The Issue The Respondents have been charged with multiple violations of Chapter 494, (1987), the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to the act. The violations, described in an amended administrative complaint dated April 16, 1990, are as follows: Rule 3D-40.006(5), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to issue a statement signed by both parties, when receiving a deposit on a mortgage loan, regarding disposition of the deposit and other matters. Section 494.08(10), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(2), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to provide a written statement with a summary of limits and conditions for recovery from the Mortgage Broker Guaranty Fund. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.008(1), F.A.C.: Respondents assessed fees for credit reports, phone calls, appraisals and courier services, which fees were not supported by the files. Section 494.055(1)(0), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(4), F.A.C.: The department had to issue a subpoena for compensation records. Section 494.055(1)(g) and (p), and Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Borrowers were required to pay higher closing costs than were disclosed on the good faith estimate form. Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Respondents failed to secure executed modified mortgage loan applications from the borrowers or to return excess monies to the borrowers. Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(1), F.A.C.: Respondents accepted deposits from loan applicants but failed to obtain executed mortgage broker agreements which would disclose the cost of the loans. Sections 494.055(1)(b) and (g), and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c), and (4), F.S.: Respondents failed to disclose that they would retain both origination fees and discount points as their compensation, and failed to disclose compensation received from the lender in addition to brokerage fees assessed the borrowers on the closing statements. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S., Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c) and (4), F.S.: Respondents collected a servicing release fee from the borrowers when the Respondents were not the lender, and failed to disclose the collection. Section 494.055(1)(e), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(b)(a), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account.
Findings Of Fact Inlet Mortgage Company, Ltd. ("IMC") is a mortgage brokerage business operating under license #HB65002147500. Its place of business is 700 Virginia Avenue, Suite 105, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982. John Davis is the principal mortgage broker of Respondent IMC, operating under license #HA246700273. He has been licensed in Florida since approximately 1987, and opened his business in February 1988. As authorized by Section 494.065(1), F.S. (1987), the Department of Banking and Finance ("department") conducted an examination of the affairs of the Respondents for the time period February 1988 through June 1, 1988. The examination was completed on July 5, 1988, with a written report. At the time of the examination Respondents had closed only four loans and had another six in progress. The audit was conducted because a loan processor working for IMC had applied for her mortgage broker license, and her application seemed to imply that she was already practicing mortgage brokering. The audit cleared up this question and the processor was not found to be operating improperly. However, Timothy Wheaton, the department examiner, found other violations by IMC. When an audit or review is conducted by the department, the agency staff first interviews the person in charge to explain the review and to learn about the company. The staff then looks at the licenses, reviews files of closed and active loans, and examines books and accounts, payroll records, and the like. Generally, a sampling of loan files is selected from the broker's loan log, but in this first review all loans were reviewed, as so few existed. The staff writes a preliminary report and conducts an exit interview to let the broker know its findings. Later, a formal report is completed and provided to the broker, who has thirty days to respond. Timothy Wheaton conducted his review of IMC and John Davis at the company office in Ft. Pierce on June 3, 1988 and June 7, 1988. At some point on June 3rd, Wheaton was reviewing compensation records to determine how the broker, his partner and the loan processor were paid. Davis had checkbooks available, but the accountant had not prepared his books as the office had just opened. Wheaton had questions as to whether the checkbooks were all that was available; when he asked for the payroll records, Davis told him he would have to subpoena them. Wheaton returned on Monday with a subpoena and was given the same records as before. Davis admits that he made the demand for the subpoena. He was piqued because he was very busy when the audit staff arrived, and when he suggested they return later, he felt they wrongfully impugned his motives and accused him of hiding something. Respondent Davis has admitted to several "technical" violations or oversights in the loan files at the time of the first review. A summary of the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund was not being provided, but has been provided since the first audit. Deposits for credit report, appraisal fees and other costs were collected from the borrowers, but the files did not include a statement, signed by the borrowers, describing disposition of the funds in the event that the loan was not consummated, or the term of the agreement. After the first audit Davis has provided such a form statement and has included it in each file. On three closed loans, and one that was still pending, the files did not include documentation to support minimal (i.e., $25.00, $10.00, $6.56) fees for phone calls and courier fees, or fees were collected which exceeded the documentation in the file. Davis explained that these are charges made by the closing attorney, and the files now document those expenses. The difference between what was collected for a credit report and what was spent was returned to the borrower. (For example, $20.30 was returned to borrower, G. Stewart). In three loans closed at the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC received as compensation both the origination fee and a portion of the discount points. In the McCurdy loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($600.00), plus one half of the 1 percent discount fee ($300.00). In the Alexander loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($469.00), plus a .75 percent discount fee ($351.75). In the Stewart loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($612.00), plus 1/2 percent discount fee ($306.00). In each case, the Good Faith Estimate form provided to the borrowers disclosed the fees separately and did not break out which portion of the loan discount would be paid to the lender and which portion would be paid to IMC. The origination fee is sometimes called the broker's fee, although some banks also