Findings Of Fact At the time of CMNI's application, Mr. Giunta was president of CMNI and, as such, exercised primary control over the day-to-day activities of CMNI (Tr.12). Mr. Giunta is also the president of Christian Investors Network, Inc. (CINI), and exercised similar control over the activities of that corporation (Tr. 11-12). Mr. Giunta, CMNI, and CINI have never been licensed as mortgage brokers by the Department (Tr. 12-13). CINI, with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Giunta, placed advertisements in the St. Petersburg Times (Tr. 13). One such advertisement appeared in St. Petersburg Times edition of April 20, 1986, under the heading "Loan Information." That advertisement stated "Major Real Estate Financing" and "Residential Real Estate." (Exhibit 1). Sometime in the middle of 1986, Paul Mark called Mr. Giunta in response to an advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times. Mr. Mark was seeking a mortgage loan or loans to build several houses on real estate he owned and so informed Mr. Giunta, who indicated to Mr. Mark that he could arrange a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark (Tr. 28-29). Messrs. Mark and Giunta met shortly after the telephone call. Mr. Mark handed Mr. Giunta a package of documents including a site plan, survey, credit information and a completed mortgage loan application. Mr. Giunta again stated that he would have no problem arranging a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark and requested a fee for such service in the amount of $300.00 (Tr. 30-31). After the meeting, Mr. Mark sent to Mr. Giunta a check made out to Mr. Giunta in the amount of $300.00, together with a letter dated July 16, 1986, confirming that Mr. Giunta would secure mortgage financing (Tr. 31-33); Exhibit 3). In October of 1986, Clifford Clark called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance a certain parcel of property owned by Mr. Clark. Mr. Giunta stated that he could arrange mortgage financing for Mr. Clark at an interest rate of approximately ten percent (Tr. 48-49). After the telephone contact, Messrs. Clark and Giunta met and Mr. Giunta had Mr. Clark fill out a residential loan application (Exhibit 7). Mr. Clark provided Mr. Giunta with originals of his deed to the property and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta indicated that he could obtain mortgage financing for Mr. Clark and requested a fee of $250.00, whereupon Mr. Clark gave Mr. Giunta a check for that amount (Tr. 49-51). In early 1986, Robert Miraglia called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a second mortgage. Mr. Giunta arranged to meet with Mr. Miraglia to discuss the requested loan. In August of 1986, Russell Foreman contacted Gerald Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance his home (Exhibit 5). On August 26, 1986, Mr. Foreman met with Mr. Giunta and at Mr. Giunta's request gave him copies of his deed, a survey of the lot, the mortgages to be satisfied and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta assured Mr. Foreman that there would be no problem in obtaining a mortgage loan and requested a fee of $200.00. Mr. Foreman wrote a check for that amount and gave it to Mr. Giunta (Exhibit 5). Mr. Giunta never informed Messrs. Mark, Clark, Miraglia and Foreman that he was not a licensed mortgage broker. In approximately April of 1986, Mr. Giunta met with Mr. Arthur M. James, Area Financial Manager for the Department's Tampa Regional Field Office. At that meeting, Mr. James explained to Mr. Giunta that he could not offer to arrange or negotiate mortgage loans on behalf of clients and collect a fee for such service without first becoming licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker (Tr. 84). At some point prior to May 8, 1986, Mr. Giunta was contacted by the Department and informed of the statutes and regulations applicable to advertising his services in the area of real estate financing (Exhibit 2; Tr. 23-24). At some point in 1987, CMNI, with the knowledge and approval of Giunta, listed "Christian Mortgage Network, Inc." in the yellow pages of a local telephone book under the heading of "Mortgages." (Exhibit 1; Tr. 15).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wilbur Lewis Hallock, at all times relevant thereto, was a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0035549 by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, in 1971. He also has the designation of a Graduate of the Realtors Institute (GRI), having successfully completed its requirements. At the time the events herein occurred, Hallock was a salesman for Don Asher and Associates in Orlando, Florida. On or about August 8, 1980, Respondent, through reading the Orlando Sentinel Star, became aware of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan Association 1/ pending against James A. and Jeanie Lockwood, husband and wife, who owned a home located at 4813 and 4815 Basswood Lane, Orlando, Florida. 2/ Hallock had been told to vacate his apartment, and was in the process of finding a new home. He was "looking for a bargain" and believed he found one when he read of the Lockwoods' plight. The Lockwoods were separated at that time and only James Lockwood lived in the house on Basswood Lane. Hallock telephoned James Lockwood on Friday evening, August 8, 1980, and told him he was aware of the foreclosure proceeding and wished to meet with him to discuss a possible sale or way to avoid foreclosure proceedings. Lockwood, who was in the process of moving to Winter Haven and wished to immediately sell the property, was receptive and invited Respondent to meet with him that evening. Respondent and a lady friend (Mrs. Florence Harrison) then visited James that night. Hallock introduced himself, and showed two cards to prove his identity. Hallock made clear he did not represent his employer, Don Asher and Associates, but was simply representing himself. Although conflicting stories as to what happened during and after this first meeting were given by the various witnesses, the undersigned finds the following to be the more credible version of the sequence of events. Upon meeting Lockwood, Hallock proceeded to discuss the various alternatives available to Lockwood. These included selling the home to Hallock's brother, who lived in Miami, allowing Hallock himself to purchase the house, or simply letting the lending institution foreclose. Because the mortgage payments were in arrears and a foreclosure proceeding in progress, Lockwood offered to give the house to Hallock if he would bring the payments current. Hallock, who knew consideration for a real estate transaction was required, declined the offer and instead offered James "a minimum of $50 equity." No total purchase price was discussed since the balances on the first mortgage, and a second mortgage held by Freedom Federal Savings and Loan of Tampa, were unknown. Neither was the agreement reduced to writing. James also wished to avoid paying a commission on the sale of the house that might be due since another realtor, Area One West, Inc., held a listing. However, Hallock advised James that because Jeanie Lockwood had not signed the agreement, the listing realtor would have "no claim whatsoever." Hallock also told James that his wife needed to concur in their agreement. That same evening, Hallock telephoned Jeanie Lockwood, who resided in an apartment in Orlando. He told her he had just talked with her husband concerning a possible sale of their house, and wished to discuss the matter with her that evening. She agreed, and subsequently met Hallock and Mrs. Harrison later that evening. Also present was Jeanie's neighbor, Carol Gordon, who had been asked by Jeanie to sit in on the discussions. Hallock identified himself to the ladies, told them that he had become aware of the foreclosure proceeding by reading a newspaper, and had discussed a possible sale with the husband. He briefly described the same alternatives available to her as he had with James. When asked by Hallock whether she wished to keep the house or move into it, Jeanie stated she did not. No purchase price or equity payment was discussed that evening. However, Hallock requested Jeanie to call the two lending institutions on the following Monday morning to authorize him to ascertain the balances owed on the mortgages. He also advised her that the listing then held on the property by the other realtor was not valid because Jeanie had failed to sign the listing agreement. Hallock called James early the next morning (Saturday) and asked to meet with him. James was moving his possessions out of the home that day and told Hallock to come over right away. Upon arriving at the home, Hallock told James he had a deed prepared that conveyed the property to him and wished to have James sign it that day before he moved to Winter Haven. However, he indicated he would not record it or pay any consideration until the mortgage balances were ascertained, the chain of title checked, and final confirmation received from the Lockwoods. James agreed to meet Hallock at 10:00 a.m. that morning to sign the deed. Hallock then telephoned Jeanie and asked to meet her that morning. When they met, Hallock explained he wished her to sign the deed that day so he would not have to interrupt her work schedule during the following week. Hallock told her to meet James and himself at Wescott Realty at 10:00 a.m. to sign the papers. He also told her that "the least you will get is $100 for the house." At approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning, the Lockwoods and Hallock met at Wescott Realty in Orlando. There they executed a warranty deed conveying the property in question from the Lockwoods to Hallock (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). It was notarized by Barbara Boehmer, an employee of Wescott. Also present was Mary Black, another employee of Wescott. Prior to their signing the document, the Lockwoods were asked by Hallock if they were of legal age, were husband and wife, were under duress or threat to sign, or were subject to the influence of drugs or alcohol. Although the signing was done in a rather hasty fashion, there was no effort by Respondent to cover or conceal any portion of the document. The word "deed" was not mentioned at any time during the transaction, nor were the Lockwoods verbally advised at that time as to the nature of the document being signed. Neither was any money or other consideration exchanged. On Monday, August 11, 1980, Jeanie Lockwood called Margaret M. Norman at Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan to request the balance on the mortgage held by that institution. Mrs. Norman advised Jeanie to make the request in writing; Jeanie then prepared a letter requesting that the institution give Hallock "any information he requires regarding the foreclosure