The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be suspended for violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Irving Zimmerman holds Mortgage Brokerage Registration No. 90-3337. An Order of Emergency Suspension of License was issued by the Department of Banking and Finance dated March 24, 1975 and served on Respondent Irving Zimmerman by certified mail. Said Emergency Order is now in effect: Through his attorney, Milton R. Wasman, Respondent Zimmerman requested this formal administrative hearing. The attorney for Respondent, Mr. Milton R. Wasman, called the undersigned Hearing Officer on the day immediately preceding this hearing, that is June 23, 1975, requesting that the hearing be postponed because of a physical disability of said attorney. Said request was denied because of the late hour of request and because of grievous inconvenience to the parties and to the witnesses that had been subpoenaed. Said request was denied orally by telephone to Respondent's attorney whereupon said attorney requested that the transcript of the proceeding be made available. Said attorney was assured that he could view the transcript upon his request when it was available. Upon request of William Corbett, Counsel for the agency, authorization was given to take the deposition of witness Joseph M. Magill, a witness who could not attend the hearing. Said deposition is filed with this record. The attorney for Respondent Zimmerman, Mr. Wasman appeared in behalf of the Respondent at the taking of said deposition in Miami, Florida on July 18, 1975. The following instruments were made part of the record: Summons dated March 24, 1975; Order of Emergency Suspension of License filed March 24, 1975; Petition for Hearing filed by Respondent's attorney; Deposition of witness for the agency, Mr. Joseph M. Magill; Transcript of record of this hearing and also transcript of record at the taking of deposition. On or about July 10, 1974, Mr. Leonard G. Pardue issued a check in the amount of $7,500 payable to "State Farm Mortgage Co., escrow account" for the purpose of making a mortgage loan to Hans G. and Ann M. Widenhauser. Subsequently, after the Widenhausers decided not to make this loan, the Respondent contacted Mr. Pardue and attempted to negotiate a substitute loan to Alan and Marcia Hollet. After that loan did not close, Mr. Pardue, by his attorney, Mr. Roger G. Welcher, wrote several letters to Respondent which demanded a return of the $7,500 to his client. Mr. Pardue filed a civil suit against Respondent to recover said funds; however, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent has failed or refused to return the money. Mr. Bernard Supworth made a mortgage loan to Robert E. and Madeline Pope in June of 1972, through the Respondent as broker. The monthly payments were made to Respondent who in turn was supposed to remit the funds to Mr. Supworth. Subsequently, on or about January 25, 1974, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth that the mortgage was being paid off and Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction thereof to Respondent. Later, Mr. Supworth learned that the Pope mortgage had been paid off in July, 1973, and that a check had been issued by Dade Federal and Savings & Loan Association on July 9, 1973, payable to State Farm Mortgage in the amount of $3,544.98. Notwithstanding such payment in full on the Pope mortgage in July, 1973, Respondent continued to remit monthly payments on it to Mr. Supworth. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to receive any monthly payments after the mortgage had been satisfied and to date has not received all of his money on the Pope transaction. Respondent Zimmerman negotiated another mortgage loan to Mr. Supworth to James and Phyllis Lowe, as borrowers in the amount of $4,600 to be paid in the amount of $97.74 per month. These payments were to be paid by the Lowes to the Respondent, who was to remit said payment to Mr. Supworth. Thereafter, on or about November 21, 1973, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth, by memorandum, that this mortgage must be paid off. Thereupon, Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction of Mortgage to Respondent. He continued to receive monthly payments from Respondent on the Lowe mortgage up until January, 1975. Mr. Supworth later learned that the Lowe mortgage had been paid in full to Respondent in October, 1973. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to this transaction. On or about August 15, 1973, Mrs. Judith Valenza made a mortgage loan at the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Later Mrs. Valenza negotiated a mortgage loan through Respondent, as broker, to pay off the existing mortgage to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Pursuant to that transaction, Mrs. Valenza closed said loan through Respondent, as broker. Thereafter, a check was issued on "Irving Zimmerman Trust Account" in the amount of $3,510.78, and payable to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. The check was returned because of "insufficient funds". As of the date of the hearing, the Commercial Bank of Kendall had not received payment of said check from Respondent. On or about January 28, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Magill executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $3,500 in favor or Helen R. Stahl, as trustee, at the offices of Respondent. Respondent failed to account for or deliver money to the person entitled thereto, on demand failed to disburse funds in accordance with the agreement, and failed to keep funds in a trust account.
Findings Of Fact The facts which the Department asked Respondents to admit by Petitioner's Second Request for Admissions (Pet. Ex. 3) and Paragraphs 1-32 and each odd-numbered paragraph from 33-117, inclusive, of Petitioner's First Request for Admissions (Pet. Ex. 2) are conclusively established. Rather than recite all of those undisputed facts as findings, this Recommended Order will summarize those facts as necessary and make additional findings on the relatively few disputed issues of fact which were raised during the final hearing. The Financial Transactions Between February 1, 1980, and October 31, 1982, Davide, Inc., brokered 43 real estate mortgage loans which consisted of a wraparound second mortgage securing a promissory note in an amount equal to (1) the amount of "new money actually advanced to the borrower out of the wraparound mortgagee's pocket, plus the amount of the principal balance remaining on the first mortgage. There was no evidence how the interest rate on any of the 43 wraparound mortgage loans compared to the interest rate on the corresponding first mortgage loan. All 43 loans included, as an addendum to the wrap- around mortgage, the following agreements between the wrap- around mortgagee and the borrower: Mortgagor shall pay the taxes and insurance deposits required by Senior Mortgagee. The Mortgagor shall comply with all of the terms and provisions of the Senior Mortgage other than with respect to the payments of the principal and interest due. If the Mortgagor shall fail to so comply with all of the terms, provisions and conditions of the Senior Mortgage so as to result in a default under it (other than with respect to pay ments due upon the note secured by the Senior Mortgage) that failure on the part of the Mortgagor shall constitute a default under this mortgage and shall entitle the Mortgagee, at its option, to exercise any and all rights and remedies given the Mortgagee in the event of a default under this Mortgage. The Mortgagee agrees to pay to the holder of the Senior Mortgage the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage together with all interest accruing under it as and when required by the terms of the Senior Mortgage; therefore, by paying the constant monthly installments each provided to be paid from the date of funding this mortgage to and including the date the Note secured hereby becomes due at which time the Mortgagee's payment obligation shall terminate. At such time of termina tlon of the Mortgagee's obligation, the balloon balance due upon [sic] the Note secured hereby shall be credited for an amount aggregating the principal then owing upon the Senior Mortgage plus all sums which were paid as principal to the Senior Mortgage by the Mortgagee. All those payments provided to be paid by the Mortgagee pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3 above shall be made by the Mortgagee before the expira tion of the applicable grace periods provided for those payments as contained in the Senior Mortgage. The Mortgagee does not assume any of the obligations of the Mortgagor under the Senior Mortgage except as provided above with respect to principal and interest payments due after this mortgage has been funded. If the Mortgagee shall default in making any required payment of principal or interest under the Senior Mortgage, the Mortgagor shall have the right to advance the funds necessary to cure that default and all funds so advanced by the Mortgagor, together with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum shall be credited against the next installment(s) of interest and prin cipal due under the Note secured by the mortgage. The Mortgagor and the Mortgagee covenant and agree not to enter into any agreement with the holder of the Senior Mortgage modifying or amending any of the provisions dealing with payment of princi pal or interest under the Senior Mortgage without the prior written consent of the other. All 43 loans are short-term loans which are designed, by their terms, to become due before the first mortgages were, by their payment terms, to be paid in full. The loan application statements and closing statements related to each of the 43 wraparound