collect the fee when a mortgage broker is not involved. Discount points are a one-time payment to a lender to increase its yield on the loan. They are a percentage of the loan, paid up front, to reduce the interest rate over the term of the loan. These are distinctly different forms of charges to the borrower. Davis claims that he explained orally to each borrower how much compensation he would receive. The borrowers do not remember the specifics of that explanation, but rather consider the total origination fee and discount fee as their cost of the loan. They knew that the broker was going to be compensated for his services and understood that compensation would come from those fees in some unspecified manner. Davis claims that he checked with some lenders who told him that it was standard practice for part of the broker's compensation to be called a "discount" fee. He considered it a tax advantage to the borrower, as discount fees could be deductible, just as interest is deductible. During the audit, Davis discussed his compensation practice with the agency staff, who explained that, whatever it is called, the broker's compensation had to be fully disclosed to the borrower at the time of application on the Good Faith Estimate form. Between June 3rd and June 7th, Davis attempted to redisclose his compensation to the borrowers, but this resulted in unsigned disclosure forms in the file when the agency review staff returned on June 7th to complete the audit. At the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC maintained an escrow account for the deposits received from applicant/borrowers for audit reports, appraisal fees and other costs. Davis later closed his escrow account because he felt it was costing him money and because he did not consider the funds he received at the time of application to be escrow deposits. In most cases, the credit report and appraisal and other relevant services were ordered the same day as the loan application. Whether the loan was eventually consummated, the customer was still responsible for paying the charge if the services were provided. This is disclosed in a statement at the bottom of the Good Faith Estimate form and in a separate "Notice to Borrower", signed by the applicant which, since the first audit, is maintained in the loan file. According to the Notice to Borrower, if the loan is cancelled or denied, and the services have not been performed, the funds will be returned to the customer, less any cancellation charge by the appraisal or credit firm. These funds are deposits. When the escrow account was closed, Davis deposited the money for appraisals and credit report in his operating account. After services were rendered and an invoice received, he would pay the bill. Barbara Janet (Jan) Hutchersien, conducted the department's second audit of IMC in January 1990. This review covered the period from July 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. John Davis provided the boxes of loans and bank records and loan log. The auditor used the logs to review a sample of loans from each lender with whom IMC works. The bank records were used to trace funds reflected in the loan files. Ms. Hutchersien found, and noted in her examination report, that no escrow account was maintained, although deposits were received in a sample of loan applications. In the Fishman loan, which closed on 4/11/89, closing costs were disclosed by IMC as $1,822.00 on the Good Faith Estimate form dated 1/12/89, yet those costs actually amounted to $2,075.00, disclosed at closing on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Settlement form, for a difference of $253.00. In determining consistency between a good faith estimate and actual closing costs, the agency staff looks at items which are predeterminable costs. In the Fishman case, the estimate for survey was $225.00, but the actual cost was $400.00, due, according to John Davis, to an oddly-shaped lot. In two loans financed by Greentree Mortgage Corporation, IMC received a substantial fee from the lender, which fee was not disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, on the HUD Settlement form, or anywhere in writing to the borrower. File documents call these fees "discount for pricing". In the Meslin loan, closed on 8/11/89, the fee from the lender to broker was $432.00; in the Krueger loan, closed on 7/21/89, the payment was $820.00. These paybacks are called "par plus pricing", a relatively new (within the last five years) form of loan pricing. Par plus pricing allows a borrower who does not wish to pay cash at closing, but who would qualify for a higher interest rate in terms of monthly payments, to avoid paying discount points fee at closing. Instead, the lender pays the points to the broker, and the borrower gets a higher interest rate. This is contrasted with the discount point system where the borrower pays cash points at closing in return for a lower interest rate. Par plus pricing can work to the advantage to all parties: The borrower avoids a large cash outlay at closing, the lender enjoys a higher interest rate over the term of the loan, and the broker receives his money from the lender. The borrower, however, should understand his options, including the option to pay cash at closing for a lower interest rate. Davis did not disclose the payback from the lender in writing because that is the way he says he was told to handle the loan by Greentree's representative. Davis told the borrowers that he was getting his money from the lender. He did not, however, explain that the borrower would be paying a higher interest rate in return, and Roger Krueger did not understand why his loan was at 10 1/4 percent, rather than 9 3/4 percent, which he thought was the going rate at the time of closing. IMC also received funds from the lender in the Barnes loan, closed on 12/30/88. Cobb Financial Partners was the original lender, yet they paid IMC a service release fee ordinarily paid by one lender to another for release of servicing a loan. Although the fee from Cobb to IMC was not disclosed in writing to the borrowers, the Barnes' were told that the fee for IMC's services would come from the lender, rather from them. They were told, and it is disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, and on the HUD Settlement Form, that Cobb Partners Financial was paid $900.00 (1.25 percent loan discount) by the borrowers. Of this, $810.00 was returned by Cobb to IMC. John Davis concedes that Cobb, not IMC, was the lender and was not "comfortable" with how Cobb told him to handle his fee. He has not done business with Cobb since this loan and was simply trying to avoid having to charge his fee to Barnes, who had just arrived in town to become the newspaper editor. The borrowers who were the subject of the files in which the agency found violations generally did business with Davis and IMC because they thought he would get the best deal for them. They were financially unsophisticated and trusted him to represent them. They understood that he was being paid for his services and felt that he should be paid. Except for Mr. Krueger, they were generally satisfied with their mortgage rates. The mortgage broker's fiduciary responsibility is to