on our house at 4815 Basswood Lane." (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Hallock telephoned Jeanie on Monday evening and told her he would give her $65 equity instead of $50.00. She concurred with this amount. He also told her he was in the process of having the title checked and would not record the deed unless the title was clear. On Tuesday morning, Hallock telephoned Mrs. Norman to ascertain the balance on the mortgage held by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan. Upon receiving preliminary information concerning the mortgage, Hallock called James in Winter Haven and advised him the wife had accepted the $65 equity offer on Monday night. The husband complained he wanted an amount closer to $100; Respondent said he would "split the difference" and upped the equity payoff to $75. The husband then gave his concurrence. At 11:43 a.m. on August 12, 1980, Hallock recorded the warranty deed signed by the Lockwoods in the Orange County Courthouse and paid $232 for documentary stamps affixed to the deed (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). He later requested and obtained from the Department of Revenue a partial refund of the stamp tax after he determined the stamp tax paid exceeded the amount actually required. After recording the deed he obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $75 and mailed it to James in Winter Haven. However, James never cashed the check and returned it to Hallock. On that same Tuesday, Jeanie called Area One West, Inc., the listing realtor, to let them know she had received foreclosure papers on the second mortgage. A salesperson told Jeanie that she had a prospective buyer for the house, and suggested they view the property that afternoon. Thereafter, two representatives of Area One West, the prospective buyer and Jeanie all met at 4815 Basswood Lane. Upon reaching the premises, they found the realtor's sign and multilock in the carport, the front door unlocked, and Hallock's car in the driveway. Inside was Hallock showing the house to a prospective buyer. Jeanie told Hallock she now had a buyer and would not sell the house for $65. Hallock told her he had bought the home, already recorded the deed she had previously signed on Saturday, and had mailed James a check for $75. Jeanie then accused Hallock of being "in cahoots" with James. On August 14, 1980, Respondent telephoned James Lockwood in Winter Haven to inquire about a lawnmower, edger and books that James had left in his house. James told Hallock to keep his books but stated he wished to keep the lawnmower and edger. During the next day or two, James came and took the lawnmower, drapes and oven racks from the house. Thereafter, Hallock called James and asked if he would swap the edger for the missing oven racks; James agreed. Hallock ultimately changed the locks on the house on Saturday, August 16, 1980. James Lockwood is a 29-year-old stockholder employed by Merrill Lynch in Winter Haven, Florida. Prior to his present employment, he worked for an Orlando automobile dealership. His wife is a secretary with the State of Florida. Although their formal education was not disclosed, James did attend college for an undisclosed period of time. Jeanie described her husband as being as honest and truthful "as the next person" but acknowledged he sometimes lied. The listing agreement with Area One West, Inc., was signed by James Lockwood and Carol Lockwood on July 3, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). 3/ Carol is his second wife. Jeanie did not sign the agreement. The house was originally listed for $56,900 on the agreement but that figure was marked through and replaced with a figure of $49,900. Hallock purchased the house for approximately $39,600.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint against Respondent Wilbur Lewis Hallock be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is a state agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Financial Funding is a corporation. Eric Schwartz is the sole director, officer and shareholder of Financial Funding. Mr. Schwartz has been licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker continuously since 1983. Between 1983 and 1988 Mr. Schwartz acted as broker for a wholly-owned mortgage brokerage business. From 1988 until October 1, 1991, Mr. Schwartz was licensed as a self-employed mortgage broker. Mr. Schwartz has also held a real estate broker's license since approximately 1978. Financial Funding was created by Mr. Schwartz in order to comply with newly enacted requirements of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Effective October 1, 1991, licensed mortgage brokers in Florida were required to be employed by a mortgage brokerage business. Mr. Schwartz was, therefore, required to create a business entity or work for someone else's mortgage brokerage business in order to continue as a mortgage broker. Financial Funding's Application. On or about December 12, 1991, Financial Funding filed an application with the Department for licensure as a mortgage brokerage business (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). It was revealed in the Application that Mr. Schwartz was the President of Financial Funding. By letter dated April 24, 1992, the Department denied Financial Funding's Application. The Department denied the Application because of its conclusion that Mr. Schwartz, an officer of Financial Funding, had violated Chapter 494, Florida Statutes and had a disciplinary history. Financial Funding timely challenged the denial of its Application. The Eason Complaint. Between approximately 1984 and 1987, Mr. Schwartz was the sole owner and president of Paramount Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Paramount"). Mr. Schwartz was the principal mortgage broker for Paramount and utilized Paramount as the vehicle for his practice as a mortgage broker. On or about November 5, 1985, Agnes Eason filed a complaint against Mr. Schwartz and Paramount (hereinafter referred to as the "Eason Complaint"), in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, In and For Dade County, Florida. A Final Judgment was entered on the Eason Complaint on or about February 17, 1987. The court found that Mr. Schwartz had initiated contact with the Plaintiff, Agnes Eason. The court also found that Mr. Schwartz had represented to Ms. Eason that the Small Business Administration (hereinafter referred to as the "SBA"), was about to foreclose a lien on her home. The court also found that "[t]he Small Business Administration, in fact, was not foreclosing on Plaintiff's property [and had no plans to institute foreclosure proceedings in the near future.]" The language in brackets was struck from the Final Judgment. Therefore, no determination was made as to whether foreclosure proceedings might have been instituted in the future. The striking of this language, however, does not prove that the SBA was considering possible foreclosure proceedings on Ms. Eason's property. Nor was Mr. Schwartz's testimony persuasive enough to reject the findings of the court on the Eason Complaint. The court concluded that Mr. Schwartz told Ms. Eason that "the only way to save her home from foreclosure" would be to execute notes and mortgages in favor of Paramount. Ms. Eason executed the suggested notes and mortgages and they were recorded. Although the notes and mortgages were executed on terms which Ms. Eason accepted, the court concluded that "no consideration" passed from Paramount to Ms. Eason for the notes or mortgages. The court also concluded that Ms. Eason executed the notes and mortgages because of the misrepresentation concerning the SBA by Mr. Schwartz. The court found that when Ms. Eason notified Mr. Schwartz that her payments on the note she had executed to Paramount were more than she could afford, the notes and mortgages were cancelled and a satisfaction was recorded. The court also found that after cancelling the notes and mortgages, Mr. Schwartz incorrectly told Ms. Eason that "the only way left to save her home from imminent foreclosure by the Small Business Administration" would be to execute a Warranty Deed conveying the fee simple interest in Ms. Eason's home to him. Mr. Schwartz also told Ms. Eason that, pursuant to a document titled a "Disclosure", he would grant Ms. Eason and her mother a life estate in the property. Mr. Schwartz was also to pay Ms. Eason $1,000.00 and to pay real estate taxes on the property pursuant to the Disclosure. Ms. Eason executed a Warranty Deed and the Disclosure on June 18, 1985. The Warranty Deed was recorded June 19, 1985. The Disclosure was recorded, but not until September 13, 1985. Although the transaction was explained by Mr. Schwartz to Ms. Eason and she accepted it, the court concluded that Mr. Schwartz's representation that foreclosure by the SBA was imminent was incorrect and that Mr. Schwartz failed to tender the sum of $1,000.00 agreed to in the Disclosure. Although Mr. Schwartz testified that he did attempt to tender the $1,000.00 (less $175.00 in recording fees), he did so after the Eason Complaint had been filed and it was rejected because of the litigation. Therefore, although the Disclosure agreement was executed June 18, 1985, Mr. Schwartz did not attempt to tender the $1,000.00 until some time after the Eason Complaint was filed on November 5, 1985. The court also found that Mr. Schwartz had not paid real estate taxes on the property as promised in the Disclosure. Mr. Schwartz explained, however, that the taxes had not been paid because the first real estate taxes due on the property had not become due until after the litigation had been instituted. The court concluded as a matter of law, among other things, the following: That the Defendant, ERIC SCHWARTZ, on behalf of Defendant PARAMOUNT FINANCE CORPORATION [fraudulently] misrepresented a material fact to the Plaintiff, AGNES EASON, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to execute the aforementioned notes and mortgages. That the Defendant, ERIC SCHWARTZ [fraudulently] misrepresented a material fact to the Plaintiff, AGNES EASON, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to execute the aforementioned Warranty Deed and "Disclosure." That the Warranty Deed executed by Plaintiff in favor of Defendant was procured by Defendant SCHWARTZ through the exercise of coercion and duress upon Plaintiff. That no consideration passed from Defendant SCHWARTZ to Plaintiff for any of the instruments executed by Plaintiff. That the purported promises made by Defendant SCHWARTZ in the "Disclosure", to the effect that certain debts of the Plaintiff will be paid by SCHWARTZ "if necessary", are illusory promises and impose no obligation upon the Defendant SCHWARTZ. Such promises are therefore unenforceable and do not constitute consideration in support of the subject conveyance. The court ordered the promissory notes, Warranty Deed and the Disclosure cancelled and declared them null and void. The Department's Awareness of the Eason Complaint. There were employees of the Department that were aware of the Eason matter at the time that an administrative action against Mr. Schwartz, which is discussed, infra, was being investigated by the Department. Prior to the action of the Department in this case, the Department has not taken disciplinary action against Mr. Schwartz's individual mortgage broker license as the result of the judgment on the Eason Complaint. The weight of the evidence failed to prove why the Department did not take action against Mr. Schwartz as a result of the judgment on the Eason Complaint until this case arose. The evidence also failed to prove, however, that the Department ever represented to Mr. Schwartz that it would not take any action against his license as a result of the Eason matter. 