mortgage loans show the first mortgage balance as, respectively, part of the amount of the loan and part of the disbursements to the borrowers. But both make clear that those items which refer to the amount of the balance on the first mortgage which the wraparound mortgagee agreed, in the addendum, to pay during the life of the wraparound mortgage. The first mortgage balances were not paid off by the wraparound mortgagee, nor was cash in the amount of the first mortgage balance disbursed to the borrower out of the wraparound mortgagee s pocket. In each of the 43 wraparound mortgage loans, the mortgage brokerage fee or commission would exceed the maximum allowable by law if computed only on the "new money," but would not exceed the maximum allowable by law if computed on the total face amount of the promissory note secured by the wraparound mortgage. If they were excessive fees, the total amount of the excess would be $22,508.29, and the Department's report of examination (Pet. Ex. 1) would identify the amount of the excess that should be refunded to each borrower. Finally, the mortgage brokerage fee actually charged on each of the 43 loans much more closely approximates what would be the maximum fee if computed on "new money" than what would be the maximum fee if computed on the face amount of the promissory note secured by the wraparound mortgage. B. The Department's Actions The Department apparently has not had the occasion to apply the law, which is now codified as Section 494.08(3), Florida Statutes (1983), and the Department's rules promulgated under it, to precisely the financial transactions shown by the evidence in this case. But since at least 1973, the Department consistently has interpreted the law and rules in various cases involving wraparound mortgages as requiring the maximum mortgage brokerage commission or fee to be computed on the new money" rather than on the total amount of the promissory note secured by the wraparound mortgage. In 1979, the Department considered two similar financial transactions: One was a specific refinancing wraparound second mortgage in which the wraparound mortgagee was obligated to make payments due on the first mortgage "out of sums paid hereunder"; the other was the generic purchase money wraparound second mortgage transaction in which the seller/wraparound mortgagee remains liable on the first mortgage. The Department concluded that, in both cases, the maximum fee should be computed on the "new money." The conclusion in the latter case was based upon the complete absence of any assumption by the wraparound mortgagee of a preexisting indebtedness of the borrower on the first mortgage. In the case of a purchase money wrap- round second mortgage, the wraparound mortgagee always was and simply remains liable on the first mortgage. The conclusion in the former case is based upon a determination: (1) that the wraparound mortgagee's assumption of the obligation to pay the first mortgage was not unconditional, but rather was conditioned upon the wrap- around mortgagee's receipt of payments on the wraparound mortgage; and (2) that the first mortgagee acquired no cause of action against the wraparound mortgagee. The Department acknowledged at the time that its interpretation was based upon the two sets of facts under consideration and that the Department was not foreclosing the possibility of reaching the opposite conclusion on other sets of facts. In recent years, Department personnel consistently have advised mortgage brokers of its position regarding computation of maximum fees on wraparound mortgage loans, as summarized above. Department personnel have on occasion attended meetings of Florida mortgage brokers in Miami and elsewhere in which the subject has been discussed and the Department's position publicly stated. There is no evidence whether Davide or any representative of Davide, Inc., attended any of those meetings or became aware of the Department's position before June, 1982. Although Davide attended the final hearing, he did not testify. In June, 1982, the Department and Respondents began communications regarding the maximum brokerage commission or fee on wraparound mortgage loans. The Department advised Respondents that it believed the maximum fee should be computed on the "new money." C. Respondents' Response Since approximately May 5, 1981, Respondent had relied on advice of counsel that the maximum mortgage brokerage commission or fee should be computed on the entire face amount of a wraparound mortgage. Counsel qualified his opinion, acknowledging that there was no judicial construction of the statute and that his interpretation could be wrong. Counsel's opinion did not mention, and apparently did not even consider, any Department rule interpreting the statute. Rather, the opinion was based primarily upon counsel's assessment that any other interpretation of the statute would render it unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. On or about September 27, 1982, Respondents' counsel wrote a letter to the Department and seemed to agree that Respondents would conduct an audit and refund any excess fees charged on the wraparound mortgages. The Department completed its audit on December 3, 1982, and sent Respondents a copy on December 13, 1982. The audit specified alleged excess fees charged on the 43 wrap- around mortgages and on seven straight" mortgages. (Pet. Ex. 1) Respondents' counsel responded by January 10, 1983, letter, again seeming to indicate that Respondents agreed to refund excess fees "as applicable." But by January 20, 1983, letter, Respondents' counsel again wrote the Department to advise that Respondents would refund excess fees on the seven "straight" mortgages, but not on the 43 wraparound mortgages. Based on the above facts, I find that the Department did not mislead Respondents concerning the Department's position. Specifically, Respondents were not misled by the erroneous reference in Rule 3D-40.00(3), Florida Administrative Code, to Section 494.08(4), instead of Section 484.08(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order requiring Respondents, Davide & Associates, Inc., and Salvatore G. Davide, to refund to each of the first 43 borrowers identified in the report of examination (Pet. Ex. 1) as "Mortgagor(s)" the amounts identified therein as "Overcharge" to the borrower. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter W. Wood, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman T. Isis, Esquire Post Office Box 144567 Coral Gables, Florida 33114 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 5th day of March, 1984.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was properly denied mortgage assistance through Florida Housing Finance Corporation's ("Florida Housing") Hardest-Hit Fund Elderly Mortgage Assistance ("ELMORE") program based on a conviction for fraud allegedly in connection with a real estate transaction.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing. For purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is also considered the state's housing finance agency which means Florida Housing, at times, conducts business as if it were a financial institution. Florida Housing administers the Hardest-Hit Fund, using funds appropriated by the United States Congress through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to help stabilize housing markets and prevent foreclosures. The Hardest-Hit Fund comes directly to Florida Housing from the United States Treasury through a Housing Finance Agency ("HFA") Participation Agreement. The ELMORE program is one of the programs created under the umbrella of the Hardest-Hit Fund. The ELMORE program is designed to assist senior homeowners in Florida who are facing foreclosure due to the inability to pay property charges such as property taxes, homeowners insurance, and homeowners or condo association dues after the homeowner was paid all of the equity under a reverse mortgage. The HFA agreement is a summary guideline for the ELMORE program and its general requirements. The stated goal of the program is to help senior homeowners remain in their homes. The Summary Guidelines include certain borrower eligibility criteria, property/loan eligibility criteria, and program exclusions, among other guidelines. The program exclusions reference the "Dodd-Frank exclusion for having been convicted of a mortgage-related felony in the past ten years." The Dodd-Frank Act exclusion for criminal applicants is codified 12 U.S.C. § 5220b, and states in part: (d) Prevention of qualification for criminal applicants (1) In general No person shall be eligible to begin receiving assistance from the Making Home Affordable Program authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.), or any other mortgage assistance program authorized or funded by that Act, on or after 60 days after July 21, 2010, if such person, in connection with a mortgage or real estate transaction, has been convicted, within the last 10 years, of any one of the following: Felony larceny, theft, fraud, or forgery. Money laundering. Tax evasion. On or about February 27, 2017, Betty Baldwin, Power of Attorney for Tolz, submitted an application for mortgage assistance through Florida Housing's Hardest-Hit Fund for ELMORE benefits. On or about May 11, 2017, the application was denied. On or about November 8, 2018, Tolz submitted another application for mortgage assistance from the ELMORE program. On December 5, 2018, Florida Housing's Director of Homeownership Programs, David Westcott, issued a letter with an ineligibility determination to Tolz, which included a Notice of Rights.1/ Mr. Westcott is ultimately responsible for the final eligibility determinations on Hardest-Hit Fund mortgage assistance applications. The Denial of ELMORE Program Benefits