Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the administrative agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Mortgage Refunds Research and Consulting ("Mortgage"), is a Florida corporation that is wholely owned by Respondent, Richard Vidair. Respondent has sole responsibility for the direction, control, operation, and management of Mortgage. Respondent is not licensed as a private investigator and Mortgage is not a licensed private investigative agency. Respondent is considered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to be a third party tracer. Respondent and his agency locate persons who may be owed refunds for mortgage insurance premiums. From sometime in August, 1990, through May 2, 1991, Respondent contacted individuals who may be owed mortgage insurance refunds by the federal government. Respondent solicited a fee contingent upon actual receipt of the mortgage refund from the federal government. Respondent obtained from the United States government a list of persons owed mortgage refunds. Such lists are available to anyone for a nominal processing fee. Respondent determined the whereabouts of persons named on the list. Respondent either telephoned or mailed a letter to the person named on the list and informed that person of the service offered by Respondent. Respondent included in the letter sent to the person a finder's fee agreement to be signed by the person on the list. Once the contract was signed and returned to Respondent, Respondent provided the person on the list with additional documents to be filled out for the purpose of filing a claim with the federal government. Government refunds were mailed directly to the person on the list. The terms of the finder's fee agreement required the person on the list to pay Respondent's fee within three days of the date the person received his or her money from the government. The agreement further provided that if Respondent's fee was not paid within 30 days, Respondent was entitled to a fee equal to 50 percent of the government refund. Finally, the agreement provided that all collection and legal expenses incurred by Respondent in collecting the finder's fee must be paid by the other party. Respondent received a letter in March, 1991, from the Division of Licensing notifying Respondent that his activities required licensure. After conferring with his attorney, Respondent terminated his activities in Florida but continued his activities outside the state. On October 14, 1987, an attorney for the Division of Licensing issued an internal legal opinion to then Division Director Dave Register. The opinion concluded that persons who engage in the business of locating individuals to whom mortgage insurance premium refunds are due from the federal government are not required to be licensed pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On October 30, 1987, Ken Rouse, General Counsel, Department of State, issued a legal opinion which rescinded the prior internal opinion and concluded that such activities must be licensed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 1C-3.122(1), imposing an administrative fine of $500 pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 1C-3.113(1)(a)2, imposing an administrative fine of $150 pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 1C- 3.113(1)(b)2, and ordering Respondent to cease all investigative activities until Respondent is properly licensed in accordance with Chapter 493. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23 day of January 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23th day of January 1992.
The Issue These administrative proceedings involve three related cases which were consolidated for purposes of proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings. DOAH Case No. 87-3299 began on or about May 13, 1987, with the issuance of an Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights by the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (hereinafter "Department"), against Respondents Mid South Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter "Mid South"), Carolyn G. Stanley (hereinafter "Stanley"), William D. Hughes (hereinafter "Hughes"), John Childers (hereinafter "Childers"), and Janie Cincotta (hereinafter "Cincotta"). An Amended Administrative Complaint was filed later. The Amended Administrative Complaint charges the Respondents with nine counts of violations of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. In addition to the Administrative Complaint, on about May 13, 1987, the Department issued a Cease and Desist Order and Notice of Rights against Childers and Cincotta, which was docketed as DOAH 87-3300, and a second Cease and Desist Order and Notice of Rights against Mid South, which was docketed as DOAH Case No. 87-3301. The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 87-3299 was never served on Cincotta. At the commencement of the formal hearing, the Department announced that it was not pursuing the Administrative Complaint against Cincotta. The Cease and Desist Order in Case No. 87-3300 was served on Cincotta. At the commencement of the formal hearing, Cincotta confirmed that she did not contest the Cease and Desist Order in Case No. 87-3300. Prior to the formal hearing, Hughes and the Department entered into a stipulation for the disposition of all issues in DOAH Case No. 87-3299 that relate to Hughes. Following the hearing in this case, a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed. Thereafter the Department filed proposed recommended orders in all three of these consolidated cases. The Respondents have not filed any proposed recommended orders. The Department's proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact are contained in the appendix which is attached hereto.
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Preliminary Factual Findings Mid South is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida. Mid South has been and is conducting business in the State of Florida as a mortgage brokerage business pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having been issued license No. HB-592335611. Mid South has been and is conducting business in the State of Florida as a mortgage brokerage business at 1815 West 15th Street, Suite 8, Panama City, Florida 32407. Persons Employed by Mid South John Childers From October 1983 until present, Childers has been employed at Mid South. Childers is President of Mid South and a 50 percent shareholder of Mid South. Childers is the chief executive officer in charge of running Mid South in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. Childers is not now, nor has he ever been, licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Although Childers explained to Carolyn G. Stanley, the designated Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South, that she was in charge of the offices of Mid South, Childers assumed the responsibility of overseeing the mortgage brokerage business of Mid South, because Stanley did not have time to do so. In the event a borrower became angry because his interest rates were increased above what was agreed to, it was Childers who would try to "work out a deal" with the borrower by reducing the points. Ann King Beach From on or about July 25, 1985, Ann King Beach was the Designated Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license No. HB-16762. From on or about September 