1990 Administrative Action. At some point during 1987, Mr. Schwartz decided to begin business as a mortgage broker with Mr. Stephen Hertz. Mr. Schwartz intended to discontinue operating through Paramount. Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Hertz intended to operate their business as Dollar Mortgage Company (hereinafter referred to as "Dollar"). In June of 1987 Mr. Schwartz prepared an application to register Dollar as the mortgage broker. Mr. Schwartz also prepared an endorsement transferring his individual license as principal mortgage broker to Dollar. These documents (hereinafter referred to as the "Dollar Applications"), were provided to Mr. Hertz to file with the Department. Mr. Schwartz, having been advised by Mr. Hertz that the Dollar Applications had been filed, believed that the Dollar Applications had been filed with the Department. Before being informed by the Department that the Dollar Applications had been approved or that his individual license had been renewed, Mr. Schwartz engaged in several mortgage brokerage transactions in the name of Dollar. Engaging in the transactions in the name of Dollar, therefore, constituted acting as a mortgage brokerage business without a license. At some point after the Dollar Applications were filed, Mr. Schwartz contacted Mr. Paul Richman of the Department's Miami office to determine what the status of the applications was. Mr. Schwartz was informed that the Department was in the process of changing the manner in which applications were processed and the process was causing a delay. Mr. Richman advised Mr. Schwartz to check with the Department's Tallahassee office in November, 1987, if the Department had not acted on the Dollar Applications by then. In November, 1987, Mr. Schwartz contacted the Department's Tallahassee office and was informed that the Dollar Applications had never been received. Mr. Schwartz submitted new applications at that time. As a result of the fact that Mr. Schwartz had transacted business before his license had been renewed and had acted in the name of Dollar before receiving approval of Dollar to transact such business, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint, Number 1154-F-5/88 (hereinafter referred to as the "Complaint"), against Mr. Schwartz. The Complaint was entered August 29, 1988. On or about January 23, 1990, the Department and Mr. Schwartz entered into a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Stipulation"), settling the Complaint. Mr. Schwartz admitted in the Stipulation to the following: 3. Eric S. Schwartz admits that he acted as a mortgage broker with an inactive license, and that Dollar acted as a mortgage brokerage business without a valid registration but denies intentional wrongdoing as more fully set forth in Mr. Schwartz's affidavit dated May 30, 1989 which is referenced as if fully set forth at length herein. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Mr. Schwartz was required to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00 for his violation of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. It was also agreed that the Dollar application would be withdrawn and it was. Mr. Schwartz's individual license was, however, renewed. The Stipulation also provided that the Department would make at least one examination of Mr. Schwartz's mortgage brokerage activities during each six month period during the next twenty-four months from the date of the Stipulation. Audits were in fact conducted by the Department. No further charges were brought against Mr. Schwartz as a result of these audits. Additionally, the following agreement was contained in the Stipulation: 13. The Department agrees that, upon execution of this Stipulation, payment of the administrative fine, payment of the restitution ordered, and faithful compliance hereafter by Eric S. Schwartz with all of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation, the Department will take no further action against Eric S. Schwartz for violations of the Act and the rules of the Department as set forth in the Complaint. However, should the Department, in its exercise of its discretion, deem it necessary to take action against Eric S. Schwartz for violations of the Act and rules of Department occurring after the time period set forth in the Complaint, then, in that event, all such allegations and charges may be used against Eric S. Schwartz in any such subsequent proceeding, if relevant. Eric S. Schwartz understands that there is no order, administrative or judicial, sealing these proceedings in the event of a future administrative complaint regarding activities alleged to occur subsequent to the final date of the timeframe of the investigation of the affairs of Eric S. Schwartz' activities as set forth in the Complaint. See the second paragraph number "13" on page 4-5 of the Stipulation. In March of 1990, the Department entered a Consent Final Order incorporating the Stipulation. The Department has not brought any charges against Mr. Schwartz subsequent to the execution of the Stipulation. The Department has continued to renew Mr. Schwartz's mortgage broker's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order denying Financial Funding's application for licensure as a mortgage brokerage business. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1993, 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 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Financial Funding's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 6 and 8. Accepted in 9. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5. Although the Department offered no such evidence, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that there is "no difference." Hereby accepted. See 8. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 10-11 and 28-29. Accepted in 30, 32-33 and 37. Accepted in 31 and 34. Whether Mr. Hertz advised Mr. Schwartz to start doing business in the name of Dollar is not relevant. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz "had no reason to operate improperly." What Mr. Hertz noted in his letter of May 18, 1988 is hearsay. The evidence failed to prove when the documents "had been previously provided . . . ." The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz "was not at fault." Hereby accepted. See 37 and 38. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz had "nothing to hide." The evidence also failed to prove that the Department's audits were "extremely thorough. What the Department did during their audits of Mr. Schwartz is based upon hearsay. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 39. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12 and 25. See also 17-19 and 21. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the second sentence. The fifth sentence through the end of this proposed paragraph is not relevant. The evidence also failed to prove that Ms. Eason was "initially pleased." 20 See 14-15, 19, 21 and 22. 21 See 25-27. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department was aware of the Eason matter for "seven years." The weight of the evidence also failed to prove the third sentence.. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 12. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 13, 21 and 23 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 35. The Stipulation was executed in January, not December. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 40. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 3 and 7. Accepted in 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Highpoint Center, Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Ashley Peacock Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. He holds license number 0497295. The license is "involuntary inactive." Respondent has also held a State of Florida mortgage broker's license issued by DBF. The license had an expiration date of August 31, 1991. On or about May 31, 1989, DBF issued an administrative complaint in DBF Proceeding No. 1307-F-1-1/89 alleging that Respondent and others violated various provisions of the Florida's Mortgage Brokers Act. Not having received a request for hearing from Respondent, DBF, on January 11, 1990, prior to the expiration date of Respondent's mortgage broker's license, issued a default order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and permanently revoking his license, as well as ordering him to "tender the payment of an administrative fine in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) and a payment of three thousand ($3,000.00) for cost of investigation and prosecution." On or about January 23, 1990, Respondent, through counsel, filed a Motion to Set Aside the default order. In the motion, Respondent asserted that he had "failed to request a hearing [on the administrative complaint] simply because he was not aware of same." He further contended in his Motion to Set Aside that the allegations of wrongdoing advanced in the administrative complaint were "totally erroneous." On or about January 26, 1990, before DBF had ruled upon the Motion to Set Aside, Respondent, again through counsel, appealed the default order to the district court of appeal. On or about October 31, 1991, Respondent and DBF entered into a Stipulation and Consent Agreement which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: In the interest of compromise and settlement, the Department and Reynolds agree to resolve the appeal of the Default Final Order on the following terms and conditions: Reynolds agrees to withdraw his appeal of the Default Final Order and his execution of this Stipulation and Consent Agreement shall constitute a withdrawal of the notice of appeal. Reynolds neither admits nor denies the truth of the allegations in the Complaint and Default Final Order. Reynolds agrees not to reapply for a mortgage broker license under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, for a period of three (3) years retroactive to January 11, 1990. Reynolds further agrees to cease and desist from any and all future violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. This Stipulation and Consent Agreement and accompanying Final Order supersede the "Default Final Order Revoking Mortgage Broker License and Registration" issued by the Department against Reynolds on January 11, 1990. The Department agrees to reduce the administrative fine imposed by the Default Final Order to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Reynolds agrees to pay an administrative fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) by cashier's check or money order payable to "Gerald Lewis, Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance," immediately upon execution of the Stipulation and Consent Agreement. This Stipulation and Consent Agreement is being executed solely for the purpose of resolving and settling Reynolds' appeal of the Default Final Order. . . . 