Mr. Westcott denied Tolz's application for ELMORE program funds because she had, what Mr. Westcott determined to be, a disqualifying felony conviction in connection with a real estate transaction in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act provision. Mr. Westcott testified that pursuant to the HFA agreement with the United States Treasury, Florida Housing is prohibited from using ELMORE funds to assist applicants that have a disqualifying Dodd-Frank Act conviction. During the period of 2003 through 2010, Tolz used her position as a fiduciary in the role of bankruptcy trustee, receiver, and personal representative to misappropriate millions of dollars from bankruptcy estates, receiverships, and other matters, by writing or causing the writing of unauthorized checks from a variety of fiduciary accounts which contained funds she was appointed to safeguard. Tolz then used the misappropriated money for her own benefit and to conceal her previous misappropriations by restoring the balances of other fiduciary accounts from which she had previously taken funds in a Ponzi scheme framework. To conceal this theft, Tolz falsified documents and used a fictitious bank account. On or about December 12, 2011, Tolz was convicted in Broward County Circuit Court of grand theft in the first degree. Tolz was convicted on or about July 27, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. To secure a plea deal and in order to bolster her claim that her sentence should be reduced from the federal guidelines, prior to sentencing, Tolz surrendered five real estate properties, which she owned, to the United States government. The value of these properties was then used to offset and lessen Tolz's restitution obligation to her victims. Tolz understood that these properties would not be accepted to satisfy her restitution obligation unless they were purchased, mortgaged, or improved with the assets of her victims. In the federal criminal case, Tolz executed a Factual Basis Supporting Change of Plea ("Factual Basis") on or about April 15, 2011. Tolz agreed not to contest the information in the Factual Basis. Further, Tolz agreed that it provided a sufficient factual basis for her plea of guilty in the case, and had the case proceeded to trial, that the United States would have proven the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Paragraph 11 of the Factual basis states: MARIKA TOLZ, directly or indirectly, utilized funds obtained through the fraudulent scheme to purchase, maintain and improve real properties, including, but not limited to the following real properties: 2344 North Federal Highway, Hollywood, Florida; 1804 Sherman Street, Hollywood, Florida; 704 SE 3rd Avenue, Hallandale, Florida; 815 SW 30th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; and 3031 North Ocean Blvd, Apartment 403, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. In making the ineligibility determination on Tolz's application for ELMORE program funds, Mr. Westcott determined that Tolz's conviction was in connection with a real estate transaction because Tolz agreed in the Factual Basis that she used funds obtained through the fraud to "purchase, maintain and improve real properties." Florida Housing determined that Tolz's conviction disqualified her from receiving mortgage assistance from the ELMORE program because: As part of the Hardest-Hit Fund, the ELMORE program funds are authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; Tolz was convicted of the enumerated offense of a "fraud;" The conviction occurred on or about July 21, 2011, which is within the last ten years; and The conviction was in connection with a real estate transaction because Tolz used funds obtained through the fraud to "purchase, maintain and improve real properties." "In Connection With" A Mortgage or Real Estate Transaction Tolz contends that her crimes were not "in connection with a mortgage or real estate transaction." At both her sentencing hearing in federal court and at the final hearing in this proceeding, Tolz stated that she owned these surrendered properties for 30 or 40 years. Tolz now argues that because she owned these properties well before the fraud of which she was convicted occurred, no mortgage or real estate transaction was involved in the crime and, therefore, she should not be disqualified from ELMORE benefits. Tolz now claims she surrendered these properties to facilitate the forfeiture on the advice of counsel, that she was heavily medicated at the time of sentencing, and that the prosecutor and the court knew that these properties were not associated with her underlying crimes. Tolz admitted at final hearing that she surrendered these properties to do an end-run around the system to reduce the more than two million dollars she owed in restitution. However, in that same sentencing hearing, the prosecutor representing the United States stated "I'll also indicate, although it's clear from the record, that notwithstanding the picture that she's somehow a pauper, or was a pauper, the fact of the matter is the forfeiture properties indicated in the forfeiture which she agreed to were her properties, at least partially paid for by the offense."2/ An impartial reading of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that during sentencing the United States believed that the properties involved in the criminal forfeiture were, in part, paid for by the crime for which Petitioner was convicted. The undersigned finds the facts, as offered by Tolz in her 2011 "Factual Basis" offered in support of a sentence reduction and reduction of her restitution obligation, to be more credible than her denial at final hearing that these properties were not purchased, improved, or maintained with the funds from her crimes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulations of fact, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Jose A. (Tony) Torres was employed by the respondent Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance from approximately June of 1963 until February of 1986. For about 13 years, he held the position of Area Financial Manager in the Tampa office and was responsible for and in charge of regulating mortgage brokerage businesses and licensees in ten counties along the west coast of Florida. By letter dated February 11, 1986, petitioner was notified of the respondent's intent to dismiss him from employment on the grounds that, in spite of prior warnings, he had obtained loans from licensed individuals and institutions he was responsible for regulating. Petitioner was given the opportunity to respond to this notice, did so and the respondent thereafter affirmed its intent to dismiss him. Petitioner did not contest or appeal his dismissal. On March 6, 1986, petitioner submitted to the respondent his application for registration as a mortgage broker. By Order dated and filed on May 23, 1986, respondent denied his application, concluding that petitioner does not have the requisite experience, background, honesty, truthfulness or integrity to act as a mortgage broker in Florida. The factual bases cited for this conclusion are that petitioner was arrested in September of 1979 for gambling; that he declared bankruptcy in 1980; and that he obtained loans in 1981, 1983, and 1984 from individuals and/or financial institutions which were licensed by the Division of Finance, and also that said loans have never been repaid. The Centro Asturiano Club is a private social club where gambling (poker) regularly occurs. On Friday, August 31, 1979, at approximately 3:00 p.m., petitioner and others were arrested for gambling at the Centro Asturiano. At the time of the arrest, the police seized certain items including a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber firearm and $670. A motion to suppress evidence and a motion to dismiss were ultimately granted and the petitioner was not convicted. The gambling arrest occurred on a regular business day in the Office of the Comptroller. Petitioner states that he was on annual leave at the time. An employee in his office observed petitioner's secretary make changes in the petitioner's leave slip forms on the afternoon of August 31, 1979. It was not established that such alterations were not proper. On May 30, 1980, petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Title 11, United States Code. An order for relief was entered under Chapter 7, with a Discharge of Debtor ordered on October 8, 1980, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (Bankruptcy No. 80-00750). At least six entities listed as creditors in petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding were licensees of the Department of Banking and Finance. At the time, petitioner was charged with examining and regulating those six entities in his capacity as the Area Financial Manager for the Division of Finance. In 1979 and/or 1980, petitioner's superiors in the Department admonished him to refrain from obtaining loans from the industry he regulated, and that such activity constituted a violation of Departmental policy and the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. On March 1, 1983, petitioner obtained a signature loan of approximately $2,200 from the A. L. Machado, M.D. Pension Trust. Colonial Mortgage, Inc., which was then licensed with the Division of Finance as a mortgage broker, serviced the loan. Darrell T. DiBona, the director of Colonial, became licensed as an additional broker on June 19, 1983. The payment record on this loan, discovered during an examination by the Division of Finance in May of 1985, reflected that four interest payments had been made, but that the principal balance was still outstanding. Darrell T. DiBona made a check payable for one of the petitioner's interest payments owed to the Machado pension fund. The