the borrower, rather than the lender, although he must deal fairly and honestly with the lender. The service that the broker provides to the borrower is his knowledge and his ability to shop for the best product. Par plus pricing and other mechanisms by which the broker receives his fee in whole or part from the lender are not considered by the department to be a violation of standards governing the practice of mortgage brokerage, so long as the customer is fully apprised of his options and is informed of the role of those payments in the product or service they are receiving. The Barnes' and Kruegers clearly were not so apprised, nor does the record establish that the Meslins were informed, although they did not testify. Categorizing brokerage fees or compensation as "discount points" is patently misleading, as discount points are used to buy down an interest rate. When the points are diverted instead to the broker, the consumer does not receive the loan for which he has paid. John Davis admits certain technical violations, but unequivocally denies that he wilfully misled his customers or committed fraud. Since the second audit, he has restored his escrow account. He now discloses his compensation as brokers fees rather than discount points, and has learned how to disclose in writing the par plus pricing loans. In considering certain violations as "technical", and in recommending a penalty in this case, the undersigned has considered Respondents' willingness to correct the errors addressed by the department and Respondents' inexperience at the time of the first audit. Although he was involved in banking, insurance, and accounting, John Davis had not practiced mortgage brokering before moving to Florida and starting his business. In his early practice, as evidenced by his own testimony, he was willing to rely on the advice of lenders, rather than to seek guidance from his licensing authority. He misconceived his role as being jointly responsible to the borrowers and lenders with whom he worked, rather than a primary fiduciary duty to the borrowers, his clients. Although the concealment of compensation as discount points was a willful misrepresentation, the record establishes a pattern of ignorance, albeit inexcusable, rather than fraud.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered, finding that Respondents violated Sections 494.055(1)(e), (o), and (q), F.S. (1987); Sections 494.08(5) and (10), F.S. (1987); and Section 494.093(4), F.S. (1987), and imposing a penalty of $1,000.00 fine, and one year probation, with the conditions that Respondent Davis successfully complete a specified amount and type of professional short course work and undergo periodic review and supervision by the agency. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 30th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 6. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 6. Rejected as redundant. - 8. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence except as found in paragraph 6. The department was required to obtain a subpoena due to Respondents' feigned or real refusal to produce certain records. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. - 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. Rejected as immaterial. The telephone charges were incurred by the closing agent, not Respondents. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. and Rejected as unnecessary and - 48. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 49. - 52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. and Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 20. 59 - 74. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16-19. Rejected as unnecessary. The conclusion that the handling of "par plus pricing" was fraudulent is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 77. - 81. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 20 and 21. 82. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 83. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 12. 84. Adopted in paragraph 10. 85. - 89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90. Adopted in paragraph 22. 91. - 93. Rejected as unnecessary. 94. Adopted in part in paragraph 26. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 13. - 9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Liability for payment occurs when the service is rendered, as reflected in Respondent's "Notice to Borrower". Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. - 19. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 20. - 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary. - 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Included in conclusion of law number 9. Rejected as immaterial. - 33. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The terms implied that the loans would be at a discounted rate, but were not, because the "discount" (partial) went to the broker. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 Orlando, FL 32801 John O. Williams, Esquire Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee St. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Dept. of Banking & Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Rm. 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be suspended for violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Irving Zimmerman holds Mortgage Brokerage Registration No. 90-3337. An Order of Emergency Suspension of License was issued by the Department of Banking and Finance dated March 24, 1975 and served on Respondent Irving Zimmerman by certified mail. Said Emergency Order is now in effect: Through his attorney, Milton R. Wasman, Respondent Zimmerman requested this formal administrative hearing. The attorney for Respondent, Mr. Milton R. Wasman, called the undersigned Hearing Officer on the day immediately preceding this hearing, that is June 23, 1975, requesting that the hearing be postponed because of a physical disability of said attorney. Said request was denied because of the late hour of request and because of grievous inconvenience to the parties and to the witnesses that had been subpoenaed. Said request was denied orally by telephone to Respondent's attorney whereupon said attorney requested that the transcript of the proceeding be made available. Said attorney was assured that he could view the transcript upon his request when it was available. Upon request of William Corbett, Counsel for the agency, authorization was given to take the deposition of witness Joseph M. Magill, a witness who could not attend the hearing. Said deposition is filed with this record. The attorney for Respondent Zimmerman, Mr. Wasman appeared in behalf of the Respondent at the taking of said deposition in Miami, Florida on July 18, 1975. The following instruments were made part of the record: Summons dated March 24, 1975; Order of Emergency Suspension of License filed March 24, 1975; Petition for Hearing filed by Respondent's attorney; Deposition of witness for the agency, Mr. Joseph M. Magill; Transcript of record of this hearing and also transcript of record at the taking of deposition. On or about July 10, 1974, Mr. Leonard G. Pardue issued a check in the amount of $7,500 payable to "State