8. Reynolds agrees that the accompanying Final Order, which will incorporate this Stipulation shall constitute final agency action by the Department, for which the Department may seek enforcement pursuant to Chapters 120 and 494, Florida Statutes. Reynolds further voluntarily and knowingly waives: (a) any right to an administrative hearing or issuance of a recommended order as provided by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and by Chapters 3-7, 28, or 22, Florida Administrative Code; (b) any right to separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law; (c) any rights to contest in any judicial or administrative forum the validity of any term, condition, obligation, or duty created by this Stipulation or Final Order; and (d) any rights to object to or to challenge in any judicial proceeding, including, but not limited to, an appeal pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, any aspect, provision, or requirement of the Stipulation or Final Order, based upon its content, procedure of issuance, or timeliness. . . . Respondent entered into the Stipulation and Consent Agreement and agreed "to pay an administrative fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00)" and "not to reapply for a mortgage broker license under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, for a period of three (3) years retroactive to January 11, 1990," not because he was guilty of any wrongdoing, but simply as a matter of convenience to avoid, among other things, the expense of litigation. The Final Order incorporating the Stipulation and Consent Agreement was issued by DBF on November 5, 1991. It provided as follows: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance ("Department"), and Respondent, Sherin V. Reynolds ("Reynolds"), having entered into the attached Stipulation and Consent Agreement last dated October 31, 1991, resolving and concluding this matter: IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED: The Stipulation and Consent Agreement entered into by Reynolds with the Department and attached hereto is incorporated by reference as if set forth herein at length. The Department and Reynolds shall comply with all provisions of the incorporated Stipulation and Consent Agreement. This Final Order supersedes the "Default Final Order Revoking Mortgage Brokerage License and Registration and Imposing Administrative Fines" issued by the Department on January 11, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of February, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1994.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights dated June 16, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The OFR is the state agency responsible for regulating mortgage brokerage and mortgage lending in the State of Florida and for licensing and regulating mortgage brokers. §§ 494.0011(1); 494.0033(2), Fla. Stat. At the time of the final hearing, Mr. Razor held an inactive mortgage broker's license. The license was inactive because Mr. Razor did not apply for a renewal of his license when it expired on August 31, 2009. His license could be reactivated should he submit an application for renewal. Mr. Razor was a member of the Florida Bar and a practicing attorney in Florida until, in an opinion issued September 11, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court ordered Mr. Razor suspended from the practice of law for a period of 18 months. See Florida Bar v. Razor, 973 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 2007). In its opinion, the court approved the findings of fact contained in the Report of the Referee; approved the Referee's findings that Mr. Razor had violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.2, 3-4.3, 4-5.3(b), and 4-8.4(a); and approved the Referee's recommendation that Mr. Razor's license to practice law be suspended for a period of 18 months. Pertinent to this proceeding, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3.4-3 provides: The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all- inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline. The Referee based his recommendation that Mr. Razor's license to practice law be suspended for 18 months on "Respondent's [Mr. Razor's] conduct in allowing his collaborator (a suspended attorney) to practice law in an attempt to extort money; his ratification of the misconduct by failing to take immediate remedial action; his attempts to cover for the suspended attorney by defending the letter during the Bar investigation; and his inconsistent defense (lack of knowledge) at the live and final hearings." These acts constitute dishonest dealing. Mr. Razor's license to practice law was suspended 30 days after September 11, 2007, or on October 11, 2007. Mr. Razor did not report the suspension to the OFR because he did not believe it to be a reportable offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order finding that Arthur Nathan Razor violated Section 494.0041(2)(i) and (p), Florida Statutes, and revoking his Florida mortgage broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anglickis is a Florida real estate broker holding license number 0001869. Respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0169476. The address of both respondents is 102 East Leland Heights Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida. (P-26.) Respondent Anglickis is president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., and Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. All three companies are located at the same address. (Testimony of Campbell; P-5, P-26.) On March 12, 1979, Louis G. Hofstetter and his wife, Dale I. Hofstetter, both residents of North Carolina, entered into a real estate contract with American Heritage Builders, Inc. Respondent Anglickis signed on behalf of American Hertiage Inc. Under the terms of the contract, the Hofstetters were to Purchase a lot and home to be constructed thereon by American Heritage Builders, Inc. The purchase price included the transfer of a lot owned by the Hofstetters and a cash down payment. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-1, P-3, P-26.) The contract estimated closing costs to be approximately $2,000". It also contained conflicting conditions relative to the time within which any mortgage financing must be obtained. . . . In the event PURCHASER'S application for mortgage financing is not approved within sixty (60) days from date hereof, all monies receipted for, less cost of credit report, will be returned to the PURCHASER and this contract will be null and void. * * * FOR MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS: This contract of Purchase and Sale shall be void unless Purchaser's application for Mortgage has been approved by a bank or financial institution and Purchaser has executed the Mortgage Acceptance Form, within four (3) [sic] months from date of this Contract of Purchase. 2/ (P-1, R-1.) On March 12, 1979, the Hofstetters signed a mortgage loan application and submitted it to Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. (P-26.) On May 5, 1979, 45 days after accepting the application, Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., submitted the Hofstetters' mortgage loan application to First Federal of DeSoto. (Testimony of Archer.) On June 15, 1979 (95 days after receiving the loan application), Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters indicating that the local lender needed additional information on their stock holdings, and enclosing a document titled "Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Charges". This document estimated that closing costs would be $2,754--$754 more than the estimate contained in the real estate contract. (P-5.) On June 22, 1979, the Hofstetters protested the increased closing cost, requested clarification, and provided the requested information on their stock holdings. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-26.) On July 7, 1979, the Hofstetters notified Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., that the increased closing cost deviated from the contract, that they therefore considered the contract cancelled and wanted the deposit refunded. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-8.) On June 29, 1979, Robert Campbell, vice-president of Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters and explained the meaning of each component of the closing cost. (P-7.) On July 17, 1979, respondent, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote a letter to the Hofstetters expressing his position: * * * Let me try and put the contract in the proper perspective for you. It's our contention that you have reluctantly provided to us the information that would enable us to make a proper and expedient application to the lending institution and that much of this information has been confused, causing further delays. In accordance with the contract, you were to make this application as quickly and as expediently as Possible so that the contract would not expire. However, this is not the case. Thus, my immediate Position is that the contract should be expired and all of the deposits, including the cash and the lot which we gave you $6,995.00 trade for, would be forfeited as agreed upon liquidated damages. He ended by outlining other alternatives and repeating his asserted right to cancel the transaction and retain the Hofstetters' deposit as liquidated damages * * * First, the lending institution must make a quick determination based on the facts that they have that you are either eligible or not eligible for a mortgage loan as outlined in our contract. If they still do not have enough information, we have no other choice then but to ask you to pay the increase which we have experienced at this time (price list enclosed), and in paying that increase we would be