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 Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in April 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination? Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in May 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of mortgage brokers pursuant to Part II of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 494.0033(2)(b), Florida Statutes, individuals who apply for licensure as a mortgage broker are required to pass a licensure examination. To pass the examination, a candidate must receive a minimum score of 75. National Assessment Institute is the company employed by Respondent to administer the licensure examination. Petitioner applied for licensure as a mortgage broker. On April 25, 1995, Petitioner took the mortgage broker examination. Petitioner was advised that she had achieved a score of only 64. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to review the examination questions and her answers thereto, and she did so on May 12, 1995. She questioned her failure to receive credit for fourteen of her answers on that examination and provided written explanations why she believed her answers to those questions were correct. Petitioner's written challenges and explanations regarding her answers to those fourteen questions were reviewed by staff of National Assessment Institute. The individual who reviewed Petitioner's responses did not testify in this proceeding. This individual determined that Petitioner's answers to those fourteen questions were incorrect and that her explanations were without merit. Petitioner was advised that she was not entitled to additional credit for her answers on the April 1995 examination. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her April 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her responses to the challenged questions on the examination. Petitioner also sat for the licensure examination administered May 23, 1995. Petitioner received a score of 74 on this examination. On June 9, 1995, Petitioner reviewed the grading of answers to the May 1995 examination. Petitioner asserts that the reviewer gave her the wrong question book so that the answer key would make her answers appear incorrect. For her review on June 9, 1995, Petitioner was provided a correct copy of her examination book, a photo copy of her answer sheet, her original scratch paper, and two challenge sheets. The information provided Petitioner reflected the response to each question the Respondent considered to be the correct response. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her May 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her response to any question on the examination. Petitioner failed to establish that the April or May examination was improperly administered. She likewise failed to establish that the opportunity to review the scoring of these two examinations was compromised by fraud or mistake. The Respondent has promulgated Rule 3D-40.031(2), Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes it to request additional information in conjunction with a licensure application, which information may include the applicant providing evidence of a passing score on the mortgage broker examination. That Rule requires that additional information requested must be received by the Respondent within 90 days. The Respondent requested that Petitioner provide evidence that she had received a passing score on the examination. Petitioner has been unable to provide that information.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's challenges to the scoring of the April and May 1995 licensure examinations be dismissed and, consequently, that Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996 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 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5132 The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are rejected as they are not supported by the record. While Petitioner purports to explain her answers to certain questions on the April 1995 examination, this evidence was not presented at the formal hearing. The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The fact that Petitioner challenged ten question as a result of her review on June 9, 1995, was not established. Since there was no dispute that the request for formal hearing was timely and this is a de novo proceeding, the proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 9,10, 11, 13, and 14 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Nasrin Y. Niknam 53 Castle Harbour Isle Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 302 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 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.
Findings Of Fact On November 15, 1976, the Outrigger Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, through its president, Ervin Freeman, and its Secretary, Joan Dimon, executed a warranty deed conveying all right, title and interest, in and to certain property located at Northeast 135th Street and Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida, to Petitioner, Biscayne South, Inc. (hereafter Biscayne South), a Florida corporation. The warranty deed was recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, on November 16, 1976. On November 22, 1976, Biscayne South executed a mortgage deed in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, as a second mortgage on the same parcel of land to secure the payment of a promissory note in the principal sum of $1,500,000.00 which note was made by Outrigger Club, Inc., on the same date in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors. On November 22, 1976, Outrigger Club, Inc., as the "borrower" executed a future advance agreement with Fidelity Mortgage Investors as "lendor". The future advance agreement provides for the advancement of the sum of $1,500,000.00 to be secured by a prior mortgage dated October 27, 1972, executed by Outrigger Club, Inc., in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, which mortgage provided for future advances. On November 22, 1976, a construction loan and disbursement agreement was executed by the parties thereto which provided that the $1,500,000.00 advance be paid to Miami National Bank as disbursement agent for the benefit of Biscayne South. On November 23, 1976, the mortgage deed and the future advance agreement were recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida, and on that same date, the warranty deed was rerecorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida. Because the 1.5 million dollars was paid to Miami National Bank to be disbursed for future construction work on a draw-down basis, Outrigger Club, Inc., the grantor, never received the 1.5 million dollars. The warranty deed provides in paragraph 9 thereof that