The Issue The issue in Case No. 94-2065 is whether National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. violated certain disciplinary proceedings governing mortgage brokers and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The issue in Case No. 94-2066 is whether National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. is entitled to licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender.
Findings Of Fact As of September 3, 1992, the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Department), issued a mortgage lender's license to National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (NMB). At all material times, NMB acted as a mortgage broker, not a mortgage lender. NMB originated mortgaged loans, which were funded by third parties. NMB's principal place of business was in Pt. Charlotte. At all material times, Sheldon Voron was employed as the chief executive officer of NMB. Business was slow for NMB during the first few months after it acquired its mortgage lending license. NMB was operated by Mr. Voron, who supervised loan officers and the processing of loan applications, and Mark Asciutto, who handled bookkeeping, payroll, and the checking accounts, including the escrow account. Mr. Asciutto left the company in September 1993. By the end of 1992, the net worth of NMB was $89,115.23, according to an audited financial statement issued on February 12, 1993. The net worth deteriorated during 1993, dropping to $63,533 by December 31, 1993, according to an audited financial statement issued on March 7, 1994. At no time did NMB ever advise the Department that its net worth was below $250,000. In early 1993, business picked up from late 1992, and NMB hired a second loan processor. Refinancing activity in early 1993 required that NMB continually add new help. At this time, the approval of uncomplicated conventional loan applications took 30-45 days, and the operation ran smoothly. But business continued to increase. From March to June, NMB opened up offices in Naples and Sarasota. A branch in office in Englewood was opened and quickly closed due to its proximity to other offices. By April, the volume of business at NMB was increasing rapidly, aided in part by the addition of government loans. An average of 75 cases monthly during the first three months increased to 125 cases in April. Employing four to five loan processors, NMB continued to hire additional employees, but soon had problems finding qualified persons, as competition in the lending business was increasing due to considerable refinancing activity. Mr. Asciutto handled the escrow account during these busy months, until another employee assumed these duties in late July or August 1994. Mr. Asciutto routinely transferred money from the escrow account to the general operating account when Mr. Asciutto determined that NMB was entitled to retain the money, such as when customers had not been responsive to inquiries from NMB employees. The only such transfer for which a specific amount was identified at the hearing was $860, which was swept from escrow to general operations by check dated April 16, 1993. As is obvious from the trend in net worth, profitability did not increase in direct proportion to increases in business volume. In fact, total income increased from $82,716.01 in 1992 to $556,907 in 1993, but net income increased only from $30,714.88 to $43,528. NMB simply could not keep up with the business, as is evidenced by the experiences of its customers. In July 1993, William Zinser read an NMB advertisement in the newspaper offering an adjustable mortgage rate and a low fixed-rate mortgage. He called the number and set up an appointment to visit the office. He met with an employee of NMB, who discussed interest rates and closing fees. She assured Mr. Zinser that it would take only about 30 days to close the loan. Mr. Zinser submitted a loan application, and the employee said NMB would be back in touch with him. Mr. Zinser waited three or four weeks and heard nothing. He called and was told that there were no problems. On two or three occasions, an NMB employee requested from Mr. Zinser a profit and loss statement or a verification of his wife's income. However, NMB had the wife's income information since the start of the loan application process and twice had received the profit and loss statements. On January 4, 1994, Mr. Zinser applied for a loan with another lender. Shortly thereafter, an NMB employee called him and said that his loan was approved. When he said that he had gone elsewhere, she reminded him that he had obligated himself to pay a $1250 fee in connection with the loan. He refused to pay. On or about July 15, 1993, Janice Hamann first contacted NMB about refinancing her home. She applied for a mortgage, and an NMB employee asked for more information. She supplied it the following day, and the employee said everything was fine. The employee said that it would probably take 4-6 weeks to close. On August 13, 1993, Ms. Hamann called NMB to check on the status of the loan application. An NMB employee said that they would probably close when she returned from a week's vacation. On August 23, Ms. Hamann called and was told to provide some additional information on her payment history. She provided the requested information by September 20. For a second time, she had to provide verification of her husband's employment. On September 18, Ms. Hamann received notification from her homeowner's insurer that they had changed her insurance, evidently to show a new loss payee. No one from NMB had told her that the loan was ready to close. A couple of months later, surveyors showed up and surveyed the property that was to have been the subject of the loan and additional property. Ms. Hamann called NMB and informed them of the mistaken inclusion of additional property. On November 22, Ms. Hamann called NMB and said that she wanted her paperwork and was withdrawing her application. Ten days later, someone from NMB called her and said they were ready to close. Ms. Hamann restated her demand for her paperwork and refused to close. A few days later, she received a letter demanding $1500 in addition to the $300 that she had paid for the credit check, survey, and appraisal. She still receives bills from the surveyor. On September 9, 1993, Richard Chadbourne contacted NMB about refinancing a mortgage. At the first office visit, he completed an application and delivered a check to NMB in the amount of $300. An NMB employee said they would contact him for more information and said it would take 30-45 days to close his loan. At the first meeting, Mr. Chadbourne stated that he wanted the 3.259 percent variable rate mortgage with a six point cap, which NMB was offering. An NMB employee said that they could get him a 3.375 percent rate. On the one or two occasions that NMB contacted Mr. Chadbourne for more information, he provided it to them immediately. Repeated calls to NMB by Mr. Chadbourne or his agent were never returned. No one from NMB ever called Mr. Chadbourne to tell him whether his loan was approved or denied, and he never withdrew his application. On September 10, 1993, Katherine Healey and her husband visited the NMB office to apply for a refinancing loan. Responding to a newspaper advertisement for a 3.375 percent interest rate, the Healeys learned that they would have to pay $1250 in fees to obtain such a low rate. They agreed to pay the sum. They were asked only for salary information and certain documentation concerning their liabilities. An NMB employee said they could lock in the quoted rate when they returned from vacation in a couple of weeks. After returning from vacation, the Healeys called NMB repeatedly, but often could not find anyone to speak to or to return their calls. When they finally talked to someone about their loan, they were told they had to pay another $100 or $150 to lock in at 3.375 percent. They continued calling NMB without much success for two months after returning from vacation. They could not get a closing date, and nothing was happening. In response to their repeated requests to lock in an interest rate, they were told only that they could not lock in until two weeks before closing. By the end of November, the Healeys applied elsewhere for a refinancing loan. Shortly after the Healeys applied elsewhere for a loan, which closed about three weeks later, they received a call from an employee of NMB, who told them that they had a closing date. They said that they had decided to obtain a loan elsewhere. The employee demanded the $1250 fee, which the Healeys had not yet paid, and threatened to sue them if they did not pay. The Healeys refused to pay the fee and were able to use the appraisal, for which they had already paid, with their new application. However, they had to pay for a second credit report. In November 1993, Wendy Harrison contacted NMB for two mortgages--one on a home in Massachusetts and one on a home in Punta Gorda. She filed mortgage applications on or about December 15, 1993, but, by mutual agreement, she withdrew her application on the Florida home. Ms. Harrison subsequently left several telephone messages that were not returned. In January, she was assigned a new loan processor, who still did not return calls. Around this time, Ms. Harrison's husband received a notice from the mortgagee on the Florida property concerning a payoff amount. The Harrisons contacted NMB and told them that this was the wrong property. Mortgage rates began to increase in January. Ms. Harrison called repeatedly on the status of her mortgage refinancing from mid-January to mid- March. A new person assumed loan processing duties on her file. She called Ms. Harrison on or about March 9 and said that the credit report raised some problems. This was the first time either Mr. or Ms. Harrison had been told that there were problems with the credit report, which NMB had received in late December. Ms. Harrison mailed the requested explanatory documents on the following day. Two weeks later, after hearing nothing, Ms. Harrison called NMB and learned that the interest rate would be 8 percent annually, which was higher than the rate in effect when she initiated the loan approval process. The NMB employee explained that the higher rate was due to the fact that the Massachusetts property was a rental property, but NMB employees had known that from the start. However, the NMB employee assured Ms. Harrison that the file was complete and being forwarded to Miami for final approval. The following day, Ms. Harrison sent a certified letter withdrawing the application and asking for the appraisal and any other services for which she had already paid. NMB received the letter on March 26. On April 5, Ms. Harrison found in her mailbox an unstamped, uncancelled envelope that had evidently been hand- delivered by an NMB employee or agent. Inside was a rejection letter backdated to March 23, so as to look like the Harrison application had been rejected before it was withdrawn. Based on customer complaints, the Department financial examiner conducted an unannounced inspection of NMB from November 15-17, 1993. In addition to discovering a violation of the minimum net worth requirement imposed upon mortgage lenders, the examiner found several violations of requirements imposed upon mortgage brokers. At no time did NMB disclose in writing that it could not guarantee acceptance into a particular loan program and could not promise any specific loan conditions or terms. When taking applications, NMB failed to disclose the nature of the mortgage brokerage fee charged by NMB. The fee varied according to the terms of the loan, and NMB only disclosed a broad range of fees at the time of the application. NMB received monies from customers, but did not record check numbers for checks used to pay vendors on behalf of specific customers. NMB thereby failed to maintain an updated record of escrow account activity on an appropriate form. In fact, NMB had the Department-promulgated form, but, as discussed below, used it improperly to try to record mortgage brokerage transactions. NMB did not maintain supporting documentation for monies paid from its escrow account on behalf of customers. NMB often used courier prepayments to pay unrelated expenses. NMB did not record the dates and amounts paid out of escrow. NMB maintained a mortgage brokerage transaction journal, but it lacked the date the customer applied for the mortgage loan, the date of disposition of the application, the total amount of brokerage fees, and the name of the lender. NMB used the Department-promulgated form for escrow account activity and tried to adapt it for mortgage brokerage transactions, but failed to include the above-cited crucial items of information. Concerning NMB's application for a correspondent mortgage broker's license, there is evidence, in at least one case, of fraud or deceit. Ms. Harrison, who was very credible, described an act of fraud or dishonest dealing in the postdating and delivery of her rejection letter. The atmosphere of incompetence and neglect that prevailed at NMB might well have left a typed letter unmailed for days or even weeks. However, an employee or other agent committed a wilful act of deceit in driving the letter out to Ms. Harrison's home and leaving it in the mailbox, rather than simply dropping it in the mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order revoking the mortgage lender's license of National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. and denying its application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender. ENTERED on November 3, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on November 3, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Susan E. Steinberg Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa St., Suite 615 Tampa, FL 33602-3394 Sheldon Voron 775 Tamiami Tr. Port Charlotte, FL 33953
Findings Of Fact For the purposes of these proceedings, Jager Industries, Inc. and Castle Realty Ltd. are synonymous as Petitioner. Through name changes, Castle Realty Ltd. became Jager Industries, Inc. Under the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (Fund) which includes the duty to approve or deny applications for payment from the Fund, as set forth in Section 494.042, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, 1st Federated Realty Mortgage, Inc. (1st Federated) was licensed as a mortgage broker in this state pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license number HE 7896. On or about January 8, 1981, 1st Federated filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa, Division. Thereafter, on or about December 16, 1981, 1st Federated was dissolved. On January 29, 1985, the Department received a letter dated January 25, 1985, by regular mail, requesting payment from the Fund on behalf of Castle Realty Ltd. Attached to the letter was a final judgment entered on April 21, 1982, in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County against 1st Federated in the principal amount of $50,000 based upon a violation of Section 494.042(2)(d), Florida Statutes, a Writ of Execution returned unsatisfied and an Affidavit of Reasonable Search. Thereafter on May 17, 1987, the Department received by certified mail a copy of the Complaint filed against 1st Federated and supporting documents including a copy of the Master Loan Commitment, Affidavit and Acceptance of Service. Pursuant to the Master Loan Commitment, Castle Realty paid $50,000 to 1st Federated as a Master Commitment Fee in exchange for a promise by 1st Federated to fund up to $4,000,000 for individual condominium loans. The individual commitments and closing of loans were subject to the lender approving the borrower's credit; however, approvals could not be unreasonable withheld. Timely notice of the institution of the action by Petitioner against 1st Federated as required by s. 494.043(5), Florida Statutes (1985), was waived by Respondent. No evidence was submitted regarding the number of claims involving 1st Federated and the amount of those claims that have been paid by Respondent from the Fund. Accordingly, no recommendation is made regarding the amount of Petitioner's claim that may be paid from the Fund pursuant to the limitations contained in s. 494.044, Florida Statutes (1985). By Notice of Intent to Deny Payment from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund dated May 22, 1987, Respondent entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and denied Petitioner's claim. As grounds therefor, Respondent concluded that the 1985 and 1986 amendments to Chapter 494 were applicable in this case as those amendments were remedial or procedural in nature and should be given retrospective application. Thereafter, Petitioner requested formal proceedings by petition filed June 16, 1987, and this request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Comptroller's letter dated July 23, 1987.