1, 1985, Ann King Beach ceased to be employed by Mid South. Janie Cincotta Cincotta was employed by Mid South in Pensacola, Florida, for two different periods of time. The first period of employment began on or about September 1985 and ended on or about February 1986. From on or about September 1985 through on or about February 1986, the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South was continuously open. Cincotta's second period of employment with Mid South began on or about October 1986 and ended on or about March 1987. From on or about the end of October 1986 to on or about March 1987, the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South was continuously open. Cincotta's job responsibilities included the same responsibilities as those of Linda Banquicio, described below, and more. Cincotta would send out the verifications, work up the Good Faith Estimate, type the application, answer the telephone, and interview the applicants. Childers was aware of Cincotta's job responsibilities. Cincotta was compensated by Mid South. Cincotta was not licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. William D. Hughes From on or about September 19, 1985, the Mid South office at 692 Heinberg Street, Pensacola, Florida, was licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license No. HB-17159. From on or about September 19, 1985, William D. Hughes was designated as the broker in full charge, control, and supervision of the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South. Hughes terminated his employment with Mid South on or about April 15, 1986. On or about April 1, 1986, Hughes informed Childers that he was terminating his employment with Mid South. By letter dated September 2, 1986, Mid South notified the Department that Hughes was no longer employed by Mid South. On or about October 14, 1986, Hughes filed an Application for Registration as a Branch Office for the Pensacola, Florida, location of Mid South. On or about December 15, 1986, Hughes became the Designated Associate Broker at the branch office of Mid South, having license No. HT-9017. Said branch office was assigned license No. HL-1724. On or about April 1, 1987, Hughes notified the Department that he had terminated his employment with Mid South. Although Hughes became licensed with the Department as the Designated Associated Broker at the Pensacola, Florida, branch office of Mid South, he never actually worked there in that capacity. During the second period of Cincotta's employment, Childers knew that Hughes was not working at the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South. At the end of October or the beginning of November 1986, Childers told Cincotta that if Hughes received a telephone call, she was to respond that Hughes was not in. Thereafter, Childers would return the telephone call for Hughes. The reason for the foregoing instructions was to prevent Mid South from getting "into trouble," because Mid South did not have a licensed broker in the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South. Hughes received commissions only on the loans that he brought into Mid South. Hughes did not receive a commission on any other mortgage loan that was processed through the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South and which was considered to be a "house loan." There appear to have been two types of house loans on which Hughes did not receive commissions during his employment at Mid South. The first type was mortgage loans referred to Mid South from Source Mortgage wherein Source Mortgage shared a brokerage fee with Mid South. The other type of house loan involved borrowers who sought the services of Mid South, but did not initiate the mortgage loan process through either Hughes or Source Mortgage. Kenneth E. Boles From on or about November 20, 1985, Kenneth E. Boles was designated Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license No. HB- 17651. From on or about July 24, 1986, Kenneth E. Boles ceased to be employed by Mid South. Linda Banquicio Linda Banquicio began working in the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South from on or about June 13, 1986, to on or about August 22, 1986. Banquicio was employed at Mid South to answer the telephone, type, inform borrowers of the interest rates, provide loan application forms to borrowers, assist borrowers in filling out the loan applications, type the verification forms to be mailed out, and fill in the estimated closing costs on the Good Faith Estimate. Childers was aware of Banquicio's job responsibilities. Banquicio was not licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Carolyn G. Stanley From on or about January 13, 1986, Carolyn G. Stanley was designated as Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license No. HB- 16762. Stanley was employed as Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South in Panama City, Florida. As Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South, Stanley did not take any action to oversee the offices of Mid South other than the Panama City, Florida, office where she was employed, because Childers had assumed that responsibi1ity. From on or about July 8, 1987, Stanley ceased to be employed by Mid South. Harold J. Larrieu, Jr. Harold J. Larrieu, Jr., filed an application to act as broker at the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South on or about August 25, 1986, but he withdrew his application on or about September 9, 1986. Advertisements of Mid South On April 27, May 4, 11, 18, and 25, 1986, Mid South advertised fixed rate financing in the Pensacola News Journal without stating the address of Mid South or that Mid South was a licensed mortgage broker. On June 29 and July 6, 13, 20, 27, and August 24, 1986, Mid South advertised fixed rate financing in the Pensacola News Journal. Lock-ins During Cincotta's second period of employment, it was the practice of Mid South to lock-in interest rates for a period of sixty days. However, few, if any, of the mortgage loans would close within that sixty-day lock-in period. Excessive Charges The following charges incurred are in excess of the costs disclosed to the following borrowers at the time Mid South accepted the application with respect to said borrowers: Borrower/cost Amount disclosed at time deposit or application Amount description accepted charged Michael A. Adam Discount/Origination Fee $2,384.00 2,460.00 Appraisal 200.00 225.00 Title Insurance 476.80 500.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Intangible tax 119.20 123.00 Doc. Stamps 89.40 92.25 Insurance 64.84 246.00 Thomas E. Almon Discount/Origination Fees 4,200.00 4,900.00 Recording 15.00 25.00 Survey 100.00 125.00 Pest Inspection 10.00 15.00 Copy Fee 0 6.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Jimmy M. Avera Title Insurance 425.00 496.60 R.E. Tax 217.87 293.16 Survey 150.00 225.00 Exp. Mail 0 24.75 ASMT 0 5.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Gloria F. Bates Survey 200.00 375.00 Title Insurance 650.00 736.00 Darrell R. Bond Appraisal 200.00 250.00 Title Insurance 326.00 381.00 Pest Inspection 25.00 40.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Fed. Express 0 12.50 Long Distance 0 10.00 Randy K. Burelson Hazard Insurance 0 210.00 Survey 83.00 150.00 David K. Bush Appraisal 175.00 200.00 Title Insurance 320.00 325.00 Survey 75.00 90.00 Pest Inspection 35.00 40.