortgage, Donald Salvog, was charged a brokerage fee in excess of the maximum allowable fee under Chapter 494. After notification by the Department, Respondents admitted that they inadvertently charged an excess fee to Mr. Salvog and Respondents immediately proceeded to refund the excess of $82.63 to the customer. There is no evidence that Respondents charged any other customers with a brokerage fee in excess of the maximum allowed under Chapter 494. In a number of the individual mortgage transactions in which it was involved, Respondents charged a standard credit report fee of $25.00 to the borrowers. The following chart reflects the individual loan files where such a fee was charged and the total amount of the invoices in the respective loan file to support the charges. Borrower's Name Cost per Closing Stmt. Cost per Invoices Roland Sagraves $25.00 $3.25 John Murphy $25.00 $3.25 Donald Salvog $25.00 $2.95 Harry Walley $25.00 $2.57 Raymond Parker $25.00 $5.14 Shateen/Lawrence $25.00 $5.75 James Arnold $25.00 $3.94 Richard Pope $25.00 $5.04 James Smith $25.00 $6.50 9. In four of the nine customer files listed in Findings of Fact 8 above, a "standard factual" credit report was included in the file. The typical cost for a "standard factual" is $45.00. No invoices were included in those files to reflect this cost. In obtaining credit reports for an individual mortgage transaction, Respondents did not generally order a credit report from an existing service. Instead, All States Mortgage had an on-line computer terminal with a direct phone modem linked to the individual credit reporting agency's computer data base. An employee of All States Mortgage, usually Burton Horowitz, used this computer link-up to conduct a credit report on the borrower. "Standard Factual" reports were ordered from existing services as necessary to supplement the computer search. The standard $25.00 fee charged by All States Mortgage was based upon an estimate of the overhead and indirect costs associated with producing credit reports in this manner. The overhead and indirect costs involved in obtaining credit reports as described in Findings of Fact 10 include the cost of leasing the equipment, the labor involved in obtaining the computer report (it typically takes an operator 30 minutes to obtain the credit reports) and the cost of the materials involved in producing a copy of the report. The standard $25.00 fee charged by All States Mortgage was not based on a specific allocation of the indirect costs associated with producing a particular report, but, instead, was simply based upon an estimate of the costs involved. During the course of its operations, All States Mortgage would periodically receive funds that were to be held in escrow. These escrow funds were kept in an interest-bearing account that was used by All States Mortgage and All States Finance. (This account is hereinafter referred to as the "Commingled Account.") The escrow funds in this Commingled Account were mixed with other funds of All States Mortgage as well as money belonging to All States Finance. Respondents contend that the escrow funds were commingled with the other funds because the companies had only one interest bearing account and that account had limited check writing ability. Respondents transferred money between the interest bearing Commingled Account and their other operating accounts on a continuous basis. At the end of each month, Respondents attempted to perform a reconciliation as to the escrow balances in the Commingled Account. On several occasions during the period from July 1987 through May 1988, the balance in the Commingled Account was less than the total funds that Respondents were supposed to be holding in escrow. No evidence was introduced to indicate that Respondents' handling of the escrow funds and/or the Commingled Account ever resulted in a loss to any of their borrowers or customers. Thus, while the evidence does indicate that, on occasion, the balance of the Commingled Account was less than the funds that should have been in escrow, the difference on each occasion was ultimately corrected in the reconciliation process. Respondents failed to use good accounting principles in the handling of the escrow funds. The Department has not adopted any rules requiring a mortgage broker to handle escrow funds in a separate account. Prior to the initiation of this Administrative Complaint, Respondents were never informed that they were required to do so. The Department's examiners prepared a schedule indicating that Respondents had diverted some of the escrow funds to their own use. However, that schedule includes several loans that had already been sold to another company on the date listed. Thus, the schedule does not accurately reflect the funds that should have been in escrow on any particular day. Although Respondent Lynn Smith was only in the office approximately fifteen percent (15%) of the time while the Department's examiners were conducting their audit in May of 1988, insufficient evidence was introduced to establish the charge that Smith was not fully supervising or controlling the actions of the employees of All States Mortgage. The unrefuted testimony of Smith indicates that she often worked non-regular hours, that she reviewed all the documents for every transaction in which All States Mortgage was involved and she supervised the work of all of the employees of the company. Extenuating circumstances in May of 1988 caused her to be out of the office more than usual during regular business hours. However, this fact alone is insufficient to establish the charge that she was not fully supervising or controlling the actions of the company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law it is, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order finding the Respondents guilty of violating Sections 494.055(1)(b), (d), (f), (h) and (k) and issue a reprimand to the Respondents and impose a fine of one thousand five dollars ($1,500.00). DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990.
