The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, is charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Diko Investments, Inc. ("Diko") conducted business as a mortgage broker in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Dieter Kolberg ("Kolberg") was an officer, director, and acted as principal mortgage broker for Diko. Kolberg passed the mortgage broker's examination on May 28, 1985. Diko was issued a license as a mortgage broker with Kolberg as its principal broker on June 26, 1985 (license NO. HB-16568) Prior to May 28, 1985, Diko ran advertisements soliciting investors for mortgage opportunities. These ads included Kolberg's home telephone number. Prior to May 28, 1985, Kolberg/Diko entered into a business relationship with Michael D. Cirullo, a licensed mortgage broker, to "co-broke" mortgage transactions. Pursuant to their agreement, Cirullo represented the borrower/mortgagor while Kolberg obtained and represented the lender/mortgagee. Kolberg and Cirullo solicited and negotiated at least two loans prior to May 28, 1985. Kolberg acted in expectation of being paid as a mortgage broker. Cirullo remitted 50 percent of the commissions earned on these transactions to Diko. Diko stationery included the phrase "Licensed Mortgage Bankers." Neither Diko nor Kolberg has been licensed as a "mortgage banker." In August and September of 1985, investors, Marcel and Ida Barber, responded to a Diko advertisement which offered a 16 percent interest mortgage loan secured by prime residential real estate. The Barbers were interested in a safe, high interest yielding investment and requested more information from Diko. On September 23, 1985, Kolberg wrote to the Barbers to outline the following business policies of Diko: The first objective of the Diko lending program was "The Safety of the Investor's Capital." Any investment was to be secured by a mortgage on prime residential real estate clear of all liens with the exception of a first mortgage where a second mortgage would be given. Investors would be issued mortgagee title insurance to insure against loss due to defects in title to the mortgaged property. Investors would be issued fire and hazard insurance to cover any losses in the event of fire or storm. Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid letter, the Barbers decided to invest $25,000 in a mortgage through Diko/Kolberg. This initial transaction proceeded satisfactorily and the objectives addressed in paragraph 10 above were met. In late December, 1985, the Barbers advised Kolberg that they would be willing to invest an additional $50,000 in early January, 1986. The Barbers expected the transaction to be handled in the same manner as their prior investment through Diko. After reviewing two or three loan proposals, the Barbers chose to invest in a loan to Tony Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc. The loan was to be secured by a second mortgage on property at 713-717 "L" Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. The "L" Street property consisted of a 24-unit apartment complex and an adjacent laundry facility. Kolberg accompanied the Barbers to view the property. During discussions with the Barbers regarding the proposed investment, Kolberg made the following false material representations: That the property had a high occupancy; That rental payments were guaranteed or subsidized by a government program; That the asset-to-debt ratio for the property was acceptable; and That a proposed expansion of the laundry facility would further enhance the security of the loan. Financial statements of the borrower (Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc.) did not include all obligations against the "L" Street property. Diko/Kolberg did not give the Barbers an accurate or complete statement of the financial condition of the "L" Street investment. Kolberg knew the information on the statement was incomplete. Diko/Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers the high rate of crime in the area which compromised the security of the "L" Street investment. Kolberg knew of the crime problem in the area. Diko/Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that foreclosure proceedings had been instituted against the "L" Street property. Kolberg knew of the foreclosure action as well as the delinquency on other obligations. Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that he represented, as trustee, a Kolberg family company which would directly benefit from the Barber loan. The Barber loan would satisfy a mortgage held by Kolberg, as trustee, on the subject property, which mortgage was in default and in the process of foreclosure (the Ropet Anlagen foreclosure). Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that another mortgage held on the "L" Street property (David Marsh loan) was also in default. A subordination agreement was required to be executed by Marsh in order for the Barber/Medici loan to close. Marsh agreed to subordinate his mortgage position for approximately $3,000 in arrear payments. Marsh was owed approximately $125,000 but chose to subordinate because by doing so he was able to recoup a small amount of what he considered a lost investment. Kolberg knew of Marsh's situation and did not advise the Barbers. The Barber loan to Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc. closed on January 18, 1986. The Barbers delivered a check for $53,000 payable to the title company chosen by Diko. Neither Diko nor Kolberg gave the title company, Manor Title, closing instructions to protect the lenders' interests. Kolberg did, however, instruct the title company to list expenses relating to the Ropet Anlagen foreclosure against the Medici loan. Proceeds