the conveyance is subject to: a second mortgage wherein the Outrigger Club Inc., is mortgagor and the trustees of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, is mortgagee, dated the day of November, 1976, which said mortgage is given as additional collateral for payment of certain sums as provided under a settlement and release agreement between the Outrigger Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Lawrence F. Lee, Jr., and others as trustees of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust dated the 16th day of January, 1976. Neither the Department of Revenue nor Biscayne South have introduced evidence to establish that such a mortgage in fact exists or if it did, the value of such mortgage. The only mortgage in evidence is Respondent, Department of Revenue's Exhibit 2, which shows Biscayne South as mortgagor rather than the Outrigger Club, Inc., as recited in the warranty deed. However, the future advance agreement introduced as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, establishes the existence of a mortgage encumbering the subject property in which the Outrigger Club, Inc., is mortgagor and Fidelity Mortgage Investors is mortgagee. Such mortgage is dated October 27, 1972, and not dated with the month of November, 1976, as recited in paragraph 9 of the warranty deed. As recited in the future advance agreement, the mortgage of October 27, 1972, secured an indebtedness of $7,214,000.00. The mortgage provided that future advances could be made to Outrigger Club, Inc., not to exceed in the aggregate $16,500,000.00. The future advance agreement provides that an additional advance of $1,500,000.00 is to be made to Outrigger Club, Inc., thereby increasing the indebtedness represented by the October 27, 1972, mortgage to the aggregate sum of $8,715,000.00. In other words, the buyer of the property sought to borrow an additional 1.5 million dollars. The lender, in order to achieve priority of lien to secure its loan, treated the funding as an advance against a preexisting mortgage originally binding the seller, but then delivered the 1.5 million dollars directly to Miami National Bank for the benefit of the buyer. Accordingly, the seller never received the proceeds of the loan but rather participated in a "book transaction" for the benefit of the buyer and the lender.
Findings Of Fact 1. On January 8, 1975, the United States District Court, District of Delaware, entered a "judgment and probation/commitment order," finding petitioner guilty of violating Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1010 and 371. These charges involved, inter alia, making, passing, uttering and publishing false statements and forged instruments in connection with the obtaining of mortgage insurance under the provisions of the National Housing Act. Petitioner was fined $2,500.00 and sentenced to serve three years imprisonment, the remainder to be suspended after six months and petitioner to be placed on probation for the remaining thirty months. On or about July 9, 1976, petitioner applied to respondent for registration as a mortgage solicitor. For the reason that petitioner was found guilty as described in paragraph one above, respondent determined that petitioner did not meet the proper qualifications to be licensed and issued its notice of intent to deny said license. In his answer and request for a hearing, petitioner admitted the material factual allegations of the complaint. Petitioner did not appear and therefore offered no evidence in his own behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's application for registration as a mortgage solicitor be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of April, 1977. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1977 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David L. Pierce 891 West Tropical Way Plantation, Florida 33317 Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joseph M. Ehrlich Deputy Director Division of Finance Department of Banking and Finance 335 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a mortgage broker's license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Application and Reasons for Denial Applicant is a 52-year-old former mortgage broker who resides in Dade County, Florida. He was first licensed as a mortgage broker in Florida in 1959. His license remained in effect until it expired in 1976. He reapplied for registration as a mortgage broker in December, 1976. In June, 1977, the Department denied his application despite Applicant's attempt to withdraw his application in January, 1977. (P-1, R-6, R-7.) On March 18, 1981, Applicant filed another application with the Department for a license to act as a mortgage broker. That application is the subject of this proceeding. The Department seeks to deny it on grounds that the Applicant is insolvent; that he had a final judgment entered against him in a civil action on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit; and that he lacks the requisite competence, honesty, truthfulness, and integrity to act as a mortgage broker in Florida. II. Insolvency Applicant is insolvent and deeply in debt. His insolvency arises out of his association with a company known as Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation ("Guardian Mortgage"), a mortgage brokerage firm operating in Dade County. He was secretary/treasurer and one of several mortgage brokers who worked for that company. Prior to its going out of business in 1976, it and its several brokers were accused of numerous financial misdealings. Between 1974 and 1980, over 31 civil lawsuits were filed against Applicant concerning financial transactions in which he was involved; most of the transactions occurred in connection with his employment at Guardian Mortgage. As a result of these lawsuits, and his failure to defend against them (on advice of counsel) , final judgments in excess of $500,000 have been entered against him and remain unpaid. Applicant has not attempted to pay off any of these judgments, although his codefendant, Archie Struhl, has made efforts to satisfy some of them. (Testimony of Lipsitt, Haber; R-4, R-5, R-6.) After Guardian Mortgage ceased operations, Applicant ran a hotel and orange grove operation in Central America. His wife was a preschool teacher. He has not earned any money beyond that necessary to meet his basic needs. (Testimony of Haber.) In the past, the Department has ordinarily refused to issue mortgage broker licenses to applicants who are insolvent. The reason for this policy is that the public "could be injured if a man [mortgage broker] did not have sufficient monies to back him up . . ." Tr. 144.) The only exception to this policy of denying applications on grounds of insolvency is when an applicant has shown that he is making an honest effort to satisfy and