Farm Mortgage Co., escrow account" for the purpose of making a mortgage loan to Hans G. and Ann M. Widenhauser. Subsequently, after the Widenhausers decided not to make this loan, the Respondent contacted Mr. Pardue and attempted to negotiate a substitute loan to Alan and Marcia Hollet. After that loan did not close, Mr. Pardue, by his attorney, Mr. Roger G. Welcher, wrote several letters to Respondent which demanded a return of the $7,500 to his client. Mr. Pardue filed a civil suit against Respondent to recover said funds; however, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent has failed or refused to return the money. Mr. Bernard Supworth made a mortgage loan to Robert E. and Madeline Pope in June of 1972, through the Respondent as broker. The monthly payments were made to Respondent who in turn was supposed to remit the funds to Mr. Supworth. Subsequently, on or about January 25, 1974, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth that the mortgage was being paid off and Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction thereof to Respondent. Later, Mr. Supworth learned that the Pope mortgage had been paid off in July, 1973, and that a check had been issued by Dade Federal and Savings & Loan Association on July 9, 1973, payable to State Farm Mortgage in the amount of $3,544.98. Notwithstanding such payment in full on the Pope mortgage in July, 1973, Respondent continued to remit monthly payments on it to Mr. Supworth. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to receive any monthly payments after the mortgage had been satisfied and to date has not received all of his money on the Pope transaction. Respondent Zimmerman negotiated another mortgage loan to Mr. Supworth to James and Phyllis Lowe, as borrowers in the amount of $4,600 to be paid in the amount of $97.74 per month. These payments were to be paid by the Lowes to the Respondent, who was to remit said payment to Mr. Supworth. Thereafter, on or about November 21, 1973, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth, by memorandum, that this mortgage must be paid off. Thereupon, Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction of Mortgage to Respondent. He continued to receive monthly payments from Respondent on the Lowe mortgage up until January, 1975. Mr. Supworth later learned that the Lowe mortgage had been paid in full to Respondent in October, 1973. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to this transaction. On or about August 15, 1973, Mrs. Judith Valenza made a mortgage loan at the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Later Mrs. Valenza negotiated a mortgage loan through Respondent, as broker, to pay off the existing mortgage to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Pursuant to that transaction, Mrs. Valenza closed said loan through Respondent, as broker. Thereafter, a check was issued on "Irving Zimmerman Trust Account" in the amount of $3,510.78, and payable to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. The check was returned because of "insufficient funds". As of the date of the hearing, the Commercial Bank of Kendall had not received payment of said check from Respondent. On or about January 28, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Magill executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $3,500 in favor or Helen R. Stahl, as trustee, at the offices of Respondent. Respondent failed to account for or deliver money to the person entitled thereto, on demand failed to disburse funds in accordance with the agreement, and failed to keep funds in a trust account.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Charles Peters was employed by Ameri-lantic Corporation at the time he applied for licensure as a mortgage broker, and he is currently employed by Ameri-lantic Mortgage Brokerage Company. Mr. Peters' duties at Ameri-lantic have included contacting potential lenders. These duties have also included discussing loan terms and rates with potential lenders. As an employee of Ameri-lantic, Mr. Peters has received compensation for his efforts on behalf of his employer, in the form of salary. There is no evidence that Mr. Peters' compensation was based on commissions of any kind. There is no evidence that Mr. Peters' duties included contacting persons who wished to borrow money, or that he acted to bring together those who wish to borrow with those who wished to lend money for mortgages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Charles Peters for licensure as a mortgage broker be granted, if he meets the other requirements for licensure, such as sucessful completion of the written examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 4th day of December, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Mendelsohn, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Robert L. Saylor, Esquire 215 Fifth Street Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Gerald Lewis Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact John F. Cole, David J. Hayes and Andre LeClerc conveyed certain real estate situated in Broward County ("the property") to respondent by quitclaim deed dated December 16, 1976, and recorded on December 29, 1976. This instrument reflects payment of a documentary stamp tax in the amount of thirty cents ($0.30) as well as a documentary surtax. On September 30, 1971, Thomas N. Sprague and Peggy A. Sprague had mortgaged the property to Merle Ford to secure repayment of the principal sum of twenty-three thousand five hundred dollars ($23,500.00). On October 1, 1971, the Spragues mortgaged the property to Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Lauderdale to secure repayment of the principal sum of one hundred three thousand dollars ($103,000.00) On November 21, 1973, John A. Kasbar, as trustee, mortgaged the property to the Spragues to secure repayment of the principal sum of twenty- three thousand one hundred dollars ($23,100.00) On June 5, 1969, Esther E. Adams conveyed the property by warranty deed to Andre LeClerc, as trustee. The warranty deed reflected payment of a documentary stamp tax in the amount of five hundred forty-three dollars ($543.00). The property which was the subject of these transactions is evidently worth a substantial sum of money, but the evidence fails to establish the value of the interest quitclaimed on December 16, 1976, and does not establish what consideration for the quitclaim deed was given, if any was given.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the notice of proposed assessment be withdrawn. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Mr. Ronald Payne, Esquire 621 South Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida
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
