The Issue Whether Mortgage Broker License No. 3534 should be suspended or revoked under Section 494.05, F.S. At the hearing, the Respondent filed an answer to the charges in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, incorporating therein affirmative defenses. Rule 28-5.25(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the party may file an Answer which may contain affirmative defenses within 20 days of service of the Petition. Respondent's basis for late filing was inadvertence and neglect of its counsel. The Answer contained a general denial of the allegations and set forth affirmative defenses asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Petitioner to pursue its claims for alleged actions which took place on or before October 19, 1974, which was prior to the issuance of the mortgage broker license to Respondent. Further defenses included the claim that the Administrative Charges and Complaint are vague and ambiguous, that Petitioner had taken written action against Respondent without a hearing and denied it due process of law prior to the filing of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, thereby constituting double jeopardy, that Petitioner has unilaterally and without hearing denied Respondent renewal of its license, therefore denying it due process of law and claiming that petitioner is estopped from proceeding on the ground that it violated Section 494.06(5), in not keeping confidential the examination and investigation of the Respondent by giving press releases designed to influence the outcome of the hearing. The Hearing Officer permitted the late filing of the Answer and Affirmative Defenses at the hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner who claimed lack of notice as to the affirmative defenses. Respondent made a motion at the hearing to quash or abate the charges on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction on the basis set forth in its aforesaid pleading and on the grounds that Section 494.05(1) permits the petitioner only to investigate actions of licensees and not to suspend or revoke such licenses. The motion was denied by the Hearing Officer under the authority granted to deny, suspend or revoke licenses pursuant to Section 494.05, F.S. From statements of counsel at the hearing, it appears that Respondent's application for yearly renewal of its license was denied by Petitioner on September 3, 1975. However premature such a denial might have been, the question is not in issue in the instant proceeding. Nor is any purported violation by Petitioner of Section 494.06(5), concerning confidentiality of its investigations of Respondent. Both parties made opening statements and closing arguments. The Petitioner presented its case through two witnesses and submitted documentary evidence. The Respondent did not call, any witnesses. Petitioner also called Frank H. Roark, Jr. President of Respondent Corporation as a witness. Mr. Roark, after being sworn, declined to testify on the grounds of possible self-incrimination. The Hearing Officer thereupon excused the witness. Upon a showing by the Petitioner that the books and records of Respondent Corporation had been requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum and its request that Mr. Roark be required to identify the corporate books and records in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, over objection of Respondent's counsel, the Hearing Officer permitted Mr. Roark to testify for this limited purpose.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Banking and Finance of the State of Florida issued Mortgage Broker License Number 3534 to Respondent on October 10, 1974 (Petition and Answer). The transactions of the Respondent which are the subject of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, concern the purchase by investors/lenders of corporate promissory notes issued by a land development company which are secured by mortgages on its land. The purpose of selling the note is for the land development company to raise funds for the development of real property. The sales of the notes were made by Respondent to individual investors. Usually these transactions were handled through what was termed a "Master Broker" who was a middle man between the land developer and the Respondent mortgage broker which actually made the individual sales of the notes. Typical of the manner in which Respondent conducted these transactions was to enter into an agreement with an investor termed an "Application To Purchase a Mortgage" for a certain face amount at a specified interest rate with interest payable monthly and with concurrent delivery by the investor to Respondent of the stated sum under the conditions that the note would be executed, the mortgage recorded, and the note and recorded mortgage delivered to the investor-purchaser. In due course, a promissory note issued by the land development corporation (the borrower), was delivered to the investor, along with a mortgage deed to specified real property to secure the note. Some notes were payable on an interest only basis and some on a principal and interest basis. Some involved the issuance of title insurance policies and others did not. In some cases, Respondent remitted funds involved in the transaction to the "Master Broker" and in some cases directly to the land developer, less an amount retained by Respondent, ostensibly for its fees, commissions, and/or other charges. The funds were placed into escrow bank accounts when they were received from the investors by Respondent and then sometimes on the same day or in most cases several days or weeks later, the funds less the amount retained by Respondent, were forwarded on to the "Master Broker" or directly to the developer (testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3 & 4). Acting upon a request of the State Comptroller to have all mortgage companies examined, in the latter part of July, 1975, Mr. Lawrence W. Hunt, a Financial Examiner Supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Finance along with three assistants went to the Respondent's office to examine its records and determine from the examination whether or not violations of the Mortgage Brokerage Act had been committed. Utilizing source documents from the company records, Mr. Hunt and his associates prepared a worksheet and listed thereon various items of information gleaned from these records (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). After preparation of the worksheet, overcharges as to the 402 transactions identified in the worksheet were computed by Mr. Joseph Ehrlich, Deputy Director of the Division of Finance, solely from the worksheet obtained by the examiners (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Such overcharges were computed with respect to maximum fees or commissions