Findings Of Fact During 1982 and 1983, Petitioner was licensed as a mortgage broker and real estate broker in the State of Florida. His mortgage broker's license expired in September, 1983. At all times material hereto, Petitioner utilized his mortgage broker's and real estate broker's license to engage in real estate development speculation. He worked closely with Jeffrey Graham, who was also licensed as a mortgage broker and who was a co-owner with Petitioner of Continental Development, Continental Mortgage Company and the Real Estate Spot. They were engaged in buying and selling existing residential properties and constructing new homes for sale. Financing for Petitioner's speculative real estate transactions was provided primarily by The Bank of Florida, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Bank provided financing on 80 to 85 percent of his transactions, but at some point in 1982 or 1983, Petitioner and Graham found themselves unable to obtain further construction financing from the Bank. In order to continue receiving financing from the Bank, Petitioner and Graham initiated the use of "stand-in" buyers. A "stand-in" buyer would not have to use any of his own money as a deposit or down payment, even though real estate contracts executed in connection with these transactions would show an earnest money deposit by such buyers. The buyer's role was simply to lend his credit to the transaction and to share in any profits on the eventual sale of the property. On or about March 25, 1983, Petitioner executed, as seller, a contract for sale of real estate and deposit receipt with Norman Tanner, buyer. The transaction involved the sale of real estate in Pinellas County, Florida, and reflects a total purchase price of $25,000, with an earnest money deposit of $5,000 which the contract specified was to be held by Petitioner, as seller, until closing. Petitioner also executed a Settlement Statement on March 29, 1983, in connection with a loan obtained by Tanner from The Bank of Florida which indicated that Tanner had paid an earnest money deposit of $5,000. Based upon the testimony of Norman Tanner at hearing, it is found that he did not provide the earnest money deposit indicated on the sales contract or Settlement Statement which Petitioner executed as seller. Petitioner testified that this transaction was carried out in his individual capacity as a personal investment, and not under the authority of his mortgage broker's license. In fact, Petitioner did not deal directly with Tanner in this transaction. Tanner's dealings were with Petitioner's partner, Jeffrey Graham. Nevertheless, the evidence and demeanor of the witnesses establishes that Petitioner was aware of the fact that Tanner had not paid the deposit reflected on the instruments he executed, and that such instruments were used to induce the Bank to make a mortgage loan to Tanner. Petitioner, as seller, received $19,665.56 cash at settlement from this transaction with Tanner. On or about February 24, 1982, Petitioner executed a contract for sale of real estate and deposit receipt with Joseph Armendinger, buyer. The transaction involved the sale of real estate in Pinellas County, Florida, and reflects a total purchase price of $48,000, with an earnest money deposit of $6,500 which the contract specified was to be held in escrow by The Real Estate Spot, Inc., until closing. Petitioner and Armendinger also executed an Affidavit of Purchaser and Vendor in connection with obtaining financing for this transaction, and said Affidavit also indicated the buyer's purported cash equity of $6,500 in the property. At the time, Petitioner was co-owner of The Real Estate Spot, and Armendinger was an electrician who was doing some work at The Real Estate Spot and became interested in the "stand-in" buyer transactions he observed while doing electrical work at Petitioner's office. On or about October 27, 1982, Petitioner and Armendinger executed another contract for sale and deposit receipt for a second piece of property, which reflects a total price of $85,000 and an earnest money deposit by Armendinger of $5,000. Thereafter, they executed an Affidavit of Purchaser and Vendor and Settlement Statement reflecting Armendinger's purported cash equity of $4,250.00. Petitioner used the proceeds from this transaction to pay off an existing mortgage and judgment on the property, and realized $1,607.46 in cash, which was shared with Jeffrey Graham, co-seller. Petitioner knew that the contracts for sale and Affidavits which he executed with Armendinger were to be presented to The Bank of Florida and used for the purpose of Armendinger obtaining financing for the purchase of these properties. Based upon the testimony of Joseph Armendinger at hearing, it is found he did not provide any earnest money deposit or downpayment in connection with these two transactions with Petitioner. Armendinger relied on Petitioner, a licensed mortgage broker and real estate broker, in these transactions, and was told by Petitioner that he would not have to put any money of his own into these transactions. Petitioner knew that Armendinger had not made any deposit or downpayments concerning these transactions at the time he executed the contracts for sale and deposit receipts, Affidavits and Settlement Statement. On December 16, 1982, Petitioner executed two mortgages in favor of Patricia G. Herren on property he had previously sold to Armendinger. These mortgages totalled $21,793.35, and were recorded in Pinellas County, Florida, on December 28, 1982. These mortgages were used by Petitioner, along with a $10,000 mortgage he executed in Herren's favor, to obtain a satisfaction from Herren of a mortgage she held on a piece of property she sold to Petitioner in October 1982 in St. Petersburg Beach. The $10,000 Herren mortgage was also recorded on December 28, 1982. Having obtained the satisfaction, Petitioner then sold the St. Petersburg Beach property to Juanita Murdaugh and Jeffrey Graham on December 17, 1982, prior to recording the $10,000 Herren mortgage. He did not disclose on the Affidavit of Purchaser and Vendor which he executed that he had an outstanding $10,000 mortgage in favor of Herren on this St. Petersburg Beach property, although this mortgage should have been disclosed as "secondary financing." In each of the Affidavits of Vendor and Purchaser executed by Petitioner in connection with sales of property as described herein, there is the following statement in Item VII: The certifications of this affidavit are for the purpose of inducing the Lender named above or its assignees to make or purchase the first mortgage described by this affidavit.... By signing the Affidavits of Vendor and Purchaser, Petitioner, as the "Property Vendor," made the following certification: The PROPERTY VENDOR hereby certifies that to the extent PROPERTY VENDOR is a party, the Financial Terms, including Total Purchase Price, and the Liens are as set forth in Items III and IV above, [and] hereby acknowledges the inducement purpose of this affidavit as set forth in Item VII above....
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX (DOAH No. 87-0033) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 1.(a) Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 4. 2.(a) Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 2.(b) Rejected in Findings of Fact 5, 6. 2.(c) Rejected in Finding of Fact 10. 2.(d) Rejected in Findings of Fact 6-10. 2.(e), (f) Rejected in Finding of Fact 11. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4. 5-6. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 10. 10-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 9, 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 9, 10. 14-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: John Swisher, Esquire Dillinger & Swisher 5511 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Stephen M. Christian, Esquire Office of Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street Tampa, FL 33602-3394 Honorable Gerald Lewis Department of Banking and Finance Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
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 Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the factual stipulations into which the parties have entered, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: From approximately October of 1989, to February of 1990, Respondents were employed as telephone consultants by United Financial International, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UFI"), a Florida-based business owned by Laura Correa and Anita "Ann" Cuevas that offered to provide assistance to consumers seeking various types of loans, including mortgage loans. Respondents were not then, nor have they ever been, licensed by the Department as mortgage brokers in the State of Florida. Furthermore, at no time did UFI have a license or registration issued by the Department to operate as a mortgage broker, mortgage brokerage business, correspondent mortgage lender or mortgage lender, although it did have at least one employee during the period of Respondents' employment, telephone consultant John Archer, who possessed a Department-issued mortgage broker's license. As telephone consultants for UFI, Respondents answered and screened telephone calls placed by potential UFI clients. Among the callers Respondent Cook screened were Dudley Phipps and Arthur McCullough. Among the callers Respondent Jelich screened was Connie Wiscaver. Phipps, McCullough and Wiscaver were all interested in obtaining mortgage loans. While on the telephone with a potential client, Respondents, as a general rule, identified themselves by name, explained to the caller the services offered and fees charged by UFI, and obtained from the caller the following information, which they recorded on a form provided by their employer: the caller's name, address, telephone number, date of birth, social security number, employer, salary, financial standing, and credit history; and the type, amount and purpose of the loan sought by the caller. Respondents also typically asked what the caller hoped for in terms of interest rate, size of monthly payments and loan repayment schedule. In addition, they indicated what items the caller needed to send to UFI to complete the caller's loan application package. The representations that Respondents made during a typical telephone conversation with a potential client seeking a mortgage loan gave the impression that, if the caller submitted a complete loan application package along with the requisite loan application processing fee, and everything "checked out," Respondents would make the arrangements necessary for the caller to obtain the mortgage loan he or she wanted from one of the lenders with whom UFI had an established relationship. UFI management, in writing, instructed all of its telephone consultants, including Respondents, to incorporate the following in their presentation to potential clients and it randomly monitored the consultants' telephone conversations to make sure that these instructions were being followed: We Co-Broker loans. We are not lenders nor do we have a Funding Committee to evaluate the Loan Package after we receive it. It takes twenty one (21) to thirty (35) [sic] business days from the day we receive ALL the information to evaluate the package. We have an application Fee of $399.00. MANDATORY Please use these statements to increase your credibility and assertiveness with potential clients. The maximum life of the loan will be determined by the investor/lender. The interest rates will be fixed and vary between 12-18 percent. The application fee is non-refundable and the assessed fees to your loan are separate from the application fee. There will be a Brokerage fee of 1-5 percent assessed to your loan upon closing. To increase your potential, please make sure when your [sic] finishing with your potential client to ask them [sic] when they [sic] would like to obtain a loan. Also in your closing statements be sure to tell your client to Bill Recipient with our Federal Express/Express Mail Service to Guarantee overnight delivery. Be advised this is for the return of the Application Fee Only! The application istself [sic] is returned at the client's own expense. The client may pay the application fee by personal check; however, as the checks will be out-of-state it will take approximately (21) days for the check to clear which will hold up the clients [sic] processing. Therefore, we recommend a money order to expidite [sic] the process. We do not like to use regular mail for sending the money orders, we rather the client use our courier sevice [sic]. (see above) If you need assistance please do not hesitate to phone us at 1-800-729-5666. We want to help you secure the funds you require as soon as possible. We sincerely thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. In most cases, Respondents followed these instructions. As compensation for performing their duties as UFI telephone consultants, Respondents received a percentage (either 20 or 30 percent) of the non-refundable loan application processing fee submitted by each caller whose call they screened. In an effort to encourage a caller to submit the fee, Respondents sometimes told the caller that, based upon the preliminary information provided, the chances of the desired loan being approved "looked good." They never stated, however, that loan approval was "guaranteed."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of having violated Section 494.093(1), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing upon each of them an administrative fine of in the amount of $5,000.00 for having engaged in such wrongdoing. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1994.