willing to take another 90 days to try and secure a loan for you. If your mortgage loan is denied, your deposit less the costs of processing your mortgage application will be returned to you. Of course, the third choice is the choice I hope we do not have to take, and that is cancelling this transaction and retaining your monies as agreed upon liquidated damages. (P-9.) Mr. Hofstetter responded on July 22, 1979. He denied that he was responsible for any delay or confusion in the Processing of their loan application; asserted that 93 days had elapsed from the submission of their loan application and Mr. Campbell's letter of June 15, 1979, asking for additional financial information; and informed respondent Anglickis that the contract had already expired by virtue of the clause allowing 60 days to obtain mortgage financing. He then, again, asked that his deposit be returned. (P-10.) On July 30, 1979, respondent Anglickis, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote to the Hofstetters indicating that the loan had been approved 3/ and he was prepared to build their home at the contract price. He then addressed Mr. Hofstetter's July 22, 1979, denial of any responsibility for delay in obtaining the mortgage loan: I have reviewed your letter of July 22, 1979 and I understand we certainly have a difference of opinion as to whose fault the delay has been caused by. However, I don't think it's time to look at whose fault the delay might be, since it all has worked out to your satisfaction. The mortgage has been approved and we are ready to build. I expect you will now sign the mortgage papers when receipted for so that we may begin construction immediately. (P-11.) On August 6, 1979, the Hofstetters restated to respondent Anglickis that they were not prepared to go ahead with construction, that the contract became null and void by operation of the 60-day mortgage financing clause, and that the deposit should be immediately returned. (P-12.) On August 31, 1979, respondent Anglickis notified the Hofstetters that, pursuant to the contract conditions, he was retaining their full deposit, including cash and the real estate lot for which they received a $6,995 credit toward the purchase price. The full down payment totaled $10,350. (P-1, P-13.) On September 8, 1979, the Hofstetters replied: We cannot understand why you continue to ignore the provisions of the second sentence of Paragraph Two on the reverse side of Contract No. 1997, dated 12 March 1979. You say you intend to invoke the Provisions of the third sentence of this para- graph, but this sentence is Predicated on the assumption that the mortgage would be approved within sixty (60) days. The mortgage was not approved until late July (your letter of 17 July 1979 indicated it was not yet approved, and your letter of 30 July 1979 stated that it had now been approved), more than 120 days past the date of the original contract. Our Position is as Previously stated on several occasions: on 12 May 1979 the contract became null and void, and on that date our deposit should have been refunded. Any action other than this is illegal, according to the terms of the contract. We are due return of our down payment, plus interest, from 12 May 1979. (P-24.) On October 3, 1979, First Federal of DeSoto, which had continued to process the Hofstetter loan application, issued a commitment approving the requested loan. On October 10, 1979, the Hofstetters rejected the mortgage loan. (P-26.) Subsequently, the Hofstetters wrote letters to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and the Lehigh Chamber of Commerce complaining of respondent Anglickis' retention of their deposit; they, then, retained an attorney and filed a civil action against respondents in the circuit court of Lee County. That action was settled out-of-court. There is no evidence whatsoever to support respondent Anglickis' assertion to the Hofstetters that they were dilatory or responsible for confusion or delay in obtaining the necessary mortgage financing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., be dismissed; That respondent Richard A. Anglickis be administratively fined $1,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oaklnd Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William H. Hughes was adjudicated guilty of perjury and sentenced on November 11, 1993. This adjudication was at least peripherally related to a mortgage loan he brokered which had closed on June 21, 1989. Mr. Hughes was deposed concerning the loan on December 20, 1991, in which deposition he lied. He was indicted on May 27, 1993 and pled guilty to perjury on September 3, 1993. At all times material, William H. Hughes held individual mortgage broker license number MB 262740745. He is a Respondent herein because he was convicted of perjury. DBF was immediately notified concerning Mr. Hughes' perjury conviction. The agency did not file its amended disciplinary action until July 22, 1994. It may be inferred that there was an original complaint to amend, but its date is not of record. The agency's chief witness testified that the agency did not do an immediate field audit of Mr. Hughes' business upon notification, did not file an immediate cease and desist order against his mortgage brokerage activities, and has at no time considered Mr. Hughes continuing to operate as a mortgage broker to be an imminent threat or danger to consumers. (TR 113-116) Apparently, periodic DBF field audits since the amended administrative complaint was referred to DOAH also have not caused DBF to move to expedite the instant case or take any emergency action. Mr. Hughes operated as a sole proprietorship, license number MBB 591623417, from 1968 until May 17, 1993. The loan at issue was closed June 21, 1989. The deposition that gave rise to the perjury occurred on December 20, 1991. The plea was September 3, 1993. The adjusdication of guilt was November 11, 1993. The sole proprietorship license was current until August 31, 1994. The sole proprietorship is a Respondent in this cause because its license was in effect at all times material. On May 17, 1993, Respondent Hughes converted his sole proprietorship to a corporation in which he was sole stockholder, President, and qualifying broker with license number MB 262740745. Janeen Davis was Vice President. This corporate entity was known as, "William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.," license number MBB 593113739. On May 27, 1993, Respondent Hughes was indicted. On September 3, 1993, he entered a guilty plea to perjury. The corporation of which he was sole principal continued to operate until September 23, 1993, when the stock was transferred to James Etheredge as sole stockholder, with Respondent Hughes as qualifying broker. Corporate mortgage brokerage license MBB 593113739, continued in effect until January 12, 1994. This corporation is a Respondent herein because its license was in effect at the time of Mr. Hughes' guilty plea and adjudication of guilt. On November 17, 1993, James Etheredge applied for a corporate mortgage brokerage license in the name of the "new" corporation, "William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.," owned exclusively by Etheredge, with Janeen Davis as qualifying broker instead of Respondent Hughes. On November 23, 1993, Respondent Hughes was adjudicated guilty of perjury and sentenced. On January 12, 1994, a new corporate mortgage broker license, number MBB 593113739-001, was issued to the new corporate entity. Respondent Hughes continued to work for the new firm as a mortgage broker. This corporate license, number MBB-593113739- 001, was renewed September 1, 1994 and is current through August 31, 1996. That licensed corporation is not a Respondent herein and DBF has stipulated that it has no charges or evidence against it. (TR 19-21; 47-48; 50). In 1989, William Neufeld had come to Respondent Hughes seeking a mortgage loan for a condominium located at B-801 Grand Mariner, Destin, Florida. Sugar Sands Development Corporation was purportedly selling the condominium to Neufeld. The purported purchase price was approximately eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000). Appraisals were provided to Respondent Hughes by the Seller to verify the value of the property. Respondent Hughes forwarded Neufeld's mortgage loan application to Carteret Savings Bank, which then accepted the loan. During this period of time, Carteret regularly called for a review appraisal for every loan, regardless of who did the original appraisal. Carteret regularly ordered a review from a different appraisal company to make sure that property valuation was true and accurate. It is inferred that Carteret performed its own separate appraisal on the B-801 Grand Mariner condomimium as it did in every other case. The parties to the loan brokered by Respondent Hughes were Sugar Sands Development Corporation as Seller, William Neufeld as Purchaser, and Carteret Savings Bank as Lender. Carteret Savings Bank funded the mortgage for the condominium after its own investigation and upon agreed terms. Respondent Hughes personally brokered the mortgage loan between William Neufeld and Sugar Sands Development Corporation, which was funded by Carteret Savings Bank. He received a $20,475 commission therefor. His commission amount was based upon points, which was in no way remarkable in the mortgage business. William Neufeld subsequently defaulted on the loan. At the time of the transaction, Respondent Hughes knew that the condominium was owned by an entity named Altus Bank prior to its transfer to Sugar Sands Development Corporation. On December 20, 1991, Respondent Hughes was deposed in a civil action resulting from Neufeld's default, Case No. 91-30398-RV, Carteret Savings Bank, F.A., v. First American Title Insurance Co., Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. In his deposition, Respondent Hughes testified as follows: Q: When, if ever, did you find out an entity by the name of Altus Bank was involved in these transactions? A: I don't know if -- to my knowledge, I did not know -- Altus wasn't involved in our transaction. We never dealt with Altus at all. So, to my knowledge, I don't know if I knew Altus was even involved in this unit until after this had already closed, because here again we were presented a contract of sale, we dealt directly with our customer, the buyer and really never had an occasion to even deal with the seller. * * * Q: You did not know, you had not heard any rumors, you had no indication whatsoever that Altus Bank had any interest in this unit at any time prior to the FBI coming to talk to you a year ago? A: No. I think that's the first time I knew that Altus was involved. Respondent Hughes was subsequently indicted on May 27, 1993 in Case No. 93-03069-01/RV, United States v. William