which a broker could charge in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3-3.08, Florida Administrative Code, in consideration of the amount of funds retained by Respondent, Mr. Hunt is not a state auditor and his examination of records did not go into the depth of an audit such a compilation of financial statements. His work consists basically of an examination which involves obtaining information from corporate records and placing it on worksheets so it can be analyzed. During Mr. Hunt's visit to Respondent's place of business, he received full cooperation of its officers and employees and found the records to be in good order. He also had no reason to question any of the entries in any of the records that he observed. Neither he nor Mr. Ehrlich had received complaints from any individual or organization about Respondent's operations prior to his visit. He did not at any time contact any of the lenders or borrowers involved in Respondent's transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2). On October 11, 1974, the Division of Finance issued a "Memorandum to all Mortgage Brokers" in which it was stated that it had been brought to the Division's attention that a number of mortgage brokers in transactions (such as those under consideration here), were remitting investors' funds to the land developer rather than placing the funds in an escrow account, and that such funds were being remitted in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note. The Memorandum warned that this practice could result in substantial losses to the broker in repaying investors should the land developer fail and was also in violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act and could lead to the suspension or revocation of a license under Section 494.05, (1)(f), Florida Statutes. This section concerns placement of funds received in escrow accounts where they shall be kept until disbursement thereof is properly authorized (Respondent's Exhibit A). The Memorandum was sent to Respondent among others Mr. Hunt, during his examination of Respondent's records, found that Respondent ,had changed its escrow procedures approximately the date that the bulletin was issued and that there were no discrepancies after that date concerning escrow monies. By further correspondence in December, 1974, and May and June of 1975, Respondent's President posed various questions to Mr. Ehrlich to clarify certain aspects of escrow account requirements and received replies thereto (Respondent Composite B - Respondent's Exhibit C, D, F and G. (Note: There is no Exhibit E) In 402 separate transactions conducted by Respondent during the years 1973, 1974, and 1975, the mortgages which were purchased by the investors were delivered to the investor within varying periods from one day from the sale date until almost two months from the sale date. Forwarding of funds by the Respondent to the "Master Broker" or to the land development company was also accomplished in these transactions within varying periods of time from the sale date. These ranged from the same date as the sale to periods of a month or so thereafter, but usually on the date of delivery of the mortgage to the investor. The amounts forwarded by Respondent consisted of the face amount of the note and mortgage, less a certain amount which was retained by the Respondent (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). No effort was made by Petitioner's examiner to determine either the basis for the amount retained by Respondent or its composition. For example, he did not determine whether there were any "points" for service charges or discounts of any sort included in the retained sum. The examination was made solely on the basis of examining the business records of Respondent which did not reflect a breakdown of the retained amount. However, it could be deduced from various documents in individual investor files that certain amounts had been paid by someone unknown for title insurance premiums, recording fees and intangible taxes. The dates of mortgage delivery shown by Mr. Hunt in his worksheet were dates which he assumed were correct but he had not verified by any person the exact dates the mortgage was delivered to the investors. Neither could he ascertain from the records whether or not an investor had authorized Respondent to disburse funds at a particular time. The overcharges were determined in accordance with the formula set forth in Rule 3- 3.08, F.A.C., which is on a "gross proceeds" loan in which the borrower indicates that he wished to borrow a specified amount with all fees and charges to come out of the gross amount, thereby resulting in a reduced amount being provided to the borrower. The overcharges were computed without knowledge of whether the amount retained by the Respondent, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, included payment for state intangible tax, documentary stamps, and recording fees (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and 2). The overcharges set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 were unrebutted by Respondent and are deemed correct. In a transaction between Respondent and Cary G. Anderson, who applied for purchase of a mortgage on May 7, 1974, in the face amount of $3,500.00, the file relating to the transaction did not reflect the amount of any costs to be paid by Respondent in the matter, nor did it reveal a specific figure for brokerage fee or commission charged by Respondent. The file did reflect a bill for title insurance premium in the amount of $45.00 and recording fees in the amount off $22.25, $5.25 documentary stamps, and $7.00 for intangible tax. The amount of overcharge was $175.46. In another $2,500 transaction with Mr. Anderson, the amount remitted to the land developer was $2,075.00. The amount retained by Respondent was $425.00. Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 establishes an overcharge from this transaction of $61.37. There was no copy of the mortgage in the file and therefore no information upon which to determine the payment of intangible taxes, documentary stamps and recording fees (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In a $5,000 transaction between Walter L. and Thelma T. Beach and Respondent with application for purchase mortgage dated July 30, 1974, a check was written on Respondent's escrow account to Kingsland Development in the amount of $4,100. The maximum allowable brokerage fee or commission under the law would have been $590.90. The amount retained by Respondent was $900.00. The mortgage indicated that documentary stamps in the amount of $7.50 and intangible tax of $10.00 were paid. Assuming that Respondent paid the intangible taxes, and documentary stamps, the excess fee charged according to calculation under Rule 3-3.08, was $281.60 (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4). In respect to the above three transactions Petitioner's examiner did not find closing statements in the file, nor did he go to the Florida title ledger or Attorney's ledger of Respondent's records. However, he had, at the outset of his investigation, asked Respondent to make available all records concerning the transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt).