Findings Of Fact FHFC administers the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (Bond Program) as set forth in Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and related administrative rules. Worthwhile timely filed an application in the 1999 Bond Program cycle which was assigned number 99-040 to finance a development called Heritage Apartments in Collier County, Florida. FHFC initially deemed said application to be incomplete for the reasons set forth in a letter dated February 4, 1999. Worthwhile timely filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging FHFC's determination that application number 99-040 was incomplete, which Petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and assigned Case No. 99-1518. Upon further review by FHFC and in consideration of the deposition testimony of FHFC representatives in this cause, the parties stipulate and agree that: Worthwhile's application number 99-040 was not incomplete as initially determined by FHFC; Worthwhile's application number 99-040 is complete and must now be further processed pursuant to appropriate rules and procedures; and If it qualifies after further processing, application number 99-040 is to be funded with the next uncommitted bond proceeds made available to FHFC for allocation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that FHFC enter a Final Order which finds and concludes that: Worthwhile's application number 99-040 was not incomplete as initially determined by FHFC; Worthwhile's application number 99-040 is complete and must now be further processed pursuant to appropriate rules and procedures; and If it qualifies after further processing, application number 99-040 is to be funded with the next uncommitted bond proceeds made available to FHFC for allocation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire Skelding, Labasky, Corry, Hauser, Jolly & Metz, P.A. 318 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David A. Barrett, Esquire Barrett & Pelham, P.A. Post Office Box 930 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0930 Brad Baker, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1329 Stephen M. Donelan, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1329 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At the time of CMNI's application, Mr. Giunta was president of CMNI and, as such, exercised primary control over the day-to-day activities of CMNI (Tr.12). Mr. Giunta is also the president of Christian Investors Network, Inc. (CINI), and exercised similar control over the activities of that corporation (Tr. 11-12). Mr. Giunta, CMNI, and CINI have never been licensed as mortgage brokers by the Department (Tr. 12-13). CINI, with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Giunta, placed advertisements in the St. Petersburg Times (Tr. 13). One such advertisement appeared in St. Petersburg Times edition of April 20, 1986, under the heading "Loan Information." That advertisement stated "Major Real Estate Financing" and "Residential Real Estate." (Exhibit 1). Sometime in the middle of 1986, Paul Mark called Mr. Giunta in response to an advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times. Mr. Mark was seeking a mortgage loan or loans to build several houses on real estate he owned and so informed Mr. Giunta, who indicated to Mr. Mark that he could arrange a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark (Tr. 28-29). Messrs. Mark and Giunta met shortly after the telephone call. Mr. Mark handed Mr. Giunta a package of documents including a site plan, survey, credit information and a completed mortgage loan application. Mr. Giunta again stated that he would have no problem arranging a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark and requested a fee for such service in the amount of $300.00 (Tr. 30-31). After the meeting, Mr. Mark sent to Mr. Giunta a check made out to Mr. Giunta in the amount of $300.00, together with a letter dated July 16, 1986, confirming that Mr. Giunta would secure mortgage financing (Tr. 31-33); Exhibit 3). In October of 1986, Clifford Clark called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance a certain parcel of property owned by Mr. Clark. Mr. Giunta stated that he could arrange mortgage financing for Mr. Clark at an interest rate of approximately ten percent (Tr. 48-49). After the telephone contact, Messrs. Clark and Giunta met and Mr. Giunta had Mr. Clark fill out a residential loan application (Exhibit 7). Mr. Clark provided Mr. Giunta with originals of his deed to the property and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta indicated that he could obtain mortgage financing for Mr. Clark and requested a fee of $250.00, whereupon Mr. Clark gave Mr. Giunta a check for that amount (Tr. 49-51). In early 1986, Robert Miraglia called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a second mortgage. Mr. Giunta arranged to meet with Mr. Miraglia to discuss the requested loan. In August of 1986, Russell Foreman contacted Gerald Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance his home (Exhibit 5). On August 26, 1986, Mr. Foreman met with Mr. Giunta and at Mr. Giunta's request gave him copies of his deed, a survey of the lot, the mortgages to be satisfied and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta assured Mr. Foreman that there would be no problem in obtaining a mortgage loan and requested a fee of $200.00. Mr. Foreman wrote a check for that amount and gave it to Mr. Giunta (Exhibit 5). Mr. Giunta never informed Messrs. Mark, Clark, Miraglia and Foreman that he was not a licensed mortgage broker. In approximately April of 1986, Mr. Giunta met with Mr. Arthur M. James, Area Financial Manager for the Department's Tampa Regional Field Office. At that meeting, Mr. James explained to Mr. Giunta that he could not offer to arrange or negotiate mortgage loans on behalf of clients and collect a fee for such service without first becoming licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker (Tr. 84). At some point prior to May 8, 1986, Mr. Giunta was contacted by the Department and informed of the statutes and regulations applicable to advertising his services in the area of real estate financing (Exhibit 2; Tr. 23-24). At some point in 1987, CMNI, with the knowledge and approval of Giunta, listed "Christian Mortgage Network, Inc." in the yellow pages of a local telephone book under the heading of "Mortgages." (Exhibit 1; Tr. 15).
The Issue Whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted arbitrarily or illegally in selecting ARC Developmental Companies, Inc. (ARC) as the intended lessee under a proposed lease, Lease No. 700:0606? Whether, as DOC now advocates in its proposed recommended order, DOC should award the lease to LFFO because ARC's proposal is non-responsive? Whether DOC's interests would be best served by starting over?
Findings Of Fact In a single headquarters complex in Tallahassee, DOC has decided to consolidate administrative offices now scattered among various buildings. To that end, DOC's RFP for Lease No. 700:0606 seeks 56,154 square feet of office space by January 1, 1994, and (after other current leases expire) an additional 149,651 square feet of adjoining office space for occupancy on March 31, 1995. The RFP requires that DOC have the right to renew for each of two successive five-year terms, after an initial ten-year term. ARC has an option to purchase land on which it proposes to build all the office space it would lease to DOC. The RFP assumes that the office buildings to be leased do not yet exist, and requires only that "turn key" facilities be available at the times specified in the RFP. LFFO owns one of the buildings housing DOC offices now, and proposes to borrow money at commercial rates to finance construction of additional office space on adjacent land it already owns. After evaluating the competing proposals, DOC concluded that they were both responsive to the RFP, and assigned each points. ARC received a score of 97.66 points and LFFO received a score of 96.66 points. Over the initial ten- year term, ARC's proposal would require DOC to pay $30,175,129.10, while LFFO's proposal calls for payments aggregating $30,718,454.30 over the initial ten-year term. Joint Exhibit No. 4. Problematic Undertaking The RFP calls for some form of monetary assurance that a proposer will contract with DOC, if selected. Specifically, Paragraph IV(L) states: All Proposals shall include a Proposal Security Fee which may be in the form of cash, a Cashier's Check or Proposal Bond, and shall be in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), payable to the Department of Corrections. The agency reserves the right to reject any security tendered. The Proposal Security fee ties [sic] will be returned with[in] thirty (30) calendar days after the agency and the accepted proposer have executed a written lease. Joint Exhibit No. 1 at 32. The purpose in requiring a security fee or a proposal bond was to satisfy DOC of the proposers' good faith, "that they intended to enter into a contract" (T.72) with DOC, if given the opportunity. LFFO met the security fee requirement with a $10,000 cashier's check, while ARC submitted a bond issued by Highlands Insurance Company of Houston, Texas (Highlands), at the behest of Brown & Root Building Company (Brown & Root). Designated as principal on the bond, Brown & Root and, in the event of Brown & Root's default, Highlands, as surety, are obligated to pay DOC $10,000, on conditions stated in the bond, which, however, could never arise, because Brown & Root did not submit a proposal to DOC. The bond specifies the undertaking: [I]f the Obligee [DOC] shall accept the bid of the Principal [Brown & Root] and the Principal shall enter into a contract with the Obligee in accordance with the terms of such bid, and give such bond or bonds as may be specified in the bidding or contract documents with good and sufficient surety for the faithful performance of such contract and for the prompt payment of labor and material furnished in the prosecution thereof, or in the event of the failure of the Principal to enter such contract and give such bond or bonds, if the Principal shall pay to the Obligee the difference not to exceed the penalty hereof between the amount specified in said bid and such larger amount for which the Obligee may in good faith contract with another party to perform the work covered by said bid, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Joint Exhibit No. 2. Signed by the president of Brown & Root and an attorney in fact for Highlands, the bid bond submitted with the ARC proposal misidentifies Brown & Root as the bidder for DOC's "State Headquarter Building," a reference to proposed Lease No. 700:0606. Joint Exhibit No. 2. Brown & Root is a general contractor named in ARC's proposal as a member of the "ARC Team." Joint Exhibit No. 2 at 41, and section entitled "Construction Phase Management Plan"; T.72, 239. But ARC is the bidder, the offeror making ARC's proposal, as Mr. Arthur R. Collins, the sole officer, director and shareholder of ARC, has clearly and consistently stated. Deposition of Collins, at 44-45. This is also clear from the four corners of the ARC proposal itself. There is no partnership or joint venture agreement between ARC and Brown & Root. Deposition of Collins, p. 42; T. 59-60, 255. Mr. Collins testified that a letter to ARC from Brown & Root constitutes "a letter agreement" between ARC and Brown & Root, which "essentially gives ARC Developmental Companies all rights to market and represent Brown & Root Building Company specifically as relates to this particular project." Deposition of Collins, p. 44. Otherwise stated, ARC and Brown & Root have an "agreement in principle" (T.239) under which Brown & Root is "responsible for design, build and finance, all three components." (T.240) There are, however, "ongoing negotiations as to some of the details" (Deposition of Collins, p. 44) and the "final terms and conditions are under negotiation," (T.255) or were at the time of the hearing. ARC's proposal did not contain the letter said to embody the agreement in principle between it and Brown & Root, nor did the letter come in evidence at hearing. Apparently nobody has ever signed anything on behalf of ARC purporting to bind ARC to any agreement, even in principle, between ARC and Brown & Root. Whether or not ARC contemplated that Brown & Root would perform all financing, designing and building, it is ARC to whom DOC had to look to accept responsibility to perform as DOC's contractor. The RFP specifies that the successful proposer cannot assign or transfer the contract "or his power to execute such contract" to any person without prior written consent of the agency. Joint Exhibit No. 1, p. 34, IV(T). The RFP also provides that a "transfer shall not be requested prior to completion of the facility and acceptance by the agency." Joint Exhibit No. 1, p. 34, IV(T). DOC would not have accepted a proposal without a security fee or proposal bond. T. 138. DOC concluded that the bid bond furnished with ARC's proposal provided the assurance the RFP sought. T. 138-139. But the bid bond does not assure that DOC will receive $10,000, in the event that ARC refuses to execute a lease, if its proposal is