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 City/County Tax 0 30.00 State Tax 0 40.00 James H. Cameron Survey 150.00 525.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Recording Fees 27.00 509.00 Sharon L. Cook Appraisal 125.00 200.00 Title Insurance 320.00 400.00 Thomas Elder Discount/Origin Fees 1,662.50 1,805.00 Hazard Insurance 0 326.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Willie C. Mixon PMI Insurance 370.58 670.12 Hazard Insurance 0 186.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 John W. Whalen Survey 100.00 200.00 Betty A. Wilson Pest Inspection 25.00 40.00 Appraisal 0 250.00 Credit Report 0 35.00 Document Preparation Fees In addition to receiving brokerage fees, Mid South received a document preparation fee in the following amounts involving the below-noted borrowers although there is no documentation to indicate that the document preparation fee was disbursed to a third party. Borrower Amount Michael A. Adams $200.00 Thomas Almon 150.00 Jimmy M. Avera 200.00 Gloria F. Bates 150.00 Darrell R. Bond 150.00 Randy K. Burelson 200.00 David K. Bush 150.00 James H. Cameron 150.00 Sharon L. Cook 150.00 Thomas Elder 200.00 Edward E. Jackson 200.00 Willie C. Mixon 150.00 Russell O. Paul 200.00 John D. Reeder 150.00 John W. Whalen 150.00 Betty A. Wilson 150.00 In the following mortgage loan transactions brokered by Mid South, the Closing Statement failed to disclose the name of the broker or co-broker paid. Borrower Amount of brokerage fee Actual recipient of brokerage fee Michael A. Adams $2,460.00 Mid South Thomas E. Almon 4,900.00 unknown Jimmy M. Avera 584.00 Alabama Federal 1,168.00 Alabama Federal Gloria F. Bates 1,840.00 First Southern Savings 1,840.00 Mid South Darrell R. Bond 816.00 First Southern Savings 816.00 Mid South David K. Bush 400.00 First Southern Savings 400.00 Mid South James H. Cameron 2,000.00 First Southern Savings 200.00 Mid South Sharon L. Cook 800.00 First Southern Savings 800.00 Mid South Willie C. Mixon 494.00 Source Mortgage 1,482.35 Mid South and First Southern Savings Russell O. Paul 424.00 unknown 424.00 unknown John W. Whalen 646.65 First Southern Savings 646.65 Mid South 431.10 Source Mortgage Betty A. Wilson 1,088.00 First Southern Savings 1,088.00 Mid South Edwards Transaction Robert Edwards is a contractor who does remodeling, renovations, and room additions on residences. Edwards located a residence, which was run down and had been abandoned for two years but was in a nice neighborhood and on a beautiful wooded lot. The purchase price of the house was $19,000. With $10,000 to $15,000 of renovations put into the house, it could have been sold for approximately $45,000 at a profit of between $11,000 to $16,000. On or about early June 1986, Edwards called Mid South to inquire about the possibility of borrowing enough money to purchase and renovate the house. During that telephone conversation, an unidentified employee of Mid South told Edwards that he would have to discuss his proposal with Childers, but if his credit checked out, it would take from two to four weeks to close the loan. In early July 1986, Edwards met with Childers to discuss his proposal. At that meeting, Childers reviewed the proposal and "said he thought it would fly, that it was a good idea." Edwards thereupon filled out a credit application, was given a loan application to complete, and was told by Banquicio to sign a blank Good Faith Estimate. Subsequent to the early July 1986 meeting, Edwards completed the paperwork and informed Banquicio that he did not want to obtain an appraisal before he had qualified for the loan. Thereafter, Banquicio informed Edwards that Childers had indicated that Edwards should have the appraisal done because the loan looked good. In reliance on the foregoing representation, Edwards had an appraisal done on the residence on August 26, 1986, at a cost of $250. On or about September 3, 1986, Edwards went to the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South to seek assistance in obtaining his mortgage loan, at which time Stanley provided him his first completed Good Faith Estimate. At that time Stanley informed Edwards that all he had to do was wait for the closing and that Mid South would be getting in contact with him. However, contrary to Stanley's representation, Mid South never contacted him, so he began calling the Mobile, Alabama, office of Mid South, but was unable to speak to Childers. Shortly thereafter, the residence was sold to another purchaser, because Edwards had been unable to obtain his mortgage loan. At no time did Mid South inform Edwards that he did not make enough money to get the mortgage loan. Suhrheinrich Transaction During late June or early July 1986, Robert Suhrheinrich contacted Banquicio, an employee of Mid South, by telephone in order to apply for a mortgage loan. During the telephone conversation, Banquicio agreed to try to obtain a mortgage loan for Suhrheinrich. Prior to July 13, 1986, Suhrheinrich obtained a letter from Childers. The letter indicates that Suhrheinrich was eligible for a 15 year mortgage loan at an interest rate of 9 3/4 percent. Subsequent to receiving that letter, Suhrheinrich obtained from Mid South a Good Faith Estimate that indicated the interest rate was now 9 percent, a Request for Verification of Employment dated July 24, 1986, and a document entitled Loan Package Instructions, which states, in part, "If you have any questions regarding the information requested, please feel free to call John Childers at (904) 438-9760." During this period, Childers indicated to Suhrheinrich that he could obtain 90 percent loan to value. Thereafter, sometime in October 1986, Childers contacted Suhrheinrich and indicated that the mortgage loan was ready to close, but that the interest rate was about 10 percent and that he could give Suhrheinrich a loan of only 80 percent to value. Prior to the conversation wherein Suhrheinrich was told that the loan was ready to close, Suhrheinrich was never informed that the interest rate might be changed from the 9 percent figure disclosed to him on the Good Faith Estimate, or that a 90 percent loan to value could note be obtained. As a result of Mid South's increasing the interest rate to approximately 10 percent, Suhrheinrich did not obtain the mortgage loan because at that rate it did not pay to refinance his first and second mortgages. Further, the 80 percent loan to value offered by Mid South did not meet Suhrheinrich's needs. In reliance on the representation Mid South made to Suhrheinrich, he spent a total of $400 on an appraisal, survey, and termite inspection. Ward Transaction On or about August 3, 1986, Mary Ward contacted Banquicio, an employee of Mid South, by telephone and inquired about obtaining a mortgage loan. On or about August 21, 1986, pursuant to Banquicio's request, Ward went to the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South and filled out various documents in order to obtain the mortgage loan. During September 1986, Ward went to the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South to obtain her paperwork, because she had not been able to speak with Childers to find out whether she had been approved. Sitting in the office was an individual whom Banquicio identified as being Mid South's broker. Although Ward requested to speak to the individual identified as being Mid South's broker, Banquicio did not accommodate said request. Meinscher Transaction