The Issue In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Dave Taylor (“Taylor) alleges that various purported “statements” which he attributes to Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) constitute rules-by-definition that were not adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, titled “Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending.” As such, it is responsible for regulating all persons, including mortgage brokers and lenders, licensed under that chapter. Taylor is licensed under Chapter 494 as a mortgage broker and as a “continuing education school.” His firm, Florida Compliance Specialists, Inc., provides consulting services to Chapter 494 licensees. The present dispute stems from amendments to Chapter 494 that the legislature enacted during the 2001 regular session. See Ch. 2001-228, Laws of Florida. These amendments were contained in a bill (CS/HB 455) approved by the governor on June 13, 2001, and became effective on October 1, 2001; they created a new position called “principal representative.” As defined by the legislature, the term “principal representative” means “an individual who operates the business operations of a licensee under part III.” Section 494.001(29), Florida Statutes (2001) (emphasis added).4 This statutory definition is amplified in a mandate that requires all licensees (and applicants) to designate a “principal representative who exercises control of the licensee’s business[.]” Sections 494.0061(8) and 494.0062(11), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). Notably, the terms “operates” and “exercises control of” are not defined. As mentioned, the statute requires all licensees and applicants to designate a PR. Although PRs do not engage in a licensed occupation (i.e. there is no PR license), an individual appointed to the post of PR after October 1, 2001, must satisfy certain educational and testing requirements (the details of which are not important here), and the designating lender must submit documents showing that its PRD has complied with those requirements.5 After the governor signed CS/HB 455 into law but before the amended statutes took effect, the Department began making rules to implement the new provisions. Before long, proposed rules were published in the August 31, 2001, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. One provision of these proposed rules instructed that “[a]n individual can only be a principal representative for one [lender].” This “one lender to a PR” proposal did not implement an explicit statutory directive but arose from the Department’s then-prevailing interpretation of the statutory description of a PR as one who “operates” and “exercises control of” the lender’s business. Further illuminating the Department’s understanding of these terms were the Designation forms that it proposed to adopt, wherein the PRD was required to acknowledge that he or she would be “in full charge, control, and supervision of the [lender’s] business.” A person, the Department reasoned, could be “in full charge,” etc., of but one company at a time. In the course of rulemaking, however, the Department receded from its original interpretation. As a result, revised proposed rules——from which the bright line, “one lender to a PR” directive had been deleted——were published in the October 5, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly.6 An amended Designation, which unlike earlier versions lacked language requiring a PRD to confirm (with his or her signature) having “full charge, control, and supervision” of the applicant’s or licensee’s business, was proposed as well.7 By the end of January 2002, the Department’s proposed rules relating to PRs had been adopted and, at the time of this Final Order, were among the agency’s duly promulgated, existing rules. See Rule 3D-40.242, Florida Administrative Code. Although the Department does not presently have a bright line rule or policy that flatly forbids an individual from serving simultaneously as PR to more than one licensee, the Department continues to be skeptical that a dual designee can effectively perform, for more than one lender at a time, the responsibilities that it believes inhere in the office of PR. Accordingly, whenever a lender or applicant nominates an XPR for PR, the Department without exception subjects that lender’s Designation to stricter scrutiny than would be given if its PRD were not an XPR. (Indeed, if the PRD is not an XPR, then the Department presumes that he or she will be able to carry out the duties of a PR and hence makes no inquiry as to how the PRD will function as PR.) The first outward manifestations of the Department’s internal decision to scrutinize any Designation in which an applicant’s PRD is an XPR emerged in late November 2001 after the agency had received four separate applications naming Taylor as PR.8 As the Department had discovered upon review of these four applications, Taylor was already serving as PR to an existing licensee. This situation had given rise to a dilemma for which the Department was not fully prepared, as evidenced by a November 26, 2001, e-mail message from an agency attorney to the responsible policy makers in which she (the attorney) had advised that: There are two pending applications in which there are no deficiencies and we need to decide how will [sic] we will proceed since we took out the language in the rule that specifically stated an individual could only be a PR for one company at a time. Let me know what times you would be available [for a meeting to decide what to do]. The Department quickly decided what to do. Between November 27 and November 29, 2001, the Department issued four nearly identical letters, one sent by certified mail to each applicant who had chosen Taylor as its PR, which provided, in pertinent part: We are in receipt of your company’s application to become licensed as a mortgage lender in the State of Florida. A review of the application materials indicates that [applicant’s name] has designated Dave Taylor at [address] as the company’s Principal Representative. [The next four paragraphs quote Sections 494.001(29); 494.0062(11); 494.0062(1)(f); and 494.0062(12), Florida Statutes, which pertain to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (c) A material misstatement of fact on an initial or renewal application.