accepted. Although the bid bond represents ARC's effort to fulfill the security deposit requirement set out in paragraph IV(L) of the RFP, (Deposition of Collins at 42, 43), the bid bond does not purport to bind ARC in any way. The bid bond submitted with ARC's proposal makes no mention of ARC Developmental Companies, Inc. Joint Exhibit No. 2; T. 75. While LFFO suffered a detriment in submitting its security deposit: loss of use of $10,000 for a period already lasting several months; and the proposal bond ARC submitted cost it nothing (although Brown & Root presumably paid the premium), it is not clear that ARC enjoyed a material competitive advantage, as a result. But the RFP security requirement also sought to protect DOC's investment of time and money in evaluating proposals it solicited. The security deposit requirement cannot, under DOC policy not called into question here, be waived; and ARC's proposal is not responsive to the requirement. DOC's determination that the bid bond constitutes good security cannot withstand scrutiny. DOC's conclusion that the bond was sufficient was based on the bid bond itself, and on nothing else. T. 138-139. Construing the bid bond to meet the RFP's "earnest money" requirement is an arbitrary distortion of its terms. The purpose of requiring a security deposit or a proposal bond -- to provide the contracting agency some assurance that the successful bidder would in fact enter into a contract with the agency (T.72) -- was frustrated. The bid bond submitted by ARC provides no security whatsoever to DOC that ARC will enter into a contract with the agency. Ability, Financial Resources, History and References Paragraph V(H) of the RFP indicated that an evaluation committee would review all proposals to determine, among other things, the [c]omposition of the group submitting the proposal and their financial resources available to accomplish this project. Joint Exhibit No. 1, pp. 44-5. The RFP also speaks of financial criteria that the proposer itself must meet: S. Qualification of Proposers: Each proposer shall be required, before the award, to show to the complete satisfaction of the agency that he has the necessary facilities, ability and financial resources, to furnish the service and facilities as specified herein in a satisfactory manner, and he may also be required to show past history and references which will enable the agency according to the foregoing requirements and will justify the agency in assessing his the proposal. Joint Exhibit No. 1, p. 34, IV (strike through and emphasis in original). The RFP states that time is of the essence, which may account for the concern it evinces over the financial ability of proposers. ARC has furnished DOC no balance sheet, audited or otherwise. In its proposal, information ARC provided relating to its financial resources consisted of a single credit report dated September 22, 1992, which disclosed only: NO PUBLIC RECORDS OR OTHER INFORMATION IN FILE VER INC 01-13-92, NO CREDIT REFS GIVEN Joint Exhibit No. 2. The testimony at hearing did not establish what financial resources ARC has acquired, if any, since its incorporation last year. ARC is involved with one other project, for which financing is currently being sought (T.249-252), but otherwise has no real estate development experience. T.254. Among things lenders who finance real estate development consider are "the history and the experience of the borrower or borrowing entity, . . . their numbers, . . . their financial capacity . . . what type of equity injection [they] are going to put into the deal, whether it be cash or hard land . . . ." T.153. ARC did not demonstrate its ability to "inject" any equity into this project. Tax-Exempt Financing Proposed ARC's proposal contains a September 18, 1992, letter from the Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, addressed to Brown & Root, the body of which states in its entirety: Regarding the issuance of tax-exempt debt to finance the proposed facility to be leased to the Florida Department of Corrections, as their state headquarters office building. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette is pleased to participate in the successful development of the proposed project. Based upon current market conditions and the procurement of credit enhancement or an investment grade rating for the issue, we are confident that we can successfully underwrite a public offering of tax-exempt bonds. Joint Exhibit No. 2. This is not a firm commitment, only an undertaking to use "best efforts." Deposition of Shirey, p.24. After receiving the proposals, DOC solicited additional financial information from LFFO and from ARC by letters dated October 19, 1992, which state: The request for proposal stipulated that additional information pertaining to your capabilities to perform the project to our satisfaction may be necessary. The Chief of the Bureau of Finance and Accounting is charged with gathering the necessary information for determining if your group can realistically perform the project. This is considered a pass/fail criteri[on]. Joint Exhibit No. 8. The letters instructed both proposers to "[p]rovide a plan to finance both the construction and subsequent operation of the facility," including detailed information on all financing arrangements, specifically: A description of all financing arrangements (i.e. - debt, equity, lease agreement, etc.). A description of the proposed sources of financing for the construction and operation of the facility. Documentation should include specific commitment statements from financiers. The principal amount of debt to be issued or equity to be committed to finance the project. The annual interest rate for each debt component. A debt amortization schedule. An analysis of projected cash flow for both the construction period and the term of the lease. A description and value of all collateral to be pledged. Joint Exhibit No. 8. DOC anticipated that the proposers would respond with the financing plan they actually intended to use to finance construction of the project. Deposition of Biddy, p. 18; T. 98. In response to DOC's October 19, 1992, letter, ARC submitted a second letter from Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, dated October 22, 1992. Joint Exhibit No. 11. The second Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette letter stated, in part: The final amount of the debt will be dependent on the final plan and specifications provided by the contractor and architect and negotiations with the ultimate investor. The final debt amount will be made available prior to the closing. The financing will provide 100 percent of the funds necessary to construct the project. The final interest rate or rates. (See Number 3 above). Debt Ammorization schedule. (See numbers 3 & 4 above). An accompanying Memorandum of Terms summarized some of the RFP requirements, gave a brief description of the property on which ARC has an option, and stated: FINANCING: Construction/Permanent financing will be obtained by selling tax exempt certificates of participation (the "Certificates") in the Lease Agreement. Proceeds from the sale of the Certificates will fund construction and provide permanent financing for the Facility. . . . It is anticipated that the Certificates will be rated or credit enhanced by a policy of municipal bond insurance. SECURITY: Certificate holders will be secured by an undivided interest in payments received pursuant to the Lease. Certificate holders will be additionally secured by a deed on the Property recorded in the name of the trustee on behalf of Certificate holders. Joint Exhibit No. 11. DOC was evidently satisfied with LFFO's response to its letter of October 19, 1992. Joint Exhibit No. 11. Following ARC's October 22, 1992, response to DOC's October 19, 1992 letter, however, DOC wrote ARC requesting still more financial information. DOC's letter stated: Thank you for responding so promptly to our letter of October 19, 1992 concerning the financial viability of the proposal submitted by ARC Development Companies, Inc. However, we do not see in your response the level of detail that is necessary to alleviate the concerns we have. Joint Exhibit No. 14. In response to this letter, ARC wrote DOC a letter dated November 6, 1992. Joint Exhibit No. 15. The response included a cash flow analysis, which assumed a bond issue of $27 million repayable over 20 years, with interest at 8 3/4 percent; along with a resolution from the City of Midway, purporting to authorize the creation of a nonprofit corporation to issue some $29 million worth of revenue bonds to finance the construction of the project (in Tallahassee). Joint Exhibit No. 15. The cash flow analysis assumed $170,000 would be borrowed from some other, unidentified source, and did not indicate how cash flow shortfalls projected for 1994 and 1995 were to be covered. At ARC's October 23, 1992, oral presentation to DOC officials, Mr. Collins emphasized that ARC's proposal was based on tax-exempt financing. Joint Exhibit No. 7, pp. 9, 27, 60, 72-73. ARC's post-submittal correspondence with DOC concerning financial arrangements reiterated reliance on tax exempt financing. Joint Exhibits Nos. 11, 14, 17 and 18. Mr. Collins' testimony at hearing assumed tax exempt financing would be available to ARC to build and operate the proposed headquarters. Contingent Award On December 18, 1992, DOC announced its decision to award Lease No. 700:0606 to ARC, contingent upon ARC's "providing to the Department within 45 days of this notice, and to the Department's satisfaction, sufficient commitments to ensure ARC's ability to finance construction of the project as presented in their proposal." Joint Exhibit No. 16. The December 18, 1992, award letter shows on its face that the Department was not "completely satisfied" with ARC's financing proposal at the time it made the award. Mr. Kronenberger admitted as much in his testimony. T. 146. At hearing DOC's Mr. Kronenberger also testified that the award was made contingent so that DOC could satisfy itself that ARC's proposal did not contemplate a lease-purchase and that tax-exempt financing was appropriate for this project. T. 131-132. The contingent award letter made no reference, however, either to a lease-purchase or to the tax-exempt nature of the proposed financing. Joint Exhibit No. 16; T. 145, 147. Before December 18, 1992, ARC's proposed financing involved the City of Midway's authorizing a nonprofit corporation to issue bonds. Joint Exhibit No. 14. Mr. Collins' testimony at hearing suggested that ARC has now abandoned efforts to involve the City of Midway with financing the project. To allow ARC to substitute another financing proposal at this juncture would afford ARC a competitive advantage over LFFO, and would constitute an arbitrary departure from prescribed procedure. DOC's letters of inquiry during the proposal evaluation process were intended to elicit from the proposers "the financing plan" they actually intended to use. Deposition of Biddy, p. 18; T.98. Allowing ARC 45 additional days to submit an acceptable financing proposal gave it a material competitive advantage over LFFO. ARC could "shop around" for financing as the intended awardee, and not merely as a bidder. "[I]f a developer . . . had an award in hand, he would be in a very advantageous situation to shop [for] the best deal he could get . . . considering rate, term, structure, price, so forth " T.154. Governmental Lessee ARC's proposal to use tax-exempt financing raises "two types of concerns. One is the ability to get the tax opinion and do the deal, and then there's the issue of state law." Deposition of Kubik, p. 50. Unless reputable tax counsel are of the opinion that (possibly imputed) interest paid from lease payments to holders of bonds or certificates of participation sold (to raise the money needed to build DOC's headquarters building) as tax-exempt qualify for tax exemption under the Internal Revenue Code, the paper cannot be marketed as tax- exempt. The purpose of the pertinent Internal Revenue Code provisions is to subsidize state and local governments, not private developers, by allowing governmental borrowing at lower rates. Certain financing arrangements involving private developers may, however, entail issuance of tax-exempt securities where state or local government is, in economic effect, borrowing money, legal technicalities notwithstanding. Deposition of Piemont, p. 40. One such arrangement involves state or local government as a lessee under a lease including an agreement to purchase, so that the governmental entity is "building equity" (T.23) (or, if the facility depreciates, bearing the loss.) Certificates of participation in the stream of lease payments, or bonds to be retired by applying lease payments, are then sold as tax-exempt securities. The test is "that the income derived from the obligations be from the payment of governmental lessees to provide essential function facilities." Deposition of Arnspiger, p. 9 Brown & Root's financial consultant contemplates a lease under which DOC would have the option to purchase the property, after ten years, for "the amount remaining on the indebtedness." Deposition of Arnspiger, p. 14. In the twentieth year, the price "would be a dollar." Id. "For tax purposes the owner of the facility would be the lessee." Deposition of Harris, p. 11. A lease under which a governmental tenant expressly agrees to purchase the premises may be economically equivalent to a lease with an option to purchase at a nominal price so low as to be "irresistible." Florida law limits the circumstances under which state agencies can borrow money and pledge the state's taxing power to repay the debt. T.136. Section 255.