Findings Of Fact First Bank of Hollywood Beach is a state-chartered bank duly authorized and empowered under the laws of the State of Florida and of the United States to conduct a general banking business in and from offices in the State of Florida. First Bank's main office is located in Broward County, and it has three authorized branch offices in Broward County. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) American Bank of Hollywood is a state-chartered bank duly authorized and empowered under the laws of the State of Florida and of the United States to conduct a general banking business in and from offices in the State of Florida. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) It conducts business in its main office in Broward County, has a branch office in Broward County, and has applied for a second branch office in Broward County. Gerald A. Lewis is the Comptroller of the State of Florida and, as such, is the head of the Department of Banking and Finance. On August 1, 1980, the Department received request from the First Bank of Hollywood Beach for approval of an amendment to its charter changing its name to First American Bank of Broward County. On August 22, 1980, the department received an objection to the requested name change from American Bank of Hollywood. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Both banks have engaged in the banking business in Broward County, Florida, for more than eight years using their current corporate names. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Some of the principals of First Bank of Hollywood Beach, either as directors, officers, or shareholders, are and have been directors, officers, or shareholders of the First American Bank of Palm Beach County, which bank conducts a business through a main office and ten branch offices in Palm Beach County, Florida. Said principals desire to change the name of First Bank of Hollywood Beach to reflect its affiliation with the First American Bank of Palm Beach County. Additionally, substantially the same group of individuals has pending with the Department an application to organize a new bank to be named First American Bank of Broward County, which bank will also conduct its business through its main office in Broward County, Florida. If the de novo charter is approved, the new bank would also function as part of the "group" comprised of the First American Bank of Palm Beach County and the First Bank of Hollywood Beach. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) As of the date of hearing in this cause, banks with the word "American" in their names were located in thirteen different counties within the State of Florida. At that time, within Broward County, the following commercial banks and savings and loan associations used the word "American" in their titles: American Bank of Hollywood + 1 branch (+ 1 branch applied for) Transamerica Bank of Florida + 1 branch Pan American Bank of Broward + 3 branches Great American Bank of Davie Great American Bank of Broward County Gulfstream American Bank & Trust Company + 5 branches AmeriFirst Federal Savings & Loan Associa- tion + 5 branches American Savings & Loon Association + 14 branches The proposed First American Bank of Broward County, together with First Bank's group if its requested name change is approved, would produce five additional locations of banks with "American" in their titles in Broward County. The sole basis for American Bank's objection to First Bank's requested name change is confusion based upon name similarity. No confusion exists between the First American Bank of Palm Beach County and the Pan American Bank of Palm Beach County or between the First American Bank of Palm Beach County and any bank in Broward County with "American" in its name, although the First American Bank of Palm Beach County has a branch within one mile of the Palm Beach/Broward County line. David Starke, an economist who specializes in consulting work with financial institutions, was not tendered as an expert witness and, accordingly, was not accepted as one. However, the surveys of banks with similar names in the State of Florida prepared by him reveal that all banks using the word "American" in their names also use either a first-word adjective and/or a geographic designation to distinguish one from the other. According to those surveys, both the banks and the savings and loam associations in Broward County with "American" in their titles use these two methods of distinguishing themselves. Both methods of distinction would be utilized by the requested one change in this cause. Other than uncorroborated hearsay evidence, American Bank introduced four items of correspondence which David L. Cory personally obtained from mail erroneously received by American Bank on one Saturday. All of the items of correspondence originated from persons outside of Broward County, with two of them originating from outside of the State of Florida. None of the items was addressed to the American Bank of Hollywood; however, three of the four items specifically carried American Bank's mailing address. The 1980 Hollywood (Broward County, Florida) telephone directory contains a listing for a First American Bank of Broward County, a bank formerly known as Executive Bank of Fort Lauderdale and now known as Great American Bank of Broward County. 10 . In March, 1979 the American Bank of Hollywood reserved with the Secretary of State's office the corporate name of American Bank of Broward. Other than reserving the name, American Bank has taken no steps toward using that name. The Department takes no position on the requested name change herein and recommends neither approval nor disapproval.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered approving the request of First Bank of Hollywood Beach to change its name to First American Bank of Broward County. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 13th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard L. Levenstein, Esquire 1500 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Walter W. Wood, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert B. Butler, Esquire Ellis, Spencer, Butler & Kisslan 1909 Tyler Street Post Office Box 6 Hollywood, Florida 33022 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Application involves the proposed organization of a new bank in the State of Florida, Pine Banking Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Bank"). The Applicants, Francisco Jaime Pinheiro, Nelson Pinheiro and Noberto Pinheiro, are citizens of Brazil. Francisco Pinheiro has been in the banking business for 20 year. Francisco Pinheiro has been the president of BMCSA, a wholesale bank in Brazil, for 14 years. Francisco Pinheiro is a vice-president of the Federation of Brazilian Banks. BMCSA has been in operation for 51 years. It has branches in 15 of the most important capitols of Brazil. It has capital equity of approximately 100 million dollars and assets of approximately 700 million dollars. During the past 5 years, BMCSA has been cited by a financial magazine in Brazil as having the best development and performance in Latin America. There are approximately 300 banks in Brazil. BMCSA ranks between the 18th and 22nd largest bank in Brazil. The Applicants desire to form a bank in Florida in order to support small and medium sized export companies. The Applicants have worked in the international market since 1982, mainly through United States' banks in New York. The proposed president and chief executive officer of the Proposed Bank is Alberto Espinosa. Mr. Espinosa has been in the banking business in the United States for approximately 22 years. For the past 17 years Mr. Espinosa has been involved in international banking. Mr. Espinosa was the general manager for the Bank of New England International, the Edge Act Bank of New England. Mr. Espinosa worked in Miami, Florida, from 1976 through 1979, and during the past five years. He is, therefore, familiar with the community that the Proposed Bank will serve. The proposed board of the Proposed Bank will consists of people in the community with a variety of backgrounds: a CPA, a banking attorney, exporters, freight forwarders and bankers. At least six members have banking experience. The head of credit of the Proposed Bank will be Maria Justo, who occupied a similar position at the Bank of New England, the Edge Act Bank of New England. The Proposed Bank will have a credit committee on the board responsible for every credit the bank proposes. One officer will be hired to insure compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Initial capital for the Proposed Bank will be $5,000,000.00. The economic study used to determine public convenience and necessity was prepared by David Starke, president of Financial Institution Consultants, Inc. Financial Institution Consultants, Inc., is engaged in activities as a consultant to financial institutions. The company provides services involving banking charters, branching, mergers, acquisitions and regulatory matters. Mr. Starke opined that the primary service area of the Proposed Bank, which consists of all of Dade County, Florida, was drawn in accordance with Chapter 3C-9, Florida Administrative Code, the Proposed Bank will enhance public convenience and advantage, there is a reasonable probability of success without undue injury to any other existing financial institution and the proposed capital is adequate. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Raul J. Valdes-Fauli, Esquire Robert S. Turk, Esquire Suite 3400, One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-1897 Albert T. Gimbel Chief Banking 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 ================================================================