[9] Dave Taylor has already been designated as a principal representative for another licensed lender under part III of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Please advise in detail how Mr. Taylor will operate and exercise control over your business.[10] We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. On or about November 30, 2001, the Department created a new deficiency code, DF 416, the description of which is “principal representative is designated to more than one entity.” This is an active deficiency code and is used consistently as a “red flag” on all applications to which it applies. When an application is tagged with a DF 416, the applicant is sent a letter in the form of the letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. This letter will hereafter be referred to as the “DF 416 Inquiry Letter.”11 It is important to emphasize that all applicants whose PRD is an XPR are sent the DF 416 Inquiry Letter, without exception.12 It is undisputed that Taylor has met all of the educational and testing requirements necessary to serve as a PR, and that the Department has no objection, based on facts and circumstances unique to Taylor, to Taylor’s being a lender’s PR. (In fact, he is presently a PR to one lender,13 under a designation to which the Department, consistent with its policy and practice of making no inquiry concerning PRDs who are not XPRs, raised no objection.) The Department’s concern about Taylor’s having been designated a PR by more than one company is indistinguishable from the concern that it expresses regarding all dual designees. This is why, although the contents of the DF 416 Inquiry Letter were developed to resolve a problem that specifically involved Taylor and his clients, the Department decided (and was able) to implement its Taylor-made solution on a generally applicable basis by sending the DF 416 Inquiry Letter to all applicants whose PRD is a dual designee. Each of the four applicants that had designated Taylor as its PR declined the Department’s November 2001 invitation to submit detailed information regarding the manner in which Taylor would operate and control the licensed business. Each applicant chose, instead, to designate someone else as PR. Thus, whatever advantages or considerations Taylor expected to receive in exchange for serving as these lenders’ PR were lost; the Department’s letters (the letters that became the form for the DF 416 Inquiry Letter) were the proximate cause of that loss, in that but for the letters, the lenders would not summarily have severed their respective business relationships with Taylor. After deciding how to deal with applicants whose PRDs are XPRs, the Department turned its attention to the dual designees of existing licensees. This was, in a sense, a bigger problem because, in their respective Designations, more than 50 licensees had selected an individual for PR who was a dual designee. Beginning around December 12, 2001, the Department sent all these lenders a letter similar to the DF 416 Inquiry Letter. This letter stated: We are in receipt of the principal representative designation forms for the following companies: [lender’s names]. A review of the principal representative forms indicates that [PRD’s name and address] has been designated the Principal Representative for both companies. [The next two paragraphs quote statutory provisions pertaining to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(p) state as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (p) Failure to comply with, or violations of, any other provision of ss. 494.001-494.0077. Please advise in detail how you will operate and exercise control over both of the above- mentioned businesses. We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 14 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. This form letter will be referred to as the “Compliance Inquiry Letter.” The evidence is unequivocal that the Department has sent, and plans to send, the Compliance Inquiry Letter to all licensees whose Designation names a person determined to be a dual designee, without exception.14 Taylor’s Description of the Alleged Rules-by-Definition In his petition, as required by Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Taylor described the alleged rules-by- definition. Here, in his words, are the Department’s alleged statements: Only one person can realistically “operate the business operations” of a licensee and “exercise control over the licensee’s business.” Therefore, only one individual shall prima facie be designated as principal representative for only one mortgage lender. The above rule shall not apply, however, to mortgage lenders which the Department deems to be “grand-fathered” i.e., such companies who designated their principal representative on or prior to October 1, 2001, the effective date of the statutory amendments. In such instances, an individual will be permitted multiple designations without further departmental scrutiny or inquiry as to how that individual will “operate” or “exercise control over each business.”[Footnote omitted]. Except for “grand-fathered” companies, if an individual once designated principal representative by a mortgage lender is similarly designated principal representative by a separate mortgage lender, the Department based upon the agency statement recited in (a) above, will require the subsequent mortgage lender(s) (i.e., the lender(s) other than the one first designating that individual) to provide in writing a detailed explanation to the Department, subject to potential sanctions, describing how that individual will operate and exercise control over that second mortgage lender. The Department considers as a “licensing deficiency” any mortgage lender application or principal representative designation submitted to the Department where the individual designated as the mortgage lender’s principal representative has previously been and continues to be designated principal representative by another mortgage lender. The Department, based upon this “deficiency,” shall not deem the application(s) “complete” for purposes of section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Such application(s) shall be subjected to the licensing procedures set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) hereafter. In conformity with the agency statement set forth in (a) above, the Department will not undertake an inquiry of the principal representative designation submitted by the mortgage lender who first designated the individual as its’ principal representative. The Department will require mortgage lenders to provide the information referred to in section c above, through the use of a form, [i.e., the form letters attached as EXHIBITS “14”, “15”, & “16”, to this Petition]. Further, this form created for the purpose of soliciting information [not specifically required by statute or an existing rule] will