petitioner's version of the facts surrounding the Machado loan is not credible. He states that he had known Darrell T. DiBona for many years. DiBona handled petitioner's insurance needs, and petitioner, wishing to increase his coverage, had had a medical examination which indicated either an irregular heartbeat or fatty tissues in his blood. According to petitioner, he was having lunch with DiBona one day, and DiBona needed to stop by Dr. Machado's office on business. DiBona apparently handled pension funds for various physicians. While at Dr. Machado's office, the subject of petitioner's medical condition arose. Petitioner states that Dr. Machado offered to check his irregular heartbeat and gave him an EKG. During that examination petitioner asserts that he told Dr. Machado that he was having financial difficulties, and Dr. Machado offered to loan him $2,200. Petitioner insists that he made three or four payments on a note, and then paid it off in full in May or July of 1984. This latter payment, according to petitioner, was made in cash and handed to DiBona. Petitioner never received a receipt for the "$2,200 in cash plus the interest." Petitioner states that he subsequently asked for a receipt or the note on several occasions, but was told that it could not be found. The note and payment record were found by the respondent during an examination of Colonial Mortgage in May of 1985. As noted above, the payment record revealed that only three or four interest payments had been made. Dr. Machado has no recollection of examining petitioner in his office or otherwise discussing a loan with him. Had petitioner been examined by Dr. Machado, a ledger card or chart would have been prepared. No ledger card or chart for the petitioner could be discovered in Dr. Machado's office. Dr. Machado did not become aware that money from his pension fund was lent to petitioner until after DiBona's death. His office manager was then asked to write a letter stating that the petitioner's loan had been paid in full. Such a letter was written and petitioner picked up the letter from Dr. Machado's office. Although he had no knowledge concerning the loan, Dr. Machado agreed to sign the letter because he thought that petitioner could be one of DiBona's innocent victims. He, as well as other physicians, lost pension fund monies from accounts handled by Darrell DiBona. Beneficial Mortgage Company was licensed with the Division of Finance in November of 1984 as a mortgage broker. During that time, petitioner contacted the regional supervisor of Beneficial, who does not himself regularly take loan applications, regarding a home mortgage loan for his mother. On November 20, 1984, a $30,590 mortgage loan from Beneficial Mortgage was obtained, and petitioner co-signed the loan documents. The loan proceeds were utilized to pay off two prior mortgages, one of which was Colonial Mortgage. Petitioner's mother is elderly, speaks little English and petitioner often handled her financial affairs. According to the regional supervisor, petitioner was asked to co-sign the note in order to avoid any questions which might arise in the future regarding Mrs. Torres' competency to enter into such a transaction. As a co-signer, however, petitioner was guaranteeing the account. While the mortgage loan was for an amount less than the house was appraised and contained no preferential terms or rates, Beneficial required no standard credit report, income analysis or other financial documentation concerning the petitioner. Mrs. Torres' income and debt ratio were barely sufficient to make the monthly payments on the loan. Petitioner has two brothers and a sister who also live in Tampa. On December 6, 1984, petitioner obtained a $2,000 signature loan from N. D. Properties, Inc. N. D. Properties was solely owned at that time by Ben Langworthy, Jr., who also owned Diversified Mortgage Associates, Inc. At that time, both Diversified and Langworthy were licensed with the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance. The petitioner made at least two loan payments directly to Ben Langworthy, who he knew was licensed by the Department. The $2,000 check given to petitioner was signed by Ben Langworthy. According to petitioner, Mr. Langworthy told him that N. D. Properties, Inc. was owned by two private investors. Petitioner's loan payment record with N. D. Properties shows that the loan has not been timely repaid.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Jose A. (Tony) Torres for registration as a mortgage broker in Florida be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2473 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner p.1, last paragraph: Rejected; legal conclusion as opposed to factual finding p.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial p.2, 3rd paragraph: Rejected; immaterial p.2, 5th paragraph: Rejected; argumentative p.3, 1st two paragraphs: Rejected; argumentative p.3, paragraphs 7, 8 & 9: Accepted, but not included as irrelevant to ultimate disposition p.4, last four paragraphs: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence p.5, paragraphs 3 - 5: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence p.7, paragraphs 1 and 3: Rejected; not proper factual findings p.8, paragraphs 1 through 7: Rejected; argumentative and improper factual findings Respondent #6: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence #20 & 21: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence COPIES FURNISHED: Dick Greco, Esquire Molloy, James & Greco, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 910 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sharon L. Barnett Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 713 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Charles Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol - Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The facts here involved are not in dispute. Prior to May 1977 Krestview Nursing Home was operated by the Wilson management group (Wilson) and provided nursing home care to Medicaid patient's. The property comprising Krestview Nursing Home is owned by G & J Investments Corp. (G & J), a wholly owned subsidiary of Suburban Nursing Home Consultants (Suburban). Suburban also owns all of the stock of B & K Investments, Inc. Gerald D. Keller at all times here relevant was President of Suburban and G & J Investments. He and his family apparently own most, if not all, of the stock of Suburban. Prior to May 1977, the facility comprising Krestview Nursing Home was leased to Wilson. In early May 1977 Wilson was in dire financial straits, criminal charges were pending against Wilson, and the closure of Krestview and two other homes managed by Wilson was imminent. In hopes of avoiding the problems likely to result from closing these homes, the Department of HRS contacted Mr. Keller to ask if he could locate a qualified operator to take over the operation of the nursing homes. When a qualified operator could not be found on such short notice, Keller was asked by HRS if he would operate these homes until a qualified operator could be located. One primary consideration in this request is the high mortality rate expected when large numbers of elderly patients have to be relocated. Keller, through his corporate organizations, had a corporation, B & K Investments, Inc., which had a current state registration, federal tax number, and could from a corporate standpoint. Qualified personnel to operate this home was available and employed. An agreement between HRS and B & K, admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1, provided that B & K would have no liabilities for the debts or obligations which arose during the time its predecessor provider operated the facility. Wilson's lease was terminated and a new lease was entered into between G & J and B & K whereby B & K agreed to pay rent upon the same terms previously existing with Wilson, Wilson's lease (Exhibit 2) was a net, net lease whereby the lessee paid all taxes and insurance premiums on the real and personal property involved. Krestview was operated by B & K for approximately four months, from May 5, 1977 until August 31, 1977, before Keller was successful in finding a new provider to take over the operation of the nursing home. A lease upon the same terms as Exhibits 2 and 3 was executed with the new provider. B & K's fiscal year ended May 31, 1977, just 26 days after B & K, took over operations. Because of this, HRS allowed B & K to submit its annual report for the 13-month period from May 5, 1977 until May 31, 1978. Upon taking over operation of the nursing home B & K found the taxes unpaid and overdue for 1976. These taxes were paid by B & K, and in November 1977 the taxes for 1977 were paid. At this time B & K was no longer the provider. Both of these payments were included in the costs for the nursing home during the 13-month period ending May 31, 1978 and this constituted one of the issues in dispute. The other disputed issue is the rent paid by B & K to a related corporation, G & J, during the four months that B & K operated Krestview.