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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: In the latter part of 1973, petitioner submitted to respondent its application for authority to organize a corporation for the purpose of conducting a general banking business to be located on the west side of U.S. Highway 19 at the intersection of Ridge Road in the City of Port Richie. An investigation of the application was conducted by State Supervising Examiner Bruce L. Hieronymus in April of 1974. The application received conditional approval from the former Comptroller of the State of Florida in December of 1974. In January of 1975, such conditional approval was revoked by the present Comptroller. Mr. Hieronymus conducted an update investigation of petitioner's application in mid-March, 1975, noting in his report that additional field examination time should have been allowed and that his recommendation and report was made without audit or verification of some points that could have a definite bearing on the Comptroller's decision. On April 16, 1975, a Comptroller's Conference was held. On October 15, 1975, Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis notified petitioner that he had denied the application for authority to organize the First Bank of Port Richie. The reasons for denial were set forth in a Statement attached to the Order of denial. While the Comptroller found that petitioner's establishment would promote, to some degree, the public convenience in the area, it was further found that: "Growth in the area has been significant. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that past growth trends will continue. While four of the seven banks in the western area of Pasco County have recorded impressive gains in deposits from June 1974 through June 1975, the increases have been reflected overwhelmingly in time deposits and the savings and loan offices in the area compete heavily for these deposits. The three banks closest to the proposed bank site have not enjoyed significant deposit growth. While Ellis Security Bank reported a total deposit increase of $3.1 million during the period June 1974 through June 1975, Ellis First National Bank of New Port Richey and Peoples State Bank reported decreases in total deposits for the same period of $1.4 million and $7.5 million, respectively. It appears that local conditions do not assure reasonable promise of successful operation of the proposed bank and the existing banks. On the basis of the foregoing, the Comptroller has concluded that, while the first criterion is met in this case, the second criterion is not met. Therefore, the application is denied. Since this conclusion renders the other four criteria moot, the Comptroller has not reached any conclusions with respect to those other four criteria." Subsequent to the denial, petitioner requested a hearing in accordance with Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes. Receiving no response from the Comptroller, petitioner filed for a writ of mandamus in the Leon County Circuit Court. That Court found that the parties had agreed to proceed in accordance with the new Administrative Procedure Act and ordered respondent to grant petitioner a formal hearing. The office of the Comptroller forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the undersigned Hearing Officer was designated to conduct the proceedings. This being a fact-finding adversary hearing under F.S. Sec. 120.57(1) to determine the issue of whether petitioner should be granted authority to organize and operate a general banking business at the proposed location; and considering the long delay between the Comptroller's conference, the Comptroller's order of denial and the date of the present hearing, as well as the fact that the Comptroller declined to reach any conclusion as to four of the six criteria required to be met for a charter, the parties were permitted to present all relevant evidence to date concerning the issues in dispute. As noted above, the proposed bank is to be located on a corner of the Port Richie Shopping Village, a large shopping center at the intersection of Ridge Road and U.S Highway 19, the latter of which is often described as "murderer's row due to its extremely heavy traffic congestion. This is a signal-controlled intersection with turn lanes and turn arrows, and is the only intersection with a traffic control light for several miles along Highway 19. Large residential areas surround the proposed site and a junior college is being built two miles east of the site. The site provides easy ingress and egress and adequate parking space. While the owners of the shopping center are experiencing financial difficulties in connection therewith, the center enjoys an occupancy rate of approximately 93 percent. County, state and federal offices are also located in or near the shopping center. There are two or three savings and loan institutions located in the immediate area of the proposed site. However, the nearest bank to the south of the proposed site is about 2.3 miles and the nearest bank to the north is 3.5 miles. The seven existing banks in the area are closer together than petitioner would be to any other bank, with the possible exception of the second and third banks to the south of petitioner in New Port Richie. The name of the proposed bank is First Bank of Port Richie. While numerous state and national banks and clearing houses utilize the word "first" in their nomenclature, petitioner's name should cause no conflict or confusion with the name of an existing bank. For its housing quarters, petitioner proposes to construct a permanent two-story building containing some 14,000 square feet, the second floor to be only partially finished. The size and layout of the building allow for growth, flexibility and convenience, and necessary security equipment is planned. Estimated construction costs are reasonable. Petitioner intends to temporarily operate in a modular unit located adjacent to the site of the permanent building so as to allow for construction of the building without interference. The temporary unit will be leased and will comply with federal security and bonding requirements. There is nothing in the record to indicate that petitioner's proposed capital structure is less than adequate. State examiner Hieronymus found this factor to be favorable in both his original and updated reports and no witness testified to the contrary. The examiner's original and updated investigations report as unfavorable the general character of management of petitioner. This conclusion appears to be based primarily upon the examiner's opinion at the time he prepared his reports that the petitioner's proposed president and chief executive officer, Mr. Raymond O. MacDonald, Jr., lacked both directorate experience and experience as the head of a bank. However, the evidence Illustrates, and Mr. Hieronymus admits, that at the time he prepared those reports he was unfamiliar with MacDonald's extensive banking experience, both as an executive vice president of a Tampa bank and as a director of a Lakeland bank. Testimony on this point from other witnesses indicates that the proposed officers and directors represent a cross-section of the community, each with prior business experience and three with prior operative banking experience with both new and established banks. The trade area of the proposed bank consists of approximately fourteen square miles. Since the early 1970's, the Pasco County area has been one of the fastest growing areas in the State of Florida. In mid-1973, the estimated population of the trade area was 9,200 residents. Present estimated population of the trade area is over 16,000, using figures obtained from statistics of the U.S. Post Office. The state average is 12,000 people per bank. In the past five years, the area has experienced an increase in deposits of 123 percent. As in most other areas across the nation, the area in question suffered in 1973/74 from the deleterious effects of inflation and recession, with attendant declines in construction and increases in the percentage of unemployed persons. While one opponent of petitioner's new bank charter testified that the banks in Pasco County had had a "rough go of it" in the past few years, this is not borne out by the evidence relating to the deposit growth and net income experienced by the seven existing banks. This same witness further stated that economic conditions in the area were now beginnings to pick up. Also, the two opponents to petitioner's application, both affiliated with banks in Pasco County, are each considering placing a remote facility or a branch office within the petitioner's proposed trade area. All but one of the seven banks in the area experienced a growth in deposits from the 1974 to the 1975 year end. The one bank which reported a decrease in deposits made a profit of some $77,000.00 in 1975, in spite of a loan write-off of about $700,000.00 in 1974 and problems with poor management. The two newest banks in the community, one of which is the closest bank to the north of petitioner, show excellent growth in deposits from 1974 to 1975. The two opponents who appeared at the hearing each testified that, other than normal competition factors, the proposed bank will have no adverse effect upon the successful operation of their existing banks. When Mr. Hieronymus conducted his investigations concerning the petitioner's proposed bank, he did not get the impression that other bankers in the area were concerned & that petitioner's operation would adversely affect their existing operations. The February, 1976, Comparative Figures Report published by the Florida Bankers Association, which is relied upon in part by respondent in determining whether to grant banking charters, shows Pasco County to have an 8.1 percent increase in deposits from 1974 to 1975 year ends. Since January of 1975, respondent has granted bank charters to banks located in Duval County with a deposit growth of minus .1 percent; in Polk County with a deposit growth of 1.5 percent; and in Hillsborough County with a deposit growth of minus 1.5 percent. Newly chartered banks frequently lose money in their first year of operation. Although the petitioner projected earnings indicating a substantial profit in each of the first three years of operation; Mr. Hieronymus concluded in his report that the opportunity for an acceptable return on investment was less than probable and reported the factor of "future earings prospects," to be "unfavorable." Using the approach of a percentage of average total assets rather than percentage of total capital (as used by petitioner in its projections) and taking into account the petitioner's purchase of the land and changes in the sources and costs of money, Mr. Hieronymus projected a net operating income of minus $14,091.00 the first year, plus $28,976.00 the second year and plus $37,023.00the third year. Deposit growth would increase from $2.5 million to $6.5 million to $9.0 million over the first three years, according to the projections of Mr. Hieronymus. These figures would be higher were petitioner located in its permanent facility during its first year. On cross- examination at the hearing, Mr. Hieronymus stated that these projected figures illustrate that local conditions assure reasonable promise of a profit.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent grant to petitioner authority to organize and operate a general banking business at 800 U.S. Highway 19 North, Port Richie, Florida. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. James M. Barclay Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Wilbur E. Brewton and Mr. Clyde M. Taylor Taylor, Brion, Buker and Greene, P.A. P.O. Box 1796 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. John D. Kiernan 307 West Coast Title Building Sixth Street and First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DIVISION OF BANKING THE FIRST BANK OF PORT RICHEY (proposed new bank) Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-086 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF BANKING Respondent. /