require mortgage lenders to provide a response, specifically subject to announced sanctions, of details not otherwise required under the applicable statutes or rules. The Department, though requiring mortgage lenders to comply with the agency statements through the threat of announced sanctions, shall not provide to mortgage lenders or their designated principal representatives any clarifying or defining circumstances or criteria the Department will deem as acceptable——contractual or otherwise——for a person to be designated as principal representative for more than one mortgage lender. Any responses provided by such mortgage lenders in response to the Department’s written form shall be submitted by the applicant “at their peril.” Ultimate Factual Determinations In his just-quoted statements “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e,” Taylor described, with reasonable particularity, the essence of policies that, in fact, fall within the statutory definition of the term “rule.” Statement “a” describes (albeit somewhat imprecisely) a Departmental mindset, the view that a person is likely to have difficulty simultaneously serving more than one master as a PR; the last sentence of statement “d” accurately describes the Department’s related policy of not inquiring as to how a PRD who is not a dual designee will operate and control the lender’s business (because the agency presumes that a person will probably have no difficulty serving as PR to one lender at a time). Taken together, these views, in fact, constitute the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes.15 Taylor’s statement “c” and the third sentence of “d” (all of which, of course, he attributes to the Department) correctly describe, for the most part,16 the Department’s policy of requiring additional information from all licensees and applicants whose Designations nominate an XPR for the position of PR. This policy is plainly driven by the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes, and it leads, in turn, directly to statement “e.” Restated to conform to the evidence, statement “e” holds that the Department will send either the DF 416 Inquiry Letter or the Compliance Inquiry Letter, whichever is applicable, to any lender whose PRD is an XPR. It is the form letters——the DF 416 Inquiry Letter and the Compliance Inquiry Letter——that have emerged as the most visible, most readily identifiable unadopted rules of the Department, for they solicit information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. By the end of December 2001 at the latest, rulemaking was both feasible and practicable with regard to the above- described statements, but no effort was made to adopt them as rules. Thus, the Department failed timely to commence rulemaking with regard to these statements in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.17
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Law Office of H. Richard Bisbee 124 Salem Court, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2810 For Respondent: Cynthia K. Maynard, Esquire James H. Harris, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, (Department), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation and licensing of mortgage brokers in this state, and Respondent, Harriet Ijames, was a licensed mortgage broker. On February 17, 1989, Respondent entered into a Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department whereby she was placed on probation for 2 years for misconduct relating to the misappropriation of mortgage application fees, with the further requirement that she not act independently but under the supervision of a broker acceptable to the Department. On October 2, 1991, the Department filed a complaint against the Respondent alleging she had violated the terms of the prior Consent Order by conducting business as a mortgage broker without the requisite supervision. Thereafter, on April 29, 1992, Respondent entered into another Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department regarding the October, 1991 complaint by which she was again placed on probation conditioned upon her operating only under the supervision of an approved broker. This latter Order provided that any violation thereof would be automatic grounds for immediate and summary revocation of her license and also imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00. The Final Order incorporating that agreement was issued by the Department on July 13, 1992. In May, 1992, Respondent was contacted by Rhudine M. McGhee, a resident of Tampa, who had been referred to her by a mutual acquaintance. Mrs. McGhee indicated she was interested in purchasing another house. Somewhat later, Respondent contacted Mrs. McGhee and told her of a friend who had a house for sale. She also gave Mrs. McGhee the addresses of some other houses in the area which were for sale. Mrs. McGhee did not like any of them. Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker, and that she would have a real estate broker contact her. Respondent also offered to provide Mrs. McGhee with listings of Resolution Trust Corporation foreclosures in the desired price range. Some time later, the broker referred by Respondent showed Mrs. McGhee a house she liked and she signed a contract to buy it. In the interim, Respondent had taken a credit application from the McGhees over the phone and followed up with a visit to the McGhee home. On May 13, 1992, during the visit to the McGhee residence, Respondent had Mrs. McGhee sign a loan application. On that same visit, she solicited and received from Mrs. McGhee a check for $300.00, payable to the Respondent and subsequently endorsed and cashed by her, which reflected the check was the application fee for a loan. She specifically asked that the check be made to her, personally. When Mrs. McGhee asked Respondent about the check, she was told it would be credited to the purchase price at time of closing. This was not done and it was only later, after a complaint was filed with the Department, that Mr. Brigliadora, the mortgage broker with whom she was affiliated, repaid the fee from his company's funds. Though at hearing Respondent denied she took a loan application fee or that the check she received was for that purpose or bore any notation to that effect when received, Mrs. McGhee is quite certain she put that notation on the check at her husband's direction at the time she gave it to Respondent. Respondent claimed the check was for finding the house but Mr. McGhee specifically recalls Respondent indicating the check was to be an application fee to be credited against the purchase price. It is so found. On June 1, 1992, Respondent again returned to the McGhee home to have them sign a second loan application. This time Mr. McGhee was not at home and Respondent suggested to Mrs. McGhee that she