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of these proceedings. With respect to the taxes for 1976 which B & K paid during the period B & K was operating the premises as provider, it is to be noted that these taxes accrued during the occupancy of the premises by B & K's predecessor provider, Wilson. Under the terms of the agreement (Exhibit 1), B & K, as a provider, had no liability for this obligation. That obligation, like any other debt which accrued during the Wilson administration, was the sole obligation of Wilson. Pursuant to the lease agreement the lessee agrees to pay property taxes while lessee is in possession of the premises. Although the lease agreement does not specify that the taxes be prorated for the first year of the lease (Exhibit 2), there is nothing in the lease to indicate a departure from the normal rule of proration of taxes when the payment of taxes is the obligation of the party in possession. Although B & K paid these taxes for 1976 while in possession of the premises, there was no requirement that it do so. Had B & K not paid the taxes, that burden would have fallen on the owner, G & J. Had no tenant taken over the facility, G & J would have been required to pay the 1976 taxes or have the problem of redeeming the tax certificate after the tax sale. Here B & K, with respect to the 1976 property taxes, is in exactly the same position as would be a provider unrelated to G & J--it has no liability for the payment of these taxes. Had B & K been independent of G & J it is unlikely that these taxes would have appeared on the cost report. The payment of taxes would be appropriate only for the fiscal year 1977, as this obligation for 1976 accrued before B & K became the provider. Although there is a question of when the taxes for 1977 accrued, these taxes became due and payable 1 November 1977. Florida Statutes Section 197.012 (1977). At this time B & K was no longer the provider. However, the lease provided for the tenant to pay taxes and this then became an obligation of the provider. It would be equitable to allow all of the taxes for 1977 be charged to the provider. II. With respect to the payment of rent to a related party, Respondent, in its brief, and at the hearing, agreed there is a prohibition against such rental payments in HIM 15. While the rationale of the rule against such payments is to prevent "sweetheart" agreements which could greatly increase the costs of service, the rule does not disappear simply because that rationale is not present in a particular case. Here it is clear that the lease and rental payments for the premises occupied by the provider was the same for the related provider, B & K, as it was for the unrelated providers which preceded and followed B & K. The rule proscribes the payment of rent to a related corporation and this rule was not abrogated when HRS requested Keller to temporarily take over the role as provider until another provider could be found. While, under the circumstances of this case, the equities are with allowing the provider to charge the rent paid to a related company as a legitimate cost for reimbursement purposes, the rule says this cannot be done. HIM 15 requires the provider, when related to the lessor, to charge off only the actual costs of the facility. These costs are comprised of taxes, depreciation, repairs, insurance, etc. While here the owner (B & J) may not receive the same return on the property it received from those providers not related to it because of low depreciation allowable or for other reason, this too does not provide a basis for ignoring the rule. The validity of the rule has not been questioned, nor has a legal basis been offered for not following this rule. Such a rule is a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Fairfax Hospital Association, Inc. v. Califano, 558 F2d 602 (CA 4, 1978). Even when, as here, the equities are with the related owner of the property to allow him to collect and have the rent collected charged by the provider as a reimbursable expense, the rule does not provide for this flexibility and the rule is binding upon HRS. From the foregoing it is concluded that the property taxes for the year 1976 were not a proper expense for B & K Investments, Inc. while it was serving as provider in 1977. It is further concluded that HIM 15 precludes allowing rental payments to a related company as an expense chargeable to the provider despite the equities here existing. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the desk audit denying the charges for rent in 1976 be upheld. It is further RECOMMENDED that the desk audit denying the payment of rent to a related company be upheld. Entered this 27th day of November, 1979. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard J. Helfand, Esquire DHRS District XI Counsel Room 1040, 401 N. W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 R. Stuart Huff, Esquire 1200 First Federal Building One Southeast 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Housing Affordability, Inc. (FHA) is a private nonprofit corporation which develops, manages and maintains low income housing in Florida. Its corporate office is in Longwood, Florida. The application at issue is dated February 18, 1993 and is seeking funding under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program. The application proposes a 28-unit apartment complex, Bay Pointe II, in Pasco County, Florida. Under the SAIL program, the Florida Housing Finance Agency (Agency) makes loans to developers of low income housing at interest rates significantly below the market rate. The loans are non-amortizing until maturity. Interest is deferred if the cash flow of the project is insufficient to pay it after meeting certain expenses. Repayments of SAIL funds are used by the agency for subsequent loans to developers. The agency determines which developers will be offered SAIL loans pursuant to a competitive application process and has adopted the SAIL/LIHTC application packet for use in scoring the loan applications. The packet forms must be completed by the applicant and any supporting documentation must be attached. FHA's application for the 1993 funding cycle was scored by the agency committee and was awarded 886.5 points out of a maximum of 1,025 points. FHA claims that it is entitled to an additional 25 points on Form 11, and 2 points on Form 14. SAIL loans are generally issued for a term of 15 years. Form 11 in the application packet is a commitment to repay the loan in a shorter period. An applicant who commits to repay the loan in 10 years or less is awarded 25 points. FHA indicated on Form 11 that it would repay the loan in 10 years or less. The form requires a description of how repayment will be made, and requires supporting documentation. The description and documentation are required to assure the agency that repayment in a shorter period is feasible. FHA's documentation was exhibit 1 to Form 11, "Analysis of Early Repayment of SAIL". This analysis states: LIHTC proceeds are not required for project funding of the Bay Pointe II project. However, we intend to dedicate some or all of the proceeds from sale of LIHTC toward the early repayment of the SAIL. The early repayment of the SAIL will be accomplished by this method as follows: SAIL request $485,000 ANNUAL LIHTC request 103,680 Estimated cash from sale of LIHTC @ .45/dollar 46,656 (Joint Ex. #1, attachment to Form 11) Form 11 in the application packet requires that early retirement of SAIL debt through cash flow must be evidenced by commitment from the developer and exhibited in a pro forma. The operating pro forma attached to Form 10 in FHA's application packet does not reflect that the loan will be paid off in 10 years. Developers are able to use tax credits to generate cash by syndicating or selling those credits. In such cases, the syndication agreement is attached to the application as documentation of the source of cash for early repayment. FHA characterizes its use of the tax credits as an "internal sale". Since it is a multi-asset entity, it plans to repay the SAIL loan early with the tax savings it would realize from its use of tax credits in the future. The tax liability which it expects the credits to reduce would be created by its other assets and operations. The .45 per dollar of credit that is reflected in FHA's analysis described above will not actually be paid by any purchaser of the tax credits. This is a hypothetical sales price. Because the data submitted in the attachment to Form 11 does not state how the .45 per dollar is derived, the documentation is insufficient. As explained by Joseph Savino, the approximate $46,000 a year is an estimate of available equity from the use of the tax credits. FHA, through Mr. Savino, contends that since a commitment letter or syndication agreement is all that is necessary when the funds are generated from outside the applicant entity, the applicant's statement of commitment should be sufficient when it intends to generate the funds from an "internal sale". The more reasonable position of the agency is, however, that a simple statement is not sufficient in this instance, because the documentation does not show where the dollars are coming from internally. The pro forma does not show other assets of the company or the generation of actual tax liabilities. If there is no evidence of an actual sale, then some other documentation must be provided to show that the money will be available to repay the loan in the shorter time. The analysis provided as an attachment to Form 11 is not the required documentation. Moreover, the analysis conflicts with the pro forma that was included elsewhere in the application. That pro forma does not reflect early repayment of SAIL and is based instead on what Joseph Savino characterizes as conservative assumptions. FHA is entitled to an additional 2 points on Form 14, relating to quality of design for an additional safety/security design feature for children. As stipulated by the agency, an "other" blank should have been included on the form so that applicants could add such features. The blank had been on an earlier version of the form, but was dropped inadvertently when Form 14 was revised. Other applicants added their own "other" blank to the form and received points for an additional design feature.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order denying Petitioner's request for 25 points on Form 11, and granting two additional points for Form 14. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 28th day of October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Michelle L. Oxman Office of the General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Joseph J. Savino, President Florida Housing Affordability, Inc. West State Road 434, Suite 1150 Longwood, Florida 32279 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Daphne E. Jones, Esquire 110 Southeast Sixth Street, 28th floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Mark A. Hendrickson, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Agency Marathon Building, Suite 101 2574 Seagate Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5026