pay off the outstanding judgments. (Testimony of Ehrlich.) III. Civil Judgment of Fraud Entered Against Applicant In April, 1977, a civil action was filed by Murray Ritter against three codefendants: Applicant, Archie Struhl, and Guardian Mortgage. (Circuit Court of Dade County, Case No. 77-10849, Division II.) Count II of the complaint alleged that the defendants committed fraud by failing to invest $10,000 in a first mortgage and, instead, converted the money to their own use. On July 20, 1977, the circuit court, upon plaintiff's motion, entered a Final Summary Judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the three defendants. The judgment awarded plaintiff $10,000 in compensatory damages, $5,000 in punitive damages, and court costs of $63, for a total of $15,063. (R-5, R-6.) IV. Experience, Honesty, Truthfulness, Integrity, Competency, and Background of Applicant Applicant was a licensed mortgage broker for many years. The Department acknowledges that his experience in mortgage financing is adequate. (Testimony of Ehrlich.) Applicant denies that he ever engaged in wrongdoing as a mortgage broker, that he knew of improprieties occurring at Guardian Mortgage, or participated in a cover-up. He denies that he ever misrepresented facts or acted dishonestly as a mortgage broker. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Applicant lacks honesty, truthfulness, or integrity. (Testimony of Haber.) However, Applicant has not demonstrated that he has the requisite background and competence to engage in financial transactions involving mortgage financing. Civil judgments were entered (by the Circuit Court of Dade County) against Applicant in the following cases, each of which involved mortgage financing, unsecured loan transactions, or real estate investments negotiated by Applicant: Irvings S. Philipson, et al. v. Venus Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 74-1320. Dr. Seymour Z. Beiser, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No. 76-24374. Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami v. Brenda Alexander, et al., Case No. 75-16230. City National Bank of Miami v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No. 75-39444. Leon Earler, et al. v. Venus Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 76-22138. Jesus Suarez v. Leonard Gordon, et al., Case No. 76-26381. John J. Nussman, et al. v. Melvin J. Haber, et al., Case No. 76-30569 (12). County National Bank of North Miami Beach v. Sid Shane, et al., Case No. 77-27909 (14). Herman Mintzer, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, Case No. 76-16842. Melvin Waldorf, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, Case No. 76-16344. Florence Margen v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No 76-39412. Biscayne Bank v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et el., Case No. 76-39857 (8). Harry Jolkower, et al. v. Archie Struhl, et al., Case No. 77-19172. Hilliard Avrutis v. Archie Struhl, et al., Case No. 32494. Julius Wladawsky, et al. v. Melvin J. Haber, et al., Case No. 76-22554 (14). Taken as a whole, these judgments support an inference that Applicant lacks the competence and background necessary to act as a responsible mortgage broker in Florida. 2/ (Testimony of Ehrlich; R-4, R-5.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application for a mortgage broker's license be DENIED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of January, 1982.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondents, Samuel T. Henson and DuPont Funding Corporation, committed multiple acts in violation of applicable statutes and administrative rules and, if so, what, if any, penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the administrative agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.3 Respondent, DuPont Funding Corporation ("DuPont") is a Florida corporation engaged in the mortgage brokerage business at a single location at 7300 West Camino Real Drive, Boca Raton, Florida 33442. DuPont is registered with Petitioner under registration number HB 592710662. Respondent, Samuel T. Henson, ("Henson"), is the principal mortgage broker for DuPont. Henson is licensed by Petitioner as a mortgage broker pursuant to license number HA 247542864. As the mortgage broker for DuPont, Henson is responsible for his compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, as well as that of DuPont. Petitioner examined and investigated Respondents in response to five complaints received by Petitioner. The investigation involved events allegedly occurring between January 1, 1989 through August 31, 1990. Misuse And Misapplication Of Deposits The Smith Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $1,493.00 to Mr. J. W. Smith (the "Smith transaction"). Mr. Smith deposited $1,493.00 with Respondents to pay the costs of a mortgage applied for by the purchaser of commercial property owned by Mr. Smith. According to the terms of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application, the deposit was refundable if Respondents were unable to obtain financing for the proposed transaction. After Respondents were unable to obtain the financing applied for, they refused to refund Mr. Smith's deposit. Mr. Smith owned the Esmeralda Inn in Chimney Rock, North Carolina (the "Inn"). The Inn was listed for sale with Daniel Murr of First Commercial Brokers in Asheville, North Carolina, in the amount of $650,000.00. In October, 1989, Mr. Smith received a full price offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. and Mrs. William C. Robeck. Mr. and Mrs. Robeck were represented by a Mr. Castaldi as the their agent. The terms of the offer required Mr. and Mrs. Robeck to pay $25,000.00 and for Mr. Smith to carry a second mortgage in the amount of $185,000.00. The balance of the purchase price was to be paid in the form of a first mortgage in the amount of $440,000.00. Mr. Smith did not accept the offer of purchase from Mr. and Mrs. Robeck because he considered the amount of the cash invested by the purchasers to be insufficient. Sometime in December, 1989, Mr. Smith received a full price offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. Andrew Okpych. The terms of the offer required Mr. Okpych to pay $100,000.00 and for Mr. Smith to carry a second mortgage in the amount of $200,000.00. The Branch Bank and Trust Company in Asheville, North Carolina agreed to provide a first mortgage in the amount of $350,000.00. Mr. Smith wanted to minimize the amount of his second mortgage. He was advised by Mr. Daniel Murr that Respondents had represented to Mr. Murr that they could obtain a first mortgage for the purchase in the amount of $440,000.00 to finance the Smith-to-Okpych transaction. This financing proposal would reduce the second mortgage held by Mr. Smith to $110,000.00. Mr. Smith authorized Mr. Murr to contact Respondents. Henson contacted Mr. Smith by telephone to discuss the proposed financing in the amount of $440,000.00 on or about December 19, 1989. During that telephone conversation, Henson represented to Mr. Smith that Henson had located a lender which had already approved the needed $440,000.00 loan. Henson refused repeated requests by Mr. Smith to identity the lender. Henson insisted that Mr. Smith sign an agreement to pay the costs of the loan transaction and deposit $1,500.00 with Respondents before Henson would identify the lender which had pre-approved the loan in the amount of $440,000.00. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych signed a Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "agreement") with Respondents on January 5, 1990. Mr. Okpych signed the agreement as borrower and Mr. Smith signed as the person responsible for all expenses incurred in connection with the agreement. The agreement was signed by Henson on January 5, 1992, and sent by facsimile to Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych from the office of Mr. Smith's attorney. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych made several changes to the agreement and initialed the changes. One such change made the deposit from Mr. Smith a refundable deposit by deleting the prefix "non-" from the word "non-refundable" in the typed form of the agreement. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych sent the modified agreement to Henson by facsimile on the same day. Mr. Smith telephoned Henson on January 5, 1992, to advise Henson that the modified agreement had been sent by facsimile. Henson stated that he had received the agreement and stated that the modifications were acceptable. Henson directed Mr. Smith to wire transfer the $1,500.00 deposit. Mr. Smith wired $1,500.00, less the $7.00 charge for the wire transfer, on January 10, 1990. The wire transfer in the amount of $1,493.00 was sent to the account of Dupont Funding Corporation, account number 3601345943, NCNB, Deerfield Beach, Florida. Henson notified Mr. Smith by telephone on or about January 15, 1992, that he could not procure the needed financing. The reason given by Henson was that the lender did not want to make the loan because the property was located in North Carolina. Henson still refused to identify the lender to Mr. Smith, but suggested that the needed financing may be obtainable from "General Electric." See Exhibit 12 at 24. The next day, Henson telephoned Mr. Smith and stated that the loan was not available from any lender and that the deposit of $1,493.00 would be refunded to Mr. Smith later in the week. After repeated requests and written demands, Mr. Smith's deposit in the amount of $1,493.00 has not been refunded. The Robeck Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $2,500.00 to Mr. and Mrs. William C. Robeck (the "Robeck transaction"). Mr. and Mrs. Robeck deposited $2,500.00 with Respondents when the Robeck's applied for a mortgage in the amount of $440,000.00 on October 11, 1989, in their unsuccessful attempt to purchase the Inn from Mr. Smith. When Mr. Robeck questioned whether the deposit was refundable, Henson changed the typed form of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "loan application") by deleting the prefix "non-" in the typed word "non-refundable". The modified loan agreement was signed by the Robeck's and Henson. Respondents were unable to obtain financing for the proposed transaction. After the Robecks were unable to obtain financing, Respondents refused to refund the Robeck's deposit. Mr and Mrs. Robeck made an offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. Smith sometime in October, 1989. The offer was rejected, and the Robeck's asked Henson to refund their deposit sometime in January, 1990. Henson refused to refund the deposit and told Mr. Robeck to find another bed and breakfast inn. Mr. Robeck found another bed and breakfast inn for sale in Franklin, North Carolina. He offered to acquire the inn by lease-purchase. His offer was accepted, but Mr. Robeck later found approximately $1,000,000.00 in stolen property on the premises. The owner was arrested, and the lease-purchase transaction was not consummated. Mr. Robeck again requested the refund of his deposit, and Henson again refused the request. Mr. Robeck has never been refunded any portion of his deposit. The Shuster Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $2,500.00 to Mr. Sanford Shuster (the "Shuster transaction"). Mr. Shuster deposited $2,500.00 with Respondents when he applied for a mortgage in the amount of $3,500,000.00 on February 8, 1990, to finance the acquisition of an Assisted Care Living Facility ("ACLF"). Henson changed the typed form of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "mortgage application") by deleting the prefix "non-" in the typed word "non-refundable". The modified mortgage application was signed by Mr. Shuster and Henson. Mr. Shuster was unable to obtain financing, and Respondents refused to refund Mr. Shuster's deposit. Mr. Shuster made repeated attempts to obtain his refundable deposit from Respondents including several telephone conversations with Henson and two written demands for payment on April 10, 1990, and on June 2, 1990. In every instance, Henson agreed to refund the deposit but never did so. Mr. Shuster and Henson entered into a compromise agreement on September 10, 1990. Pursuant to the terms of the compromise agreement, Henson agreed to pay Mr. Shuster $2,000.00 in full settlement of the $2,500.00 claim by Mr. Shuster. Henson paid none of the $2,000.00 required under the settlement agreement with Mr. Shuster. Mr. Shuster sued Henson in Palm Beach County Court and obtained a Final Judgment against Henson on January 31, 1992, in the amount of $2,058.75. On May 7, 1991, Henson paid Mr. Shuster $100.00 toward the amount due under the Final Judgment, but made no other payments. Mr. Shuster has never received the balance of the deposit owed to him and has a claim pending with the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. The Linker Transaction Respondents failed to refund deposits totaling $22,500.00 to Mr. Gerald Linker (the "Linker transaction"). Mr. Linker deposited $22,500.00 with Respondents when he applied for a mortgage in the amount of $1,250,000.00 in May, 1990, to finance the acquisition of an alcohol and drug abuse center (the "center"). Henson obtained a written loan commitment from Nationwide Funding, Inc. ("Nationwide"), on May 23, 1990. Neither Nationwide nor Respondents performed in accordance with the terms of the commitment. Mr. Linker never received his loan and never received his deposits. Mr. Linker's attorney made repeated attempts to have Mr. Linker's deposits refunded to him. Mr. Linker's attorney filed suit