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.) provides: (1)(b) When specifically authorized by the Appropriations Act and in accordance with s. 255.2501, if applicable, the Division of Facilities Management may approve a lease-purchase, sale-leaseback, or tax-exempt leveraged lease contract or other financing technique for the acquisition, renovation, or construction of a state fixed capital outlay project when it is in the best interest of the state. Specific authorization in an earlier Appropriations Act authorized the Division of Facilities Management to approve a tax-exempt financing technique for acquisition of office space for DOC, but that authorization expired unused. Here the RFP solicited offers by lessors to execute a standard state lease on a form drafted by the Department of General Services and attached as an appendix to the RFP. Under the standard state lease, the lessor retains ownership of the building at all times. The lessee is not obligated to file a form 8038 with the Internal Revenue Service or to monitor for compliance with arbitrage restrictions imposed by Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code, both of which would be necessary if tax-exempt obligations were sold to finance the building. Deposition of Piemont, pp. 16-22. ARC's proposal amounts to an offer to employ a financing technique for the acquisition and construction of a state fixed capital outlay project that the legislature has not approved. ARC's proposal is not responsive to the RFP because the method of financing the proposal contemplates cannot be accomplished if the parties execute a standard state lease, as contemplated by the RFP.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOC reject ARC's proposal as nonresponsive and consider seeking the necessary approvals to draw an RFP soliciting proposals for a headquarters building that would eventually belong to the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 5th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-6, 8, 11, 13-17, 19-36, 39- 41, 43, 44 and 46 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, DOC's determination of responsiveness was tentative, free-form action. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10, 18, 38, 47, 48, 49 and 52 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 12, the undertaking assumed Brown & Root had submitted a proposal. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 37 pertains to an immaterial matter. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 42, the issuance of certificates can defeat tax exemption if certain requirements are not observed. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 45, the distinction between a lease including an agreement to purchase and a lease with the option to purchase is not necessarily dispositive for tax purposes. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 50 and 51, ARC's proposal contemplates a lease with an option to purchase. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 53, Mr. Piemont testified that one of the requirements for "on behalf of" financing "is that the governmental entity gets actual ownership." Deposition of Piemont, p. 41. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 37, 38, 44-49, 58, 60, 64 and 65 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, the exact cause of the differential was not proven. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 15, 32-36, 39-42, 51, 61, 62, 71, 72, 73 and 74 pertain to subordinate matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 19, 21, 22, 43, 63, 75 and 76 have been rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 24 and 29, DOC witnesses testified that absent a bond the proposal would have been rejected as non-responsive; the bond ARC submitted was the equivalent of no bond at all. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, the award letter shows on its face DOC's misgivings about ARC's ability to finance the project. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 50, 52--57, 67, 68, 69 and 70 the proposed findings are correct only in the sense that "purchase", "ownership", and the like are understood to mean "for tax purposes." With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 66, if a government entity is lessee, a non-governmental lessor may issue certificates of participation in the lease payments. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 26 and 28 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to intervenor's proposed finding of fact No. 5, it is not clear what Brown & Root's contractual obligations are. With respect to intervenor's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the bond does not constitute an offer or proposal. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact Nos. 8 and 25 have been rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact Nos. 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30 and 31 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to intervenor's proposed findings of fact Nos. 18 and 20, ARC's financing proposal was non-responsive, whether or not such an approach might be viable, if responsive to the RFP and otherwise lawful. With respect to intervenor's proposed finding of fact No. 24, insofar as it is not predicated on hearsay, there was no showing that any rating agency, insurer or bond fund is aware of applicable Florida law. With respect to intervenor's proposed finding of fact No. 27, what is required for tax purposes does not depend on whether the lessee has a legal right to forgo the purchase. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Stephen Ferst, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, #500 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
The Issue The issue in Case No. 90-4722 was whether B & B Mortgage Equity, Inc. was entitled to licensure as a mortgage broker in the State of Florida. As discussed in more detail below, B & B Mortgage Equity subsequently withdrew its application for licensure and that case is now moot. The issue in Case No. 90- 6577 is whether Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed in that case, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, B & B Investors was registered with the Department as a mortgage broker pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Until June 15, 1990, the business address for B & B Investors was 1481 N.W. 7th Street #1, Miami, Florida 33125. B & B Investors' registration number is HB 592369518. On or about July 5, 1990, B & B Investors filed a petition for relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9090-14587-SMW. Yanks was the president and principal mortgage broker for B & B Investors until May 10, 1989. Yanks is a licensed mortgage broker in Florida having been issued license number was 262788177. He has been licensed since 1980 or 1981. There is no evidence of any prior disciplinary action against him or B & B Investors. At all times pertinent hereto, Yanks was also the President of B & B Equity. B & B Equity has never been registered pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Until June 15, 1990, the business address for B & B Equity was also 1481 N.W. 7th Street #1, Miami, Florida 33125. At all times pertinent hereto, Hernandez-Yanks was married to Yanks and was the Vice President and Secretary of B & B Equity. Hernandez-Yanks is an attorney, but she has never been licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. On or about March 15, 1990, Hernandez-Yanks filed a Petition for Relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 90-11654-BKC-AJC. On or about January 1, 1990, B & B Equity filed an Application for Registration as a Mortgage Brokerage Business (the "Registration Application"). Paragraph 6 of the Registration Application stated in part: List all officers, directors, partners, joint-ventures, and ultimate equitable owners. Ultimate equitable owner means natural person who owns 10 percent or more of applicant. NAME ADDRESS TITLE Barry Yanks 1481 NW 7 St. Pres. Ana Hernandez-Yanks 1481 NW 7 St. VP/Scty Yanks was designated as the principal mortgage broker on the Registration Application. The Department denied the Registration Application by notice dated June 4, 1990. CALVARY CHAPEL TRANSACTION At the time of the hearing in this matter, Marie Hall was 66 years old. She was last employed in 1988 by the Broward County School System as an adult vocational education instructor teaching students how to operate sewing machines. Her husband, the late Reverend Arthur Hall, died on March 22, 1988, at the age of 75. Because of health problems, he had been unable to work since 1962. The late Reverend Hall had very little education. Prior to the transactions involved in this case, the only other real estate deal in which the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall had been involved was the purchase of their home many years ago. In the summer of 1987, the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall sought to purchase Mount Bethel Baptist Church (the "Church"). To assist in their effort to purchase the Church, the Halls contacted Reverend Frank Lloyd. Reverend Frank Lloyd was the pastor of Hope Outreach, Church of God in Christ and the Chairman of the State of Florida Prison Ministry. Reverend Lloyd was also engaged in a consulting business through a company called Professional Proposal and Financial Consultants, Inc. ("PPFC"). In the summer of 1987, the Halls entered into an agreement with PPFC pursuant to which they paid PPFC $800 for PPFC's assistance in securing a loan of $250,000 to purchase the church. The agreement called for an interest rate of approximately 11 3/4 percent. The Halls deposited a total of $15,000 in escrow with Reverend Lloyd and/or PPFC. At the time the first $10,000 was deposited with PPFC, the parties entered into an agreement which provided as follows: ...This money is not to be used for down payment, or services rendered. It is to be escrowed only. At the closing of the loan this entire amount is to be returned to Elder Hall or his designate. If in the event no loan is secure [sic] all funds is [sic] to be returned to Elder Arthur Hall, President Calvary Chapel Church of God in Christ or his designate. Reverend Lloyd attempted to obtain a mortgage for the Halls from several companies including Ft. Lauderdale Mortgage and Horizon Development Mortgage ("Horizon"). The Halls decided not to pursue a loan from Horizon because Horizon wanted a non-refundable $3,000 up-front fee. There was also some question whether either company would handle a loan for a church. Reverend Lloyd introduced the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall to Yanks because Reverend Lloyd knew that Yanks had successfully obtained loans for other churches. The Halls met with Yanks on a couple of occasions in late 1987 and early 1988. Other members of the Hall's congregation attended some of these meetings. During those meetings, the need for some of the other church members to sign on the loan and/or pledge additional collateral was discussed. Yanks advised the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall that he might be able to secure a loan for them to purchase the Church, but the amount of the loan would be smaller and the interest rate would be higher than they had anticipated in their agreement with PPFC. Yanks did not require an up-front loan application fee. On January 14, 1988, the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall met with Reverend Lloyd and Yanks at the office of B & B Investors in Miami. As noted above, the Halls were initially seeking a loan of $250,000. During the January 14, 1988 meeting, Yanks advised the representatives of Calvary Chapel that he could arrange a loan of $162,000 at 17 percent if additional collateral was provided. At the January 14 meeting, the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall executed a mortgage loan application (the "Loan Application") with B & B Investors. The Halls executed the Loan Application on behalf of Calvary Chapel Church of God in Christ, Inc. (hereinafter Calvary Chapel). Yanks executed the Loan Application on behalf of B & B Investors. The Loan Application was for a $162,000 loan and stated that the loan origination fee would be $4,860.00 and the loan discount fee would be $4,860.00. The Loan Application did not indicate when those fees would be due or to whom they would be paid. The Loan Application noted that there would be an appraisal fee of $600.00 and attorneys' fees of $750.00. The evidence established that, in the mortgage brokerage business, a loan origination fee is often considered synonymous with a broker's fee. The origination fee is traditionally charged at closing. However, the agreement between a mortgage broker and a client determines when the mortgage