On or about August 18, 1986, Alacia Meinscher contacted Banquicio, an employee of Mid South, to obtain a mortgage loan. Banquicio agreed to attempt to obtain a mortgage loan for Meinscher. Meinscher filled out an application and, pursuant to Banquicio's request, signed a blank Good Faith Estimate. Approximately a week after filling out the application, Childers informed Meinscher the amount of the points that she would be charged and that the interest rate would be 9 3/4 percent. Childers and Banquicio informed Meinscher that it would take approximately twenty-one days for a determination as to whether Meinscher could obtain a mortgage loan. After waiting approximately sixty days for an indication from Mid South as to whether Meinscher could obtain a mortgage loan, Meinscher "gave up" on Mid South and went to another company. Meyers Transaction On or about October 10, 1986, Donald Meyers contacted Cincotta, an employee of Mid South, by telephone and inquired about the possibility of obtaining a $75,000 mortgage loan. During that conversation, Cincotta indicated that Mid South was offering an 8 1/2 percent fixed rate for thirty years. On or about October 28, 1986, Meyers met with Cincotta in the Pensacola, Florida, offices of Mid South and filled out a loan application form. At the October 28, 1986, meeting, Cincotta indicated that Mid South could obtain a mortgage loan for Meyers and she gave Meyers a Good Faith Estimate disclosing an interest rate of 8.5 percent and 2 points. The interest rate on the Good Faith Estimate has since been altered to read 9.5, whereas it originally was 8.5 when the document was prepared. At the October 28, 1986, meeting, Cincotta represented that, unless there was some unforeseen situation, the mortgage loan could close within 30 to 60 days. Cincotta locked in Meyers' mortgage loan for 60 days at 8 1/2 percent and 2 points. After the 60 day lock-in expired, Cincotta did not relock Meyers' rate, because the practice was that, once the loan had been submitted to Childers, Childers handled the lock-ins if they expired. On or about November 1986, Meyers received a second Good Faith Estimate Which indicated an interest rate of 8.5 percent and 2 points. On or about February 17, 1987, Meyers went to the offices of O. Gwen King for the closing. At the closing, the loan documents shows an interest rate of 9 1/2 percent with 2 1/2 points. At the closing, Meyers, by telephone, spoke to Childers who indicated that the loan of 8 1/2 percent plus 2 points was not available, but that he could lower the points on the 9 1/2 percent loan. After further discussions with Childers, Meyers left the February 17, 1987, meeting without closing. On or about April 7, 1987, Meyers requested by letter that his loan file (including the loan application, credit report, and appraisal) be returned to him. Meyers never received a response to his letter of April 7, 1987. In reliance on the representation made to Meyers, he spent $225 on an appraisal. Gillis Transaction On or about November 10, 1986, James G. Gillis called Mid South about obtaining a mortgage loan and spoke with Cincotta, an employee of Mid South. On or about November 12, 1986, Gillis met with Cincotta who agreed to try to obtain a mortgage loan for Gillis. At the meeting with Cincotta on November 12, 1986, Gillis obtained a Good Faith Estimate which showed the interest rate to be 9 percent. Gillis declined to lock-in the 9 percent interest rate at that time, because Cincotta indicated her belief that the rates were coming down. Cincotta estimated that it would take between four and six weeks to close the mortgage loan. The Advance Disclosure Statement-Fixed Rate Mortgage Loan dated December 29, 1986, which indicates an interest rate of 9 percent and 2 points, was blank when it was signed by Gillis. On or about January 7, 1987, Cincotta locked Gillis in at the rate of 8 1/4 percent and 2 points. Cincotta indicated to Gillis that he was locked in until the mortgage loan closed. On or about March 24, 1987, Childers contacted Gill and indicated that he was ready to close at an interest rate of 8 3/4 percent and 3 points. In response, Gillis requested that he be given 8 1/4 percent with 2 points as agreed to on the Good Faith Estimate. On or about March 26, 1987, Childers and Gillis engaged in negotiations with regard to the mortgage loan but were unable to reach agreement. After the 60 days lock-in expired, Cincotta did not relock Gillis because the practice was that, once the loan had been submitted to Childers, Childers handled the lock-ins if they expired. By letter dated April 7, 1987, Gillis requested return of his appraisal, survey, credit report, and pest inspection, but did not receive any of said documents back. In reliance on the representations made by Mid South, Gillis spent $225 on an appraisal, $30 on a pest inspection, and $80 on a maintenance agreement. Mock Transaction On or about early January 1987, Jewel and George Mock received a Rate Bulletin put out by Mid South dated January 2, 1987. The Rate Bulletin stated in part: RATE FEES REMARKS . . . ONE YEAR A.R.M. 15 Year 5.00 percent 2.00 + 1.00 Annual, 5 percent Life Cap 2.5 percent Margin NO NEGATIVE In reliance on the Rate Bulletin, Mr. and Mrs. Mock, along with Gene Bogan, their realtor, went to the office of Mid South to obtain said A.R.M. loan on or about January 14, 1987, and spoke to Cincotta, an employee of Mid South. During the January 14, 1987, office visit, Cincotta agreed to attempt to obtain the A.R.M. loan for them. During the January 14, 1987, office visit, the Mocks were not told that the A.R.M. could become unavailable. Subsequent to the January 14, 1987, office visit, Mr. and Mrs. Mock received a Regulation Z Disclosure Statement which indicated that the Annual Percentage Rate of their mortgage loan was 9.399 percent. Mrs. Mock contacted Cincotta about the 9.399 percent on the Disclosure Statement. In response, Cincotta indicated the form was just a "general disclosure." Although Mr. and Mrs. Mock signed and returned the Disclosure Statement, they still were under the impression that they had qualified for the A.R.M. On or about February 1987, Bogan informed Mr. and Mrs. Mock that the loan on the Disclosure Statement was not the same as the loan that Mr. and Mrs. Mock had applied for. Rather than giving the Mocks the A.R.M., the Disclosure Statement was for a fixed rate of 8 3/4 percent G.E.M. loan. During February or March of 1987, Childers contacted Bogan and when Bogan insisted that the Mocks be given the loan they applied for, Childers responded, "Well, nobody can give you that." Childers further stated that the A.R.M. in the Rate Bulletin was a "misprint." On or about February 1987, Childers contacted Mr. Mock to inform him that the loan Mid South was obtaining for him was better because "the initial payments would be equivalent to somewhat less than five percent," and tried to persuade Mr. Mock to take the G.E.M. loan that Mid South was actually offering. During March or April 1987, Cincotta confirmed to Mr. Mock that the A.R.M. was not available. The A.R.M. would have been a better mortgage than the G.E.M. loan that was actually offered because, among other things, it would more quickly reduce the principal amount of the mortgage debt. In reliance on Mid South's representations that they were offering the A.R.M., Mr. and Mrs. Mock spent approximately $400 for brass fixtures, mirrors, and for having the rugs cleaned in the house they were seeking to purchase. Due to the failure of Mid South to give the Mocks the A.R.M., Bogan lost half of a $7,000 commission.