in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, and obtained separate judgments against Henson and Dupont in the respective amounts of $69,023.01 and $69,520.78. Respondents paid none of the $138,543.79 owed to Mr. Linker. Mr. Linker has a claim pending with the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. The Barth Transaction Respondents failed to return a refundable deposit in the amount of $10,000.00 to Mr. Andrew J. Barth (the "Barth transaction"). Mr. Barth deposited $10,000.00 with Respondents when he applied for financing in connection with the purchase of the Cardinal Retirement Village in Bradenton, Florida, on November 17, 1989. Mr. Barth was to assume an existing mortgage of approximately $9,800,000.00 in the transaction. Respondents agreed to arrange the assumption. The owners of the Cardinal Retirement Village refused to proceed and Respondents never refunded Mr. Barth's deposit. The agreement between Mr. Barth and Respondents provided in relevant part: The deposit will be refunded no later than thirty (30) days from this date if this real estate and mortgage transaction is not successfully completed and closed. Mr. Barth made repeated attempts to have his deposit refunded to him. In May, 1990, Mr. Barth's attorney negotiated a Pay Back Agreement with Respondents in which Respondents agreed to pay $1,500.00 a month to Mr. Barth to refund the deposit with interest. Respondents paid only $3,000.00 to Mr. Barth. Mr. Barth has never received the balance owed to him for his refundable deposit. Failure To Maintain Escrow Accounts Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account during 1988 and 1989 and failed to place deposits in escrow. Respondents failed to place deposits in escrow for the Smith, Robeck, Shuster, Linker, and Barth transactions. The accounts to which the monies were deposited by Respondents were not escrow accounts. Respondents failed to place deposits from numerous other transactions in escrow. Respondents failed to deposit in escrow the following amounts: an appraisal fee of $250.00 and a credit report fee of $150.00 collected from Mr. Eric Jason prior to closing a mortgage for $101,650.00 on November 30, 1989; an appraisal fee of $250.00 and a credit report fee of $50.00 collected from Francis J. and Barbara A. Lynch prior to closing a mortgage for $50,000.00 on February 5, 1990; a deposit of $2,000.00 in part payment of the brokerage fee collected from Mr. Nicholas A. Paleveda and Ms. Marjorie Ewing prior to closing a mortgage for $356,400.00 on April 20, 1990; a deposit of $350.00 collected from Mr. Richard L. Trombley prior to closing a mortgage for $40,000.00 on November 2, 1990; and a deposit of $350 collected from the Sun Bay Development Corporation prior to closing a mortgage for $292,500.00 on February 6, 1990. Excessive, Duplicate, And Undisclosed Charges Respondents imposed excessive, duplicate, or undisclosed charges in numerous mortgage transactions. The costs itemized and collected from borrowers in these transactions were not supported by actual expenditures. Respondents collected $625.00 from Mr. and Mrs. Ernest L. Sego for an appraisal that cost $250.00. Mr. and Mrs. Sego paid $325.00 for an appraisal report at the time they executed a Mortgage Brokerage Agreement on August 17, 1988, for a mortgage in the amount of $151,000.00. At the closing on April 7, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Sego were charged an additional $300.00. Respondents collected $50.00 from Mr. and Mrs. Sego for a credit report at the time the Mortgage Brokerage Agreement was executed. At the closing, Mr. and Mrs. Sego were charged an additional $45.00 for a credit report. Respondents underestimated the closing costs for: Mr. Jason in the amount of $590.00; The Lynch's in the amount of $492.50; and Mr. and Mrs. Sego in the amount of $1,140.00. Failure To Disclose Respondents failed to disclose costs incurred by numerous borrowers. Respondents failed to disclose changes in the cost of title insurance which occurred between the time the borrowers signed Good Faith Estimate forms and the time the mortgage transactions closed. The estimated cost for title insurance for the Lynch's was $460.00 while the actual cost was $637.50. The estimated cost of title insurance for Mr. and Mrs. Sego was $200.00 and the actual cost was $263.00. The Mortgage Brokerage Agreement/Good Faith Estimate was not signed by two borrowers in separate transactions. Neither Mr. and Mrs. Knowlton nor Mr. Trombley signed those documents. Respondents failed to disclose payments made to a co- broker in two separate transactions. Mr. Nicholas Cancel was hired by Respondents to process loans. Loan processing is limited to preparing the documentation necessary to close a loan. Mr. Cancel is a licensed mortgage broker who was employed by a broker other than Respondents. Respondents failed to disclose payments made to Mr. Cancel in his capacity as an independent broker in the mortgage loans to the Lynch's and Mr. Jason. Failure To Maintain Books And Records And Failure To Cooperate Respondents failed to maintain books and records at the principal place of business. Respondents maintained only one business location. When Petitioner's investigator visited Respondents' office and asked for the books and records, Henson told the investigator that there were no books and records at the office. Petitioner subsequently served Respondents with a subpoena to produce Dupont's books and records. Respondents produced 57 mortgage files and some banking records. The files produced by Respondents were incomplete. Most contained only brochures. No files were produced on the Shuster and Linker transactions. During the investigation Henson represented to the investigator that he was neither president nor a corporate officer of Dupont. However, Henson repeatedly signed loan application and loan closing documents as president of Dupont including the Smith, Robeck, and Shuster transactions. Henson also entered into numerous co-brokerage arrangements as president of Dupont including arrangements with Mr. Cancel and Ms. Patricia Towers, president of Towers Mortgage Corporation, 6971 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida 33487. Fraud, Deceit, Misrepresentation, And Gross Negligence Respondents' intent to defraud and deceive the public is evidenced by a consistent pattern and practice of incompetence, gross negligence, misrepresentation, and failure to disclose material facts in multiple transactions over an extended period of time. Respondents knew or should have known that the acts committed by them constituted violations of law. Respondents violations resulted in financial loss to numerous individuals and to the public generally. Respondents failed to comply with agreements voluntarily executed by them and failed to pay amounts due under judgments duly entered against them by Florida courts. Respondents failed to cooperate with state investigators and failed to maintain books, records, and escrow accounts required by law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner issue a final order revoking the license of Respondent, Henson, and revoking the registration of Respondent, Dupont. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of September 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 29th day of September 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, James W. McKibbon was not licensed as a mortgage broker in Florida (Exhibit 1). MorBanc Financial Corporation was initially registered as a mortgage broker in Florida on February 27, 1989, and remained registered through June 15, 1990 (Exhibit 1). In August 1988, Respondent was employed by Sovereign Savings Bank to procure qualified home purchases needing mortgage money to be lent by Sovereign. MorBanc Financial Corporation was incorporated circa 1988 to become a mortgage brokerage firm. It opened a bank account and an office from funds contributed by its organizers. Respondent was offered shares in MorBanc and was elected president of the company. No evidence was submitted that Respondent was an investor in MorBanc. Thomas Pollak moved to Florida in 1988 and contracted to purchase a residence. The real estate agent with whom he was working recommended he seek a loan through MorBanc which was located in the same building with the real estate agent. Pollak assumed that MorBanc was a licensed mortgage broker in Florida. McKibbon's business card shows him as President of MorBanc Financial Corporation and lists FHA-VA-Conventional -- presumably loans that can be brokered by MorBanc. Respondent never told Pollak that he or MorBanc were mortgage brokers, and no applications for a mortgage loan completed by Pollak contained the name MorBanc. Instead, all of the application forms used were those used by Sovereign Savings Bank, and the loan application was submitted to Sovereign Savings Bank. The bank paid Respondent for procuring loans. MorBanc, prior to becoming registered as a mortgage broker, processed no loans from clients procured by Respondent McKibbon and paid McKibbon no commission or other compensation.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against James W. McKibbon that he acted as a mortgage broker without being licensed to do so in Florida be dismissed. ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings Not Accepted. 2. Respondent helped set up the furniture in the office that was provided by one of the financial founders of MorBanc. Not accurate to call Respondent "instrumental" in this task. Teresa Tyler was the real estate agent procuring the contract with Pollak. No evidence was submitted that she was Respondent's real estate salesperson. While Pollak testified that Respondent mentioned he (Respondent) could work with more than one lender, the only lender mentioned by Respondent was Sovereign, and the loan was processed through Sovereign. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Christian, Esquire Office of Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, FL 33602-3394 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 James W. McKibbon 5770 Dartmouth Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted herein to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact adopted herein. The rulings on Alpert's Proposed Findings of Fact are as follows: A. Findings on Marting K. Alpert and general procedures of his office - These findings of fact are accepted except to the extent that it is stated that Ms. Evans understood certain of the transactions upon explanation by Mr. Alpert. She was confused and correct herself in her subsequent testimony. B. Findings on examination procedures of the Division - These findings are accepted to the extent that they coincide with the Hearing Officer's and the Department's findings adopted herein. They are otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, subordinate, cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial, unnecessary, and otherwise constituting conclusions of law and legal argument as opposed to findings of fact. C. Findings on paragraph 4 - These findings are accepted to the extent that they coincide with the Department's and the Hearing Officer's findings adopted herein. They are otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, subordinate, cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial, and otherwise constituting conclusions of law and legal argument as opposed to findings of fact. D. Findings on paragraph 5 - These findings are accepted to the extent that they coincide with the Department's and the Hearing Officer's findings adopted herein. They are otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, subordinate, cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial, and otherwise constituting conclusions of law and legal argument as opposed to findings of fact. E. Findings on paragraph 6 - These findings are accepted to the extent that they coincide with the Department's and the Hearing Officer's findings adopted herein. They are otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, subordinate, cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial, and otherwise constituting conclusions of law and legal argument as opposed to findings of fact. F. Findings on paragraph 7 - These findings are accepted to the extent that they coincide with the Department's and the Hearing Officer's findings adopted herein. They are otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, subordinate, cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial, and otherwise constituting conclusions of law and legal argument as opposed to findings of fact. G. Findings on paragraph 8 - These findings are accepted to the extent that they coincide with the findings of the Department and the Hearing Officer as adopted herein. They are otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record and as constituting legal argument as opposed to findings of fact. H. Findings on paragraph 9 - These findings are accepted to the extent that they coincide with the findings of the Department and the Hearing Officer as adopted herein. They are otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, immaterial, and irrelevant. I. Findings on paragraph 10 - These findings are accepted except for the next to the last sentence which constitutes a conclusion of law. J. Findings on paragraph 11 - The first sentence of these findings is accepted. The second sentence is rejected on the basis of lack of credibility. The balance is rejected as unnecessary. K. Findings on paragraph 12 - These findings are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, irrelevant, immaterial, and