broker is entitled to his fee. In certain circumstances, a mortgage broker may be entitled to payment upon obtaining a firm commitment for a loan irrespective of whether the loan closes. Although there was no statutory or rule requirement at the time of this transaction, it was customary in the industry for a mortgage broker to set forth in writing the terms as to when he is to be paid. The Application in this case did not state when the fees were to be considered as earned. The Loan Application also provided in part: If the above commitment or a commitment in an amount and/or upon terms acceptable to the undersigned is obtained and said mortgage loan is not closed because (I)(We) have not fulfilled our part of this agreement. (I)(We) agree to pay $ , the application deposit being a part, for obtaining said commitment. If an acceptable commitment is not obtained, the mortgage application deposit will be refunded, except $ to cover expenses actually incurred. A loan discount fee is the cost to the lender to discount the interest rate on a mortgage loan for sale in the secondary market. The discount fee is owed to the lender or investor and was collected at closing. A broker is not entitled to a loan discount fee. Yanks tries to ignore the terminology used in the Loan Application he prepared and claims that all parties knew that he and/or B & B Investors would receive both the loan origination fee and loan discount fee. He contends that he explained to the late Rev. Hall and Mrs. Hall that the loan origination fee and the loan discount fees were fees that would be paid to him when he arranged a firm commitment for a loan at the agreed upon terms. However, the more persuasive evidence established that the late Rev. Hall and Mrs. Hall did not understand that the loan origination fee and/or discount fee would be paid to Yanks irrespective of whether the loan actually closed. Moreover, Yanks has provided no credible explanation as to why he would ever be entitled to receive the loan discount fee. At the January 14, 1988 meeting, Yanks orally arranged a deal with Alan Greenwald, a private investor with whom Yanks had worked in the past, to fund a $162,000 loan at 17 percent. At the time of this transaction, there was no statutory requirement that loan commitments be made in writing. No written confirmation of the commitment was provided even though it was common in the industry for commitments to be given in writing in order to bind the lender to the transaction and to provide evidence of the terms of the commitment. The only written evidence of the loan commitment is a letter from Yanks to the attorney for Alan Greenwald. That letter states that Mr. Greenwald had asked for additional collateral. During the January 14, 1988 meeting, the late Rev. and Mrs. Hall agreed to put up their house as additional collateral. In addition, two other members of the congregation who were present at the meeting, Effie Davis and Cleveland Foreman, agreed in principal to permit a mortgage to be placed on their houses as additional collateral to secure the loan. Yanks contends that, as a result of his efforts in securing a commitment from Alan Greenwald as noted above, he was entitled to receive the loan origination fee and loan discount fee set forth in the Loan Application. After the January 14, 1988 meeting, Rev. Lloyd released to Yanks $10,000 of the $15,000 that he had been holding in escrow for the late Rev. and Mrs. Hall. The $10,000 check was made payable to B & B Investors. The $10,000 was not placed in an escrow or trust account upon receipt. Yanks apparently arranged for $1,000 of the money to be paid to Debbie Landsberg, the attorney for Alan Greenwald, as an advance on the legal fees and costs that were expected to be incurred in closing the transaction. At the time the $10,000 was transferred to B & B Investors, all of the parties to the transaction expected the loan to close and no one contemplated or anticipated that the loan would not go through. While both Yanks and Rev. Lloyd claim that the late Rev. Hall approved the release of the $10,000 as payment to Yanks for services in securing a commitment from Alan Greenwald, this testimony is rejected as not credible. The more persuasive evidence clearly established that at no time did the late Rev. and Mrs. Hall understand that if the loan did not close Yanks would keep the $10,000. After the January 14, 1988 meeting, the parties initiated the steps necessary to close the deal. These efforts were complicated by the illness of the attorney for the seller, the marriage of the attorney for the lender and the difficulty in locating the abstracts for the properties involved. Moreover, a number of title deficiencies regarding the Church were discovered and had to be corrected. The arrangements for financing the purchase of the Church changed several times. Initially, the Seller had indicated that it would take back a second mortgage for $50,000 in order to facilitate a closing. However, as the parties got closer to closing, the Seller changed its mind regarding the second mortgage. Ultimately, in September of 1988, the Seller agreed to take back a second mortgage of $35,000. Sometime during the summer of 1988, Greenwald reduced to $110,000 the amount he was willing to lend on the deal. That amount was to be secured solely by the Church property. Yanks claims that he arranged for another investor to lend between $40,000 to $45,000 with the residences of certain congregation members, including the Halls, Effie Davis and Cleveland Foreman, serving as collateral. These modifications were never memorialized in writing. As preparations for a closing proceeded, it became apparent that Effie Davis' house could not be used as security for the loan. While there is conflicting evidence as to why Effie Davis' house could not be used for additional collateral, the more persuasive evidence indicates that the presence of one or more existing liens on the property rendered it of minimal value as additional collateral. As a result of the inability to use Ms. Davis' house as part of the collateral for the loan, Yanks advised Calvary Chapel that the amount of the loan would have to be decreased from $162,000 to $150,000. Yanks also advised Calvary Chapel that an additional cash deposit of $14,000 was necessary to demonstrate to the lender that sufficient funds were available to conclude the deal. The additional money was paid in two parts. On or about August 23, 1988, Calvary Chapel paid $10,000 to the Ana-Hernandez-Yanks Trust Account. Shortly thereafter, on or about September 1, 1988, Calvary Chapel paid an additional $4,000 to the Ana Hernandez-Yanks Trust Account. These sums were received by Ana Hernandez-Yanks in trust as the attorney for the B & B Investors. No written escrow agreement was executed. No written amendment to the Loan Application was provided to reflect the new terms for the anticipated loan nor was there any written commitment letter. As noted above, the late Rev. Hall died in March of 1988. Reverend Phillip Hall, the son of the late Rev. Hall, was appointed the pastor of Calvary Chapel in April of 1988. At the time of his appointment, Rev. Phillip Hall was living in Nashville. He commuted between Nashville and Fort Lauderdale for a while before moving to Fort Lauderdale on July 31, 1988. Yanks suggests that the Reverend Philip Hall did not like the deal his parents had entered into and refused to honor it. More specifically, Yanks contends that Calvary Chapel and the seller made alternate arrangements for the sale of the property in order to avoid paying him. The evidence does not support such a conclusion. The Seller was obligated to provide clear title before the sale could close. The evidence established that the Seller was never able to provide all of the documents necessary to clear title. There is no persuasive evidence that Calvary Chapel failed to meet its obligations under the contract to purchase the Church. Instead, it appears that Calvary Chapel did everything in its power to go through with the transaction. Sometime in the fall of 1988, the seller, Mount Bethel Baptist Church, rescinded the contract to sell the Church. At some point thereafter, Calvary Chapel began occupying the Church under a lease/purchase arrangement, the terms of which have not been established in this case. As noted above, there is no persuasive evidence that the Rev. Phillip Hall and/or Calvary Chapel conspired to cheat Yanks out of his fees. In any event, even if Calvary Chapel decided for economic reasons not to go forward with the loan that Yanks was trying to arrange, it is concluded that neither Yanks nor B & B Investors had the contractual right to retain any of the money that had been advanced. After the deal failed to close, Rev. Lloyd returned to Calvary Chapel the remaining $5,000 he had been holding in escrow for the Halls. By letter dated September 19, 1988, Holly Eakin Moody, an attorney for Calvary Chapel, wrote to Yanks demanding the return of all the money that had been advanced. The letter stated: Please be advised that I have been retained by Calvary Chapel Church of God in Christ, Inc., to begin the appropriate legal action against you and your wife, Ana Hernandez-Yanks, for return of my clients [sic] escrow funds in the amount of $24,000. On or about December 24, 1988, Hernandez-Yanks tendered a check in the amount of $14,000 to Calvary Chapel. On the back of the check, the following release language was written: Full and Final Settlement of all claims against B & B Mortgage and Barry Yanks or Ana Hernandez- Yanks. Hernandez-Yanks wrote a letter dated February 7, 1989 to Holly Eakin Moody stating in part: Please be advised that as per your client's request, on December 24, 1988 I mailed them my trust account check in the amount of $14,000. I have checked numerous times with the bank and said check has not been presented for payment. I am hereby depositing said monies with the Registry of the Court. If you should have any questions, please contact me. It does not appear that Hernandez-Yanks ever deposited any money in the Registry of the Court in accordance with that February 7 letter. By letter dated March 14, 1989, Holly Eakin Moody returned the check containing the accord and satisfaction language to Hernandez-Yanks and reiterated a demand for a return of the entire $24,000. Ultimately, Hernandez-Yanks paid Calvary Chapel $14,000 by check dated March 6, 1990 on account number 020051156008 at the TransAtlantic Bank. A review of the bank records indicates that the $14,000 advanced by Calvary Chapel to B & B Investors in late August and early September of 1988 was not held in escrow. On or about September 1, 1988, $10,000 was deposited in the trust or escrow account of Hernandez-Yanks at Continental Bank (the "Continental Trust Account"). An additional $4,000 was deposited in the Continental Trust Account on or about September 6, 1988. On or about October 4, 1988, the Continental Trust Account was closed with a closing balance of or about $13,553.06. On or about October 4, 1988, Hernandez-Yanks opened a trust or escrow account at Ocean Bank (the "Ocean Trust Account"). The beginning balance of the Ocean Trust Account on or about October 4, 1988, was $13,000. On or about December 7, 1988, the balance in the Ocean Trust Account was $2,437. On or about December 15, 1988, Hernandez-Yanks opened a trust or escrow account at United National Bank (the "United Trust Account"). On or about January 19, 1990, the cash balance in the United Trust Account was $2,236.29. On or about January 5, 1990, Hernandez-Yanks opened a trust or escrow account at TransAtlantic Bank (the "TransAtlantic Trust Account"). The beginning balance of the TransAtlantic Trust Account on or about January 5, 1990, was $10,000. By check dated March 6, 1990, Calvary Church was paid $14,000 from the TransAtlantic Trust Account. There is no evidence that Yanks, Hernandez-Yanks and/or B & B Investors had any other escrow accounts. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that Yanks failed to ensure that monies received in trust were properly placed in escrow in a transaction wherein he acted as a mortgage broker. Moreover, Yanks failed to ensure that the $14,000 received by Hernandez-Yanks was returned expeditiously to Calvary Chapel. Yank's explanation that he does not tell his wife, who is an attorney, "how to run her business" does not excuse his failure to ensure that money placed in escrow with his company was promptly returned when the transaction was terminated. Yanks refused to repay any of the remaining $10,000 that was paid to B & B Investors claiming that he was entitled to keep the money as fees earned for processing a mortgage commitment from Allan Greenwald. As set forth above, the contention that the late Rev. Hall authorized payment in full of Yanks' fees is rejected as not credible. The more persuasive evidence established that the principals of Calvary Chapel did not understand that Yanks and/or B & B Investors were to be paid their fee even if the loan did not close. Since there was no agreement specifying when Yanks was to be paid, he had no legal right to retain the $10,000. Arguably, Yanks was entitled to some reimbursement for the expenses he incurred, including perhaps the $1,000 he supposedly paid to the investor's attorney. However, the evidence clearly established that Yanks was not entitled to retain the entire $10,000. 