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a mortgage broker's license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Application and Reasons for Denial Applicant is a 52-year-old former mortgage broker who resides in Dade County, Florida. He was first licensed as a mortgage broker in Florida in 1959. His license remained in effect until it expired in 1976. He reapplied for registration as a mortgage broker in December, 1976. In June, 1977, the Department denied his application despite Applicant's attempt to withdraw his application in January, 1977. (P-1, R-6, R-7.) On March 18, 1981, Applicant filed another application with the Department for a license to act as a mortgage broker. That application is the subject of this proceeding. The Department seeks to deny it on grounds that the Applicant is insolvent; that he had a final judgment entered against him in a civil action on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit; and that he lacks the requisite competence, honesty, truthfulness, and integrity to act as a mortgage broker in Florida. II. Insolvency Applicant is insolvent and deeply in debt. His insolvency arises out of his association with a company known as Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation ("Guardian Mortgage"), a mortgage brokerage firm operating in Dade County. He was secretary/treasurer and one of several mortgage brokers who worked for that company. Prior to its going out of business in 1976, it and its several brokers were accused of numerous financial misdealings. Between 1974 and 1980, over 31 civil lawsuits were filed against Applicant concerning financial transactions in which he was involved; most of the transactions occurred in connection with his employment at Guardian Mortgage. As a result of these lawsuits, and his failure to defend against them (on advice of counsel) , final judgments in excess of $500,000 have been entered against him and remain unpaid. Applicant has not attempted to pay off any of these judgments, although his codefendant, Archie Struhl, has made efforts to satisfy some of them. (Testimony of Lipsitt, Haber; R-4, R-5, R-6.) After Guardian Mortgage ceased operations, Applicant ran a hotel and orange grove operation in Central America. His wife was a preschool teacher. He has not earned any money beyond that necessary to meet his basic needs. (Testimony of Haber.) In the past, the Department has ordinarily refused to issue mortgage broker licenses to applicants who are insolvent. The reason for this policy is that the public "could be injured if a man [mortgage broker] did not have sufficient monies to back him up . . ." Tr. 144.) The only exception to this policy of denying applications on grounds of insolvency is when an applicant has shown that he is making an honest effort to satisfy and pay off the outstanding judgments. (Testimony of Ehrlich.) III. Civil Judgment of Fraud Entered Against Applicant In April, 1977, a civil action was filed by Murray Ritter against three codefendants: Applicant, Archie Struhl, and Guardian Mortgage. (Circuit Court of Dade County, Case No. 77-10849, Division II.) Count II of the complaint alleged that the defendants committed fraud by failing to invest $10,000 in a first mortgage and, instead, converted the money to their own use. On July 20, 1977, the circuit court, upon plaintiff's motion, entered a Final Summary Judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the three defendants. The judgment awarded plaintiff $10,000 in compensatory damages, $5,000 in punitive damages, and court costs of $63, for a total of $15,063. (R-5, R-6.) IV. Experience, Honesty, Truthfulness, Integrity, Competency, and Background of Applicant Applicant was a licensed mortgage broker for many years. The Department acknowledges that his experience in mortgage financing is adequate. (Testimony of Ehrlich.) Applicant denies that he ever engaged in wrongdoing as a mortgage broker, that he knew of improprieties occurring at Guardian Mortgage, or participated in a cover-up. He denies that he ever misrepresented facts or acted dishonestly as a mortgage broker. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Applicant lacks honesty, truthfulness, or integrity. (Testimony of Haber.) However, Applicant has not demonstrated that he has the requisite background and competence to engage in financial transactions involving mortgage financing. Civil judgments were entered (by the Circuit Court of Dade County) against Applicant in the following cases, each of which involved mortgage financing, unsecured loan transactions, or real estate investments negotiated by Applicant: Irvings S. Philipson, et al. v. Venus Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 74-1320. Dr. Seymour Z. Beiser, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No. 76-24374. Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami v. Brenda Alexander, et al., Case No. 75-16230. City National Bank of Miami v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No. 75-39444. Leon Earler, et al. v. Venus Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 76-22138. Jesus Suarez v. Leonard Gordon, et al., Case No. 76-26381. John J. Nussman, et al. v. Melvin J. Haber, et al., Case No. 76-30569 (12). County National Bank of North Miami Beach v. Sid Shane, et al., Case No. 77-27909 (14). Herman Mintzer, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, Case No. 76-16842. Melvin Waldorf, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, Case No. 76-16344. Florence Margen v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No 76-39412. Biscayne Bank v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et el., Case No. 76-39857 (8). Harry Jolkower, et al. v. Archie Struhl, et al., Case No. 77-19172. Hilliard Avrutis v. Archie Struhl, et al., Case No. 32494. Julius Wladawsky, et al. v. Melvin J. Haber, et al., Case No. 76-22554 (14). Taken as a whole, these judgments support an inference that Applicant lacks the competence and background necessary to act as a responsible mortgage broker in Florida. 2/ (Testimony of Ehrlich; R-4, R-5.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application for a mortgage broker's license be DENIED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of January, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Department rules on the Proposed Findings of Facts submitted by the parties as follows: APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Applicant's proposed finding as to the net profit to asset ratio is accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to the adjusted capital to asset ratio is accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to the boundaries of the PSA are accepted. Applicant's proposed findings as to the population estimates of the PSA and the communities located within the PSA are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Department's findings adopted herein. Applicant's proposed finding as to net migration into Pinellas County and the age distribution characteristics of Pinellas County are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Department's findings adopted herein. Applicant's proposed finding that the Bank of Indian Rocks is the only full service bank with its main office operating in the PSA is accepted. Applicant's proposed finding that the Bank of Indian Rocks experienced a 23.3 percent rate of growth for loans and a relatively modest rate of growth for deposits during the last reporting year is accepted. Applicant's proposed findings as to the nature of the proposed branch site are accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to the banks servicing the PSA is accepted to the extent that said banks have branch offices located in the PSA, but is rejected to the extent that said finding excludes other banks which may service customers in the PSA. Applicant's proposed finding that the PSA community is heavily dominated in terms of bank operations by the Bank of Indian Rocks is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantive evidence in the record. The record indicates that based on a telephone sample survey of 399 persons, 49 percent of the households in the PSA have their primary checking account at the Bank of Indian Rocks. The Applicant's proposed finding does not necessarily follow from the survey. Applicant's proposed finding as to the percentage of people located in the PSA that have a primary checking account in the PSA and bank with the Bank of Indian Rocks is rejected for the reasons previously stated in paragraph 10. Applicant's proposed finding as to the need for an additional full service bank based on the statistical data presented is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed finding as to the savings and loan associations serving the PSA is accepted to the extent that said savings and loan associations have offices located in the PSA, but is rejected to the extent that said finding excludes other savings and loan association offices which may serve customers in the PSA. Applicant's proposed findings as to the nature of the primary service area is accepted, with the exception of the finding as to the amount of land available for future development which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Applicant's proposed findings that the Applicant's economic capacity will be enhanced by the branch; that the Applicant can support the proposed branch and statements with regard thereto, are rejected as constituting conclusions of law and legal argument, rather than findings of fact. Applicant's proposed findings as to the range of services that will be offered at the proposed branch are accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to the need for additional banking facilities and the convenience of the proposed bank are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Applicant's proposed findings as to the substantial experience of the bank staff, and significant assets are accepted; however, Applicant's proposed findings to the capability of the bank to support the branch facilities is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed findings as to the Applicant's return on assets on 1977, 19978 and year to date are accepted. Applicant's proposed findings as to the liquid assets as a percent of total liabilities; condition of assets; classified assets and loan loss ratio are accepted. Applicant's proposed findings as to increased earnings, increased average balances and reduced chargeoffs are accepted. Applicant's proposed finding that there has been no cash operating loss of the Applicant