Findings Of Fact At the beginning of the hearing in this cause, it was stipulated and agreed to that certain pleadings and exhibits would constitute the factual basis for consideration of the case. Specifically, the parties agreed that the First Amended Petition and its parts that were admitted by the Respondent; together with interrogatories propounded by the Respondent to the Petitioner and the answers thereto; and Exhibits A and C attached to the First Amended Petition; would be the underlying facts that could be examined in arriving at a statement of the facts, and ultimate conclusions of law. A further refinement in the stipulation and agreement of the parties was their acceptance of the stated amount of $952.05 in surtax owed, if it were concluded that any amount of surtax was properly assessed. Finally, the parties agreed that copies of the aforementioned Exhibits A and C could be utilized in deliberating this case. (Copies of the First Amended Petition, Answer to that Petition, Interrogatories propounded by the Respondent and Answers provided by the Petitioner, and Exhibits A and C attached to the First Amended Petition, are hereby made a part of the record herein and forwarded to the agency head in lieu of a transcript.) The Petitioner in this action is Wisconsin Real Estate Investment Trust, whose address is Marine Plaza, 111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202. On or about April 11, 1975 the Petitioner was a grantee in the certain Warranty Deed from James E. Russell, Jr., as trustee to Wisconsin Real Estate Investment Trust, dated April 11, 1975, and recorded May 20, 1975, in Official Records Book 2620, Page 1812, Public Records of Orange County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Warranty Deed"). A copy of the said Warranty Deed is a part of the First Amended Petition found as Exhibit A. The conveyance of the property as set forth in the Warranty Deed was subject to certain mortgages described in detail upon Exhibit A attached to the Warranty Deed and identified briefly as follows, to wit: A first mortgage to Prudential Insurance Company of America in the amount of three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000); Four "Second" mortgages to the Petitioner herein, said mortgages being in the total amount of eight hundred sixty five thousand, eight hundred fifty four dollars ($865,854); A "third" mortgage granted by Orlando Quadrant Development Limited to United Associates, Inc. in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Exhibit A to the Warranty Deed also contained the following provision: "It is the intent of the Grantor and the Grantee that this conveyance shall not cause a merger of the mortgages held by the Grantee which are described above, and the fee simple title of the Grantee received hereby in that said mortgage shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue to be a lien on the property." Documentary stamps were paid with respect to the full amount of the purchase price in the amount of four million, six hundred sixty five thousand, eight hundred fifty four dollars ($4,665,854.) and minimum stamps for surtax in the amount of fifty five cents ($.55) were paid. On or about August 20, 1975, the Respondent delivered to Petitioner a form letter styled "Request for Information and Response" requesting the reason why minimum surtax was paid. Petitioner replied that minimum surtax was paid because the transaction constituted a sale and not a deed in lieu of foreclosure. A copy of the "Request for Information and Response" was attached as Exhibit B to the First Amended Petition. On or about November 20, 1975, the Respondent sent to Petitioner a "Proposed Notice of Assessment" informing Petitioner of a proposed imposition of tax in the amount of nine hundred fifty two and 05/100 dollars ($952.05) and a penalty in the amount of nine hundred fifty two and 05/100 dollars ($952.05), for a total assessment of one thousand nine hundred four and 10/100 dollars ($1,904.10). A copy of the "Proposed Notice of Assessment" was attached to the First Amended Petition as Exhibit C. In response to the Proposed Notice, the Petitioner, through counsel, wrote to Respondent on December 11, 1975, questioning the necessity for surtax charge under the present status of Florida Law. In that letter there was a formal request for conference within thirty (30) days of the proposed assessment to discuss the assessment before it became final. A copy of the letter of December 11, 1975 was Exhibit D to the First Amended Petition. On December 24, 1975, the Petitioner wrote the Respondent with respect to a telephone conference that was held with Respondent wherein the Respondent indicated there was a legal authority for imposition of surtax against Petitioner. The Respondent sent the information to Petitioner under cover of a letter dated January 2, 1976, and the Petitioner responded to said letter by letter dated January 9, 1976 wherein the position of the Petitioner with respect to the imposition of the surtax was set forth in detail. A copy of the Petitioner's letter of January 9, 1976, was made Exhibit E to the First Amended Petition. Subsequent to the letter of January 9, 1976, Respondent requested by telephone that Petitioner provide Respondent with a copy of the Declaration of Trust of Petitioner, which said Declaration of Trust was sent to Respondent under cover letter dated June 7, 1976. On September 8, 1976, Respondent sent Petitioner a notice that a Tax Warrant and Execution had been prepared and would be filed. A copy of said letter of September 8, 1976 was made Exhibit F to the First Amended Petition. Informal efforts to resolve the dispute were not effective and this led to a formal hearing. A closer look at the events involved in the conveyance of the Warranty Deed points out that the first mortgage held by Prudential Life Insurance Company of America was in default at that time, and the institution of foreclosure proceedings was eminent. The Grantee, Petitioner, held three mortgages subordinate to the first mortgage held by Prudential Life Insurance Company, and it was felt that the conveyance from Grantor to Grantee was the best method of protecting Grantee's interest. The conveyance did not provide for merger of the ownership interest and the mortgage interest in favor of the Grantee, on the face of the Warranty Deed. In fact, the Warranty Deed disclaims such merger, as stated before. There was no agreement either in writing or verbally between the Grantor and the Grantee with respect to payment or non-payment of the second mortgages held by the Grantee, subsequent to the transfer. None of the second mortgages held by the Grantee, Petitioner, have been satisfied of record at the time of conveyance or since that time. There has been no payment of principal and interest on the second mortgages in question since the conveyance under the Warranty Deed. The Petitioner advances its argument in opposition to the documentary surtax premised on the assertion that such tax does not apply to amounts of existing mortgages on the real estate sold, and therefore no surtax should be levied, because the four second mortgages at issue are still in existence. In stating this position the Petitioner refers to 201.021, F.S. which states: "(1) A documentary surtax, in addition to the tax levied in s. 201.02, is levied on those documents taxed by s. 201.02 at the rate of 55 cents per $500 of the consideration paid; provided, that when real estate is sold, the consideration, for purposes of this tax, shall not include amounts of existing mortgages on the real estate sold. If the full amount of the consideration is not shown on the face of