H. Hughes, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. The indictment contained nine felony counts relating to an alleged "flip transaction" on the subject condominium involving Altus Bank, Sugar Sands Development Corporation as "straw man", and William Neufeld, the purpose of which was to artificially inflate the condominium's real property value and obtain an inflated loan amount of approximately $800,000 in loan proceeds for property truly valued at only approximately $385,000. The indictment alerted Carteret Savings Bank, which has since gone out of business, and other lending institutions to audit Respondent Hughes' transactions with them and to otherwise institute quality control reviews of loans he had placed with them. No discrepancies or dishonest dealings of any kind were uncovered by these institutions. On September 3, 1993, Respondent Hughes pled guilty to one count of engaging in perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1623, based exclusively upon his deposition testimony quoted supra. The remaining eight felony counts were dismissed. These counts were the counts alleging that Mr. Hughes knew of the "flip transaction" aspects of the loan. Exhibit P-9 shows the foregoing to have been a plea bargain which encompassed evidentiary factors. It was not merely a "plea of convenience." At formal hearing herein, Respondent Hughes admitted that knowing the question in the deposition, he gave the wrong answer. He has accepted responsibility for that wrong answer. However, he credibly denied any knowledge that a flip transaction was intended. He explained that he had understood that the loan amount was determined upon independent evaluations and appraisals which included projected renovation costs to be expended to conform the condominium to the needs of the Purchaser, Mr. Neufeld. On November 23, 1993, a federal judgment was entered against Respondent Hughes. Pursuant to that judgment, Respondent Hughes was adjudicated guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1623 by engaging in perjury. He was ordered to pay a special assessment of $50.00; to pay $1,724.50 in juror fees; was placed on probation for a term of three years; and was placed on home detention for a period of six months. Respondent Hughes' probation is not scheduled to end until November 1996. Respondent Hughes has continued to practice as a mortgage broker without interruption during the eighteen months since his conviction and is currently employed as a mortgage broker by William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc., the firm reconstituted with Mr. Etheredge as the sole stockholder and Janeen Davis as its qualifying agent as of January 12, 1994. See, supra. Respondent Hughes has practiced his profession since 1968 (27 years) with only this one bad incident on his record. Respondent Hughes continues to enjoy a good reputation in his wider mortgage brokerage business community, although the reputation testimony herein is diminished by the fact that many of those who have dealt with him and who have expressed reputation opinions to the witnesses who testified were not aware of his perjury conviction or its circumstances. Respondent Hughes' reputation for truth and veracity and for fair dealing in the mortgage brokerage community as it currently exists within the Florida Panhandle has remained "good" and "very good" since knowledge of his perjury conviction has become known in that community. Two mortgage brokers, two employees of lending institutions, one attorney and one bank officer testified as fact witnesses that they were willing to deal with Mr. Hughes as a mortgage broker in the future, despite their knowledge of his perjury conviction. Two of these persons were formerly employed by Carteret Savings Bank and were fully aware of all circumstances of his criminal case. DBF's only expressed reason for requesting license revocation instead of other permissible disciplinary penalties was its perception that the perjury in this case was directly related to the transaction of mortgage brokerage business.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order that: Finds Respondent Hughes individually, license MB 262740745, is guilty of the charged offense; Assesses an administrative fine against Respondent Hughes individually for $3,000, payable within 10 days of entry of the final order; and Places Respondent Hughes on probation until November 30, 1996, termination of probation to be conditioned upon his successful completion of his federal sentence; his practicing during probation under the supervision of a broker approved by DBF, and his being subject during this probation to unannounced DBF audit and review of all his transactions; and further providing that any violation of the final order, any discrepancy in his accounts, or any violation of Chapter 494 F.S. during his probationary period would subject him to immediate and summary revocation of his license. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 29th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RO 94-5114 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-8, 24-26 are covered in FOF 1-8 as necessary. Otherwise accepted but not adopted. 9-20, 22-23 Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative evidence has not been adopted. 21, 27-31 Rejected as conclusions of law or legal argument, not proposed findings of fact Respondent's PFOF: 1-7 are introductory and labelled "Statement of the Case." They are covered within the "Preliminary Statement" of the Recommended Order. 8-17, 20-21, Accepted except that unnecessary, subordinate 23, 25-27 and/or cumulative evidence has not been adopted. 18, 24 Rejected as a conclusion of law, not a proposed finding of fact 19 Irrelevant 22 Accepted only as modified and covered in FOF 27-29 COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 J. Ladon Dewrell, Esquire Post Office Box 1510 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32541 Honorable Robert Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact 1. Prior to September 1, 1986, mortgage brokers in Florida who worked for several companies were issued separate licenses for each company. P. Ex. 10, P. The Respondent, Dennis C. Young, had several such licenses, the first having been issued on March 26, 1982. Id., P. 9. Prior to September 1, 1986, mortgage broker's licenses were issued for only one year and expired annually on August 31st. P. Ex. 10, P. 9-10. During the period from September 1, 1985, through August 31, 1986, the Respondent had only one mortgage broker license HA 0006667 as an additional broker for American Financial Consultants of Central Florida. R. Ex. 1, P. Ex. 10, P. 10-11. That license expired on August 31, 1986. Id. at P. 14. On January 22, 1986, the Respondent applied to the Petitioner, the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, for registration as a mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. P. Ex. 7. This application was for a license with Southern States Mortgage Company. P. Ex. 10, P. 12. On April 18, 1986, Petitioner denied the application of the Respondent for registration as a mortgage broker. The basis of the denial was a finding by the Petitioned of a number of statutory violations by the Respondent as a mortgage broker for American Financial Consultants of Central Florida. P. Ex. 10, P. 13. On July 11, 1986, or shortly thereafter, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that his request for a formal administrative hearing with respect to the denial of his application for registration as a mortgage broker was denied because not timely filed, and advised the Respondent that he had thirty days from July 11, 1986, in which to file an appeal, if he so desired, to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The Respondent contacted the attorney for the petitioner. The attorney for the petitioner in fact told the Respondent that he could reapply for a license, and if his application was again denied, the Respondent could then seek a formal administrative hearing and judicial review. The Respondent was also told that the petitioner would not forego or abate the final order denying the application, but was advised to "let sit" the final order denying his January 22, 1986, application. T. 100. The Respondent did not file a judicial appeal from the July 11, 1986, order. During the period from September 1, 1986, to November 12, 1987, the Respondent was not a licensed mortgage broker licensed by the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance. P. Ex. 6, P. Ex. 10, P. 15. Between January 22, 1986, and June 12, 1987, the Respondent did not file any application with the Petit loner for licensure as a mortgage broker. P. Ex. 10, p. 15. In about December, 1986, the Respondent was hired by Independence One Mortgage Corporation as a builder's loan representative for a builder that Independence One Mortgage Corporation was then servicing. The builder was building and selling homes in the Williamsburg subdivision. T. 33, 35-37, 64. The Respondent's office was located at the building site. Independence One Mortgage Corporation hired the Respondent to offer to the clients of the builder the type of mortgage that Independence One Mortgage Corporation was then offering, and in so doing, to handle all aspects of negotiating mortgage loan commitments, from initial interview, making quotes of daily mortgage rates to the builder's customers, and following up on the application from the beginning to closing of the mortgage. T. 37. The Respondent told Independence One Mortgage Corporation that he held a current valid mortgage broker's license with Investor's Home Mortgage Company and showed the agent of Independence One a "license" that the Respondent claimed was his and was then valid. T. 37. This statement was untrue. The agent for Independence One Mortgage Corporation who hired the Respondent had known the Respondent several years earlier as an aggressive mortgage solicitor. T. 36 Independence One Mortgage Corporation thought that the Respondent then held a valid mortgage broker's license, and would not have hired the Respondent if he had not represented that he was a licensed mortgage broker. T. 37-38. While employed by Independence One Mortgage Corporation, the Respondent negotiated mortgage loans. He quoted mortgage rates to prospective borrowers, received and processed applications from prospective borrowers, prepared good faith estimates of settlement charges, and closed mortgage loans. T. 42-56, 96-97; P. Exs. 1, 2, 4, and 5. During his employment with Independence One Mortgage Corporation, the Respondent negotiated over 40 mortgage loans. T. 55. From December, 1986, to May, 1987, the Respondent was paid a salary by Independence One Mortgage Corporation. In May, 1987, due to a lack of mortgage demand, Independence One placed the Respondent on a commission basis