is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Applicant's other statements with regard thereto are rejected as constituting legal argument rather than findings of facts. Applicant's proposed finding that the review of the branch by management of the Applicant and the Atlantic Bancorporation is significant is accepted; however, Applicant's proposed finding as to the judgment of the management as to the success of the proposed branch constitutes a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed finding that there was no insider transaction involved in the purchase of the land is rejected as being irrelevant and immaterial. Applicant's proposed finding that there was no showing that the lease transaction constitutes an insider transaction is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Applicant's proposed finding that the lease sum represents approximately a 12 percent return on assets is accepted; however, the Applicant's proposed finding that the lease arrangement was not controverted as being unfair or unreasonable is rejected as being irrelevant and immaterial. Applicant's proposed finding that the depth of management is sufficient to operate the branch is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed findings as to the number of years of experience of various officers of the bank is accepted. Applicant's proposed finding as to whether the name of the proposed branch was confusing is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Applicant's proposed finding that the Applicant does not have more than four pending branch applications is accepted. Applicant's proposed findings that there was no evidence presented which would indicate that the bank was not in compliance with federal and state regulations and statements of bank offices thereto are accepted. PROTESTANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Protestant's proposed findings in Section 1 are accepted, with the exception of the last sentence which is rejected as being a conclusory statement not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 2 are accepted. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 3 are accepted, with the exception that the record reflects that the proposed site is located in the vicinity of the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Indian Rocks Road and Walsingham, and does not specify the number of fees west of the intersection. Protestant's proposed findings as to the PSA's boundaries as delineated by the Applicant in Section 4 are accepted. The second and third sentences in Section 4 are rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The first sentence in the second paragraph of Section 4 is accepted. The second sentence in the second paragraph of Section 4 is rejected as constituting legal argument rather than a finding of fact. The remaining proposed findings in Section 4 relating to the boundaries of the PSA of the First Bank of Treasure Island are irrelevant for the reason that said PSA is not necessarily applicable to subsequent applications. Protestant's proposed finding in Section 4 as to the population of the PSA is accepted and the proposed findings relating to the population of First Bank of Treasure Island's PSA is rejected as being irrelevant. Protestant's proposed finding in Section 4 as to the residential nature of the PSA is accepted. Protestant's proposed finding as to the limited nature of commercial activity is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The record reflects that although commercial activity in the PSA is in the form of small retail, professional, and service type establishments, these establishments are numerous in number. Protestant's proposed finding as to the considerable greenbelt lands which cannot be used for development is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The record reflects that there are greenbelt areas which cannot be used for development, but does not reflect that the amount of these lands is considerable. Protestant's proposed findings in the first and second sentences in Section 5 are accepted. The third sentence in Section 5 is accepted to the extent that traffic coming from west to east cannot enter the proposed site directly. The remaining findings in the first paragraph of Section 5 are accepted, with the exception of the last phrase of the last sentence which is rejected as speculation and not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Protestant's proposed finding in the second paragraph of Section 5 as to the number of Applicant's existing customers in the PSA is accepted, however, the remaining findings in that paragraph are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Protestant's proposed finding in the last paragraph of Section 5 is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed finding in the first paragraph of Section 6 are accepted to the extent that said finding represents the number of offices of financial institutions serving the PSA and not the number of financial institutions. Protestant's proposed finding in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that the Applicant offers automatic transfer from savings to checking and not that they contend this service is unique. Protestant's proposed finding in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6 is accepted with the exception that the record does not support the finding that the Bank of Indian Rocks offers automatic transfer accounts. The finding in the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as being irrelevant. Protestant's proposed finding in the third paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that some of the questions asked in the Burke survey may have been based on the assumption that automatic transfer accounts were not presently offered in the PSA, however, the entire survey was not based on that assumption. Protestant's proposed finding in the fourth paragraph of Section 6 is accepted. Protestant's proposed finding in the fifth paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record, said finding is based on hearsay evidence which is uncorroborated. Protestant's proposed finding in the sixth paragraph as to the number of businesses that the Applicant listed in its application which were not in its PSA is accepted, however, the remaining finding in that paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Protestant's proposed finding in the last paragraph of Section 6 is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed finding as to the provisions of Rule 3C- 13.041(2)(a), F.A.C. in the first paragraph of Section 7 are accepted. Protestant's proposed finding as to the Applicant's capital to asset ratio in the second paragraph of Section 7 is accepted. Protestant's remaining finding in that paragraph is rejected as constituting legal argument and opinion, rather than a finding of fact. Protestant's proposed findings in the first paragraph of Section 7 are accepted. Protestant's proposed finding in the fourth paragraph of Section 7 is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that Mr. Maurer stated that the Applicant probably would not be able to add to capital through earnings based on the projected losses of the unopened branches. Protestant's proposed findings as to the projected deposits of the Applicant's branches in the fifth paragraph of Section 7 are accepted, however, Protestant's proposed finding as to the need for additional capital is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, opinion and legal argument. The remaining findings in that paragraph and the first sentence of the sixth paragraph are rejected as being legal argument rather than findings of facts based on competent substantial evidence in the record. The finding in the second sentence of the sixth paragraph is accepted. Protestant's proposed finding in the seventh paragraph of Section 7 that the applicant does not have sufficient personnel to staff and manage its new branches is accepted. Protestant's proposed finding that no manager for the proposed branch has been selected is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Although there appears to be conflicting testimony as to this fact, the application contained in the record states that James Arntz had been selected as the branch manager, in addition to testimony on direct examination that Mr. Arntz had been selected as the branch manager and the record supports said finding. Protestant's proposed finding as to the managerial capacity of the Applicant and its impact on the adequacy of capital to asset ratio is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed findings contained in the first two sentences of the eighth paragraph of Section 7 are accepted. Protestant's proposed finding contained in the last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed finding in the last paragraph of Section 7 is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed finding in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 8 is accepted. The remaining findings in that paragraph are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Protestant's proposed finding in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 8 is accepted, and the remaining finding in that paragraph is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 9 are accepted. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 10 are accepted. Protestant's proposed findings in the first two paragraphs and the first, second and fourth sentence of the third paragraph of Section 11 are accepted. The proposed findings in the third and fifth sentences of the third paragraph are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Protestant's proposed findings in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Section 11 are accepted, the remaining sentence in that paragraph is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 12 are accepted, with the exception that (1) 9 percent represents an average cost of time deposits and to a minimum and (2) the proposed finding in the last sentence constitutes a conclusion of law. Protestant's proposed findings in the first two paragraphs of Section 13 are accepted. The remaining findings of the last paragraph are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Protestant's proposed findings in the first paragraph of Section 14 are accepted, with the exception that the record reflects that the purchase price of the proposed site was $240,000 and not $200,000. Protestant's proposed findings in the first two sentences of the second paragraph of Section 14 are rejected as being irrelevant. The proposed findings in the third sentence is accepted. The proposed findings in the remaining sentences of that paragraph are rejected as constituting legal argument and conclusions of law. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 15 as to the provisions of Rule 3C-13.041(3) are accepted. The remaining proposed findings are rejected as being irrelevant. Protestant's proposed findings in Section 16 as to the provisions of rule 3c-13.041(2)(c) are accepted. The proposed finding in the second sentence of that section is accepted. The proposed finding in the third sentence is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record for the reasons stated above in paragraph 53 of this Order. The proposed finding in the last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 1, 3, 4 through 10, 12 through 19,22 and 23 are accepted. The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 2 are accepted with the exception of the third sentence which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in record for the reasons stated above in paragraph 53 of this Order. The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 11 are accepted, with the exception of the figure for the projected deposits for the first year based on 2.2 persons per household which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The record reflects that this figure is $2,487,000 and not $2,700,000. The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 20 are accepted, with the exception of the number of deposit and loan customers residing in the PSA which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The record reflects that there was conflicting testimony as to the number of existing deposit customers, however, the hearing officer found the number to be 140, and 65 loan customers. The Department's proposed findings contained in paragraph 21 are accepted, with the exception of the amount of square feet of the building to house the proposed branch, which is rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Although the application contained in the record stated that the building would contain 3,640 square feet (including the drive-in canopy), the hearing officer found that the building would contain 2,000 square feet. PROTESTANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT AND FINDINGS OF FACT OF HEARING OFFICER The Protestant's exception contained in Section 1, with regard to the Hearing Officer's ruling's on the proposed findings, is accepted to the extent that the better practice would be for the Hearing Officer to specify which proposed findings are rejected as not supported by the evidence, which are irrelevant and which constitute conclusions of law. However, it has been recognized that the hearing officer is not required to make explicit rulings on subordinate. commulative, immaterial or unnecessary proposed facts. Forrester v. Career Service Commission, 361 So.2d 220 (1st DCA Fla. 1978). Notwithstanding, the Department has expressly ruled on each proposed finding and stated the reasons therefore. Protestant's exception contained in Section 2 is rejected for the reason that some of the proposed findings contained in Protestant's Proposed Findings of Fact were not based on competent substantial evidence, were irrelevant or constituted conclusions of law, as more fully set forth above in paragraphs 31 through 70. Therefore, it would be improper for either the Hearing Officer or the Department to adopt each and every proposed finding contained in Protestant's Proposed Findings of Fact as requested in the exception. Protestant's exception contained in Section 3 is rejected for the reason that the Hearing Officer's finding that the proposed branch manager is James Arntz is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The testimony contained in pages 497 and 498 of the transcript, cited by Protestant in its exception, refers to the Applicant's application for a branch office in northeast St. Petersburg. Although there was conflicting testimony as to this fact (see TR-465 and TR-540), the application contained in the record also identified James Arntz as the proposed branch manager. As such, there was competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding. Protestant's exception contained in Section 4 is accepted for the reason that the Hearing Officer found that the "the greater weight of the evidence indicates that average number of persons per household in Pinellas County is 2.2". As such, Applicant's revised figures based on 2.2 percent per household are accepted which indicate that the proposed branch will not show a profit until the fourth year. The Department's findings of fact have modified the Hearing Officer's findings accordingly. Protestant's exception contained in Section 5 is rejected for the reason that the Hearing Officer's finding is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The testimony contained on pages 511 and 512 of the transcript, which is cited by the Protestant, merely states that the Applicant probably would not be able to add to capital through earnings based on the assumption of the projected losses of the Applicant's new branches. As such, the Hearing Officer's finding is accurate. Protestant's exception contained in Section 6 is accepted for the reason that the record reflects that the Applicant's president stated that the branch will probably have Saturday banking hours, but that the exact hours had not been determined. The Department's Findings of Facts have modified the Hearing Officer's findings accordingly. Protestant's exception contained in Section 7 is rejected for the reason that the Hearing Officer's finding is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. On pages 328 and 329 of the transcript, the witness for the Applicant testified that there was a stacking lane which functionally is in front of the site for traffic hearing west. Protestant's exception contained in Section 8 is rejected for the reasons that the Hearing Officer's finding based on the study was limited and for a limited purpose, and the questions asked in the survey and the procedure appear reasonable. In addition, the Hearing Officer's and Department's reliance on the study is minimal, if at all. Protestant's exception contained in Section 9 is rejected for the reason that the adverse impact of the establishment of a branch on other banks is irrelevant, because it is not a consideration under the statutory and regulatory criteria applicable to branch bank applications. Protestant's exceptions contained in Sections 10 and 19, 21 and 23 are rejected for the reasons that the requested findings are conclusions of law which are not properly included in the Hearing Officer's report pursuant to Section 120.60(3), Florida Statutes. Protestant's exception contained in Section 20 is rejected for the reason that the requested finding as to an appraisal of land and improvements is irrelevant where, as in this case, there is no insider transaction involved in the purchase of the land. Protestant's exception contained in Section 22 is rejected for the reason that the revisions referred to by the Protestant were updated figures based on data unavailable at the time of the application and figures relating to the lease arrangement. Although at the time of the application, the Applicant intended to purchase the proposed site, it later decided to lease the proposed site. The Department does not view this as a material change in the application and fails to see how the Protestant was prejudiced by this change. As to the updated figures, in McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA), the court stated that the hearing officer may freely consider relevant evidence of changing economic conditions and other current circumstances external to the application. It should also be noted that the revisions referred to by the Protestant were testified to at the hearing in June, thus giving the Protestant a month's notice to make any changes necessary in the preparation of its case which was later presented at the continuation of the hearing in July. Protestant's exception contained in Section 24 is rejected for the reason that the requested findings are not material to the statutory and regulatory criteria applicable to branch applications.
Findings Of Fact At no time pertinent to the issues herein was Rebecca Love Henderson licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance as a mortgage broker under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency responsible for licensing and supervising mortgage brokers and associated persons in this state. In early January, 1987, Ms. Henderson began working for MAC, a mortgage banking concern, at its office located at 4045 Tamiami Trail, Pt. Charlotte, Florida. In March, 1987, Carol May Wilson went to MAC's office to see about getting the adjustable rate mortgage then currently existing on her residence changed to a fixed rate mortgage, because her research indicated that MAC had the best mortgage rates available at the time. Ms. Wilson entered the office without an appointment and spoke to the receptionist who called Ms. Henderson to speak with her. On that visit, Ms. Henderson gave Ms. Wilson a pamphlet which contained the then existing mortgage rates and discussed with her the terms and rates, the amount of payment required both as a down payment and as monthly payments, and similar matters. After that discussion, Ms. Wilson left with the pamphlet without making application. After discussing what she had been told by Ms. Henderson with her husband, Ms. Wilson and her husband went back to MAC's office where they again spoke with Ms. Henderson. In this latter conversation, they again discussed the applicable rates and filled out an application for a mortgage. At that time they also paid a $300.00 fee to cover the cost of an appraisal on their property, and several other costs and fees. At this time, Ms. Henderson helped the Wilsons fill out the form and, in addition, prepared and delivered to them a "Good Faith Estimate", and discussed the appraisal costs, points, and the need for a termite inspection. On this second visit, Ms. Henderson gave the Wilsons a rate option form which they and she signed, which locked in the interest rate at 8 1/2 percent. She also gave them a receipt for the appraisal fee they had paid. Both forms reflect Ms. Henderson as a "loan officer." The Wilsons went to MAC on their own. They had not been solicited by Ms. Henderson or any other employee of the firm but came in on the basis of the firm's advertisements. While in the facility, they noticed a display board which indicated the current rates and points being charged and the rate and points reflected on that board were those charged by Ms. Henderson on behalf of MAC. She did not negotiate, or attempt to negotiate any change to either the rates or the points. During her conversation, Ms. Henderson explained the various types of loans available and the various options available but did not urge one over the other. At least one of the forms, the Good Faith Estimate form, was mailed to the Wilsons sometime after their visit and was sent with a cover letter from another employee of the firm. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Wilson asked to speak with anyone else during either of their visits to MAC. Consequently, they do not know whether they could have done so had they desired. The documentation they received from Ms. Henderson appeared complete and they were satisfied with the service on their mortgage. At some time in early 1987, Donald R. Mullin, accompanied by his wife, went to MAC to refinance his mortgage and on that visit, spoke with Ms. Henderson. Mr. Mullin had previously filled out a loan application form which he had received from Floyd Henderson, also of MAC. Mr. Mullin was referred to MAC by a friend at work. He was not solicited by Respondent. During this meeting, the Mullins presented the forms they had filled out and paid the various appraisal and other fees required. The receipt given them by Ms. Henderson for these fees reflects her as a loan officer. At this meeting, Ms. Henderson did not indicate whether the loan would be approved or not. The only point for negotiation during the Mullin interview was with regard to the appraisal fee. Mr. Mullin had just had an appraisal done for his newly acquired mortgage and did not feel it necessary to have another one. During their conversation, Ms. Henderson agreed to see if the prior appraisal could be used and if so, the fee would be refunded. In fact it was refunded. The loan did not close because Mr. Mullin was not considered to have sufficient income to support the payments. However, at no time during their discussions, did Ms. Henderson make any commitments on behalf of MAC, nor did she offer to change points or rates. Herbert Roshkind and his wife were referred to MAC by their real estate broker and dealt exclusively with Ms. Henderson in all their dealings with the company. She gave them all the specifics relating to their potential loan, including interest rates. She explained that the rates varied weekly and that they could either lock in or not, as they chose. She also discussed the relevant fees for appraisal, credit report, etc., which she made clear were not refundable, and discussed the difference between a fixed rate and a variable rate mortgage. She also advised them of the various terms a loan could be taken for Their loan was complicated to the extent that Mr. Roshkind was retired. His income came from real estate and other investments which could not easily be verified. As a result, Mr. Roshkind was contacted frequently by Ms. Henderson in the course of preparation of the loan documents, requesting additional information. On one occasion, she came to his home to get additional information and to get his signature on a document just prior to closing. Ms. Henderson did not help the Roshkinds fill out their application. She gave them a package which they took home and filled out themselves. In the package was a list of 19 items which would be required to support the application, and her repeated requests for information related to these items. Mr. Roshkind at no time asked to speak with anyone else. He feels, however, that had he desired to do so, he could have. The rates for mortgages were posted on a board in the office and at no time did Ms. Henderson offer to negotiate either rates or points. Further, from the time the Roshkinds first came in to pick up the application package until they returned it to the MAC office filled in, they received no solicitation or any contact at all from Ms. Henderson or MAC. When the loan was finally approved, in May, 1987, they received a commitment form that was signed by George Emery on behalf of MAC but which was delivered by Ms. Henderson. Kimberly Lynn Johnson worked for MAC from May, 1986 to August, 1986 and during that period became familiar with Ms. Henderson and her father, Floyd D. Henderson, one of the principals in the company. During the period she worked there, the office was run by C. F. Cline and Mr. Henderson. Ms. Johnson started work as a secretary-receptionist and progressed up through clerking duties until she was trained to act as a loan processor. At that point, though she was not licensed as a mortgage broker, she began accepting loan applications and dealing with prospective clients just as did Ms. Henderson. When she took loan applications, she would receive the form from the prospective borrower, get the information required, and turn it over to a processor who would send out requests for the verifications required, do or order the credit report, and order an appraisal. At no time during this period was she a licensed mortgage broker nor did she know she had to be such to legally do what she was doing. She found this out only when she began studying for the broker's test approximately a year later. During the period Ms. Johnson worked at MAC, Ms. Henderson was a loan officer and also worked for Monroe Title Company. It was during this period of time, Ms. Johnson observed Ms. Henderson doing much the same type of thing she was doing involving the interviewing of applicants, and discussing with them the application forms, rates, points, fees, and the like, as well. This same type of activity was also done by other loan officers who, as she understood it, were licensed, and who, in addition to their in-office work, also visited builders, realtors, and other possible sources of business for the firm. Ms. Johnson recalls quite clearly that Ms. Henderson was engaged in this outside activity as well. On numerous occasions as she left the office, Ms. Henderson would advise Ms. Johnson where she was going, or her name would appear on the list of builders to be seen by herself and other loan officers. When Ms. Johnson first started with the company, walk-in clients would be referred to a loan officer on a rotating basis. Ms. Henderson and other, licensed, loan officers were on that list for rotation. When she served as a loan officer, Ms. Johnson would stay with her client all the way from application through closing and on almost every occasion, once trained, she would complete the process without any help from a licensed loan officer. The same applied to Ms. Henderson. Ms. Johnson was told by Mr. Cline that it was all right for her to act as a loan officer without a license as a mortgage broker as long as she didn't take a bonus or commission or did not solicit outside the office. Ms. Johnson was paid an hourly wage only. She does not know how Ms. Henderson was paid nor was any evidence admitted to define that. However, considering the fact that Mr. Moulin and Mr. Stillweaa both complained because their income was reduced as a result of Ms. Henderson's grabbing clients and her sharing of Moulin's builder clients, it can be inferred she was, at least in part, paid by commission. Based on representations made by Mr. Cline, Ms. Johnson continued working without question until an inspector from the Department came in for an audit. At this point, she figured that something was wrong and subsequently found that only a loan officer in a commercial bank can take loan applications without being licensed as a mortgage broker. MAC was listed on it's business cards as a mortgage banker. Though Ms. Henderson indicated from time to time she was going out to visit with builders, Ms. Johnson never saw her in negotiations with either builders or realtors. At the time in issue, Ms. Henderson's mother was terminally ill and had to be taken to the hospital and doctor's office on a regular basis. Ms. Johnson agrees it is possible Ms. Henderson could have been performing that service when ostensibly out on a call, but specifically recalls her saying she was, from time to time, going to visit a builder or realtor. She cannot say with certainty what Ms. Henderson did; only what she said she was going to do. Considering the state of the evidence, it is clear that Ms. Henderson did visit builders, and notwithstanding her assertion she may have gone there merely to drop off advertising materials, the likelihood is, and it is so found, she went for the purpose of soliciting business. It also is clear that with the exception of Ms. Henderson and Ms. Johnson, the individuals who processed applications and met with clients were properly licensed as mortgage brokers and were identified as loan officers. Both Mr. Cline and Mr. Henderson were licensed mortgage brokers and supervised, on a routine basis, the files of the other loan officers including Ms. Henderson and Ms. Johnson. In addition, either Mr. Cline or Mr. Henderson was available for consultation if necessary at all times, as was Mr. Gerber, the underwriter. All loans written by the loan officers, licensed or otherwise, had to conform to the same standards. Subsequent to leaving MAC, Ms. Johnson applied for and was, after testing, issued a license as a mortgage broker in Florida by the Department. This occurred after she was identified as operating as an unlicensed broker similar to Ms. Henderson. She, however, was never cited with a Cease and Desist Order. Mr. Kenneth Moulin worked for MAC from December, 1985 through April, 1987 and, along with his family, owned a 20% interest in the stock of the company. He worked in the Pt. Charlotte office along with Ms. Henderson. His primary job as a licensed loan officer and mortgage broker, was to solicit builders and realtors to refer potential customers. Mr. Moulin was licensed as a mortgage broker in February, 1986. Prior to getting his license, he was not allowed to negotiate with clients or to solicit business from builders or realtors. Because he had been previously engaged in the construction business, the majority of his contacts were in the building industry and he had a list of builders he regularly visited. Shortly after Ms. Henderson came to work at MAC, Mr. Cline gave half of the builders on Mr. Moulin's list to her as her source list. This had a negative impact on Moulin's income since at about the same time, his salary was discontinued and his compensation was based solely on commission, doubled in rate at that time. 24 Once half of Moulin's builders list was given to Ms. Henderson, she began calling on them, and he was told by many friends in the building industry, that she was soliciting them for referrals. In March, 1987, Mr. Moulin and Mr. Stillwell, another loan officer, requested of Mr. Cline a different split of the walk-in traffic because Ms. Henderson, whose office was right near the entrance, was pulling in as many of the walk-ins as she could to the exclusion of the other loan officers. After this complaint, Cline arranged a rotating schedule for walk-ins so that each loan officer would get a proportionate share of opportunity. In Mr. Moulin's opinion, based on his observations of Ms. Henderson and her