the document, then the tax shall be at the rate of 55 cents on each $500 or fractional part thereof of the consideration." The Petitioner also makes reference to Rule 12A-4.12(4)(e) pertaining to the definition of consideration as found in 201.021, F.S. The pertinent provision of that rule says: "For Consideration - Surtax: The term "consideration" under 201.021, F.S., includes but is not limited to: (e) Conveyance where outstanding mortgage debt, lien or encumbrance is cancelled, satisfied, or otherwise rendered unenforceable by the conveyance." According to the Petitioner the four subject mortgages are not cancelled, satisfied, or otherwise rendered unenforceable by the conveyance, and consequently there is no taxable "consideration". They rely on the aforementioned language of the Warranty Deed which disclaims the merger of the mortgage debt with the equity of redemption when the conveyance was made. Moreover, under the Petitioner's argument, because it has stated its intention not to have a merger that stated intention should control and no merger should apply. For this proposition the Petitioner cites the case of Friedman v. Pohnl, 143 So.2d 690, (3 DCA Fla. 1962). Within the language of the case is reference to the case of Jackson v. Relf, 26 Fla. 465, 8 So. 184 (Fla. 1890). The Jackson case, supra, states that it is the intention of the person in whom the debt and equity of redemption are united that determines if there is a merger of the mortgage debt and equity of redemption, or if the mortgage debt continues to be in force and effect. The Petitioner also argues that the reason it elected not to merge the debt claim and equity of redemption, was to protect its priority position under the second mortgages over the third mortgage holder in the case of any sale to any third party and assumption of a second mortgage by a third party or in the case of any formal foreclosure. The Respondent counters the Petitioner's argument by claiming that the four subject second mortgages have been extinguished, thereby entitling the Respondent to impose a documentary surtax under the authority of 201.021(1), F.S. and Rule 12A-4.12(4)(e) F.A.C. The Respondent feels that you may look behind the disclaimer statement found in the Warranty Deed and by the facts of the conveyance determine that there is a merger for purposes of taxation. The Respondent relies upon a series of case decisions in arriving at this position. The first two cases Gay v. Inter-County Tel & Tel. Co., 60 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1952) and Choctawhatchee Electric Corp. v. Green, 132 So.2d 556 (Fla. 1961), it argues, stand for the proposition that the Documentary Stamp Tax Act in Florida is similar to the Federal Act 26 U.S.C.A. 1800 et. seq. and the same construction given to the federal tax cases in the federal courts, may be given to the Florida documentary stamp tax cases in the Florida cases. Using that theory as a basis for the persuasiveness of the federal authority, the Petitioner then cites the cases of Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. United States, 110 F Supp. 606 (1953) and Railroad Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n. v. United States, 135 F.2d 290. According to the Respondent, the two federal cases were sufficiently close in their facts to be applicable to the case at bar. Furthermore, since these cases required the payment of federal documentary tax, the Respondent believes that the rationale used in those cases would sustain a claim for documentary surtax and penalty in the case sub judice. An examination of the two federal cases shows them to be distinguishable in their facts. Mutual Life, supra, is distinguishable for two reasons. The first reason being that certain mortgage debts spoken of in that case had clauses indicating that the mortgage on the property was not to merge with the fee and that the mortgage would remain with the property notwithstanding conveyance; however, in all those cases a covenant had been given not to sue on the mortgage debt, which extinguished the mortgage debt. No such covenant has been given in the case at bar, and consequently the consideration, constituted of the extinguishment found in Mutual Life, supra, is not found in the case at bar. There is a second distinguishing factor between the Mutual Life case and the present case. That pertains to the fact that the action in Mutual Life involved the laws of the State of New York, which were being applied to a different set of facts. Under the New York Law, consideration was also found to exist notwithstanding a clause which disclaimed any merger of the fee and mortgage. This situation pertained to five mortgage cases in which no covenant not to sue had been given. The New York Law, according to the opinion in Mutual Life, called for the extinguishment of the mortgages in those five cases, due to the statutory statement which prohibited deficiency judgments on the mortgage indebtedness, because the fair market value of the property exceeded the debt claim. Therefore under the statement of the case, the mortgage indebtedness was extinguished as a matter of law, by transferring the interest in the fee to the mortgagee. A tax was placed on that transfer, based upon the extinguishment of the mortgage debt as consideration. The law in Florida does not prohibit a foreclosure suit by the second mortgage holder in the way set forth in the New York Law. In addition, the five mortgages in the Mutual Life case were not surrounded by first and third mortgages as is the case herein. The existence of the first and third mortgages, is a legitimate reason to maintain the second mortgages held by the Petitioner, as a protection against the other mortgagees. The other federal case cited by the Petitioner is the Railroad Federal case, supra. This case involved a deed in lieu of foreclosure and the imposition of a tax on the balance of principal and accrued interest due on the mortgages plus any cash amount paid. These mortgages involved in the Railroad Federal case were later cancelled by the resale or the subsequent purchase subject to the mortgages. The deed also contained an agreement not to seek a deficiency judgment on the part of the mortgagee which made it clear that the mortgagee was taking the property in full satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness. In fact the mortgagee did not seek a deficiency judgment, nor was any further interest paid or demanded. This is distinguishable from the case at bar, in that the clear intent of the mortgagor and mortgagee herein is to keep active the second mortgages. The Respondent cited several administrative cases namely: Friedman v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No. 75-1304: Hutner v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No. 75-1771; and Atico Mortgage Investors v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No 77-1124. Respondent cited too, Opinion of the Attorney General, 059-203. Without discussing those administrative cases and the Attorney General's Opinion, they are all distinguishable in their facts and would not appear to have application to the case at bar. Based on an analysis of the evidential facts and the argument of the parties, the position of the Petitioner is well founded and the documentary surtax and penalty should not be paid.