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department issue final orders in these cases to the following effect: In DOAH Case No. 87-3299 Incorporating the terms of the stipulation and consent agreement entered into between the Department and William D. Hughes; Placing Carolyn G. Stanley on probation for a period of three years under the condition that she will not act as a principal mortgage broker, designated associated mortgage broker, or in any way supervise the operation of, or be responsible for the supervision of, a person or an office engaged in the business of acting as a mortgage broker pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes; Revoking the license of Mid South Mortgage Corporation to act as a registrant pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes; Fining John Childers a total of $10,000.00; and Fining Mid South Mortgage Corporation a total of $15,000.00. In DOAH Case No. 87-3300 Entering a cease and desist order against John Childers and Janie Cincotta ordering said persons to cease and desist from any and all present and future violations of the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, or the rules duly promulgated by the Department with respect thereto, more specifically, but not by way of limitation from, for compensation or gain, or in the expectation of compensation or gain, either directly or indirectly making, negotiating, acquiring, selling, or arranging for, or offering to make, negotiation, acquire, sell, or arrange for, a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment. In DOAH Case No. 87-3301 Entering a cease and desist order against Mid South Mortgage Corporation ordering said mortgage broker to cease and desist from any and all present and future violations of the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, or the rules duly promulgated by the Department with respect thereto, more specifically, but not by way of limitation from, operating a mortgage brokerage office in the state of Florida without having a duly licensed broker in full charge, control, and supervision of said office on a full-time basis. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parlay Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 87-3299, 87-3300, & 87-3301 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner All proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner have been accepted and Incorporated into the findings of fact in this recommended order, except as specifically noted below: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4: The findings proposed in these paragraphs have been omitted from the findings of fact because they involve primarily procedural or introductory details. (Most of this information has been included in the introduction to the recommended order.) Paragraph 5: The findings proposed in this paragraph have been omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. Paragraph 50: Rejected as Irrelevant. Paragraph 51: Rejected a Irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 141, 142, and 143: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details (I have found that the A.R.M. would have been a better mortgage than the G.E.M.) Findings proposed by Respondents (The Respondents did not submit any proposed findings.) COPIES FURNISHED: John Childers, President Mid South Mortgage Corporation 955 Downtowner Boulevard, Suite 105 Mobile, Alabama 36609 Ms. Carolyn G. Stanley Mid South Mortgage Corporation 955 Downtowner Boulevard, Suite 105 Mobile, Alabama 36609 Ms. Janie Cincotta 2829 Village Circle Pensacola, Florida 32504 Mr. William D. Hughes 4347 Burton Wood Court Pensacola, Florida 32504 Paul C. Stadler, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
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
The Issue In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Dave Taylor (“Taylor) alleges that various purported “statements” which he attributes to Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) constitute rules-by-definition that were not adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, titled “Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending.” As such, it is responsible for regulating all persons, including mortgage brokers and lenders, licensed under that chapter. Taylor is licensed under Chapter 494 as a mortgage broker and as a “continuing education school.” His firm, Florida Compliance Specialists, Inc., provides consulting services to Chapter 494 licensees. The present dispute stems from amendments to Chapter 494 that the legislature enacted during the 2001 regular session. See Ch. 2001-228, Laws of Florida. These amendments were contained in a bill (CS/HB 455) approved by the governor on June 13, 2001, and became effective on October 1, 2001; they created a new position called “principal representative.” As defined by the legislature, the term “principal representative” means “an individual who operates the business operations of a licensee under part III.” Section 494.001(29), Florida Statutes (2001) (emphasis added).4 This statutory definition is amplified in a mandate that requires all licensees (and applicants) to designate a “principal representative who exercises control of the licensee’s business[.]” Sections 494.0061(8) and 494.0062(11), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). Notably, the terms “operates” and “exercises control of” are not defined. As mentioned, the statute requires all licensees and applicants to designate a PR. Although PRs do not engage in a licensed occupation (i.e. there is no PR license), an individual appointed to the post of PR after October 1, 2001, must satisfy certain educational and testing requirements (the details of which are not important here), and the designating lender must submit documents showing that its PRD has complied with those requirements.5 After the governor signed CS/HB 455 into law but before the amended statutes took effect, the Department began making rules to implement the new provisions. Before long, proposed rules were published in the August 31, 2001, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. One provision of these proposed rules instructed that “[a]n individual can only be a principal representative for one [lender].” This “one lender to a PR” proposal did not implement an explicit statutory directive but arose from the Department’s then-prevailing interpretation of the statutory description of a PR as one who “operates” and “exercises control of” the lender’s business. Further illuminating the Department’s understanding of these terms were the Designation forms that it proposed to adopt, wherein the PRD was required to acknowledge that he or she would be “in full charge, control, and supervision of the [lender’s] business.” A person, the Department reasoned, could be “in full charge,” etc., of but one company at a time. In the course of rulemaking, however, the Department receded from its original interpretation. As a result, revised proposed rules——from which the bright line, “one lender to a PR” directive had been deleted——were published in the October 5, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly.6 An amended Designation, which unlike earlier versions