activities, she, though unlicensed, did much the same type of work he did under his license. She solicited business from builders and realtors outside the office and handled walk-in clients from application through closing. He was not allowed to do any of this prior to being licensed, and he stands by this assertion notwithstanding the fact that numerous forms introduced by Ms. Henderson reflect that prior to the date of his license, he was referred to as loan officer. He explains this as occurring when Cline put his name on forms prepared for other people's loans so that he could get credit for them. Considering the nature of the operation as it appears from the general line of testimony, it is found that this did happen. Mr. Moulin initiated the investigation which culminated in this hearing because he felt he was being unfairly treated when cases were taken from him and he did not receive the commissions to which he felt he was entitled. In his letter to the Department, he identified Ms. Henderson as an "unlicensed mortgage solicitor." This appears to be an accurate description. Marcus Combs, testifying for Ms. Henderson, was sent to MAC by a real estate salesman whose broker was reportedly a major owner of the company. As did the others, Mr. Combs observed the rates and points posted on a board in the office lobby and was referred to Ms. Henderson, who he did not previously know, by the receptionist. During their initial interview, Ms. Henderson discussed the items required for the application and gave him a forms package. At this time, Ms. Henderson was in training and there was a man present throughout the meeting as an observer. At no time during their relationship, did Ms. Henderson attempt to negotiate rates or points, nor did she attempt to sell a particular type of loan. At no time did she solicit Mr. Combs to apply for a mortgage and, because he was having difficulty qualifying for a loan, suggested he look elsewhere for the mortgage. She actually referred him to another lending institution from which he ultimately got his mortgage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department sustaining the Cease and Desist Order entered herein and the denial of Ms. Henderson's application for registration as an associated person with Triple Check Financial Services, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October. 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3203 and 89-3769 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the partiesto this case. For the Department: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. - 8. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Either hearsay evidence or not supported by the record. Accepted. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. - 30. Accepted. 31. - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. - 52. Accepted and incorporated herein. For Ms. Henderson: Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of legal authority. Not a Finding of Fact, (except as to dates of alleged infractions), but a Conclusion of Law. Not a Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the Department's legal basis for filing. Not a Finding of Fact. 5a. - 5e. Not Findings of Fact but comments on the sufficiency of the evidence. & 7. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the sufficiency of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the state of the Department's evidence. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein, except to the second sentence of 12 which is unsupported. First and second sentences accepted. Third sentence is rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to the issue of signing of statements but rejected as to the allegation of inaccuracy. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Good, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Rebecca Love Henderson 5635 Bryner Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32244 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On or about September 3, 1986, WILLIAM E. DALY (hereinafter the "Petitioner") applied to the Department for a license to act as a real estate mortgage broker under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter the Department timely denied the application by letter dated January 15, 1987, and Petitioner duly requested a formal hearing concerning said denial under the authority of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The petition for formal hearing was granted and the Department requested the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter "DOAH") to assign a hearing officer for the purpose of conducting said hearing. By formal order, DOAH assigned Donald R. Alexander, Esquire, as the hearing officer and designated its proceedings as William E. Daly, Petitioner vs. Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, Case No. 87-1421. Thereafter Hearing Officer Alexander conducted the formal hearing as provided by law on May 20, 1987, in West Palm Beach, Florida. After the conclusion of the hearing, both the Petitioner and the Department filed Proposed Recommended Orders On July 9, 1987, Hearing Officer Alexander issued his Recommended Order and copies thereof were duly served on all parties. No exceptions to this Recommended Order have been filed with the Department by either of the parties. In his Recommended Order, Hearing Officer Alexander set forth in separately numbered paragraphs his Findings of Fact and his Conclusions of Law. Based on these statements, Hearing Officer Alexander recommended that the license requested by Petitioner be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of William E. Daly for a mortgage brokerage license be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Primary Service Area (PSA) The proposed association will be located in the Paddock Plaza adjacent to the Paddock Mall Regional Shopping Center, both of which are currently under construction. The site is in the vicinity of the intersection of Southwest 27th Avenue and State Road 200 in the southwest portion of Marion County. The PSA encompasses the southwestern portion of Marion County, including a part of Ocala which is a concentrated residential community. Beyond the city limits, there are schools, recreational areas, an airport, horse farms, a community college, and light industrial type firms in the surburban area. The proposed site is located in the northeastern part of the PSA. The PSA is in a developmental stage with current plans of residential and commercial development which should make the area the fastest growing sector in Marion County. The home offices of Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association and Midstate Federal Savings and Loan Association, and a satellite office of the latter association are located near the northeast boundary of the PSA some three miles from the proposed site. The northern and eastern boundaries of the PSA follow well-defined highways. The southern boundary follows the Marion County line, and the western boundary is drawn due north from the intersection of State Road 200 and the Marion County line. (Testimony of Starke, Exhibit 1) Standards (a) Public convenience and advantage. One commercial banking facility, the main office of Citizens First Bank of Ocala, is located in the northeast corner of the PSA approximately two and one-half miles from the proposed site. It provides full banking services to its customers. Two savings and loan associations have received approval to operate in the PSA. One will be a branch of Midstate Federal Savings and Loan Association which will be located at the Paddock Mall adjacent to the proposed site. The other will be a limited facility of the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Mid-Florida (Volusia County) which will he situated approximately 11.3 miles south of the proposed site in a residential community. Neither of these approved institutions have commenced operations. The proposed site is readily accessible from all sectors of the market area. State Road 200 is a primary artery for northeast/southwest travel. Southwest 27th Avenue is a primary north/south thoroughfare. There are numerous other feeder streets which connect with those two roads to bring traffic to the new mall and plaza area. In addition, Interstate Highway 75 intersects State Road 200 approximately one mile southwest of the proposed site. An extension to Southwest 17th Street is currently proposed which would provide direct access from the northeast to the proposed site. The location of the proposed association at a large regional shopping center will provide an opportunity for residents of the PSA to combine shopping and financial business. This will be facilitated through the utilization of a drive-in facility at the site. Ample parking will be provided in the plaza area, and the network of roads in and around the shopping center will facilitate use of the applicant's services. It will provide a convenient location to conduct savings and loan business for residents and businessmen in the southwestern portion of the county without the necessity of traveling to the more congested downtown area of Ocala. The fact that the proposed association will be a home office rather than a branch office will tend to attract a greater number of individuals within the PSA than a satellite office, and undoubtedly will induce persons outside the PSA to use the institution's services. In 1960, the City of Ocala had a population of 13,598. It increased 66.1 percent to 22,583 by 1970. The 1978 city population was estimated to be 32,652, a 44.6 percent increase over 1970. An April 1, 1979 estimate placed the population at 34,034. In 1960, Marion County had a population of 51,616. It increased 33.7 percent to 69,030 in 1970 and was estimated at 102,722 in 1978, an increase of 48.8 percent over 1970. The population was estimated to be 106,852 in April 1979 and is scheduled to reach 164,400 by 1990. It is estimated that the population of the PSA was about 7,700 in 1960 and increased to 10,500 or 36.4 percent by 1970. It is now estimated to be some 17,000 and projected to reach over 19,000 by 1982. This projection is based on the area's recent growth history, current housing developments in the area, and projected growth within Marion County. The 45 to 64 year group of the population of Marion County has shown a modest increase since 1960 from 21 percent to 22.6 percent in 1978. At that time, the state percentage was 22 percent. Those 65 years of age and over in Marion County increased from 10.6 percent in 1960 to 15.7 percent in 1978. This was lower than the statewide average of 17.5 percent in that category. It is anticipated that those 45 years and older will continue to show a steady increase in the future due to the fact that most of the county increase in population has been