Recommendation It is recommended that the subject assessment of documentary surtax and penalty be set aside. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. Lee Bennett, Esquire Lowndes, Peirsol, Drosdick & Doster, P.A. Suite 443, First Federal Building Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Division of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Evers & Associates, Inc. and Dovard J. Evers, its President, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, has charged and accepted fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions on the transactions set forth in the administrative complaint, Exhibit "A," in violation of Sec. 494.08(4), F.S., and thereby subjected the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of 494.05(1)(g), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Evers & Associates, Inc. through the parson of Dovard J. Evers, its President, was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, during the time period contemplated by the administrative complaint. Subsequent to the time of receiving the mortgage brokers-license, Dovard J. Evers, on behalf of Evers & Associates, Inc., entered into an agreement with several other parties to sell notes secured by mortgages on real estate. One of the agreements was with David Edstrom, of a corporation known as S.E.T., Inc., Mr. Edstrom being the President of said corporation, and the location of that corporation being in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A similar agreement was held with one Gary George of the Mortgage Consultants, Inc., Ocala, Florida. The agreement with Gary George involved a sale of mortgages for the benefit of the mortgagor, Washington Development Corporation. The third such agreement was with Phil Swan of Southeast Florida Corporation. The written conditions of the S.E.T., Inc. arrangement with Mr. Evers can be found in Respondent's Exhibits No. 2 through No. 5. Essentially, the arrangement was to have Mr. Evers, through Evers & Associates, act as a salesman for the benefit of S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan. Their agreement envisioned that Mr. Evers would be afforded a percentage discount varying from 14 percent to 16 percent of the amount of a mortgage loan which was a note secured by real estate. In actual , the contact was made between S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swam Mr. Evers for purposes of placing notes that were for sale. The apparatus worked by having Mr. Evers contact mortgagees/investors who made a check payable to Evers & Associates for the full amount of the mortgage loan, whose price had been quoted by the intermediary; S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan. This amount was held in escrow until such time as the note and mortgage which secured the note could be drawn. The executed note and mortgage went directly to the third party mortgagee/investor without ever having the name of Mr. Evers or Evers & Associates, Inc., affixed to such documents. After this note and mortgage had been executed in behalf of the third party investor, Mr. Evers deducted a fee in favor of Evers & Associates, Inc., according to the percentage agreement with S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan and sent the balance of the money to S.E.T., Inc.; Washington Development Corporation through the person of Gary George and to Phil Swan of the Southeast Florida Corporation. The arrangement with Washington Development Corporation changed at a later date because Gary George was no longer involved and payments subsequent to his involvement were sent directly to Washington Development Corporation. The facts show that in the transactions found in Petitioner's Exhibit "A," the complaint, charges were made in behalf of Evers & Associates in the person of Mr. Evers which exceed the statutory allowance for fees and commissions in the amount stated in the column entitled overcharges. These overcharges are according to the percentage agreement between Mr. Evers and S.E.I., Inc., Gary George, and Phil Swan, minus adjustments made in behalf of the third party investor/mortgagee, as indicated in the testimony. This finding of facts, excludes the mortgage by M. Berkell which was stipulated between the parties as not being a matter for further consideration in the hearing. There was no evidence offered of the charge, if any, between S.E.T., Inc., Gary George, and Phil Swan in their dealings with their developer/mortgagors. At present the Respondent, Evers & Associates, Inc., and Dovard J. Evers, its President, have failed to renew the license in the current license period and, as of the moment of the hearing, have expressed no further interest in such renewal.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of Evers & Associates, Inc., by Dovard J Evers, its President, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Earl M. Barker, Esquire 218 East Forsythp Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact On or about January 9, 1974, Petitioners and their partners, Edward Mehler, and Sylvia Mehler, sold certain property located in Broward County, Florida, to Leo Koehler, Pat Manganelli, and Walter Urchison. A copy of the deed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The Petitioners and the Mehlers took a $50,000 mortgage from the buyers as a part of the purchase price. The mortgage deed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. The face amount of the mortgage is $50,000. The buyers defaulted on the mortgage to the Petitioners and the Mehlers without having made any payments on the mortgage. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in negotiating any payment from the buyers. The buyers were apparently irresponsible, and were unsuccessful in business. The buyers had given their deed to the property to a Mr. Frank Post. Mr. Post apparently took the deed in payment for a debt. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in negotiating any payment on the mortgage from Post. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in locating any market for the mortgage. The mortgage had no market value. Rather than foreclosing one the mortgage, the Petitioners and the Mehlers took a warranty deed from the original buyers and a quitclaim deed from Post. These deeds were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4. The deeds were taken in lieu of foreclosure, and the effect of the deeds was to discharge the $50,000 mortgage obligation. Petitioners and the Mehlers placed minimum Florida documentary stamp tax and surtax stamps on each deed, taking the position that the consideration for the deeds was nothing. The Respondent took the position that the consideration for the deeds was the discharge of the mortgage obligation, and assessed $410 in stamp tax, surtax, and penalty obligations upon the Petitioners. The petitioners subsequently commenced this action. The property which is the subject of this matter has very little market value. The property has been on the market for some time, and no buyer has been found. The property has been valued at $12,500, but its market value is less than that.