sign her husband's name to the application. This was done. Respondent did not give the McGhees copies of the applications they signed but said she would bring them copies at a later date. This was never done. Though Respondent also denies soliciting the second application, her apparent signature appears on both application forms and it is found she did both solicit and sign the forms and the application fee check. The first application was for a loan of $80,000.00 at 8.5 percent. The second was for $36,000.00 at 8.625 percent. At the time of the solicitation, Respondent was employed by Frank Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker and owner of the Money Tree Mortgage Co. However, neither Respondent nor Mr. Brigliadora had notified the Department of their arrangement or obtained Departmental approval of the supervisory relationship. Clearly, Respondent knew the taking of an application fee, as the evidence indicates she did here, was inappropriate. Sometime in mid 1992, Respondent approached George Banks, a licensed mortgage broker in Tampa and owner of his own brokerage company, with a view toward working for him. In their conversation about that, they discussed the practice of application fees. Respondent indicated she wanted to take a fee of $200.00 to $300.00 up front, but Banks felt this was not proper, advised her so, and declined to accept her as a broker. Even when she claimed that other brokers took fees of this nature, he demurred, claiming he did not endorse the practice. Respondent worked for Mr. Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker, at his firm, Money Street Mortgage, for approximately 3 months during 1992. At the time she went to work for him, Respondent did not tell him she was under sanctions by the Department to have strict supervision and at no time did he agree to the Departmental supervision program. Mr. Brigliadora did not receive the $300.00 check Respondent obtained from the McGhees nor did he ever get the money it represented from the Respondent. It was only just before or at the closing on the property that he first became aware of the deposit. When he refunded the money to the McGhees, Respondent agreed to reimburse him but she never did. Normally, Money Street Mortgage does not take application fees on residential loans, and Mr. Brigliadora denies he ever approved or suggested to Respondent that she solicit them. When Respondent gave him the documentation on the McGhee loan application it did not include the required good faith estimate found in the brokerage agreement nor did the application form or any other document make the required disclosures. The application he got from Respondent does not constitute a brokerage agreement and Mr. Brigliadora never got one from the Respondent on this loan. What he received is no more than an application for a loan. Mr. James, the Department's Area Financial Manager, whose job includes the assignment of examiners and the review of investigations by examiners, knows Respondent as a licensed mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. He is aware of prior complaints received by the Department about the Respondent in the past. Two of them relate to the Final Orders previously mentioned herein. In the instant case, he recalls receiving a telephone call regarding a deposit of $300.00 given to Respondent and commenced an investigation into the incident. The current Administrative Complaint which resulted in this hearing was the outcome of that investigation. Based on his evaluation of the matters discovered in the investigation, he concluded that Respondent took a fee from a client without having a brokerage agreement with that client; failed to make the required full disclosure to a client; and misappropriated a fee which she received from a client; all of which are violations of various provisions of Chapter 494. In his official capacity with the Department, Mr. James had the duty to approve a supervisory mortgage broker for the Respondent as called for in the two prior Final Orders referred to previously herein. Neither Money Street Mortgage nor Mr. Brigliadora were submitted by Respondent for approval by the Department even though Respondent knew she was required to do so. Respondent claims she made it very clear to Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker. Nonetheless, Mrs. McGhee, she claims, insisted Respondent help her and offered to pay her for her efforts. Respondent claims that all Petitioner's witnesses lied about her and forged documents relating to her alleged activities. She denies she would ever cheat or disobey the rules because she knows she would lose her license if she did. Claiming she is well respected in the community, she asserts the Department did not thoroughly investigate the allegations against her and is, therefore, destroying her reputation over something which did not happen as alleged. Her assertions are not accepted, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case finding her guilty of the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein; revoking Harriett Ijames' license as a mortgage broker in Florida; and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa L. Elwell, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Harriett Ijames 8341 Paddlewheel Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact 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
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the examination to be licensed as a mortgage broker be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29th day January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott William Katz 361 Midpines Road Palm Springs, Florida 33461 Lawrence S. Krieger Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Office of Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller, State of Florida The Capital Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Sutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Lowell W. Langmade and L. A. D. Realty, Inc., are licensed real estate brokers holding license numbers 0050033 and 0215301, respectively. The complaining witness who ultimately purchased the property involved in this proceeding, and the Respondent Lowell W. Langmade, were introduced to each other by the attorney for the seller of the property in December of 1980. In January,1981, the seller requested the Respondent to find a buyer for the subject property, consisting of two triplex apartments situated in Broward County. The Respondent contacted the prospective purchaser later in January, 1981, and showed him the triplex apartments which were offered for sale at a price of $195,000. The property was encumbered by two mortgages, and the Respondent informed the prospective purchaser what the approximate amounts thereof were, namely $62,000 and $38,000. Several days