due to continuing in-migration of retirees. These individuals normally bring cash assets which are available for deposit in savings and loan associations, and they ordinarily would have no prior connection with other banks or savings and loan associations in the immediate area. The per capita personal income in Marion County in 1969 was $2,646 and increased to $5,157 in 1977. Per capita personal income in Florida in 1977 was $6,697. In 1969 the mean family income of residents of Ocala was $9,775, as compared with $8,062 in Marion County and $10,120 throughout the State of Florida. It is estimated that the current mean family income in Ocala is approximately $17,506, as compared to $14,438 in the county and $18,123 in the state. The unemployment rate in Marion County in January 1980 was 6 percent whereas the rate in the State of Florida was 5.2 percent. Residential building permits issued in the City of Ocala in 1975 rose from 156 units for a total of 3.5 million dollars to 511 permits in 1979 for a total of 10.7 million dollars. For Marion County, 872 permits were issued in 1975 for a total of 14.3 million dollars and 1,706 in 1979 for a total of 44.5 million dollars. It is currently estimated that the median value of owner occupied housing units in Ocala is $32,775 and $26,173 in Marion County. Local Conditions There are seven commercial banks with approval to operate a total of 18 offices in Marion County. In June 1975, the commercial banks headquartered in Marion County held combined time and savings deposits of some 104 million dollars and by mid-1979, such deposits totaled over 176 million dollars, an increase of about 69.5 percent. From December 1978 to December 1979, time and savings deposits in those banks rose from 161.4 million dollars to 199.8 million dollars, an increase of 23.8 percent. Total deposits in all Marion County Banks increased from 204.8 million dollars in 1975 to 304.9 million in 1979, a 48.9 percent increase. There are currently 16 savings and loan association offices approved for operation in Marion County. Three of the associations have their home office in Ocala. These are Fidelity Federal, Mid-State, and United Federal of Ocala. Fidelity Federal operates a total of five offices within the county, one of which is not yet open. Mid-State Federal has seven offices approved within the county and its office in the PSA is not as yet open. United Federal, an association which opened in January 1979, has its only office within the county. Both First Family Federal (Lake County) and First Florida Federal Savings and Loan Association (Alachua County) have recently received approval to operate branch offices within Marion County. First Federal of Mid-Florida (Volusia County) has received approval to operate an office in the southern part of the PSA but has not yet opened. In 1975, savings and loan associations headquartered in Marion County reported combined savings of $162,177,000. By the end of June 1979, their combined savings totaled $312,508,000, an increase of 92.7 percent. The combined savings accounts of the three Marion County associations totaled $312,508,000 in midyear 1979, as compared to June, 1975 savings of $162,177,000, representing an increase of $150,331,000 or 92.7 percent, during the subject four-year interval. Mid-State Federal, with an office approved at the Paddock Mall, held June, 1979 savings of $207,770,000, and those accounts represented an increase of $96,475,000, or 86.7 percent, over its savings reported June, 1975. First Federal of Mid-Florida, a Volusia County association with an office approved in the PSA, had June, 1975 savings of $199,843,000, and those savings increased by $150,637,000, or 75.4 percent, to reach a total of $350,480,000 in June, 1979. The smallest savings and loan association in Marion County is United Federal, which opened in 1975. In June, 1975, it reported savings of $6,881,000, and its midyear 1979 statement showed savings of $27,830,000. United Federal, operating only one office in Ocala, had growth in savings of $20,949,000, or 304.5 percent, during the stated interval. In the opinion of the applicant's economic consultant, approval of the applicant's application would not have an adverse effect on the other financial institutions in the area due to the steady growth of the community and anticipated growth in the future. He further is of the opinion that the proposed savings and loan association will be able to successfully operate in the PSA in view of the presence of the Paddock Mall and the general growth of population and business establishments in the area. He feels that the current national economic situation will not have a great impact on a new institution which will be able to obtain variable interest rates. He further sees an advantage to the fact that the proposed association will be the first state chartered capital stock form of organization in Marion County, and that it will provide an opportunity for public purchase of shares in the association. During the first three years of operations, the applicant projects its net profits at $75,648 for the first year, $88,335 for the second, and $103,340 for the third. These amounts were arrived at by including known cost items and estimating various income and expense amounts. The applicant anticipates acquiring accounts from new residents of the PSA and those current residents who may wish to transfer savings accounts from commercial banks in the Ocala area due to convenience and the higher rate of interest paid by savings and loan associations. The applicant does not anticipate the acquisition of a significant number of customers from existing savings and loan associations in the area. It also will look to employees at the new shopping mall who may utilize the conveniently located new institution for savings transactions. The applicant intends to compete vigorously for new business with these individuals and from those who presently do not have accounts in any existing associations. The applicant estimates that the institution will attain savings of five million dollars at the end of the first year, $9,500,000 at the end of the second year, and $14,500,000 at the end of the third year of operation. In arriving at those estimates, consideration was given to past experience of existing association offices in the Ocala area, and that of established associations in similar competitive situations. The eight organizers of the proposed association will also serve as the directors. They represent a diversity of occupations, including businessmen, attorneys, real estate broker, a physician, and a dentist. All but three reside in the Ocala area. All have been residents of Florida for over a year and none has been adjudicated a bankrupt or convicted of a criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust. Their employment and business histories show responsibility in the handling of financial affairs. One of the proposed directors has served as an attorney to a large savings and loan association in Miami Beach, and is a member of the board of directors of Barnett Bank of Miami. Another serves as legal counsel for a local bank in Ocala. The proposed officers of the association have not been named as yet. The proposed association will be capitalized at $2,000,000. This capital will be divided into common capital of $1,000,000 in surplus and reserves of $1,000,000. The association intends to issue 200,000 shares of stock with a par value of $5.00 and the selling price of $10.25, plus a $.25 share organizational expense fund contribution. The proposed directors of the association have subscribed to 25,000 shares each. This is a preliminary stockholder list and it is the intention of those individuals to redistribute the stock to a minimum of 400 persons in accordance with FSLIC requirements. It is the organizers' intention to acquire pledges from 700 persons for the deposit of $1,000,000 in withdrawable savings accounts. It is intended that the majority of the stock will be sold to persons residing in Marion County, and the organizers anticipate no difficulty in this respect. (Testimony of Starke, Hastings, Bitzer, Berman, Casse, Hicks, Williams (Deposition - Exhibit 5), Broad (Deposition - Exhibit 6), Carter, Exhibits 1-3) Name As heretofore found above, the applicant amended its application to change the proposed name to Allstate Savings and Loan Association. Although the descriptive word "Allstate" is not used in the corporate name of any other savings and loan association in this state, the Office of the Comptroller received a letter, dated February 22, 1980, from Allstate Savings and Loan Association, Glendale, California, an affiliate of Sears Roebuck and Company, objecting to the use of the word "Allstate" in that the public may be misled to believe that the proposed association is in some way affiliated with Sears Roebuck and Company. (Testimony of Starke, Exhibit 1) Site and Quarters. As heretofore found, it is the organizers intention to locate the proposed association in the Paddock Plaza, adjacent to the Paddock Mall, a new shopping center to be constructed in Ocala. The applicant has an option to lease 5,000 square feet of space for a period of fifteen years for a rental price of $12.00 per square foot for 2,000 square feet and $10.00 per square foot for 3,000 square feet, plus common area maintenance. The option provides that on the fifth year of tenancy, the total annual rental will be increased by the cost of living as determined by the consumer price index. The leased area will include a two-car drive-in facility. There will be adequate parking at the site. The applicant plans to sublease 2,000 square feet of the leased premises on a short-term basis to reduce operating costs in the initial years of operation. An appraisal of the proposed association quarters establishes that the proposed leased premises are suitable for a savings and loan association and that the lease price compares favorable to current leasing arrangements for similar business property. (Testimony of Starke, Exhibit 1) Proposed Findings of Fact filed by the parties have been fully considered and those findings which have not been adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, or unsupported in fact and are specifically rejected. Some of the proposed findings state conclusions which properly should be considered by the Comptroller. Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)(12), Florida Statutes, this REPORT does not include conclusions of law and recommendations. DONE and ENTERED this 25 day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William L. Lyman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel Hicks and Randolph Tucker, Esquires Post Office Drawer 1969 Ocala, Florida 32670 Merritt C. Fore, Esquire Post Office Box 1507 Ocala, Florida 32670