lacked language requiring a PRD to confirm (with his or her signature) having “full charge, control, and supervision” of the applicant’s or licensee’s business, was proposed as well.7 By the end of January 2002, the Department’s proposed rules relating to PRs had been adopted and, at the time of this Final Order, were among the agency’s duly promulgated, existing rules. See Rule 3D-40.242, Florida Administrative Code. Although the Department does not presently have a bright line rule or policy that flatly forbids an individual from serving simultaneously as PR to more than one licensee, the Department continues to be skeptical that a dual designee can effectively perform, for more than one lender at a time, the responsibilities that it believes inhere in the office of PR. Accordingly, whenever a lender or applicant nominates an XPR for PR, the Department without exception subjects that lender’s Designation to stricter scrutiny than would be given if its PRD were not an XPR. (Indeed, if the PRD is not an XPR, then the Department presumes that he or she will be able to carry out the duties of a PR and hence makes no inquiry as to how the PRD will function as PR.) The first outward manifestations of the Department’s internal decision to scrutinize any Designation in which an applicant’s PRD is an XPR emerged in late November 2001 after the agency had received four separate applications naming Taylor as PR.8 As the Department had discovered upon review of these four applications, Taylor was already serving as PR to an existing licensee. This situation had given rise to a dilemma for which the Department was not fully prepared, as evidenced by a November 26, 2001, e-mail message from an agency attorney to the responsible policy makers in which she (the attorney) had advised that: There are two pending applications in which there are no deficiencies and we need to decide how will [sic] we will proceed since we took out the language in the rule that specifically stated an individual could only be a PR for one company at a time. Let me know what times you would be available [for a meeting to decide what to do]. The Department quickly decided what to do. Between November 27 and November 29, 2001, the Department issued four nearly identical letters, one sent by certified mail to each applicant who had chosen Taylor as its PR, which provided, in pertinent part: We are in receipt of your company’s application to become licensed as a mortgage lender in the State of Florida. A review of the application materials indicates that [applicant’s name] has designated Dave Taylor at [address] as the company’s Principal Representative. [The next four paragraphs quote Sections 494.001(29); 494.0062(11); 494.0062(1)(f); and 494.0062(12), Florida Statutes, which pertain to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (c) A material misstatement of fact on an initial or renewal application.[9] Dave Taylor has already been designated as a principal representative for another licensed lender under part III of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Please advise in detail how Mr. Taylor will operate and exercise control over your business.[10] We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. On or about November 30, 2001, the Department created a new deficiency code, DF 416, the description of which is “principal representative is designated to more than one entity.” This is an active deficiency code and is used consistently as a “red flag” on all applications to which it applies. When an application is tagged with a DF 416, the applicant is sent a letter in the form of the letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. This letter will hereafter be referred to as the “DF 416 Inquiry Letter.”11 It is important to emphasize that all applicants whose PRD is an XPR are sent the DF 416 Inquiry Letter, without exception.12 It is undisputed that Taylor has met all of the educational and testing requirements necessary to serve as a PR, and that the Department has no objection, based on facts and circumstances unique to Taylor, to Taylor’s being a lender’s PR. (In fact, he is presently a PR to one lender,13 under a designation to which the Department, consistent with its policy and practice of making no inquiry concerning PRDs who are not XPRs, raised no objection.) The Department’s concern about Taylor’s having been designated a PR by more than one company is indistinguishable from the concern that it expresses regarding all dual designees. This is why, although the contents of the DF 416 Inquiry Letter were developed to resolve a problem that specifically involved Taylor and his clients, the Department decided (and was able) to implement its Taylor-made solution on a generally applicable basis by sending the DF 416 Inquiry Letter to all applicants whose PRD is a dual designee. Each of the four applicants that had designated Taylor as its PR declined the Department’s November 2001 invitation to submit detailed information regarding the manner in which Taylor would operate and control the licensed business. Each applicant chose, instead, to designate someone else as PR. Thus, whatever advantages or considerations Taylor expected to receive in exchange for serving as these lenders’ PR were lost; the Department’s letters (the letters that became the form for the DF 416 Inquiry Letter) were the proximate cause of that loss, in that but for the letters, the lenders would not summarily have severed their respective business relationships with Taylor. After deciding how to deal with applicants whose PRDs are XPRs, the Department turned its attention to the dual designees of existing licensees. This was, in a sense, a bigger problem because, in their respective Designations, more than 50 licensees had selected an individual for PR who was a dual designee. Beginning around December 12, 2001, the Department sent all these lenders a letter similar to the DF 416 Inquiry Letter. This letter stated: We are in receipt of the principal representative designation forms for the following companies: [lender’s names]. A review of the principal representative forms indicates that [PRD’s name and address] has been designated the Principal Representative for both companies. [The next two paragraphs quote statutory provisions pertaining to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(p) state as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (p) Failure to comply with, or violations of, any other provision of ss. 494.001-494.0077. Please advise in detail how you will operate and exercise control over both of the above- mentioned businesses. We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 14 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. This form letter will be referred to as the “Compliance Inquiry Letter.” The evidence is unequivocal that the Department has sent, and plans to send, the Compliance Inquiry Letter to all licensees whose Designation names a person determined to be a dual designee, without exception.14 Taylor’s Description of the Alleged Rules-by-Definition In his petition, as required by Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Taylor described the alleged rules-by- definition. Here, in his words, are the Department’s alleged statements: Only one person can realistically “operate the business operations” of a licensee and “exercise control over the licensee’s business.” Therefore, only one individual shall prima facie be designated as principal representative for only one mortgage lender. The above rule shall not apply, however, to mortgage lenders which the Department deems to be “grand-fathered” i.e., such companies who designated their principal representative on or prior to October 1, 2001, the effective date of the statutory amendments. In such instances, an individual will be permitted multiple designations without further departmental scrutiny or inquiry as to how that individual will “operate” or “exercise control over each business.”