later the prospective purchaser called the Respondent and instructed him to prepare a contract offering to buy the property for $175,000. This contract was prepared showing existing mortgage balances of approximately $62,000 and $38,000, and with the monthly payments shown as an approximate amount. The prospective purchaser read and signed this contract. Thereafter, it was sent to the seller who also signed it. Copies were distributed to the attorneys representing both parties to the contract. On February 19, 1981, the seller's attorney called the office of the attorney for the buyer and gave the closing figures including estoppel information on the mortgages. These figures consisted of current mortgage balances, taxes, rents and other prorations. On March 2, 1981, the seller's attorney gave updated closing figures to the office of the buyer's attorney. On March 9, 1981, the closing took place. By then the actual amounts of the mortgages encumbering the subject property had been ascertained, and the closing statement reflected these actual amounts, namely, $60,708.66 and $35,428.96, respectively. The buyer objected to the differences between the actual mortgage balances and the approximations on the contract, but he proceeded to close the transaction and took title to the subject property. The buyer contends that he had asked for exact mortgage balances throughout the negotiations, and assumed that he would get them. Yet he signed the contract setting forth approximate figures, and proceeded to close after the actual balances had been ascertained. The documentary evidence contradicts the buyer's uncorroborated, self-serving assertions relative to his requirement for actual mortgage balances. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of fact that the buyer was misled or tricked by the Respondent, or that the Respondent violated a duty imposed upon him in connection with this transaction.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents, Lowell W. Langmade and L. A. D. Realty, Inc., be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 6 day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 6 day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 14723 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 C. Lavon Ward, Esquire 629 South West First Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The administratively complaint alleges that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 517,16(1)(a), F.S. by having sold notes, which were securities as defined by Section 517.02(1), F.S., which were unregistored in violation of Section 517.07, F.S., and having represented that said notes were secured by first mortgages when in fact they were not so secured in violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S., on two occasions to Joseph M. and Patricia Barton. The first sale is alleged to have occurred on June 14, 1974, in the amount of $15,000, and the other sale is alleged to hake occurred on September 29, 1973 in the amount of $5,000. The Petitioner introduced Exhibit 1 which was received and which indicates that only the common stock of Equitable Development Corporation was registered with the State of Florida, Division of Securities. The Petitioner presented no evidence relative to the alleged sale occurring on June 14, 1974. It is therefore not proven. The Petitioner called Gregory Stevens who was the sole witness at the hearing and who was a license securities salesman and licensed mortgage broker. In September 1973 Stevens was self employed doing business for Gregory Stevens, Investment Incorporated. Stevens stated that he dealt in first mortgages. Respondent testified that he obtained the mortgage documents through Financial Resources Corp., the president of which was Mr. Rinehart. Respondent was assured by Mr. Rinehart before he began handling these mortgages that they were not required to be registered as securities because they ware exempt, and that the State had so indicated for this type of transaction. Respondent testified that he sold a note and mortgage to his clients, Joseph and Patricia Barton, in his capacity as a licensed mortgage broker on behalf of Gregory Stevens Investments, Inc., of which he is president. Exhibit 10 is a sample order form for another contract which shows that such transactions were in the corporate entity. Respondent's uncontroverted testimony was that only he individually is licensed to sell securities, and that no mortgages were sold as securities. The evidence is that on September 29, 1973, a promissory note of the Equitable Development Corporation was issued to Joseph and/or Patricia Barton, secured by a Mortgage Deed issued by Equitable Development Corporation. The face amount was $5,000. The Bartons also received a quitclaim deed. The mortgage deed specifically covenants that the underlying property is free and clear of all encumbrances except current and future real estate taxes. Respondent testified that he physically examined the property which secured the mortgages and it looked good. He saw appraisals at double the face amount of the mortgages he sold. Those clients who requested title insurance or opinions of title from a lawyer could obtain same, and when they were requested he saw then and they never showed any defects or other encumbrances. This was the procedure followed with the Bartons, although neither title insurance nor a title search and opinion were obtained requested by the Bartons. The Respondent indicated that at the time of said sale to the Bartons that he believed, and had no reason not to believe, that said mortgage was a first mortgage as it recites on its face. The Hearing Officer notes that Section 517.06(7), F.S., 1973, was amended effective October 1, 1973, and the Barton transaction took place on September 29, 1973. Therefore, the applicable provision is the unamended law found at Section 517.06(7), F.S.A. Regarding the law existing at the time and its interpretation, the Respondent also introduced Exhibit 2, 4, and 5 which letters indicate that the sale of notes secured by mortgages would be exempt from registration as exempt transactions pursuant to Section 517.06(7), F.S.A., and setting forth guidelines for exempt transactions. Without dealing with the question of estoppel, these exhibits state the agency's interpretations of the then existing law. The Hearing Officer finds the agency's interpretation as set out in Exhibits 2, 4, and 5 is an accurate interpretation of the statute. The Hearing Officer finds that a note is a security as defined in Section 517.02(1), F.S. Regarding the allegation that the note sold to the Bartons was an unregistered security, it is admitted that it was not registered, however, the Respondent asserts that the sale was a transaction exempted under the provisions of Section 517.06(7), F.S.A. Having examined the note and mortgage in question, the Hearing Officer finds that the note and entire mortgage securing it were sold in a single sale to one purchaser. The note and mortgage do not indicate any expressed recourse agreement or guarantee as to repayment of interest, principal, or both offered in connection with the sale. While the Respondent could not specifically recall the Barton transaction, he testified that purchasers were generally shown the property, an assessment of the property prepared by an appraiser indicating each lot's value, and it was represented that they would receive a first mortgage securing the note on lots worth two times the value of the note. There was no showing that the Respondent knew or should have known the mortgage to the Bartons was not a first mortgage and title to the property not clear. The transaction of September 29, 1973, was exempt under the law existing at that time. The Petitioner therefore has failed to show any violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S.