52 After the Department began its investigation of this case, Yanks offered to repay the loan discount fee of $4,860 to Calvary Chapel. As of the date of the hearing, Yanks was still refusing to repay the $4,860 loan origination fee which he claims he has earned. While Yanks' claim to the $10,000 was legally insufficient and should have been recognized as such, the evidence did not establish that Yanks was attempting to defraud the Halls and/or Calvary Chapel. There were clearly some misunderstandings between the parties. Many of these problems could have been avoided if Yanks had properly documented his fee arrangement in writing. Yanks spent a good bit of time trying to put the deal together and felt slighted when the transaction he structured fell apart, especially when Calvary Chapel ended up occupying the Church anyway. Yanks overreacted in his attempts to obtain compensation for his services. The evidence was insufficient to establish that his actions should be characterized as fraudulent. VAZQUEZ-CASTILLO TRANSACTION In approximately mid-December of 1988, Ana Vazquez began working for Yanks. Vazquez was hired by Yanks to assist in the processing of mortgages. Prior to becoming employed by Yanks, she had little experience in real estate transactions. Vazquez was employed by Yanks for only about two or three weeks. Thereafter, she was employed by Hernandez-Yanks as a secretary. Both Yanks and Hernandez-Yanks occupy space in the same building. As noted above, Hernandez- Yanks is an attorney. On or about February 27, 1989, Pura Castillo entered into a contract (the "Sales Contract") with Vazquez for the purchase of a condominium owned by Vazquez and located in Dade County, Florida, at 7440 Harding Avenue, Unit 301, Miami Beach, Florida (the "Condominium"). The sales price was $70,000. Pursuant to the Sales Contract, Vazquez was to convey title free and clear of all encumbrances, by a good and sufficient Warranty Deed. "Free and clear of all encumbrances" meant that the title being transferred from Ana Vazquez to Pura Castillo was not to be encumbered by any mortgages, judgments or other liens. The Sales Contract was not made contingent upon Pura Castillo obtaining new financing. The relationship between Ana Vazquez and Pura Castillo is not entirely clear. They were obviously well acquainted with each other. The evidence suggests that Pura Castillo's common law husband, Joseph Hardisson, was a close friend of the father of Ana Vazquez. While Pura Castillo and Joseph Hardisson were visiting with Vazquez, they began discussing the possible purchase of the Condominium by Pura Castillo. Yanks first learned about the possible sale of the Condominium to Pura Castillo when Vazquez asked Hernandez-Yanks to represent her. Hernandez-Yanks indicated that she would represent Vazquez in the sale. Vazquez also requested Yanks' assistance in obtaining a loan for Pura Castillo. Yanks advised Vazquez that he did not process loan applications for employees. He suggested that she contact one of the mortgage lenders with whom he did business. Vazquez contacted one such company, Inter-Mortgage Corporation, and obtained a loan application package. Shortly thereafter, a loan application was submitted with InterMortgage Corporation in the name of Pura Castillo. The circumstances surrounding the completion and submittal of that loan application are not entirely clear nor are they necessarily pertinent to this proceeding. The evidence did establish that the loan application contained some false information regarding Pura Castillo's residence and employment. InterMortgage contacted Yanks' office and advised that there were some problems with the application. Vazquez went to InterMortgage's office and retrieved the application. The evidence did not establish that Yanks was aware of the filing of the application with InterMortgage and/or that he knew the application contained any false information. It appears that a similar application with false information may also have been filed with another lender, Dixie Mortgage. There is no indication that Yanks was aware of the filing of this application and/or that he knew it contained false information. The Condominium was subject to a $42,000 mortgage from Standard Federal to Vazquez (the "Standard Federal Mortgage"). The Standard Federal Mortgage was a typical Fannie Mae mortgage and included a commonly used due-on- sale clause in Clause 17. That clause provided for a default by the borrower upon sale of the property unless the mortgagee had consented to the assumption of the mortgage by the purchaser. There were no federal or state laws in existence at the time prohibiting the enforceability of Clause 17. Vazquez had a contract to purchase another home which was contingent upon the sale of her Condominium. Thus, she was under some time pressure to close the sale of the Condominium. When it became apparent that a quick loan could not be arranged for Pura Castillo, Ana Vazquez turned to Yanks for advice. While there is conflicting evidence as to the discussions that took place, the more persuasive evidence established that Yanks agreed to structure a deal that would enable Ana Vazquez to sell the Condominium to Pura Castillo. As discussed in more detail below, Yanks structured a complicated and confusing arrangement whereby Pura Castillo was to make her monthly payments to B & B Equity, which was to play the role of a servicing agent and distribute the payments to the first mortgagee, Standard Federal. While Yanks now claims that after the Standard Federal Mortgage payment was made, the remainder of the monthly payments received by B & B Equity were going to be paid to Vazquez, there is no written agreement confirming this arrangement. It is the usual practice in the industry for mortgage brokers to determine whether there are outstanding mortgages on the property to be sold and to see to it that an existing mortgage is paid off or otherwise taken care of at the time of closing. It is the responsibility of the mortgage broker to contact the institution holding the mortgage to find out if it is assumable. If an existing mortgage has a due-on-sale clause, the mortgage broker would characteristically contact the first lien holder and get an estoppel letter to determine the balance of the loan. The mortgage broker might also seek a waiver from the lender so that the sale could be made without paying off the loan. Without such a waiver, a due-on-sale clause would entitle the original lender to declare the entire original loan due upon sale of the property. Yanks never obtained an estoppel letter or a waiver of the due-on-sale clause from Standard Federal. While Yanks claims that he contacted various persons regarding the enforceability of due-on-sale clauses, he never contacted Standard Federal about the specific clause in its mortgage to Vazquez. There is conflicting evidence regarding the discussions between Yanks and Vazquez regarding the structuring of the transaction. It is clear that Vazquez was more concerned with concluding the transaction rather than understanding the intricacies of it. As discussed in more detail below, the transaction structured by Yanks included several unexplained and/or inappropriate charges. In addition, the loan documentation was confusing and sometimes conflicting and/or contradictory. Vazquez indicated to Yanks that Pura Castillo was prepared to go forward with the sale and a closing was scheduled for June 16, 1989. In preparation for the closing of the sale of her condominium, Vazquez incurred several expenses. On or about March 31, 1989, she paid $275 to have the condominium appraised. On or about April 5, 1989, Vazquez paid $200 to National Title Abstract Company for an update of the abstract. On or about June 15, 1989, she paid $150 to Ticor Title Co. She also paid for a credit report on Pura Castillo. On June 16, 1989, Pura Castillo arrived at the office of Yanks and B & B Investors at 1481 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida, to close on the purchase of the Condominium in accordance with the Sales Contract. Yanks and/or Hernandez- Yanks prepared the closing documents used at the closing. Much of the closing was conducted in Spanish. Yanks is not fluent in Spanish. Hernandez-Yanks, who speaks Spanish, acted as the closing agent and remained throughout the process. Yanks and Vazquez were in and out of the room throughout the closing. During the closing, Pura Castillo was told that B & B Equity was going to be the lender for the transaction. Pura Castillo inquired whether it was necessary for her to have her own attorney. Hernandez-Yanks replied that she could represent all parties and that it was not necessary for Pura Castillo to have her own attorney. At the closing, Pura Castillo presented cashiers checks for $5,800, $7,250 and $5,900 all made payable to the order of Ana Hernandez-Yanks, Trust Account. In addition, either Yanks or Hernandez-Yanks was given a check from Parker Realty in the amount of $2,800 which was the balance of the $7,000 deposit after payment of the $4,200 real estate commission. From the $21,750 brought to the closing, $14,000 was disbursed to Ana Vazquez. As noted above, Vazquez had already paid for the abstract, appraisal and credit report. In addition, as part of her mortgage payment, she had contributed approximately $1,281 to an escrow for taxes and insurance for which she was entitled to be reimbursed. Thus, the net cash that she received from the closing was less than $12,000 from the sale of a $70,000 condominium with a $42,000 mortgage. At the closing, Vazquez executed an "Agreement for Deed" in favor of Pura Castillo. An agreement for deed is a conditional sales contract pursuant to which a seller agrees to sell property to a buyer over a period of time. The seller retains the legal ownership of the property until the full consideration for the purchase is paid. After all the conditions have been met, the seller delivers a deed conveying ownership of the land to the buyer. The Agreement for Deed in this transaction provided as follows: That if said Buyers shall first make the payments and perform the covenants herein mentioned on their part to be performed, the said Sellers hereby covenant and agree to convey and assure to the Buyers or their heirs or assigns, in fee simple, clear of all encumbrances whatever, by good and sufficient Warranty Deed...[the condominium] And the Buyers hereby covenant and agree to pay to the Sellers the sum of $70,000 to be paid as follows: $19,073.12 cash in hand, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and $704.32 or more per month on or before the 16th day of each and every month after the date of this instrument, to be mailed to the Sellers' address given herein, with interest at the rate of 11 percent, per annum on the whole sum remaining from time to time unpaid,... Arguably, the Agreement for Deed required Pura Castillo to make monthly payments to Vazquez of $704.32 plus interest on the outstanding balance. However, at the closing, Yanks provided Pura Castillo with a letter which explained that her monthly payments of $704.32 included $499.97 for principal and interest, $142.35 for real estate taxes and $62 for insurance. At the closing, Pura Castillo executed a mortgage (the "Mortgage") in favor of B & B Equity as mortgagee. The Mortgage stated that it secured an indebtedness of $52,500 and a promissory note for that amount was executed by Pura Castillo to B & B Equity at the closing. The Mortgage was similar in form and content to a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac mortgage form, except it included some additional provisions stating that it was a "Wraparound Mortgage." A wraparound mortgage is a financing device that is sometimes used when a seller of a piece of property agrees to take back and finance a portion of the difference between an existing first mortgage which is not being assumed or satisfied and the sales price for the property. Typically, the mortgagor on the first mortgage is the seller of the property and the mortgagee on the wraparound mortgage. The wraparound mortgage becomes a second or other junior mortgage behind the existing mortgage. The mortgagee of the wraparound mortgage agrees to continue making payments on the existing primary mortgage, at least so long as payments are made under the wraparound mortgage. Page 8 of the Mortgage included the following language: This is a Wraparound Mortgage. This wraparound mortgage is a second mortgage. It is inferior to certain mortgage [sic], herein called the first mortgage which covers the above described property at the time of execution of this wraparound mortgage. The wraparound mortgagee shall be excluded from any terms or conditions of the prior mortgagees. The wraparound mortgagee's obligation to pay the prior mortgages is limites [sic] to funds received from the wraparound mortgagor. For a number of reasons, the use of a wraparound mortgage in this transaction was totally inappropriate. The first page of the mortgage included a number of warranties including the following: The mortgagor hereby covenants with and warrants