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Charles Alan Patsch, is and has been at all pertinent times a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0442576. Patsch was working for a broker in Sarasota when he was assigned responsibility for an existing listing agreement for the home of Mary Catherine (Williams) and Randy Silcox at 1125 Idlewild Court in Sarasota. From early on in their business relationship, the Silcoxes were difficult clients for Patsch. They were having financial and personal problems which contributed to Mary Silcox's emotionally distraught condition. As a result, she can be somewhat scattered, confused, unreasonable and disorganized. Mary Silcox frequently sought Patsch's advice and counsel on her financial and personal problems, which Patsch politely declined to give except in general terms. Likewise, Mary Silcox also asked Patsch for professional advice in areas in which Patsch was not qualified or competent, and Patsch declined. Nonetheless, Patsch's working relationship with the Silcox's, particularly Mary Silcox, included an unusual amount of "hand-holding," i.e., listening to her problems and trying to give her some kind of personal compassion, support and reassurance. On February 13, 1986, another broker, Howard Sadwin, procured a Contract For Sale Of Real Estate (1125 Idlewild Court) between the Silcoxes and E. K. (Kay) Mitchell, who also is a licensed real estate salesman. As salesman for the listing broker, Patsch participated in concluding the contract (and signed as a witness.) Among other things, the contract provided as special clauses (1) that "[p]resent tenants shall sign a one-year lease for present rent amount of $300 per month for the one bedroom, one bath rental unit [a guest house on the property]" and (2) that "[s]eller shall complete repairs and painting to roof now in progress to be finished on or before the day of closing." The contract was made contingent on Mitchell obtaining third party financing which Mitchell was to pursue diligently, and closing was to be on or before April 21, 1986. At some point before April 21, 1986, Mitchell became aware of a conflict, and the closing deadline was postponed to April 28, 1986. By early March, 1986, the Silcoxes began to think they might want to move to Inverness, Florida. After her fashion, Mary Silcox asked Patsch for advice whether they should. Patsch side-stepped that question, saying it was their personal decision and he could not say. Patsch also declined her request that he drive to Inverness with them to help them find a house, saying he did not know the market. Instead, he referred them to a local broker in Inverness and cautioned them to be sure the contract they entered was made contingent on the closing of the sales contract on 1125 Idlewild Court. On March 8, 1986, the Silcoxes drove to Inverness, found a house they liked and signed a contract to buy it (which included the contingency Patsch had recommended, plus a third party financing contingency.) They then began the process of applying for a loan. During April, 1986, Mitchell applied for financing and began the process of cooperating with the proposed lender in putting together a loan package. Again after her fashion, Mary Silcox frequently checked with Patsch, among other things, to see how things, including the Mitchell loan, were going. At first, Patsch told her that he did not know but he would check with Mitchell. After several similar requests, Patsch asked Mitchell for permission to contact her lender directly to get the status of the loan, and Mitchell agreed. Patsch then began contacting the lender's representative to learn the status of the Mitchell loan. In response to Silcox's numerous inquiries, Patsch truthfully told her his best knowledge--to the effect that Mitchell had applied and there did not seem to be any problems with the Mitchell loan but that they were waiting for the paperwork to be completed and they would not know for sure until they got written loan approval. When the financing was approved, Mitchell was to notify Patsch and schedule a closing with the title company Mitchell had chosen. As a result of delays in Mitchell's financing, on April 25, 1986, the closing deadline again was postponed, this time to May 23, 1987. When Mary Silcox asked the reason for the delay, Patsch relayed the information he had been given--that there was no problem with Mitchell, but there was a backlog of loan applications because of low interest rates and the paperwork and loan approval process had been delayed. Sometime approximately between April 25 and May 9, 1986, the Silcoxes' loan for the Inverness house was turned down because of a low appraisal. On May 9, 1986, Mary Silcox went to Patsch to ask his advice whether they should re- apply. Specifically, she again asked if there was any problem with the Mitchell loan. Patsch reiterated his best knowledge--that there was no problem with the loan and that the loan application had been made over a week ago (in Mary Silcox' words, "it was put through way last week") and that they were just waiting on the paperwork. Patsch encouraged the Silcoxes to apply again and to hurry to get everything in order in light of the May 23 deadline for the 1125 Idlewild Court closing. He did not say that the Mitchell loan had been approved. Either at that time or at a later date, Mary Silcox came to believe that Patsch had meant that the Mitchell loan had been approved. Acting on what Patsch had told her, Mary Silcox and her husband drove to Inverness the next day, May 10, 1986, and applied for a loan with a different lender. They paid $340 for a new credit report, survey and approval. Sometime between May 15 and 19, 1986, Patsch visited Mary Silcox at her house in connection with the Mitchell loan. In the course of their conversation, Patsch again told Mary Silcox approximately what he had said on May 9 about the status of the loan. He commented to the effect that it should be only a few more days (May 23, 1986) before he would be picking her up to go to the title company to close the sale. (At this time, he had not heard from Mitchell that she had scheduled the closing but was still assuming that the closing would take place as scheduled on May 23, 1986.) Mary Silcox again interpreted Patsch to mean that the Mitchell loan had been approved. A short time later, perhaps on May 19, 1986, Mitchell visited Mary Silcox to get documentation she needed for her loan package to be complete for submission to the underwriter. Silcox asked her why she needed it if the loan had been approved. Mitchell told her the loan had not been approved (or even submitted yet.) Silcox tried to reach Patsch but was unable to and eventually was able to talk to another salesman in Patsch's office and to Patsch's broker. A short time later, perhaps on May 22, 1986, Mitchell had a chance meeting with Patsch at a morning meeting of the local board of realtors. Mitchell asked Patsch why he had told Mary Silcox that Mitchell's loan had been approved. Patsch told her he had to tell her something to pacify her since her nerves were shot and she was pestering him. The evidence was not clear why Patsch did not correct Mitchell's misstatement of the facts or explain to her in detail exactly what he had told Mary Silcox. On May 21, 1986, Mitchell and the Silcoxes again agreed to extend the closing deadline, this time to June 13, 1986. Patsch did not participate in the extension, and Mary Silcox was unable to contact him before June 9, 1986, when she called Patsch's broker and demanded to work with someone else. Patsch had no further dealing with the Silcoxes. Mitchell and the Silcoxes agreed to yet another extension of the closing, to July 7, 1986. Eventually, Mitchell was disapproved by two different lenders, and the sale never closed. The Silcoxes then discontinued their loan approval process on the house in Inverness, and that sale never closed, either. In her mind, Mary Silcox came to blame Patsch unreasonably not only for lost expenditures she and her husband made between May 9 and May 19, 1986, in connection with the second Inverness house loan application and for loss of a paying house guest at 1125 Idlewild (who moved out on about May 16, 1986, and would not move back) but also for loss of the sale to Mitchell, loss of the purchase of the Inverness house, all of the Silcoxes' expenditures in connection with either, personal problems between her and her husband, medical-related bills for her, and their financial problems in general. None of the latter items had anything to do with anything Patsch ever allegedly said on May 9 through May 16, 1986, but Mrs. Silcox seems to think she is entitled to reimbursement as a result of Patsch's alleged misrepresentation.