as otherwise constituting legal argument as opposed to findings of fact. L. Findings on paragraph 13 - These findings are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, irrelevant, immaterial, and otherwise constituting legal argument as opposed to findings of fact. M. Findings on paragraph 15 - See ruling on Exception to paragraph 12. N. Findings on paragraph 16 - These findings are rejected as unnecessary, immaterial, irrelevant, and unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. RULINGS ON ALPERT'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Exception to paragraph 3 - Alpert has requested that certain of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact be rejected as inconsistent. The Department's findings numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 adopted herein clarify the apparent inconsistency. It was only months after the examination and after searching his records that Alpert was able to trace the disposition of the issuable funds with a reasonable degree of probability. At this late date, the disposition of the funds became apparent to Ms. Evans upon Alpert's explanation. Her testimony at the hearing must be considered in this context and it then becomes clear that the Hearing Officer's findings are not inconsistent. Exception to paragraph 4 - It is true that Ms. Evans' preferences do not necessarily determine Departmental policy. A ledger is but one of a variety of bookkeeping devices which are acceptable if they reflect receipts and disbursements in an orderly fashion. The Hearing Officer found only that Ms. Evans could not trace the receipts and disbursements. Exception to paragraph 6 - While the Department defers to the Hearing Officer's finding, Alpert's suggested finding would not in any event alter any of the conclusions of law. Obtaining a satisfactory lender's commitment gives the broker the right to disburse a borrower's advance fee deposit from trust, but the money must first be placed in trust. The transactions herein involved no advance fees. Alpert's practice had the effect of circumventing the use of a trust account, and at the same time depriving the lender and borrower of the intended safeguards. Exception to paragraph 9 - There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding that the charges for amortization schedules were improperly listed as official fees. Exception to paragraph 11 - The Department's mail-out advised Alpert of the changes in the law, and there was competent testimony that a copy of the new legislation was attached as indicated in the mailout. Exception to paragraph 12 - The characterization of the violations as technical or serious in the present action contemplates a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. In any event, the fact that Alpert admitted to "technical violations" in a prior proceeding does not preclude a finding that the violations in the present action are more serious than Alpert is willing to admit. First Exception to Conclusions of Law - Alpert is correct in that the violation is specifically directed to subsections (1) and (3) of Section 494.06, Fla. Stat. Alpert argues that these subsections are, "so vague that a mortgage broker of average intelligence must guess at its meaning." But, it is noted that Alpert himself could not trace the flow of funds at the time of the examination. A competent mortgage broker does not have to guess at what records he must keep to enable himself to trace the flow of funds. Even after searching his records and his memory, Alpert was only able to show records which created inferences as to the disposition of the funds. A competent mortgage broker would devise a record-keeping system which would enable him to determine the flow of funds and then presumably could demonstrate the flow of funds to a competent examiner. The Department's objection is that Alpert's records were so disorderly as to render the examiner's job unreasonably difficult at the very least, and in fact, impossible at the time of the examination. All that is required of a statute is that the language convey a sufficiently definite warning as to the required conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. It is clear by common understanding and practice that any orderly recordation of receipts and disbursements will satisfy the statute. The Department's finding is simply that the state of disorder and confusion of Alpert's records constitutes an element of the negligence and incompetence underlying all of the violations cited in the Administrative Charges and Complaint. Second Exception to Conclusions of Law - The record supports the Hearing Officer's reasoning that Alpert was unable to document the flow of funds at the time of the examination. This statement is not a conclusion of law in itself but is an element of the underlying conclusions of law discussed above. Third Exception to Conclusions of Law - As to the fee overcharge, guilt imports the fact of having committed a breach of conduct. The statute makes no suggestion that an intentional or wilful breach is essential to a finding of guilt. In fact, a license may be revoked pursuant to Section 494.05(2), Fla. Stat., for negligence or incompetence. Furthermore, Section 494.08(4), Fla. Stat., is sufficiently definite in that the record reflects that Alpert calculated the correct fee and then admitted the precise amount of the overcharge. The argument in 9(a) applies to items accepted as closing costs which were not supported in fact. The $2.00 charges were imposed for official fees. There were no official fees in this amount. Therefore, the charges for official fees were not supported in fact. Alpert misrepresented the fee as an official fee which is a fee required by law and is not negotiable. A charge for an amortization schedule is subject to arms length negotiation if properly disclosed. The misrepresentation precluded any such negotiation. Paragraph 10 of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact merely restates Alpert's testimony regarding the subject advertisements. However, the Hearing Officer concluded in her Conclusions of Law that Alpert's advertisements constituted a violation of the Act. Therefore, the Hearing Officer necessarily rejected the credibility of or gave little weight, if any, to Alpert's testimony in this regard. Fourth Exception to Conclusions of Law - The Department finds as a matter of law that Alpert's collection practices were sufficiently connected to his mortgage brokerage business to fall within the scope of the trust account requirement. Fifth Exception to Conclusions of Law - Alpert has misconstrued Section 494.05(1)(f), Fla. Stat., in section 11 of his Exceptions. Obtaining a satisfactory commitment permits disbursement of an advance brokerage fee out of trust when the contract between the borrower