only. About two weeks later, the Respondent resigned his employment with Independence One. T. 55-57, 65-66. At about the same time, Independence One Mortgage Corporation learned that the Respondent did not have a valid mortgage broker's license. T. 57-59. On June 12, 1987, the Respondent filed another application for licensure as a mortgage broker. P. Ex. 9. In answer to question number 6, which asked whether he had ever had his license "denied, suspended or revoked," he answered no. This answer was not true. P. Ex. 10, P. 16. The Respondent testified that he answered question number 6 in the negative because he thought that he would be afforded a right to contest the previous denial of his application if the new application was denied. At the time that the Respondent stated in his application that he had never had a license previously denied, the Respondent knew that statement was not true. He knew that he might again reapply and in such reapplication contest the basis for denial, but he also knew that the denial of the first application was final and that he had lost his right to appeal. See findings of-fact 5 through 8. If the Respondent had answered yes to question 6, he was required by the application form to identify the agency that denied the application for licensure and to provide the names of the complaining parties. P. Ex. 9. By failing to truthfully answer question 6, the Respondent failed to notify the Petitioner of the existence of the prior dispute concerning his licensure. This was a material misstatement of fact. If the Respondent had been candidly pursuing the option of making a second application in order to gain another appeal right, he would have candidly disclosed to the Petitioner in his second application that a prior application had been denied. In that manner, the Respondent would have laid the issue squarely on the table. By answering no to question 6, the Respondent affirmatively sought to mislead the Petitioner so that the prior basis of denial might not become the basis for denial of the second application. The Petitioner construes the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as mandating that a license be issued if not denied within ninety days from the filing of the application. P. Ex. 10, pp. 20-23. During the period in which the June 12, 1987, application was pending, the Petitioner did not independently verify the answers to questions on the license application, and assumed that the answer to question 6 was correct. P. Ex. 10, pp. 16 and 20. Had it known that the Respondent had previously been denied a mortgage broker's license, the Petitioner would have denied the application of June 12, 1987, for a material misrepresentation of facts. P. Ex. 10, P. 23. For these reasons, and since the ninety day period had expired, the Petitioner issued mortgage broker license HA 261088342 to the Respondent on November 12, 1987. P. Ex. 6. In July, 1987, Colony First Mortgage Corporation was looking for a branch manager for its Mount Dora, Florida, office. The company wanted a branch manager who held a mortgage broker's license to solicit business, as well as to hire and supervise other loan officers. T. 25. The Respondent applied for the job, and Colony First Mortgage Corporation asked for his mortgage broker's license. T. 93. The Respondent told Colony First Mortgage Corporation that he had a mortgage broker's license. T. 26. This statement was untrue. In July, 1987, the Respondent was employed by Colony First Mortgage Corporation as a branch manager in the Mount Dora, Florida, office. T. 24-25, 59-60. Colony First Mortgage paid the Respondent a salary with an override of the branch's mortgage loan production. It was also possible for the Respondent to have been paid a small commission for mortgage loans that he might personally have solicited, but there is no evidence in the record (one way or the other) that any commissions were ever paid or not paid. T. 26, 28. The Petitioner requires that licensed mortgage brokers who change employment file an "application for endorsement" to change the registration of that license to the new employment. T. 72# At some time shortly before August 11, 1987, the Respondent filed with the Petitioner an "application for endorsement" for endorsement of a mortgage broker's license to work for Colony First Mortgage Corporation. P. Ex. 8. Colony First Mortgage Corporation required the Respondent to file this application as a condition of the Respondent's employment. The application bears the signature of a William D. Tharpe, dated August 11, 1987, representing himself as the principal broker for the Respondent, and stating that the Respondent was employed on July 6, 1987, as a mortgage broker. The Respondent submitted the application for endorsement 50 that he would be licensed as a mortgage broker working as a mortgage broker for Colony First Mortgage Corporation. The Respondent characterized his own activity at Colony First Mortgage as operation as a mortgage broker for Colony First Mortgage. T. 10. But he denied that he personally solicited loans, T. 109, and characterized his work as supervision of loan officers, who did solicit and negotiate mortgage loans. T. 109-111. In his employment at Colony First Mortgage, the Respondent hired staff, since all prior staff had left, and trained and supervised loan officers. T. 110-111. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally solicited or negotiated mortgage loans. Toward the end of October, 1987, Colony First Mortgage learned that the Respondent did not have a mortgage broker's license. The company removed the Respondent from his manager's position and subsequently terminated his employment. T. 27# Directly under the heading of the Respondent's application for endorsement is the statement: "Use this form only if currently licensed." Two lines under that statement is the following statement in bold print: "CURRENT LICENSE MUST BE RETURNED WITH THIS APPLICATION." The Respondent signed the form and stated in part I of the form that he had license number HA 001637. Another license number appears above the first number, and is HA 0016329. P. Ex. 8. The application for endorsement is used only if the applicant has a current license. Neither license number was a valid license currently or previously held by the Respondent. Thus, the representation on the application for endorsement, P. Ex. 8, as to license numbers was untrue. T. 114. The Respondent admits placing the first number on the form and denies placing the second number on the form. The Respondent asserts that the first number he placed on the form was his guess as to the correct number, and that he thought the petitioner would correct it if it were incorrect. He further asserts that he represented that he was licensed because he thought that since he had reapplied, the prior denial of licensure was still a pending issue, and that he could rely on earlier licenses that had expired. He further stated that he intended the number to represent the number of one of his earlier licenses. T. 115. The Respondent did hold license number HA 0016329, which expired on August 31, 1985, and license number HA 0006667, which expired on August 31, 1986. R. Ex. 1 and 2. It is credible that the Respondent was trying to use one of his expired license numbers, notably, the one that expired on August 31, 1985, HB 0016329, which is similar to the number he used, HA 001637. But it is not credible that the Respondent thought that he was "currently licensed" as required by the form. The Respondent knew that his prior licenses expired automatically each year. T. 116. He knew that his January 22, 1986, application had been denied. He knew he was not currently licensed. T. 102. He only had pending an application for a license, and had no currently active license number. Thus, it is concluded that the Respondent knew that he did not have a valid license number when he placed the number HA 001637 on the application for endorsement. This was a material misstatement of fact. See findings of fact 38, 39, and 47. The Respondent denies that he placed the second license number HA 0016329 upon the application. The second series of numbers is written in larger script than the first one. While there are some similarities in some of the numbers compared to other numbers written by the Respondent on the application (the 6 is the same as the 6 in the Respondent's social security number and telephone number, the 2 is the same as the first 2 in the telephone number), there is insufficient evidence in this record to conclude that the Respondent placed the second license number on the application. P. Ex. 8. The Petitioner relied upon the statements in the application for endorsement, P. Ex. 8, when it issued the mortgage broker's license to the Respondent on November 12, 1987. p. Ex. 10, P. 20.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter its final order finding that Dennis C. Young committed the violations described above and revoking license number HA 261088342 issued to him on November 1, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2273 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact in this appendix are adopted as additional findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 1. The phrase "due to fiat of operation of law" is a conclusion of law, not fact. 2, 5, 6, 7, 22, 23, 39, 46 (second sentence) 49, 50, and 55. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 14 (first sentence). The fact that a witness "testified" in a certain way is not a relevant finding of fact. The subject matter of the Respondent's testimony, that he in fact filed another application in May or June of 1986, is rejected as not proven by credible evidence. The Department had no evidence of any application between January 22, 1986, and June 12, 1987. The testimony of the Respondent on this point was not supported by a copy of the alleged application. Due to the Respondent's evasiveness as to other material points at issue in this case, the testimony of the Respondent is rejected as not credible and unsupported. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 1.C. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. 1.E. While these proposed findings of fact are true, they are irrelevant. A "mortgage broker" is defined by law (section 494.02(3), F1a. Stat.) to include any person, who for compensation or gain, "directly or indirectly" "negotiates" "a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment." The relevant issue is what the Respondent in fact did, not what the titles on the form said. 1.F-H. These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the credible evidence. 