Recommendation Based on the Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Charles Alan Patsch, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 22nd day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert P. Rosin, Esquire 1900 Main Street Suite 210 Sarasota, Florida 33577 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The Respondents have been charged with multiple violations of Chapter 494, (1987), the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to the act. The violations, described in an amended administrative complaint dated April 16, 1990, are as follows: Rule 3D-40.006(5), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to issue a statement signed by both parties, when receiving a deposit on a mortgage loan, regarding disposition of the deposit and other matters. Section 494.08(10), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(2), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to provide a written statement with a summary of limits and conditions for recovery from the Mortgage Broker Guaranty Fund. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.008(1), F.A.C.: Respondents assessed fees for credit reports, phone calls, appraisals and courier services, which fees were not supported by the files. Section 494.055(1)(0), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(4), F.A.C.: The department had to issue a subpoena for compensation records. Section 494.055(1)(g) and (p), and Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Borrowers were required to pay higher closing costs than were disclosed on the good faith estimate form. Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Respondents failed to secure executed modified mortgage loan applications from the borrowers or to return excess monies to the borrowers. Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(1), F.A.C.: Respondents accepted deposits from loan applicants but failed to obtain executed mortgage broker agreements which would disclose the cost of the loans. Sections 494.055(1)(b) and (g), and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c), and (4), F.S.: Respondents failed to disclose that they would retain both origination fees and discount points as their compensation, and failed to disclose compensation received from the lender in addition to brokerage fees assessed the borrowers on the closing statements. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S., Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c) and (4), F.S.: Respondents collected a servicing release fee from the borrowers when the Respondents were not the lender, and failed to disclose the collection. Section 494.055(1)(e), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(b)(a), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account.
Findings Of Fact Inlet Mortgage Company, Ltd. ("IMC") is a mortgage brokerage business operating under license #HB65002147500. Its place of business is 700 Virginia Avenue, Suite 105, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982. John Davis is the principal mortgage broker of Respondent IMC, operating under license #HA246700273. He has been licensed in Florida since approximately 1987, and opened his business in February 1988. As authorized by Section 494.065(1), F.S. (1987), the Department of Banking and Finance ("department") conducted an examination of the affairs of the Respondents for the time period February 1988 through June 1, 1988. The examination was completed on July 5, 1988, with a written report. At the time of the examination Respondents had closed only four loans and had another six in progress. The audit was conducted because a loan processor working for IMC had applied for her mortgage broker license, and her application seemed to imply that she was already practicing mortgage brokering. The audit cleared up this question and the processor was not found to be operating improperly. However, Timothy Wheaton, the department examiner, found other violations by IMC. When an audit or review is conducted by the department, the agency staff first interviews the person in charge to explain the review and to learn about the company. The staff then looks at the licenses, reviews files of closed and active loans, and examines books and accounts, payroll records, and the like. Generally, a sampling of loan files is selected from the broker's loan log, but in this first review all loans were reviewed, as so few existed. The staff writes a preliminary report and conducts an exit interview to let the broker know its findings. Later, a formal report is completed and provided to the broker, who has thirty days to respond. Timothy Wheaton conducted his review of IMC and John Davis at the company office in Ft. Pierce on June 3, 1988 and June 7, 1988. At some point on June 3rd, Wheaton was reviewing compensation records to determine how the broker, his partner and the loan processor were paid. Davis had checkbooks available, but the accountant had not prepared his books as the office had just opened. Wheaton had questions as to whether the checkbooks were all that was available; when he asked for the payroll records, Davis told him he would have to subpoena them. Wheaton returned on Monday with a subpoena and was given the same records as before. Davis admits that he made the demand for the subpoena. He was piqued because he was very busy when the audit staff arrived, and when he suggested they return later, he felt they wrongfully impugned his motives and accused him of hiding something. Respondent Davis has admitted to several "technical" violations or oversights in the loan files at the time of the first review. A summary of the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund was not being provided, but has been provided since the first audit. Deposits for credit report, appraisal fees and other costs were collected from the borrowers, but the files did not include a statement, signed by the borrowers, describing disposition of the funds in the event that the loan was not consummated, or the term of the agreement. After the first audit Davis has provided such a form statement and has included it in each file. On three closed loans, and one that was still pending, the files did not include documentation to support minimal (i.e., $25.00, $10.00, $6.56) fees for phone calls and courier fees, or fees were collected which exceeded the documentation in the file. Davis explained that these are charges made by the closing attorney, and the files now document those expenses. The difference between what was collected for a credit report and what was spent was returned to the borrower. (For example, $20.30 was returned to borrower, G. Stewart). In three loans closed at the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC received as compensation both the origination fee and a portion of the discount points. In the McCurdy loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($600.00), plus one half of the 1 percent discount fee ($300.00). In the Alexander loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($469.00), plus a .75 percent discount fee ($351.75). In the Stewart loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($612.00), plus 1/2 percent discount fee ($306.00). In each case, the Good Faith Estimate form provided to the borrowers disclosed the fees separately and did not break out which portion of the loan discount would be paid to the lender and which portion would be paid to IMC. The origination fee is sometimes called the broker's fee, although some banks also collect the fee when a mortgage broker is not involved. Discount points are a one-time payment to a lender to increase its yield on the loan. They are a percentage of the loan, paid up front, to reduce the interest rate over the term of the loan. These are distinctly different forms of charges to the borrower. Davis claims that he explained orally to each borrower how much compensation he would receive. The borrowers do not remember the specifics of that explanation, but rather consider the total origination fee and discount fee as their cost of the loan. They knew that the broker was going to be compensated for his services and understood that compensation would come from those fees in some unspecified manner. Davis claims that he checked with some lenders who told him that it was standard practice for part of the broker's compensation to be called a "discount" fee. He considered it a tax advantage to the borrower, as discount fees could be deductible, just as interest is deductible. During the audit, Davis discussed his compensation practice with the agency staff, who explained that, whatever it is called, the broker's compensation had to be fully disclosed to the borrower at the time of application on the Good Faith Estimate form. Between June 3rd and June 7th, Davis attempted to redisclose his compensation to the borrowers, but this resulted in unsigned disclosure forms in the file when the agency review staff returned on June 7th to complete the audit. At the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC maintained an escrow account for the deposits received from applicant/borrowers for audit reports, appraisal fees and other costs. Davis later closed his escrow account because he felt it was costing him money and because he did not consider the funds he received at the time of application to be escrow deposits. In most cases, the credit report and appraisal and other relevant services were ordered the same day as the loan application. Whether the loan was eventually consummated, the customer was still responsible for paying the charge if the services were provided. This is disclosed in a statement at the bottom of the Good Faith Estimate form and in a separate "Notice to Borrower", signed by the applicant which, since the first audit, is maintained in the loan file. According to the Notice to Borrower, if the loan is cancelled or denied, and the services have not been performed, the funds will be returned to the customer, less any cancellation charge by the appraisal or credit firm. These funds are deposits. When the escrow account was closed, Davis deposited the money for appraisals and credit report in his operating