and mortgage broker expressly so provides. This provision in the statute contemplates a borrower who has made an advance deposit to secure the broker's fee and has agreed to disbursement of the fee upon receipt of a satisfactory commitment and prior to closing and disbursement of the loan proceeds. This was not the case in the instant transactions. Here there were no advance deposit agreements. In any event, obtaining a commitment simply authorizes disbursement of an advance fee from trust, but does not excuse the broker from the requirement of using a trust account. The violation concerns the fact that the funds were not deposited in trust in the required chronological sequence prior to closing. Alpert's practice had the effect of circumventing the use of a trust account and depriving the lender and borrower of the intended safeguards. Furthermore, in two of the transactions, trust funds were clearly held for extended periods of time in Alpert's personal checking account. In these two transactions, Alpert did not advance his own funds and receive the lender's funds after closing. Hence, there can be no argument that the funds were not entrusted to him. Furthermore, the deposits were not exempted from the trust account requirement on the basis that a commitment had been obtained, as these were not advance deposit transactions. Sixth Exception to Conclusions of Law - Alpert argues that the Department "admitted" in the previous Stipulation that escrow infractions were merely "technical" as opposed to serious violations. To the contrary, a close reading of the Stipulation of May 25, 1976, reveals that the Department "agreed", inter alia, that if Alpert admitted that certain technical violations occurred, it would dismiss the administrative charges and complaint. Such is substantially different from the Department agreeing or admitting that such violations are technical. The Department only agreed by compromise that a certain admission constituted sufficient consideration to dismiss the administrative charges and complaint under the attendant circumstances. However, to continue this reasoning is to miss the point. A violation can be both technical and serious. Failure to give Miranda Warnings during custodial interrogation may cause a conviction to be thrown out on a technicality. Nonetheless, the technicality is considered serious enough to throw out the conviction. To carry this semantic dialectic further, a technical violation is sometimes characterized as one resulting in no injury, but which may be, as in the case of trust account violations, serious in terms of the risk of injury to which depositors are exposed. Alpert next argues that the Department is estopped to criticize his practice of depositing mortgage collections in his personal checking account as opposed to a trust account, because the Department did not allege such a violation in the 1976 Administrative Charges and Complaint. A review of said Complaint and the underlying examination report reflects many serious violations of the Act, including trust account violations. In any event, application of the principle of estoppel to the Department would be misplaced in this instance. If the practice does constitute a violation, it is at the risk of injury to the public and not to the Department. To estop the Department from proscribing illegal conduct would only benefit Alpert at the expense of the rights of the public. Different reasoning may or may not apply in a dispute between private litigants where the rights of the public are not in issue. To carry Alpert's argument to its logical conclusion is to hold that since he did not get caught the first time, he cannot be punished the second time. Such reasoning is patently absurd. Seventh Exception to Conclusions of Law - Alpert's argument relative to the legal effect of the previous Stipulation is an attempt to elevate form over substance. Guilt here is the fact of having committed a breach of conduct involving a penalty. That Alpert admitted the violations and agreed to the penalty is tantamount to a finding of guilt. Alpert's claim of deprivation of due process is without merit. An Administrative Charges and Complaint was filed and Alpert was advised of his right to a hearing in the previous as well as the instant action. In the first action, the right to hearing was knowingly and voluntarily withdrawn pursuant to his Stipulation. ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Alpert's Motion to Dismiss Complaint is denied for reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law and rulings on Exceptions. PENALTY Section 494.05(2), Fla. Stat., provides: The license of a licensee may be revoked, if the application for the license is found to contain a material misstatement, or the licensee demonstrates by a course of conduct, negligence or incompetence in performing any act for which he is required to hold a license under this act, or if the licensee for a second time, shall be found guilty of any misconduct which warrants his suspension under subsection (1). The Department finds that Alpert's violations of Section 494.05(1)(b)(f)(g)(h), Fla. Stat., when taken together with the previous finding of guilt warranting suspension, form a sufficient basis for revocation of his license pursuant to Section 494.05(2), Fla. Stat., to wit: that Alpert has, for a second time, been found guilty of misconduct warranting suspension of his license. Secondly, when all of the acts of misconduct are considered cumulatively, they demonstrate a course of negligence and/or incompetence in performing material acts for which Alpert is required to hold a license under this Act. Hence, two out of the three bases for revocation have been met. The Department has also considered that Alpert's present violations are identical to or substantially similar to the violations for which he was previously cited. Therefore, it is the Department's finding that, among other wilful violations cited herein, the present trust account violation in particular was committed wilfully and constitutes an aggravating circumstance such as to form an additional basis for the maximum penalty within the permissible range of statutory authority.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the mortgage brokerage license and registration of respondent Martin K. Alpert be REVOKED. It is further recommended that the respondent be provided a period of sixty (60) days from the date of the final order entered in this cause within which to close out all pending mortgage loan transactions. Respectfully submitted and entered this 26th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Gross Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John W. Bakas and John W. McWhirter, Jr. Post Office Box 2150 Tampa, Florida 33601 Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