from the closing, in the amount of $50,000 were paid to Kolberg, as trustee for "Ropet Anlagen," and deposited to an account by that name. The name "Ropet Anlagen" translates to "Ropet Investments." Kolberg handles all transactions for this Kolberg family company in the United States. (Kolberg has two sons, Robin and Peter, from a former marriage. The name "Ropet" may derive from their names.) Kolberg's former wife, Patricia Kolberg, owns an interest in Ropet Anlagen. Regular monthly payments were made by Kolberg to Patricia Kolberg on a Ropet Anlagen account. Many of the checks drawn on the Ropet Anlagen account were for personal expenses of Kolberg or his business. The first mortgage on the "L" Street property was 45 days overdue on January 13, 1986. Kolberg knew of this delinquency but did not advise the Barbers. To the contrary, Diko gave the Barbers an estoppel notice from a prior closing showing the first mortgage to be current. The first mortgagee ultimately foreclosed its mortgage and the Barbers lost their entire investment. The Barbers did not receive a fire and hazard insurance policy to cover losses in the event of fire or storm for the "L" Street property. The Barbers did not receive a mortgagee title insurance policy until March, 1986, by which time the first mortgage was further in default. Additionally, the mortgagee policy disclosed a financing statement and a collateral assignment of rents recorded prior to the Barbers' mortgage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Office of the Comptroller, enter a Final Order revoking the mortgage broker license issued to Dieter Kolberg and Diko Investments, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 30th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted; however, Kolberg's interest when financing with funds he controlled was only on a temporary, interim basis. The activities were conducted with Diko to receive a commission, therefore requiring a license. Paragraphs 7-15 are accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12, 13. Paragraphs 17-18 are accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 14, 18, 22. Paragraphs 19-27 are accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Paragraphs 29-42 are accepted. The detail of Petitioner's finding is unnecessary to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 43-45 are accepted but unnecessary. Paragraph 46 is accepted. Paragraph 47 is rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Paragraphs 48-52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 54 is accepted. Paragraph 55 is accepted to the extent found in findings of fact paragraphs 20, 21. Paragraphs 56-57 are accepted. Paragraph 58 is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 21. Paragraphs 59-63 are accepted but unnecessary. Paragraphs 64-65 are accepted. Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondents: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Those portions of paragraph 2 which set forth Respondent's dates of testing and licensure are accepted, the balance is rejected as an erroneous conclusions of law. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight ofevidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted but irrelevant to the issue. Paragraph 5 is rejected as the transaction was solicited with Kolberg's company, Diko, participating as a mortgage broker. Paragraph 6 is accepted but irrelevant to the issue. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of theevidence and law. Paragraph 8 is accepted but does not mitigate, as a matter of law, Respondent's improper useage of the phrase. Paragraphs 9-11 are accepted; however the detail of thefindings is unnecessary and immaterial to the issues of thiscause. Paragraphs 12-14 are accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12, 13 the balance is rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Paragraph 15 is rejected as unnecessary, relevant portions having previously been addressed. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraph 18 is rejected to the extent it qualifies Barber as a "Sophisticated Investor." The record is clear Mr. Barber was experienced in the laws of France; however, he relied on Kolberg completely as to both transactions which took place in Palm Beach. Moreover, Mr. Barber's useage and understanding of the English language was suspect. He could hardly be considered a "sophisticated investor" in light of the total circumstances. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 13, the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Moreover, it is found that the only times of capacity occupancy (which were limited) were due to temporary, transient, undesirable tenants who may have directly affected the crime problem. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraphs 23-24 are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 25 is accepted but is unnecessary. The crime problem was there prior to closing and was undisclosed to Barber. That it worsened after closing only assured the disclosure should have been made. Paragraphs 26-35 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Many of the facts asserted here are based on testimony given by Kolberg. Respondents presume that testimony to be truthful, accurate, and candid. I found the opposite to be true. Paragraph 36 is accepted but does not mitigate Respondents' responsibilities to have completed the items at closing. Paragraph 37 is accepted with same proviso as above paragraph 36, ruling #22). Paragraphs 38-39 are rejected. See ruling #21. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted but see findings of fact paragraph 21 as to Kolberg's useage of Ropet funds for personal expenses. Paragraphs 42-43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence S. Krieger, Esquire 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Keith A. Seldin, Esquire 1340 U.S. Highway #1, Suite 106 Jupiter, Florida 33469 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, (Department), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation and licensing of mortgage brokers in this state, and Respondent, Harriet Ijames, was a licensed mortgage broker. On February 17, 1989, Respondent entered into a Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department whereby she was placed on probation for 2 years for misconduct relating to the misappropriation of mortgage application fees, with the further requirement that she not act independently but under the supervision of a broker acceptable to the Department. On October 2, 1991, the Department filed a complaint against the Respondent alleging she had violated the terms of the prior Consent Order by conducting business as a mortgage broker without the requisite supervision. Thereafter, on April 29, 1992, Respondent entered into another Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department regarding the October, 1991 complaint by which she was again placed on probation conditioned upon her operating only under the supervision of an approved broker. This latter Order provided that any violation thereof would be automatic grounds for immediate and summary revocation of her license and also imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00. The Final Order incorporating that agreement was issued by the Department on July 13, 1992. In May, 1992, Respondent was contacted by Rhudine M. McGhee, a resident of Tampa, who had been referred to her by a mutual acquaintance. Mrs. McGhee indicated she was interested in purchasing another house. Somewhat later, Respondent contacted Mrs. McGhee and told her of a friend who had a house for sale. She also gave Mrs. McGhee the addresses of some other houses in the area which were for sale. Mrs. McGhee did not like any of them. Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker, and that she would have a real estate broker contact her. Respondent also offered to provide Mrs. McGhee with listings of Resolution Trust Corporation foreclosures in the desired price range. Some time later, the broker referred by Respondent showed Mrs. McGhee a house she liked and she signed a contract to buy it. In the interim, Respondent had taken a credit application from the McGhees over the phone and followed up with a visit to the McGhee home. On May 13, 1992, during the visit to the McGhee residence, Respondent had Mrs. McGhee sign a loan application. On that same visit, she solicited and received from Mrs. McGhee a check for $300.00, payable to the Respondent and subsequently endorsed and cashed by her, which reflected the check was the application fee for a loan. She specifically asked that the check be made to her, personally. When Mrs. McGhee asked Respondent about the check, she was told it would be credited to the purchase price at time of closing. This was not done and it was only later, after a complaint was filed with the Department, that Mr. Brigliadora, the mortgage broker with whom she was affiliated, repaid the fee from his company's funds. Though at hearing Respondent denied she took a loan application fee or that the check she received was for that purpose or bore any notation to that effect when received, Mrs. McGhee is quite certain she put that notation on the check at her husband's direction at the time she gave it to Respondent. Respondent claimed the check was for finding the house but Mr. McGhee specifically recalls Respondent indicating the check was to be an application fee to be credited against the purchase price. It is so found. On June 1, 1992, Respondent again returned to the McGhee home to have them sign a second loan application. This time Mr. McGhee was not at home and Respondent suggested to Mrs. McGhee that she sign her husband's name to the application. This was done. Respondent did not give the McGhees copies of the applications they signed but said she would bring them copies at a later date. This was never done. Though Respondent also denies soliciting the second application, her apparent signature appears on both application forms and it is found she did both solicit and sign the forms and the application fee check. The first application was for a loan of $80,000.00 at 8.5 percent. The second was for $36,000.00 at 8.625 percent. At the time of the solicitation, Respondent was employed by Frank Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker and owner of the Money Tree Mortgage Co. However, neither Respondent nor Mr. Brigliadora had notified the Department of their arrangement or obtained Departmental approval of the supervisory relationship. Clearly, Respondent knew the taking of an application fee, as the evidence indicates she did here, was inappropriate. Sometime in mid 1992, Respondent approached George Banks, a licensed mortgage broker in Tampa and owner of his own brokerage company, with a view toward working for him. In their conversation about that, they discussed the practice of application fees. Respondent indicated she wanted to take a fee of $200.00 to $300.00 up front, but Banks felt this was not proper, advised her so, and declined to accept her as a broker. Even when she claimed that other brokers took fees of this nature, he demurred, claiming he did not endorse the practice. Respondent worked for Mr. Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker, at his firm, Money Street Mortgage, for approximately 3 months during 1992. At the time she went to work for him, Respondent did not tell him she was under sanctions by the Department to have strict supervision and at no time did he agree to the Departmental supervision program. Mr. Brigliadora did not receive the $300.00 check Respondent obtained from the McGhees nor did he ever get the money it represented from the Respondent. It was only just before or at the closing on the property that he first became aware of the deposit. When he refunded the money to the McGhees, Respondent agreed to reimburse him but she never did. Normally, Money Street Mortgage does not take application fees on residential loans, and Mr. Brigliadora denies he ever approved or suggested to Respondent that she solicit them. When Respondent gave him the documentation on the McGhee loan application it did not include the required good faith estimate found in the brokerage agreement nor did the application form or any other document make the required disclosures. The application he got from Respondent does not constitute a brokerage agreement and Mr. Brigliadora never got one from the Respondent on this loan. What he received is no more than an application for a loan. Mr. James, the Department's Area Financial Manager, whose job includes the assignment of examiners and the review of investigations by examiners, knows Respondent as a licensed mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. He is aware of prior complaints received by the Department about the Respondent in the past. Two of them relate to the Final Orders previously mentioned herein. In the instant case, he recalls receiving a telephone call regarding a deposit of $300.00 given to Respondent and commenced an investigation into the incident. The current Administrative Complaint which resulted in this hearing was the outcome of that investigation. Based on his evaluation of the matters discovered in the investigation, he concluded that Respondent took a fee from a client without having a brokerage agreement with that client; failed to make the required full disclosure to a client; and misappropriated a fee which she received from a client; all of which are violations of various provisions of Chapter 494. In his official capacity with the Department, Mr. James had the duty to approve a supervisory mortgage broker for the Respondent as called for in the two prior Final Orders referred to previously herein. Neither Money Street Mortgage nor Mr. Brigliadora were submitted by Respondent for approval by the Department even though Respondent knew she was required to do so. Respondent claims she made it very clear to Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker. Nonetheless, Mrs. McGhee, she claims, insisted Respondent help her and offered to pay her for her efforts. Respondent claims that all Petitioner's witnesses lied about her and forged documents relating to her alleged activities. She denies she would ever cheat or disobey the rules because she knows she would lose her license if she did. Claiming she is well respected in the community, she asserts the Department did not thoroughly investigate the allegations against her and is, therefore, destroying her reputation over something which did not happen as alleged. Her assertions are not accepted, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case finding her guilty of the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein; revoking Harriett Ijames' license as a mortgage broker in Florida; and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa L. Elwell, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Harriett Ijames 8341 Paddlewheel Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to honor a subpoena issued by Petitioner as is more particularly set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, ASPEC, Inc., is a Florida Corporation engaged in the business of Mortgage Brokerage in Florida. Shanker S. Agarwal is President of ASPEC, Inc. Mr. Agarwal has been licensed by the Department as a Mortgage Broker since May 24, 1985 and currently holds License No. HB-0016435 which expired, by its terms, August 31, 1986. On February 14, 1986, the Department received a consumer complaint about ASPEC, Inc., and pursuant to its investigation of Respondent's brokerage activities, the Department sent a certified letter to ASPEC, Inc., on March 21, 1986, to the attention of President Agarwal requesting that an appointment be scheduled with its Area Financial Manager, Division of Finance, Paul Richman. The returned service of the referenced letter was postmarked April 14, 1986. President Agarwal, or an officer from Respondent failed to schedule an appointment with Paul Richman as requested. On May 22, 1986, the Department served Respondent a subpoena duces tecum on May 23, 1986, by its then Financial Examiner Analyst I, Kevin J.C. Gonzales. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp 9-10.) The subpoena issued to President Agarwal requested that the custodian of records, an officer, director, employee or member of ASPEC, Inc. appear before Paul Richman on May 30, 1986, at 9:00 a.m. at the Department's Miami Office and produce all books, papers and documents (of ASPEC, Inc.) from its inception to April 29, 1986, so that the Department could determine ASPEC's compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. President Agarwal, or a representative on behalf of ASPEC, Inc., failed to appear at the date and time specified on the subpoena, or thereafter, at the designated place to produce the requested documents. Respondent has challenged on constitutional and other procedural grounds, the Department's authority to conduct an investigation of Respondent as a licensee under the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Respondent's challenges were determined to be either beyond the authority of the Hearing Officer or lacked merit, and rulings to this effec were made during the course of the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the Mortgage Brokers License No. HB-0016435 issued to Respondent for a period of (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles J. Gopman Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mr. Shanker S. Agarwal, President ASPEC, INC 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Ronald P. Glantz, Esquire 320 Southeast 9th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