2.D.and G. A "mortgage broker" is defined by law (section 494.02(3), Fla. Stat.) to include any person, who for compensation or gain, "directly or indirectly" "negotiates" "a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment." As discussed in the conclusions of law, the Respondent indirectly negotiated mortgage loans through his supervision of loan officers at Colony First Mortgage Corporation. 2.F. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. See P. Ex. 8. 3.A.1-3. The Respondent admitted that Mr. Berkowitz told him to "let sit" the denial of his January 22, 1986, application, and the Respondent admitted that Mr. Berkowitz, on behalf of the Petitioner, would not abate or forgo the decision of denial. T. 100. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent knew that his application had been denied. This, coupled with receipt of P. Ex. 7, makes any contrary belief not credible. 3.B.4. There was intent to deceive. The Respondent knew he was not currently licensed. He knew the earlier license (the one which he tried to place by number on application) had expired. He knew that his last application had been finally denied. He only had a pending application (June 12, 1987), and had no decision on that yet. The Respondent told Colony First Mortgage Corporation that he was currently licensed. If the Respondent had no intent to deceive, he would have clearly mentioned on the application for endorsement the denial of his January 22, 1986, application, and his theory of the continued "existence" of his expired license. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dennis C. Young 4050 Gallagher Loop Post Office Box 771 Casselberry, Florida 32707 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 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents' mortgage brokerage licenses for the reasons set forth in the Order to Cease and Desist, Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights filed by Petitioner on January 18, 1989 (the "Administrative Complaint".) The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondents violated the following statutory and rule provisions: Section 494.055(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by charging borrowers closing costs that were in excess of the actual amount incurred by the mortgagor; Section 494.08(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D- 40.008(9), Florida Administrative Code, by charging excess brokerage fees; Section 494.055(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by engaging in deceit, misrepresentation, negligence or incompetence in mortgage financing transactions and for breach of the fiduciary duty of a broker as a result of the manner in which escrow accounts were handled; Section 494.055(1)(h), Florida Statutes, due to the misuse, misapplication or misappropriation of funds, mortgage documents or other property entrusted to Respondents as a result of the excess charges assessed to borrowers and the misuse of monies in the escrow accounts; Rule 3D- 40.006(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to maintain trust, servicing and escrow account records in accordance with good accounting practices; and Section 494.0393(2), Florida Statutes by failing to operate the company under the full charge, control and supervision of a principle who is a licensed mortgage broker.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent All States Mortgage and Investment Corporation ("All States Mortgage") was licensed by the Department as a mortgage brokerage company having been issued License Number HB-592582215. All States Mortgage had its principle place of business in Davie, Florida. All States Mortgage did not typically engage in traditional "mortgage broker functions." Instead, it generally worked with other mortgage brokers in providing funds for loans brought to All States Mortgage by other brokers. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, Lynn F. Smith ("Smith") was a licensed mortgage broker having been issued License Number HA-265-72-0045. Smith was the principle mortgage broker for All States Mortgage. Smith has been the principle mortgage broker for All States Mortgage since its inception and has been registered with the Department as a licensed mortgage broker since before a license was issued to All States Mortgage. In addition to being the principle broker for All States Mortgage, Smith was an officer and director of the company and had responsibility for the direction, control, operations and management of the company. In May of 1988, Respondents were affiliated with a licensed consumer finance company known as All States Finance Company. Currently, both All States Mortgage and All States Finance are inactive and an application has been filed to transfer the license of All States Mortgage to a new company known as All States Financial Services. As a result of an audit and examination conducted by the Department in May, 1988, it was determined that one client of All States Mortgage, Donald Salvog, was charged a brokerage fee in excess of the maximum allowable fee under Chapter 494. After notification by the Department, Respondents admitted that they inadvertently charged an excess fee to Mr. Salvog and Respondents immediately proceeded to refund the excess of $82.63 to the customer. There is no evidence that Respondents charged any other customers with a brokerage fee in excess of the maximum allowed under Chapter 494. In a number of the individual mortgage transactions in which it was involved, Respondents charged a standard credit report fee of $25.00 to the borrowers. The following chart reflects the individual loan files where such a fee was charged and the total amount of the invoices in the respective loan file to support the charges. Borrower's Name Cost per Closing Stmt. Cost per Invoices Roland Sagraves $25.00 $3.25 John Murphy $25.00 $3.25 Donald Salvog $25.00 $2.95 Harry Walley $25.00 $2.57 Raymond Parker $25.00 $5.14 Shateen/Lawrence $25.00 $5.75 James Arnold $25.00 $3.94 Richard Pope $25.00 $5.04 James Smith $25.00 $6.50 9. In four of the nine customer files listed in Findings of Fact 8 above, a "standard factual" credit report was included in the file. The typical cost for a "standard factual" is $45.00. No invoices were included in those files to reflect this cost. In obtaining credit reports for an individual mortgage transaction, Respondents did not generally order a credit report from an existing service. Instead, All States Mortgage had an on-line computer terminal with a direct phone modem linked to the individual credit reporting agency's computer data base. An employee of All States Mortgage, usually Burton Horowitz, used this computer link-up to conduct a credit report on the borrower. "Standard Factual" reports were ordered from existing services as necessary to supplement the computer search. The standard $25.00 fee charged by All States Mortgage was based upon an estimate of the overhead and indirect costs associated with producing credit reports in this manner. The overhead and indirect costs involved in obtaining credit reports as described in Findings of Fact 10 include the cost of leasing the equipment, the labor involved in obtaining the computer report (it typically takes an operator 30 minutes to obtain the credit reports) and the cost of the materials involved in producing a copy of the report. The standard $25.00 fee charged by All States Mortgage was not based on a specific allocation of the indirect costs associated with producing a particular report, but, instead, was simply based upon an estimate of the costs involved. During the course of its operations, All States Mortgage would periodically receive funds that were to be held in escrow. These escrow funds were kept in an interest-bearing account that was used by All States Mortgage and All States Finance. (This account is hereinafter referred to as the "Commingled Account.") The escrow funds in this Commingled Account were mixed with other funds of All States Mortgage as well as money belonging to All States Finance. Respondents contend that the escrow funds were commingled with the other funds because the companies had only one interest bearing account and that account had limited check writing ability. Respondents transferred money between the interest bearing Commingled Account and their other operating accounts on a continuous basis. At the end of each month, Respondents attempted to perform a reconciliation as to the escrow balances in the Commingled Account. On several occasions during the period from July 1987 through May 1988, the balance in the Commingled Account was less than the total funds that Respondents were supposed to be holding in escrow. No evidence was introduced to indicate that Respondents' handling of the escrow funds and/or the Commingled Account ever resulted in a loss to any of their borrowers or customers. Thus, while the evidence does indicate that, on occasion, the balance of the Commingled Account was less than the funds that should have been in escrow, the difference on each occasion was ultimately corrected in the reconciliation process. Respondents failed to use good accounting principles in the handling of the escrow funds. The Department has not adopted any rules requiring a mortgage broker to handle escrow funds in a separate account. Prior to the initiation of this Administrative Complaint, Respondents were never informed that they were required to do so. The Department's examiners prepared a schedule indicating that Respondents had diverted some of the escrow funds to their own use. However, that schedule includes several loans that had already been sold to another company on the date listed. Thus, the schedule does not accurately reflect the funds that should have been in escrow on any particular day. Although Respondent Lynn Smith was only in the office approximately fifteen percent (15%) of the time while the Department's examiners were conducting their audit in May of 1988, insufficient evidence was introduced to establish the charge that Smith was not fully supervising or controlling the actions of the employees of All States Mortgage. The unrefuted testimony of Smith indicates that she often worked non-regular hours, that she reviewed all the documents for every transaction in which All States Mortgage was involved and she supervised the work of all of the employees of the company. Extenuating circumstances in May of 1988 caused her to be out of the office more than usual during regular business hours. However, this fact alone is insufficient to establish the charge that she was not fully supervising or controlling the actions of the company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law it is, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order finding the Respondents guilty of violating Sections 494.055(1)(b), (d), (f), (h) and (k) and issue a reprimand to the Respondents and impose a fine of one thousand five dollars ($1,500.00). DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990.