[Footnote omitted]. Except for “grand-fathered” companies, if an individual once designated principal representative by a mortgage lender is similarly designated principal representative by a separate mortgage lender, the Department based upon the agency statement recited in (a) above, will require the subsequent mortgage lender(s) (i.e., the lender(s) other than the one first designating that individual) to provide in writing a detailed explanation to the Department, subject to potential sanctions, describing how that individual will operate and exercise control over that second mortgage lender. The Department considers as a “licensing deficiency” any mortgage lender application or principal representative designation submitted to the Department where the individual designated as the mortgage lender’s principal representative has previously been and continues to be designated principal representative by another mortgage lender. The Department, based upon this “deficiency,” shall not deem the application(s) “complete” for purposes of section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Such application(s) shall be subjected to the licensing procedures set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) hereafter. In conformity with the agency statement set forth in (a) above, the Department will not undertake an inquiry of the principal representative designation submitted by the mortgage lender who first designated the individual as its’ principal representative. The Department will require mortgage lenders to provide the information referred to in section c above, through the use of a form, [i.e., the form letters attached as EXHIBITS “14”, “15”, & “16”, to this Petition]. Further, this form created for the purpose of soliciting information [not specifically required by statute or an existing rule] will require mortgage lenders to provide a response, specifically subject to announced sanctions, of details not otherwise required under the applicable statutes or rules. The Department, though requiring mortgage lenders to comply with the agency statements through the threat of announced sanctions, shall not provide to mortgage lenders or their designated principal representatives any clarifying or defining circumstances or criteria the Department will deem as acceptable——contractual or otherwise——for a person to be designated as principal representative for more than one mortgage lender. Any responses provided by such mortgage lenders in response to the Department’s written form shall be submitted by the applicant “at their peril.” Ultimate Factual Determinations In his just-quoted statements “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e,” Taylor described, with reasonable particularity, the essence of policies that, in fact, fall within the statutory definition of the term “rule.” Statement “a” describes (albeit somewhat imprecisely) a Departmental mindset, the view that a person is likely to have difficulty simultaneously serving more than one master as a PR; the last sentence of statement “d” accurately describes the Department’s related policy of not inquiring as to how a PRD who is not a dual designee will operate and control the lender’s business (because the agency presumes that a person will probably have no difficulty serving as PR to one lender at a time). Taken together, these views, in fact, constitute the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes.15 Taylor’s statement “c” and the third sentence of “d” (all of which, of course, he attributes to the Department) correctly describe, for the most part,16 the Department’s policy of requiring additional information from all licensees and applicants whose Designations nominate an XPR for the position of PR. This policy is plainly driven by the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes, and it leads, in turn, directly to statement “e.” Restated to conform to the evidence, statement “e” holds that the Department will send either the DF 416 Inquiry Letter or the Compliance Inquiry Letter, whichever is applicable, to any lender whose PRD is an XPR. It is the form letters——the DF 416 Inquiry Letter and the Compliance Inquiry Letter——that have emerged as the most visible, most readily identifiable unadopted rules of the Department, for they solicit information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. By the end of December 2001 at the latest, rulemaking was both feasible and practicable with regard to the above- described statements, but no effort was made to adopt them as rules. Thus, the Department failed timely to commence rulemaking with regard to these statements in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.17
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Law Office of H. Richard Bisbee 124 Salem Court, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2810 For Respondent: Cynthia K. Maynard, Esquire James H. Harris, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued Mortgage Broker License No. 3082 on September 3, 1974 by Petitioner. Respondent conducted certain transactions under its Mortgage Broker License during the period from September, 1973 until April, 1974. Respondent found client investors who had funds which they wished to invest in mortgages which would pay a greater return in interest than the average land mortgage. The transactions involved the purchase of a promissory note from a land development corporation secured by a mortgage deed on land ostensibly owned by the developer, in which the latter reserved the right and was authorized to convey the premises to a purchaser under an installment land contract subject to the lien of the mortgage. The deed further provided that the developer would deliver to a bank as an escrow agent a copy of any such agreement for deed and a quitclaim deed which would be held in escrow unless a default was established under the mortgage deed. What the investor would receive in such cases would be the developer's assignment of an agreement for deed collateralized by the mortgage deed. The issuance of these high interest notes were for the purpose of enabling the development company to make certain improvements on the land which they were obligated to do under sales contracts. In the transactions in question, Respondent dealt through Financial Resources Corporation of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida to which he remitted the investors funds, less an amount retained for fees or commissions. The land developer/borrower would then issue the note and mortgage in the face amount of the total investment made by the investor. The detailed procedure was that when an investor inquired concerning such mortgages, Respondent would determine from Financial Resources Corporation if any were available. It was the practice of Respondent's President then to look at the land