account. After services were rendered and an invoice received, he would pay the bill. Barbara Janet (Jan) Hutchersien, conducted the department's second audit of IMC in January 1990. This review covered the period from July 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. John Davis provided the boxes of loans and bank records and loan log. The auditor used the logs to review a sample of loans from each lender with whom IMC works. The bank records were used to trace funds reflected in the loan files. Ms. Hutchersien found, and noted in her examination report, that no escrow account was maintained, although deposits were received in a sample of loan applications. In the Fishman loan, which closed on 4/11/89, closing costs were disclosed by IMC as $1,822.00 on the Good Faith Estimate form dated 1/12/89, yet those costs actually amounted to $2,075.00, disclosed at closing on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Settlement form, for a difference of $253.00. In determining consistency between a good faith estimate and actual closing costs, the agency staff looks at items which are predeterminable costs. In the Fishman case, the estimate for survey was $225.00, but the actual cost was $400.00, due, according to John Davis, to an oddly-shaped lot. In two loans financed by Greentree Mortgage Corporation, IMC received a substantial fee from the lender, which fee was not disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, on the HUD Settlement form, or anywhere in writing to the borrower. File documents call these fees "discount for pricing". In the Meslin loan, closed on 8/11/89, the fee from the lender to broker was $432.00; in the Krueger loan, closed on 7/21/89, the payment was $820.00. These paybacks are called "par plus pricing", a relatively new (within the last five years) form of loan pricing. Par plus pricing allows a borrower who does not wish to pay cash at closing, but who would qualify for a higher interest rate in terms of monthly payments, to avoid paying discount points fee at closing. Instead, the lender pays the points to the broker, and the borrower gets a higher interest rate. This is contrasted with the discount point system where the borrower pays cash points at closing in return for a lower interest rate. Par plus pricing can work to the advantage to all parties: The borrower avoids a large cash outlay at closing, the lender enjoys a higher interest rate over the term of the loan, and the broker receives his money from the lender. The borrower, however, should understand his options, including the option to pay cash at closing for a lower interest rate. Davis did not disclose the payback from the lender in writing because that is the way he says he was told to handle the loan by Greentree's representative. Davis told the borrowers that he was getting his money from the lender. He did not, however, explain that the borrower would be paying a higher interest rate in return, and Roger Krueger did not understand why his loan was at 10 1/4 percent, rather than 9 3/4 percent, which he thought was the going rate at the time of closing. IMC also received funds from the lender in the Barnes loan, closed on 12/30/88. Cobb Financial Partners was the original lender, yet they paid IMC a service release fee ordinarily paid by one lender to another for release of servicing a loan. Although the fee from Cobb to IMC was not disclosed in writing to the borrowers, the Barnes' were told that the fee for IMC's services would come from the lender, rather from them. They were told, and it is disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, and on the HUD Settlement Form, that Cobb Partners Financial was paid $900.00 (1.25 percent loan discount) by the borrowers. Of this, $810.00 was returned by Cobb to IMC. John Davis concedes that Cobb, not IMC, was the lender and was not "comfortable" with how Cobb told him to handle his fee. He has not done business with Cobb since this loan and was simply trying to avoid having to charge his fee to Barnes, who had just arrived in town to become the newspaper editor. The borrowers who were the subject of the files in which the agency found violations generally did business with Davis and IMC because they thought he would get the best deal for them. They were financially unsophisticated and trusted him to represent them. They understood that he was being paid for his services and felt that he should be paid. Except for Mr. Krueger, they were generally satisfied with their mortgage rates. The mortgage broker's fiduciary responsibility is to the borrower, rather than the lender, although he must deal fairly and honestly with the lender. The service that the broker provides to the borrower is his knowledge and his ability to shop for the best product. Par plus pricing and other mechanisms by which the broker receives his fee in whole or part from the lender are not considered by the department to be a violation of standards governing the practice of mortgage brokerage, so long as the customer is fully apprised of his options and is informed of the role of those payments in the product or service they are receiving. The Barnes' and Kruegers clearly were not so apprised, nor does the record establish that the Meslins were informed, although they did not testify. Categorizing brokerage fees or compensation as "discount points" is patently misleading, as discount points are used to buy down an interest rate. When the points are diverted instead to the broker, the consumer does not receive the loan for which he has paid. John Davis admits certain technical violations, but unequivocally denies that he wilfully misled his customers or committed fraud. Since the second audit, he has restored his escrow account. He now discloses his compensation as brokers fees rather than discount points, and has learned how to disclose in writing the par plus pricing loans. In considering certain violations as "technical", and in recommending a penalty in this case, the undersigned has considered Respondents' willingness to correct the errors addressed by the department and Respondents' inexperience at the time of the first audit. Although he was involved in banking, insurance, and accounting, John Davis had not practiced mortgage brokering before moving to Florida and starting his business. In his early practice, as evidenced by his own testimony, he was willing to rely on the advice of lenders, rather than to seek guidance from his licensing authority. He misconceived his role as being jointly responsible to the borrowers and lenders with whom he worked, rather than a primary fiduciary duty to the borrowers, his clients. Although the concealment of compensation as discount points was a willful misrepresentation, the record establishes a pattern of ignorance, albeit inexcusable, rather than fraud.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered, finding that Respondents violated Sections 494.055(1)(e), (o), and (q), F.S. (1987); Sections 494.08(5) and (10), F.S. (1987); and Section 494.093(4), F.S. (1987), and imposing a penalty of $1,000.00 fine, and one year probation, with the conditions that Respondent Davis successfully complete a specified amount and type of professional short course work and undergo periodic review and supervision by the agency. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 30th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 6. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 6. Rejected as redundant. - 8. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence except as found in paragraph 6. The department was required to obtain a subpoena due to Respondents' feigned or real refusal to produce certain records. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. - 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. Rejected as immaterial. The telephone charges were incurred by the closing agent, not Respondents. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. and Rejected as unnecessary and - 48. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 49. - 52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. and Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 20. 59 - 74. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16-19. Rejected as unnecessary. The conclusion that the handling of "par plus pricing" was fraudulent is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 77. - 81. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 20 and 21. 82. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 83. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 12. 84. Adopted in paragraph 10. 85. - 89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90. Adopted in paragraph 22. 91. - 93. Rejected as unnecessary. 94. Adopted in part in paragraph 26. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 13. - 9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Liability for payment occurs when the service is rendered, as reflected in Respondent's "Notice to Borrower". Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. - 19. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 20. - 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary. - 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Included in conclusion of law number 9. Rejected as immaterial. - 33. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The terms implied that the loans would be at a discounted rate, but were not, because the "discount" (partial) went to the broker. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 Orlando, FL 32801 John O. Williams, Esquire Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee St. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Dept. of Banking & Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Rm. 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