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
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. William Kirschner is Petitioner's owner and chairman of the board. Stacey Interlandi is its President and principal broker. Petitioner is in the mortgage lending and brokerage business. All of the mortgage loans it makes are sold to investors. Petitioner held an active mortgage brokerage business registration (No. HB 592567137 00) issued pursuant to former Section 494.039, Florida Statutes, which was effective from September 1, 1990, until its expiration on August 31, 1992. 2/ It currently holds a mortgage brokerage business license (No. MBB 592567137 000) issued pursuant to Section 494.0031, Florida Statutes. The effective date of this license was September 1, 1992. The license expires on August 31, 1994. From October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, Petitioner acted as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans and/or a servicer of mortgage loans. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has made mortgage loans by advancing funds to mortgage loan applicants. With respect to each of these loans, however, the commitment to advance funds was made prior to October 1, 1991. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has sold or assigned mortgage loans to non-institutional investors, but for no monetary gain. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has serviced mortgage loans pursuant to agreements into which it entered prior to October 1, 1991. At no time has Petitioner been licensed as a mortgage lender pursuant to Chapter 494, Part III, Florida Statutes. On or about July 31, 1991, the Department sent the following written advisement concerning the revisions made by the 1991 Legislature to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, to all registered mortgage brokerage businesses, including Petitioner: The 1991 Legislature revised Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1991. A copy of the new law is enclosed. Some of the changes which affect mortgage brokerage businesses are: A mortgage brokerage business may not make (fund) loans or service loans. Only mortgage lenders and correspondent mortgage lenders may make (fund) loans. Only mortgage lenders may service loans. A mortgage brokerage business may ONLY act as a mortgage broker. "Act as a mortgage broker" is defined as: "... for compensation or gain, or in the expectation of compensation or gain, either directly or indirectly, accepting or offering to accept an application for a mortgage loan, soliciting or offering to solicit a mortgage loan on behalf of a borrower, or negotiating or offering to negotiate the terms or conditions of a mortgage loan on behalf of a lender." There are no net worth requirements for mortgage brokerage businesses. A principal broker designation form must be completed and maintained in the principal place of business and a branch broker designation form must be completed and maintained at each branch. The required forms will be sent to your office prior to October 1, 1991. To act as a mortgage broker, a licensed individual must be an associate of a licensed brokerage business and is prohibited from being an associate of more than one mortgage brokerage business. "Associate" is defined as: ". . . a person employed by or acting as an independent contractor for a mortgage brokerage business . . ." Under the new law, no fee or notification to the Department is required when a mortgage broker becomes an associate of your business. However, the license of each mortgage broker must be prominently displayed in the business office where the associate acts as a mortgage broker. Note: The Department will discontinue processing change of status requests under the current law effective August 1, 1991. Mortgage brokerage businesses in good standing which hold an active registration are eligible to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause. The applicant must have: For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both; Documented a minimum net worth of $25,000 in audited financial statements; Applied for licensure pursuant to the saving clause before January 1, 1992 and paid an application fee of $100. Should you meet the above requirements and wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause or if you wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to Section 494.0061, please contact the Department for the appropriate application. These applications will be available in early September 1991. THESE CHANGES ARE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1991. PLEASE REVIEW THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THE LAW CAREFULLY FOR OTHER CHANGES WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR MORTGAGE BROKERAGE BUSINESS. As promised, application forms for licensure as a mortgage lender were available the first week of September, 1991. Petitioner requested such an application form on September 18, 1991. The requested form was mailed to Petitioner the following day. On December 31, 1991, Petitioner submitted a completed application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "saving clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. The application was accompanied by an application fee of $100.00 and an audited financial statement reflecting that Petitioner had a net worth in excess of $25,000.00. At the time of the submission of its application, Petitioner had an unblemished disciplinary record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of November, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4313 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of facts proposed by the Department: 1-7. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 8. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 9-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 16. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 17-21. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 22. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 24 6/-39. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 40. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.
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 the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The parties set forth an extensive set of stipulated facts in the Prehearing Stipulation filed prior to the commencement of the hearing. The stipulated facts describe the activities of Richard Eric Watts (Petitioner) on behalf of Frederick M. Larry in relation to a $50,000 investment of Mr. Larry's funds with D. F. Owen, Inc., in May 1985. At approximately the same time as the Larry investment was made, the Petitioner contracted with D.F. Owen to act as an investment adviser for a fee of $33,500. The stipulated facts describe the activities of the Petitioner on behalf of Cynthia Halabrin Trust. The Petitioner was the trustee for the trust, which was a residence. During a period of time that the residence was under renovation, the Petitioner allowed Mr. Larry to reside without payment to the trust. The stipulated facts describe the activities of the Petitioner regarding the unregistered operation of "Watts Investment Management, Inc." during 1985 and the subsequent registration of the entity in 1986. The stipulated facts describe the activities of the Petitioner regarding his employment as a broker for Paine Webber from 1982-1985, and the failure to obtain approval for outside employment activities while working for the investment firm. The stipulated facts describe the legal action taken by Cynthia Halabrin Raybuck against the Petitioner and Paine Webber related to the activities of the Petitioner as trustee of the Halabrin trust. The parties settled the case through arbitration. The stipulated facts address the creation of "Danbury Mortgage Company," and describe the preliminary activities of the unlicensed entity. The facts also identify the Petitioner's association with the Paradigm Mortgage Company, based in Jacksonville, Florida. For purposes of this Recommended Order, all stipulated facts set forth in the prehearing stipulation filed by the parties are adopted and incorporated herein. On or about August 29, 1996, the Petitioner filed an application with the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Department) seeking licensure as a mortgage broker. The Petitioner’s application disclosed that in 1989 he was denied admission to the Florida Bar. In January 1989, the Petitioner was notified by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (“Board”) of their intent to deny his application for admission to the Florida Bar. A hearing was conducted in June 1989 regarding the denial. The Petitioner was represented by legal counsel and testified under oath at the hearing. On August 31, 1989, the Board of Bar Examiners denied Petitioner’s application for admission. Based on the facts set forth in the Board's order, the Board concluded that the Petitioner “engaged in acts to serve his own interest to the detriment of others, violated registration laws, neglected payment of student loan obligations and issued numerous worthless checks.” The Board also determined that the Petitioner provided misleading testimony at his Bar hearing and failed to disclose material information on his application. Although at the formal administrative hearing the Petitioner attempted to explain the circumstances under which the Board's determination occurred, the testimony at hearing and the stipulated facts support the findings made by the Board. Upon the filing of the Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker, the Department undertook a review of the application. Based on the review, the Department determined that the Petitioner had held himself out for business as a mortgage broker without an appropriate license. In December 1995, the Petitioner registered the name "Danbury Mortgage Corporation" with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. In January 1996, the Petitioner established a business location for Danbury Mortgage Corporation. The Petitioner listed the business under the "mortgage brokers" section of the Sarasota Yellow Pages. At no time was the Danbury Mortgage Company licensed by the Department of Banking and Finance. At the hearing, the Petitioner suggested that no mortgage business had been conducted by Danbury Mortgage Company. The Petitioner asserted that he had affiliated with another company (Paradigm) and that the other company was handling the registration of his office as a Paradigm branch. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner was involved in completion of at least one mortgage loan application on behalf of Paradigm Mortgage Company without appropriate licensure. The Paradigm "branch" office was located in the same building as Danbury Mortgage Company, and shared the Danbury telephone number. Based on a cryptic telephone message received by the Petitioner from a Paradigm supervisor, the Petitioner assumed that he was licensed. The Petitioner did not return the telephone call and made no credible attempt at determining whether he was licensed prior to acting on behalf of Paradigm Mortgage Company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order denying the application of Richard Eric Watts for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ _ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Richard E. Watts, pro se 1345 Main Street, Suite C-4 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Pamela R. Jacobs, Esquire Regional Counsel Department of Banking and Finance 1300 Riverplace Blvd, Suite 640 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Melvin Haber applied for registration as a mortgage broker by filing an application for registration as a mortgage broker on December 20, 1976. On January 14, 1977, Petitioner issued to Respondent its Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for registration as a mortgage broker. The reasons for such denial were set forth in an accompanying document entitled "Administrative Charges and Complaint." Petitioner Division of Finance had determined that Respondent Melvin Haber did not meet the proper qualifications necessary to be licensed as a mortgage broker and that he had, through Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions provided by the Florida Statutes; and although he had stated otherwise on his application, Respondent in fact had been charged in a pending lawsuit with fraudulent and dishonest dealings; and had demonstrated a course of conduct which was negligent and or incompetent in the performance of acts for which he was required to hold a license. By letter dated January 19, 1977, to Mr. Joseph Ehrlich of the Comptroller's Office, Tallahassee, Florida, Petitioner received a request from the Respondent Melvin J. Haber in which he acknowledged receipt of his rejection for mortgage broker's license and stated, "I received notice today of my rejection for my mortgage broker's license. I would, therefore, withdraw my application and re- quest return of $75.00 as I will not answer the rejection as I can't afford an attorney at this time." A Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint was entered on February 11, 1977. The grounds are as follows: "1. The Department of Banking and Finance does not have jurisdiction over this Respondent. There is no jurisdiction in any administrative proceeding over this Respondent. There is no pending application for any mortgage broker's license by this Respondent. The application originally filed for the mortgage broker's license was withdrawn on January 19, 1977. A copy of the letter withdrawing application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proceedings are moot and would serve no useful purpose. Permitting this tribunal to proceed on a non-existent request for broker's license would deny to the Respondent due process of law, equal protection of the law, and his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions applicable thereto." On March 4, 1977, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Eugene J. Cella, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, requesting a hearing in this cause be set at the earliest practical date, and enclosed in the letter requesting a hearing was a copy of the Division of Finance's Administrative Complaint and a copy of the Respondent's Special Appearance to Dismiss the Complaint. A hearing was set for April 22, 1977, by notice of hearing dated March 30, 1977. A letter was sent by Irwin J. Block, Esquire, informing the attorney for the Petitioner that the Respondent "intends to permit the matter to proceed solely upon the written Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint heretofore filed." Evidence was submitted to show that between May 29, 1973 and continuing through November 25, 1976, Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation and Melvin Haber as Secretary/Treasurer charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowed fees or commissions in violation of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's application for registration as a mortgage broker indicated that Petitioner was not named in a pending lawsuit that charged him with any fraudulent or dishonest dealings. However, on August 5, 1976, a suit was filed in Dade County, Florida, which charged the Petitioner and others with fraud in violation of the Florida Securities Law. The application was filed by Respondent, was processed by Petitioner and a Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for Registration was filed together with Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction upon request of a party for a hearing once an application has been received and the Division has investigated and fully considered the application and issued its Notice of Intent to Deny and filed a Complaint on the applicant. In this cause the question of whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of fees also must be resolved. An orderly procedure to finalize the resolution of the issues is desirable and necessary. The Proposed Order filed by the Petitioner has been examined and considered by the Hearing Officer in the preparation of this order.
Recommendation Deny the application of applicant Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license. Refund the Seventy-Five Dollar ($75.00) fee Respondent paid upon filing the application. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Irwin J. Block, Esquire Fine, Jacobson, Block, Goldberg & Semet, P.A. 2401 Douglas Road Miami, Florida 33145