Recommendation The agency having failed to show a violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S., by the Respondent and the Hearing Officer having found that the September 29, 1973 transaction was exempt recommends that the charges be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner Charles W. Musgrove, Esquire Counsel for Respondent
Findings Of Fact In his application for registration as a mortgage broker (Exhibit 2), David Stain, Petitioner, in response to question 7 "Have you any judgments against you?" answered "No". By letter dated May 12, 1980 (Exhibit 1), Respondent advised Stein that background investigation revealed numerous judgments against him and stated it would he necessary for Stein to advise why he chose to answer question 7 in the negative. After receiving no response from Stein, Respondent, on 2 July 1980, entered a Final Order denying Stein's application for registration as a mortgage broker. Grounds given in this Order were based upon numerous unsatisfied judgments entered against Stein in Pennsylvania. Exhibit 3, a composite exhibit of court records from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, shows judgements entered against David Stein and in favor of: Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (2), Diner's Club, Ford Motor Credit Company, Charles Arnold, Alan Shaffer, Carl Kronander, and CNA Financial Corporation.
Findings Of Fact On November 15, 1976, the Outrigger Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, through its president, Ervin Freeman, and its Secretary, Joan Dimon, executed a warranty deed conveying all right, title and interest, in and to certain property located at Northeast 135th Street and Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida, to Petitioner, Biscayne South, Inc. (hereafter Biscayne South), a Florida corporation. The warranty deed was recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, on November 16, 1976. On November 22, 1976, Biscayne South executed a mortgage deed in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, as a second mortgage on the same parcel of land to secure the payment of a promissory note in the principal sum of $1,500,000.00 which note was made by Outrigger Club, Inc., on the same date in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors. On November 22, 1976, Outrigger Club, Inc., as the "borrower" executed a future advance agreement with Fidelity Mortgage Investors as "lendor". The future advance agreement provides for the advancement of the sum of $1,500,000.00 to be secured by a prior mortgage dated October 27, 1972, executed by Outrigger Club, Inc., in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, which mortgage provided for future advances. On November 22, 1976, a construction loan and disbursement agreement was executed by the parties thereto which provided that the $1,500,000.00 advance be paid to Miami National Bank as disbursement agent for the benefit of Biscayne South. On November 23, 1976, the mortgage deed and the future advance agreement were recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida, and on that same date, the warranty deed was rerecorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida. Because the 1.5 million dollars was paid to Miami National Bank to be disbursed for future construction work on a draw-down basis, Outrigger Club, Inc., the grantor, never received the 1.5 million dollars. The warranty deed provides in paragraph 9 thereof that the conveyance is subject to: a second mortgage wherein the Outrigger Club Inc., is mortgagor and the trustees of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, is mortgagee, dated the day of November, 1976, which said mortgage is given as additional collateral for payment of certain sums as provided under a settlement and release agreement between the Outrigger Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Lawrence F. Lee, Jr., and others as trustees of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust dated the 16th day of January, 1976. Neither the Department of Revenue nor Biscayne South have introduced evidence to establish that such a mortgage in fact exists or if it did, the value of such mortgage. The only mortgage in evidence is Respondent, Department of Revenue's Exhibit 2, which shows Biscayne South as mortgagor rather than the Outrigger Club, Inc., as recited in the warranty deed. However, the future advance agreement introduced as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, establishes the existence of a mortgage encumbering the subject property in which the Outrigger Club, Inc., is mortgagor and Fidelity Mortgage Investors is mortgagee. Such mortgage is dated October 27, 1972, and not dated with the month of November, 1976, as recited in paragraph 9 of the warranty deed. As recited in the future advance agreement, the mortgage of October 27, 1972, secured an indebtedness of $7,214,000.00. The mortgage provided that future advances could be made to Outrigger Club, Inc., not to exceed in the aggregate $16,500,000.00. The future advance agreement provides that an additional advance of $1,500,000.00 is to be made to Outrigger Club, Inc., thereby increasing the indebtedness represented by the October 27, 1972, mortgage to the aggregate sum of $8,715,000.00. In other words, the buyer of the property sought to borrow an additional 1.5 million dollars. The lender, in order to achieve priority of lien to secure its loan, treated the funding as an advance against a preexisting mortgage originally binding the seller, but then delivered the 1.5 million dollars directly to Miami National Bank for the benefit of the buyer. Accordingly, the seller never received the proceeds of the loan but rather participated in a "book transaction" for the benefit of the buyer and the lender.