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondents' retention of and failure to deliver an earnest money deposit constitutes conduct violative of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and thereby failed to account and deliver monies which came into their possession and was converted in contravention of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Pursuant to an administrative complaint filed approximately April 25, 1980, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, seeks to suspend, revoke or otherwise discipline the Respondents as licensees based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail. Respondent, Richard A. Anglickis, is a registered real estate broker and is issued license number 00018669. Respondent, American Heritage Realty, Inc., is a registered corporate real estate broker, having been issued license number 169478. Respondent Anglickis is registered with Petitioner as the active firm member broker of and for Respondent, American Heritage Realty, Inc. On March 1, 1979, Michael T. and Louise E. Keating of Pineola, North Carolina, entered a contract for purchase and sale of real property from Mr. and Mr. Aubrey of Springfield, Ohio, for a total sales price of $23,900.00. The transaction was scheduled to close on or before May 15, 1979. The contract was contingent upon the purchasers obtaining a $19,000.00 new purchase money mortgage for which application was made with First Federal of DeSoto in Lehigh, Florida. Respondent, through its sales agents, assumed the task of obtaining purchase money financing for the Keatings. Upon entering the contract, purchasers gave Respondents a $900.00 earnest money deposit in the form of a check payable to Respondent, American Heritage Realty, Inc., which was to be held in escrow according to the terms of the contract. The Keatings also tendered to Respondent, American Heritage Realty, Inc., an additional deposit of $4,000.00 in the form of a check which was also to be held in escrow until the transaction closed on May 15, 1979. By letter dated May 8, 1979, First Federal of DeSoto advised Respondent and the Keatings that their application for a $19,000.00 purchase money first mortgage financing could not be approved since "their debt ratio of 44 percent far exceeded First Federal's guidelines of a 33 percent debt ratio". (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B.) Robert Campbell, a mortgage broker for Lee County Mortgage and Title Company, presented the application to secure financing for the Keatings. Mr. Campbell did not submit any application for mortgage financing for the Keatings other than the application submitted on behalf of the Keatings to First Federal of DeSoto. On May 11, 1979, during a telephone conversation with Mrs. Keating, Mr. Campbell advised Mrs. Keating that her loan application for mortgage financing had been rejected and inquired if the Keatings were willing to make an additional down payment in the amount of $7,000.00. The Keatings advised Mr. Campbell that they would consider making the larger down payment but declined to do so inasmuch as Mr. Keating had become ill and they were of the opinion that they needed to retain as much ready cash as possible until such time as they sold their home in North Carolina. The Keatings made it clear to Messrs. Campbell and Respondent, Richard A. Anglickis, that they were not interested in closing the transaction if it required making an additional down payment of $7,000.00. (See Petitioner's Exhibit D.) Also, the Keatings were of the opinion that they were receiving a refund of $4,775. which amount represented the total down payment less the maximum amount of forfeiture of $125.00 as provided for in paragraph two (2) of the contract. (Petitioner`s Exhibit A.) Paragraph two (2) under "Terms and Conditions of Sale" provides in pertinent part that: "In the event PURCHASER'S application for mortgage financing is not approved within 120 days from date hereof, all monies receipted for, less an amount not to exceed $125.00 to reimburse BROKER for costs and expenses incurred, will he returned to the PURCHASER and this contract will be null and void." In this regard, Petitioner stipulated that the amount which should have been withheld as a forfeiture should not have exceeded the maximum amount of $125.00. The Keatings maintained throughout that they considered that they would be getting a refund of approximately $4,775.00. At no time did the Keatings indicate to Respondents' agents that they were agreeing to forfeit the $900.00 deposit if the transaction did not close. In this regard, the Keatings testified that they preferred to lose 900.00 as opposed to the entire down payment of $4,900.00; however, they at no time agreed to a forfeiture of any of the deposit since the transaction did not close. The Keatings received a refund of $4,000.00 from Respondent, Richard A. Anglickis, on approximately May 21, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit C.) By letter of same date, Respondent Anglickis advised the Keatings that the tender of the $4,000.00 represented a "full refund of the cancellation of your contract number R-1981". Respondent Anglickis added that that payment confirmed an agreement and understanding between the Keatings and a Mr. Marciano of Respondent's staff. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondents urged that the Keatings anticipatorily breached the purchase contract on approximately May 18, 1979. In support of this position, Respondent points to the position that when the Keatings advised that they were no longer interested in pursuing the matter further if additional monies were paid, that there was still remaining approximately seventy-five (75) days within which Respondent had time to secure or otherwise arrange financing for the Keatings. However, Respondent Anglickis and mortgage broker Campbell conceded that the mortgage financing application submitted to First Federal of DeSoto was the only mortgage application submitted on behalf of the Keatings. Respondent Anglickis considered that the Keatings underwent what is commonly referred to as "buyer's remorse" and wanted to cancel the contract based on his understanding of the conversations between the Keatings and Mr. Marciano of his staff. (Testimony of Richard A. Anglickis and Robert Campbell.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondents, Richard A. Anglickis and American Heritage Realty, Inc., be ordered to return the entire nine hundred dollar ($900.00) earnest money deposit paid by the Keatings under the Contract of Purchase and Sale of Real Property from Mr. and Mrs. Aubrey of Springfield, Ohio, within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the Petitioner's final order in this administrative proceeding. That in the event Respondents fail to refund to the Keatings the full deposit, their licenses, numbers 0018669 and 169478, be suspended for a period of one (1) year. That upon full refund to the Keatings of their entire earnest money deposit, the Respondents be issued a written reprimand cautioning them against further violations of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1980.