development, determine if, in fact, the land was in development and had streets and the like, and to read pertinent documents concerning the development. He would then proceed to accept the full sum of the investment from the investor pursuant to an agreement by which the investor, in consideration of the stated sum, would authorize Respondent to use its best efforts to secure collateralized promissory notes at a minimum percentage of interest on the declining balance with principal and interest payable monthly if held to maturity. Respondent would then deposit the investor's check, usually on the same day as received, and then in several days send a notice to Financial Resources Corporation authorizing it to prepare and execute a self-amortizing monthly principal and interest promissory note with quitclaim deed in the amount of the investment, together with a check representing the proceeds of the Investment less the Respondent's fee or commission, and a sum for intangible tax on the transaction. Financial would thereafter return to Respondent a copy of the note and mortgage in exchange for the funds remitted. The recorded mortgages would be sent to Respondent within a month or so thereafter. Respondent had no agreements in writing with the land developer, nor with Financial Resources Corporation. Respondent claimed that its fees for services were set by Financial Resources Corporation which usually amounted to about 12 percent of the face amount of the investment, but which was sometimes more and frequently less than that authorized under the applicable statutes and regulations. Respondent did not maintain an escrow bank account and all funds received from investors were deposited into the corporate bank account of the firm. Respondent's agreements with investors set no specific term or period of time in which the secured promissory notes were to be obtained although its president would customarily tell investors that it would take some time for the transaction to be consummated, and that they could not expect to receive the recorded mortgages right away (testimony of Mr. Montague, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-10). Respondent discontinued transactions as described above in April, 1974 because he was dissatisfied with the business. He had been informed that certain lands under some of the mortgages had not been sold until after the mortgage had been executed and that this was in violation of State law. In the fall of that year, he received a memorandum from the State Comptroller on the subject of escrow accounts, dated October 11, 1974, which warned mortgage brokers in the state concerning the practice of remitting investors' funds to land developers in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note (testimony of Mr. Montague, Respondent's Exhibit 9). In 1975,a financial examiner from Petitioner's office was sent to the office of Respondent to examine his books and records. Pursuant to that examination, it was determined that Respondent had committed various violations of Chapter 494, F.S. on certain transactions. The following findings of fact are made with respect to the transactions in question: Allegation: That Respondent took and received deposits of money from Robert E. Creighton, Hazel R. Hardesty, J. Wilfred Caron, Rose A. Hoadley, Margaret A. Gregory and Willard A. Kotthaus, in the regular course of business, and failed to immediately place such said funds in an escrow or trust account as required by Section 494.05(1) , F.S. As heretofore stated, the Respondent did not maintain an escrow trust account with respect to any of the above-stated transactions. The above- mentioned individuals had authorized Respondent to disburse the funds immediately upon receipt (testimony of Mr. Montague, Supplemented by Exhibits 3- 8). Allegation: Respondent failed to maintain adequate records in violation of Section 494.06(3), F.S., in that its files contained no written agreements on transactions with Della W. Shaw, Lantana Sheet Metal and A.C. Inc., and another transaction with Lantana Sheet Metal. The agreement between Della Shaw and Respondent, although not present in Respondent's file at the time of examination of its records by Petitioner's representative, had been executed on October 15, 1975, and presently is contained in the records of the Respondent. It had been taken out temporarily by one of Respondent's associates who also had Della Shaw as a client. Respondent had entered into two transactions with the trustee of the pension fund and profit sharing plan of Lantana Sheet Metal, one for ten thousand dollars from the pension fund and one for three thousand dollars from the profit sharing plan. At the time of these investments there were written contracts which were executed by the parties. The books and records of both the pension fund and the profit sharing fund were maintained at Respondent's office by a firm which administered both plans. The agreements pertaining to the Lantana transactions were requested and withdrawn from Respondent's files by the trustee of the Lantana funds. Consequently, they did not appear in the records of the corporation at the time of examination by Petitioner's representative (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 4; Respondent's Exhibit 10). Allegation: Respondent failed on numerous loan purchase agreements to establish the term for which the agreement was to remain in force before the return of the deposit for nonper- formance could be required by the investor, in violation of Chapter 3-3.06, F.A.C. The transactions in question did not involve applications for mortgage loan, but agreements to purchase secured promissory notes. Respondent's clients were investors/purchasers, not borrowers (testimony of Mr. Montague; Petitioner's Exh. 2-10). Allegation: Respondent charged and accepted fees or commissions in excess of the maximum allowable in violation of Section 494.08(4), F.S., and Chapter 3-3.08(3) and (4), F.A.C., on trans- actions involving Rosa Eichelberger, overcharge of $10.90, Lantana Sheet Metal, overcharge of $62.60; Lantana Sheet Metal, overcharge of $10.91; Rose A. Hoadley, overcharge of $9.10; and Margaret A. Gregory, overcharge of $9.10.
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.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether petitioners are entitled to payment from the mortgage brokerage guaranty fund, and if so, in what amounts. A further issue is in what order of priority the claims should be paid. Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings filed in this cause, the following findings of fact are deter- mined:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of petitioners to participate in the distribution of mortgage broker guaranty funds pertaining to First Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. be granted, and that they be paid their pro-rata portion of the fund in accordance with Section 494.044, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that the request of intervenors in Case No. 85- 3305 to be included in the above group of claimants for fund distribution purposes be denied unless they furnish the Division evidence of compliance with Subsections 494.043(1); (4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1985), by June 18, 1986. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee; Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1986.