to the Mortgagee that the Mortgagor is indefeasibly seized with the absolute and fee simple title to said property. This warranty is inconsistent with the ownership interest that the Mortgagor, Pura Castillo, had as a result of this transaction. Pura Castillo's only claim to title was via the Agreement for Deed and she was not indefeasibly seized with the fee simple title. As noted above, the Mortgage states that it secures an indebtedness of $52,500 and a promissory note (the "Note") for that amount was executed by Pura Castillo to B & B Equity at the closing. That Note required Pura Castillo to make payments directly to B & B Equity. However, the Agreement for Deed calls for Pura Castillo to make payments to Vazquez. Moreover, Pura Castillo signed the Note obligating herself to make payments on a $52,500 indebtedness to B & B Equity even though the Standard Federal Mortgage was not satisfied and had a remaining balance of $42,000. In other words, the result of this transaction, at least as it appeared on the public records, is that a $70,000 condominium was encumbered by two separate mortgages (the Standard Federal Mortgage and the "Wraparound Mortgage") securing separate promissory notes totalling more than $94,000. At no time prior to or during the closing did Yanks or Hernandez-Yanks explain to Pura Castillo that an Agreement for Deed was being utilized in this transaction and that she would not obtain full legal title until all of the mortgages were paid off. Furthermore, neither Yanks or Hernandez-Yanks explained to Pura Castillo that the mortgage she signed in favor of B & B Equity was a wraparound second mortgage. While Yanks contends that Pura Castillo had plenty of opportunity to review the documents and ask questions regarding them, she was clearly an unsophisticated buyer who was incapable of deciphering the confusing and ambiguous documentation for this clumsily crafted transaction. In sum, the use of an agreement for deed and a wraparound mortgage in the same transaction was redundant, confusing and illogical. Moreover, Yanks' efforts in this transaction clearly violated the due-on-sale clause (Clause 17) in Standard Federal's existing first mortgage. The Department has suggested that the transaction was a calculated fraud with some undefined goal. After considering all the evidence, the transaction can more accurately be described as an awkward attempt at creative financing which included a number of hidden and inappropriate charges for the benefit of Yanks and/or B & B Equity. Yanks contends that Vazquez was desperate to close the sale and authorized him to proceed with whatever financing he could arrange so long as she netted $14,000 from the sale. He claims that she agreed to the wraparound mortgage as the only way to proceed with the deal under the circumstances. Under this arrangement, he contends that B & B was authorized to retain any additional proceeds as compensation for serving as a servicing agent on the wraparound mortgage. Even if this explanation is accepted, there are a number of problems with the actions of Yanks and B & B Equity in this transaction. First of all, there was no written servicing agreement setting forth the obligations of the servicing agent nor is there any delineation of the amount of money to be paid for servicing the wraparound mortgage. Moreover, the Agreement For Deed and the Promissory Note call for Pura Castillo to make payments of slightly more than $700 per month. These payments exceed the monthly payments due under the Standard Federal Mortgage. However, there is no written delineation of how the additional payments received each month were to be disbursed. Finally, the servicing arrangement was never explained to Pura Castillo and the documentation for the transaction was very confusing and often contradictory. There is no closing statement for the transaction that accurately reflects all of the disbursements made from the proceeds of the closing. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 is a closing statement signed by both Vazquez and Pura Castillo and purports to delineate certain expenses paid from the proceeds of the sale. Petitioner's Exhibit 7 is an unsigned closing statement which Yanks contends he prepared for use at the closing of the loan. He claims that, after the closing, he found out that Vazquez substituted Petitioner's Exhibit 23 for the closing statement that he intended to be used because she thought it more accurately depicted the fees as she had discussed them with Pura Castillo. This explanation is rejected as not credible. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 was the only closing statement signed by both the buyer and seller. As noted above, Vazquez was in and out during the closing. Hernandez-Yanks was present throughout the closing. The more credible evidence established that Petitioner's Exhibit 23 was the closing statement presented at the closing and executed by the participants. Neither closing statement accurately explains how all of the funds from the sale were disbursed. Thus, it is impossible to determine conclusively how much money Yanks and/or B & B Equity received from the closing. Both statements include some charges which are inappropriate or questionable. Furthermore, it is clear that Yanks and/or B & B received more than either statement indicated. Both closing statements reflect a payment of $600 for title insurance. However, the evidence established that no title insurance policy was ever issued. Vazquez paid for a title insurance commitment prior to the closing. Such a commitment is typically issued by a title insurance company prior to a real estate transaction and is a contractual agreement by the title insurer to issue a policy of title insurance upon compliance with certain terms and conditions. The actual title insurance policy is not issued until after the transaction has closed. The title insurance policy, not the commitment, insures the main insured against certain defects in title. The $600 charge for title insurance reflected on both closing statements was totally inappropriate in this case since no title policy was ever issued. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 includes a number of charges assessed to the buyer which were wholly inappropriate to this transaction. For example, the closing statement included a $500 charge for FNMA underwriting. This fee is charged by the institution underwriting a mortgage loan for compliance with Fannie Mae guidelines. Since the Mortgage in this case was clearly not intended to be sold to a Fannie Mae pool, the FNMA charge was not appropriate. Similarly, the closing statement included a $250 charge for a warehouse fee. This is a fee paid to institutions to cover the cost of a warehouse line of credit and is totally inapplicable to the transaction involved in this case. The closing statement also included a photo fee of $25, a lender's inspection fee of $150 and a survey fee of $225. There is no indication that any photos were taken, an inspection was conducted or a survey was prepared. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 also included a loan origination fee of $1,375 and brokerage fees of $1,575. Petitioner's Exhibit 7 included a lump sum brokerage fee of $5000, but did not include any of the other charges listed in this paragraph. There is no dispute that Yanks and/or his firm were paid mortgage brokerage fees out of the proceeds of the closing. These fees are reflected on both of the closing statements (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 23). A mortgage broker is paid a fee to negotiate a mortgage loan transaction for another party. In other words, he is retained to find a lender for a potential borrower. Under a mortgage servicing agreement, the servicer is paid a fee to handle the collection and disbursement of payments on a mortgage loan. Any fees paid for servicing a loan should be separately itemized and disclosed. It is not appropriate for a person who is to service a loan to receive what has been disclosed as a broker fee. Irrespective of which closing statement is deemed authentic, the evidence established that Yanks and/or B & B Equity received significantly more money from the closing than was reflected on either closing statement. As indicated above, $21,750 cash was presented at the closing, of which $14,000 was paid to Vazquez. According to Petitioner's Exhibit 7, there was $6,123.35 in closing costs (including a $5,000 brokerage fee). Thus, there is at least $1,626.65 in cash that is not reflected on the closing statement. Yanks contends that Vazquez told him to keep this money in return for servicing the loan. This contention is rejected as not credible. Similarly, Petitioner's Exhibit 23 indicates closing costs of $6,379 (including the charges in paragraph 89 above). Thus, there is $1371 unaccounted for. Moreover, it is clear that Yanks and/or B & B received in excess of $6,500 which is not readily discernible from the face of the closing statement. Subsequent to the closing, B & B Equity received at least five monthly payments of $704.32 on the Wraparound Mortgage from Joseph L. Hardisson, the common law husband of Pura Castillo. B & B Equity apparently distributed some of these funds in accordance with its claimed role of "servicing agent." However, on at least one occasion in late 1989, a check issued by B & B Equity to pay the Standard Federal Mortgage was returned for insufficient funds. In addition, a check issued by B & B Equity in the amount of $700 to Ana Vazquez in December of 1989 bounced. At some point in late 1989 or early 1990, Pura Castillo became concerned when she learned that the Standard Federal Mortgage had not been paid off. In January or February 1990, Pura Castillo and her husband came to Florida and attempted to contact Yanks regarding the transaction and the irregularities surrounding it. Ultimately, Pura Castillo filed a complaint with the Department and also filed a civil suit in Circuit Court seeking cancellation of the Mortgage and the issuance of a warranty deed in her favor. On April 17, 1990, Vazquez executed a warranty deed to Pura Castillo. Vazquez states that she felt obligated to convey all of her interest in the property to Pura Castillo in view of the confusing and unfair circumstances surrounding the initial transaction. On October 23, 1990, Yanks and B & B Equity entered into a Settlement Agreement with Pura Castillo pursuant to which they paid Pura Castillo $12,000 and the wraparound mortgage was cancelled of record. The Settlement Agreement also resulted in the dismissal of the civil suit and called for Pura Castillo to withdraw her complaint filed with the Department. Despite this withdrawal, the Department has chosen to proceed with this administrative action.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A Final Order be entered finding Respondents B & B Investors, Yanks and Ana Hernandez-Yanks guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint, finding them not guilty of Count VI and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000 which should be payable jointly and severally. Yanks and B & B Investors should also be required to repay $9,000 to Calvary Chapel within 30 days after the rendition of the Final Order. Failure to repay this sum should be a basis for the imposition of additional penalties, including revocation. The mortgage brokerage licenses of Yanks and B & B Investors should be suspended for one (1) year for their actions in connection with the Calvary Chapel transaction. A Cease and Desist Order should also be entered against Ana Hernandez- Yanks prohibiting her from any future violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, from engaging in any act within the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and from being an ultimate equitable owner of a business license pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. The facts surrounding her trust account should be reported to the Florida Bar for investigation. A Final Order should also be entered finding Yanks, Hernandez-Yanks, and B & B Equity guilty of the violations alleged in Counts VIII, IX, and XI, finding Yanks and B & B Equity guilty of the violations alleged in Counts XII and finding Hernandez-Yanks guilty of violations alleged in Count XIII of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Final Order should find the Respondents not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts X and XIV. Based upon the foregoing, the Department should impose an administrative fine of $5,000. The mortgage brokerage license of Yanks should be suspended for a period of three years to run consecutively with the suspension issued in connection with the Calvary Chapel transaction. Respondents should also be required to repay $6,040.12 to Ana Vazquez for inappropriate and undisclosed charges made at the closing. The collection of all fines and/or assessments against Ana Hernandez- Yanks and/or B & B Investors should be suspended pending approval of the Bankruptcy Court. In view of the Voluntary Dismissal filed on November 9, 1993, the Final Order should formally dismiss the Application Case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August 1994. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
